ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 78
GITIN 77-79 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement
Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela Turkel, Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer,
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that even if the man threw a Get to his wife
in the bed that they were sharing, she would not be divorced. Rava restricts
this to a bed that belongs to him, but should it belong to her, she would be
divorced, and this is substantiated by Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa. The
problem with this ruling is - that this would prove that the vessels
belonging to a purchaser acquire on behalf of their owner even when they are
lying in the domain of the seller (this will be explained further shortly).
(b) We answer that Rava is speaking about a bed that is higher than ten
Tefachim - which is considered an independent domain.
(c) Even though the feet of the bed are below ten Tefachim - the owner is
not fussy about them, and does not mind his wife using that space.
(a) We also learned in our Mishnah that if the man threw a Get into his
wife's basket, she is divorced. Here too, we ask the same Kashya that we
asked previously (that this would mean that the vessels belonging to the
purchaser can acquire in the domain belonging to the seller) - something
which we avoid at all costs, because it is an Machlokes in Bava Basra which
cannot be proven from a Mishnah or Beraisa.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya therefore
establish the Mishnah when her basket is hanging from her. When ...
1. ... Resh Lakish says 'Keshurah Af-al-Pi she'Einah Teluyah', he means that
she will acquire the Get even if the basket was dragging along the ground,
whereas the previous Amora'im are speaking specifically when it is both tied
to her and suspended from her body.
(c) Rava explains Rebbi Yochanan, who answers 'Makom Cheikah Kanuy Lah,
Makom Kelasah Kanuy Lah' - to mean that a man is generally not fussy about
the space that his wife uses for her own personal use.
2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes our Mishnah when the basket is hanging
from between her thighs - he means that she is sitting down, and her husband
is not fussy if she uses the space where she is seated for her personal use.
3. ... Rav Mesharshaya b'Rav Dimi establishes our Mishnah by a husband who
is a basket salesman - he means that he will therefore not be fussy if she
leaves her basket in the room where he keeps his baskets (the case in our
(d) The Beraisa supports this explanation. We prove this from the fact that
it includes all things that are like a basket (which specifically comes to
include things like bags) - from the fact that the Beraisa adds this phrase,
from which we see that anything that she uses regularly is included, for the
reason that Rava suggests.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that, if a man handed his wife a Get
instructing her to accept a Sh'tar Chov or if she found it behind him, and
upon reading it, she discovered that it was a Get - she is not divorced.
(b) For the Get to be valid, he must say - 'Hey Gitech' (Here is your Get!'
[even if he says it after she has read it]).
(c) If he placed it in her hand whilst she was asleep, and then, when she
awoke, she read it and discovered that it was a Get - she is not divorced
either, for the same reason (until he says 'Hey Gitech!').
(a) The problem with the second case in our Mishnah (when the woman picked
up the Get from behind her husband after he said 'Hey Gitech') is - that, as
Rava already taught us 'T'li Gitech me'al Gabei Karka, Lo Amar K'lum' (and
we initially think that she picked up the Get from the ground).
(b) We amend this to mean that the Get was actually stuck in his belt behind
him and she took it from there. This is better than picking it up from the
ground - because it speaks when he bent his thigh to help her take it (and
is included in 've'Nasan be'Yadah'.
(c) Our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi in a Beraisa. Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar is more stringent. According to him, in all the cases in our
Mishnah - the husband must first take the Get back before saying 'Hey
Gitech!', for the Get to be valid.
(d) Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar repeat the same Machlokes regarding
the case when he placed the Get in her hand when she was asleep. Even though
they argue in the case of ...
1. ... 'Kinsi Sh'tar Chov Zeh' (and 'Shalfaso me'Achorav'), they
nevertheless need to argue in the case of 'Nasnah be'Yadah ve'Hi
Yesheinah' - to teach us that Rebbi is lenient, not only in a case where the
woman is in a state to be divorced, but even in a case where she is not.
2. ... 'Nasnah be'Yadah ve'Hi Yesheinah', they nevertheless need to argue in
the case of 'Kinsi Sh'tar Chov Zeh ... ' - to teach us that Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar is stringent, not only in a case where the woman is not in a state to
be divorced, but even in a case where she is.
(a) Rava says that if a man writes a Get and gives it to his wife's slave
whilst he is awake, she is not divorced - because the Get is now guarded
with the knowledge of the Eved, rather than with the woman's knowledge.
(b) We object to the other half of his statement 'that if he places it in
the slave's hand whilst he is asleep, she is divorced', on the grounds that
a slave is a walking Chatzer. Rava said that whatever cannot acquire when it
is walking, cannot acquire even when it is standing or sitting. In that
case, he will not acquire when he is sleeping either.
(c) Rava said that the Get is valid - in a case where the Eved is bound (see
Tosfos 21a DH 've'Hilchesa').
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if a man throws his wife a Get and it
1. ... close(r) to him - she is not divorced.
(b) The same will apply to a Sh'tar Kidushin that a man throws to a woman
and to the money that the debtor throws to the creditor (at his request)
into the Reshus ha'Rabim. The ramifications of the latter case should it
fall close(r) to ...
