(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 80

GITIN 80 (5 Iyar 5761) - Dedicated by Marsha and Lee Weinblatt of Teaneck, New Jersey. May they see much Nachas from their daughter Jodi, who just became a Kalah, and the rest of their extended family, and may we soon merit to see the return of Hashem to Zion!



(a) The same K'nas that we just discussed will apply ...
1. ... if they changed either the man's or the woman's name - the name of his city of domicile or of hers.
2. ... to a woman whose husband died and whose Tzarah was an Ervah to the Yavam, if after she went and remarried, her Tzarah was found to be an Aylonis. There are fifteen Arayos in which case this Halachah will apply.
3. ... to a woman who remarried after her husband died, relying on the Yibum performed by her Tzarah, who was subsequently found to be an Aylonis. We normally assume only the child of Chayvei Kareis to be a Mamzer. Nevertheless, the Tana includes these two latter cases (of Yevamah le'Shuk) in our Mishnah despite the fact that they are only Chayvei La'avin - because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, who considers even this child of Chayvei La'avin to be a Mamzer.
(b) The last case in this list of K'nasos is - that of a Sofer who inadvertently gave the Get to the woman and the receipt to her husband, when, after giving her husband what she took to be a receipt in exchange for what she thought was her Get, the woman remarried before discovering the mistake.

(c) Rebbi Elazar restricts this insertion to where the mistake is discovered immediately (which will be explained later in the Sugya). Chazal did not extend it to where the husband produced the Get later - because, based on the fact that she now has a Chazakah of being married to her second husband, we suspect the couple of collusion, of deliberately switching documents in order to negate the second marriage and get together again.

(a) When the Tana speaks about 'Malchus she'Einah Hogenes' he is referring to Rome, which he calls by that title - because neither its script nor its language were originally its own.

(b) Chazal required the Malchus to be inserted in the Get - because of 'Shalom Malchus' (peace of the realm). See Tosfos DH 'Mipnei'.

(c) In spite of the fact that the woman has only contravened a Takanas Chachamim (and min ha'Torah, the Get is perfectly Kasher), the woman has to leave both husbands and her children are Mamzeirim. This is due to a statement by Rav Hamnuna in the name of Ula - who quoted Rebbi Meir as saying 'Kol ha'Meshaneh mi'Matbe'a she'Tav'u Chachamim be'Gitin (anyone who deviates, even slightly, from the text of a Get as stipulated by the Chachamim), ha'V'lad Mamzer'.

(d) We know that this is the opinion of our Mishnah - because of the principle 'S'tam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir Hi'), besides the fact that it will be stated shortly, that our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Meir exclusively.

3) Having taught us the K'nas by ...
1. ... 'Leshum Malchus she'Einah Hogenes', the Tana nevertheless had to then add the case of 'Leshum Malchus Madai, Leshum Malchus Yavan' - because they are no longer in existence (and we might have thought that the Babylonians would not be fussy if one wrote them in the Get).
2. ... 'Leshum Malchus Madai, Leshum Malchus Yavan', he nevertheless needed to add the case of 'Leshum Binyan ha'Bayis' - which is not now, nor was it ever, a Malchus. Perhaps there, one might have thought, they would not mind.
3. ... 'Leshum Binyan ha'Bayis', he nevertheless found it necessary to add 'Leshum Churban ha'Bayis' - because it brings back sad memories, and one might have thought that they would certainly not mind.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah includes the case of 'Hayah be'Mizrach ve'Kasav be'Ma'arav'. This cannot be referring to a Sofer who changed the place of domicile of the husband - because the Tana already mentions that ('Shinah Shemo u'Sh'mah').

(b) In fact, it refers to the Sofer (see Tosfos DH 'Ki').

(c) Rav and Rav Huna would instruct their respective Sofrim that whenever they wrote a Get ...

1. ... in Shili (even though they knew that it would be handed over in Hini) - they were to state that it was given in Shili.
2. ... in Hini (even though they knew that it would be handed over in Shili) - they were to state that it was given in Hini.