2. ... close(r) to her - she is.
3. ... Mechtzah al Mechtzah - Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes.
1. ... the creditor are - that he is considered as having repaid his loan.
Consequently, if the money should then get lost, he will be Patur from
2. ... the debtor are - that he has not yet paid and, should the money then
get lost, he will remain obligated to pay.
3. ... Mechtzah al Mechtzah - then it is a Safek, and he pays half.
(a) Rav explains 'close to her' to mean within her four Amos and 'close to
him', within his four Amos. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains 'Mechtzah al
Mechtzah' to mean that they were both standing in the same four Amos, and
the Get landed in between them. When we ask 'Let's see who got there first',
we mean to ask - that whoever arrived first at that spot acquires those four
Amos (and not the second one).
Rabah and Rav Yosef finally establish 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah', according to
Rav's explanation of our Mishnah - when there are two pairs of witnesses,
one testifying that the Get fell closer to him, and the other, that it fell
closer to her.
(b) The problem that we have with the suggestion that they both arrived
simultaneously - is that this clashes with the principle 'I Efshar
Letzamtzem' (two people cannot possibly do something at precisely the same
moment [though it is unclear why we cannot say that in spite of the
principle, they did not know who arrived first).
(c) So Rav Kahana tries to establish the case when there were exactly eight
Amos between them, and the Get landed - half in his Reshus and half in hers.
(d) The problem with this answer is - that when all's said and done, the Get
has not left his domain and she is not divorced?
1. Rebbi Yochanan interprets 'Karov Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean closer to
him or closer to her, even if it is a hundred Amos away.
(b) When they informed Rebbi Yochanan that Rebbi Yonasan (who lived in Eretz
Yisrael) explained the Mishnah in the same way - he commented on their
Babylonian colleagues depth of understanding.
2. Rav Sh'man bar Aba elaborates. Quoting Rebbi Yochanan, he explains 'Karov
Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean - whichever is better able to guard the Get.
Consequently, 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' means that either both of them or
neither of them (on their own - see Tosfos) are able to guard it.
(c) He refered to him as 'Bavla'i' - because Rebbi Yonasan moved from Bavel
to Eretz Yisrael.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan's explanation has the support of a Beraisa. Initially,
we explain the statement there 'Kol she'Karov Lah mi'Lo u'Ba Kelev ve'Natlo,
Einah Megureshes' to mean - that even though the Get fell close to her, the
moment a dog takes it, it becomes nullified.
(b) The problem with this interpretation is - that if the Get was valid when
it fell close to her, why should it become invalid when a dog took it? Since
when is a woman obligated to guard her Get against dogs and thieves? So what
the Beraisa really means to say is - that as long as the Get fell close
enough to her to guard it against dogs, it is valid.
(c) Shmuel's explanation of our Mishnah is the most radical of all. After
telling Rav Yehudah that, by 'Karov Lah', the Tana means that she can bend
down and pick it up without having to move from where she is standing, he
added that one should not even rely on that, but make certain that the Get
actually reached her hands (or her domain), before validating it.
(d) Rav Mordechai told Rav Ashi that such a case occurred (where the Get
fell close to her), where there was a Yavam, and the Beis-Din ruled - that
she should perform Chalitzah (even though she was legally divorced).
(a) With reference to our Mishnah, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts
the Din of 'Karov Lah' to Gitin - because it does not require her Da'as.
(b) Our Mishnah writes ...
1. ... 've'Chein le'Inyan Kidushin' - because the Torah compares Kidushin to
Gitin with the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah".
(c) The Chidush of the Tana is - that he cannot later claim that he was
merely pulling his leg.
2. ... 've'Chein le'Inyan ha'Chov ... ' (bearing in mind that to establish
our Mishnah when the creditor said 'Z'rok Li Chovi ve'Hipater' would be too
obvious for the Tana to insert) - because it is speaking when he said 'Z'rok
Li Chovi be'Toras Gitin'.
(a) Rav Chisda rules that if the woman is holding the Get, but the man still
has the string to which it is attached in his hand - she is divorced,
provided he is unable to pull it out of her hands.
(b) If he is able to pull the Get out of her hands, she is not divorced -
because the Torah writes "K'risus" (and as long as he has jurisdiction over
the Get, it cannot be considered 'K'risus').
(a) Rav Yehudah states that if a husband places a Get into his wife's
sloping hand, she is not divorced, in spite of the fact that the Get will
fall within her four Amos anyway - because he is speaking when the Get never
reached the ground (e.g. it got burned up [by a stray flame]).
(b) Rebbi Elazar asked - whether when Chazal instituted the Din of the four
Amos that surround a person acquire on his behalf, they incorporated the air
that serves those four Amos or not.
(c) We ...
1. ... try to resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda's ruling - because if
they did, then why, in the previous case, does Rav Chisda rule that she is
2. ... establish Rav Chisda - when she is standing in a location when, the
moment the Get fell out of her hand, it was due to get lost (e.g. beside a
river [or a fire that had been burning there before]), in which case, even
Rebbi Elazar will concede that the air does not acquire.