(a) All of the stringencies in our Mishnah are based on the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we explained earlier. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quoting the Chachamim, says - 'Afilu Lo Kasav Ela le'Shem Santer she'ba'Ir, Harei Zu Megureshes'. A Santer (similar to 'senator') is an expert who has been appointed to oversee all land distribution in that town.

(b) In the case where they wrote the date according to the year that the mayor of Bashchar came to power - Rabah ruled that the Get was Kasher, even according to Rebbi Meir.

(c) Even Rebbi Meir ...

1. ... in our Mishnah will agree in this case - because the an appointee from that kingdom.
2. ... who disqualifies the Get in the case of Santer, will agree here - because whereas to write the year of the Santer, who is a minor official, is an insult in the eyes of the king, to write the year of the mayor of Bashchar, in fact enhances the king's esteem, because he is an important dignitary.
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav too, maintains that the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir in all the cases of Shalom Malchus - but not in all the other cases in the Mishnah.

(b) Rav Ashi proves this from our Mishnah 'Shinah Shemo u'Sh'mah ... , Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... ' - because had the author of this section been Rebbi Meir, he should have combined this case together with the cases of Shalom Malchus. So we conclude that the author must be the Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Meir by those cases, but concede that here the Get is Pasul.

(a) We initially infer from our Mishnah 'Kol Arayos she'Amru Tzaroseihen Mutaros, Halchu ha'Tzaros ha'Eilu *ve'Nis'u'* ve'Nimtze'u Eilu Aylonis, Teitz'u mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh' - that if she had only committed adultery, she would be permitted to her husband.

(b) Rav Hamnuna ruled that a Shomeres Yavam who had relations with a stranger - is forbidden to her Yevamah.

(c) Rav Hamnuna does not agree with the inference from our Mishnah. According to him - when the Tana says 'Nis'u', it incorporates 'Ziynu', which it does not write explicitly because 'Nis'u' is a more refined expression.

(a) The second Lashon works in the reverse, and concludes 'Nis'u Dafka' (like the Sugya began, not like Rav Hamnuna). In the case when she married, we are worried - that people will think that she only married after the Yavam performed Chalitzah with her, and now after the second man gave her a Get, the Yavam is taking back his Chalutzah.

(b) Were this case to be permitted, we would be likely to confuse it with the case of a woman who heard that her husband had died, and who returned after she married. She is forbidden to him in case people will say that the second man married her after her first husband had divorced her, and that the first husband is therefore taking back his divorcee after she has remarried (see Tosfos DH 'Nis'u').

(c) When she committed adultery without actually marrying, we are not worried - because it has less of a 'Kol', and people will ascribe it to the Z'nus that it is and not to the fact that the brother performed Chalitzah with her (see Maharshal and Maharsha).

9) Our Mishnah presents two cases concerning a Yevamah who married and whose Tzarah turned out to be an Aylonis. Having taught us the Din by ...
1. ... Tzaras Ervah, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to repeat the Din in the case of a Tzarah who performed Yibum - because we might otherwise have thought that, since in this case, the Mitzvah of Yibum was performed, we would not be so strict with the Tzarah who went and remarried.
2. ... a Tzarah who performed Yibum, he needs to repeat the Din in the case of a Tzaras Ervah - because we would otherwise have thought that in this case, seeing as she does not even fall to Yibum in the first place, we would not be quite so strict with her.
(a) In the case where the Sofer inadvertently handed the Get to the woman and the receipt to the man, Rebbi Elazar differentiated between whether the woman discovered the mistake le'Alter' (immediately - where we fine her, in the way described in our Mishnah) and later (where we do not). According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - 'le'Alter' means as long as they are discussing the divorce; 'later' means once they have stopped discussing it. According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah - as long as she has not remarried it is still called 'le'Alter'.

(b) The Tana concludes 'Lo Kol Heimenu min ha'Rishon le'Abed Zechuso shel Sheini'. According to Shmuel, despite the fact that they have not yet married, the Tana nevertheless refers to him as 'Sheini' - because once she has witnesses who testify that she is divorced, she is permitted to marry the second man and the term 'Sheini' is appropriate.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,