(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 81

GITIN 81 - has been generously sponsored by Yeshayahu (Jason) Schmidt (originally of West Hempstead, N.Y.), a talmid of Rabbi Kornfeld.



(a) According to Beis Shamai, if a man wrote a Get having in mind to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, should he subsequently die, she is forbidden to marry a Kohen. According to Beis Hillel - she is permitted.

(b) When Shmuel was asked what the Din will be in the case of a Kohen about whom a rumor had spread that he had divorced his wife, he replied - 'Teitzei, ve'ha'Davar Tzarich Bedikah'.

(c) When he added 've'ha'Davar Tzarich Bedikah', he cannot have meant that we first see whether it is not possible to stop the rumor - because Shmuel was from Neherda'a, where this was not the practice.

(d) What he therefore must have meant was - that one needs to ascertain whether in that town, 'Kesivah' incorporated Nesinah or not, because, if it did, then the rumor implied that he had indeed divorced her. Otherwise, it was meaningless.

(a) If in that town, 'Kesivah' did incorporate Nesinah, then in spite of the fact that it certainly refereed to Kesivah itself - we would nevertheless take a strict line, seeing as it might well refer to Nesinah.

(b) In view of Rav Ashi, who maintains that one ignores a Kol that only begins after a couple are married, we interpret ...

1. ... Shmuel's ruling 'Teitzei' - to mean 'Teitzei' from the second man (and not from the first).
2. ... the Mishnah in ha'Megaresh which does contend with a Kol - by a Kol that began before they were married.
(c) We are not afraid that, by forbidding her to marry the second Kohen, one was in effect, substantiating the Kol, resulting in the stigmatization of any children that she bore to her first husband after the rumor began to spread - precisely because she was not forbidden to their father (her first husband).

(d) They will ascribe the fact that she was forbidden to the second Kohen - to her first husband having divorced her shortly before his death.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yehudah contrasts the early generations with the latter ones. 'The early generations' refers to ...
1. ... Beis Shamai in our Mishnah ('Kasav Legaresh es Ishto') were stringent with regard to Kedushas Yuchsin; 'the latter ones', to Rebbi Dosa, who says - that the wife of a Kohen who was captured may eat Terumah. After all he says, the Nochri did nothing more than play around with her (there is no evidence that he actually raped her).
2. ... those who used to bring their crops into the house through the front door - in order to make the crops subject to Ma'asros; 'the latter ones' - to those used to bring it in via the roofs and enclosures (through the back-door so to speak) in order to make it exempt from Ma'asros.
(b) This statement is based on a statement by Rebbi Yanai, who derives this Halachah from the Pasuk "Bi'arti ha'Kodesh min ha'Bayis". Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "ve'Achlu bi'She'arecha ve'Save'u" - that when the crops enter the Chatzer via the main gate, they are subject to Ma'aser no less than when they enter the house via the front door.
(a) According to Beis Shamai, someone who stays with his ex-wife in a hotel after divorcing her is not obligated to give her a new Get. Beis Hillel disagree - because we are afraid that he performed Bi'ah with her with the intention of making a fresh Kidushin.

(b) The Mishnah qualifies Beis Hillel's ruling, confining it to when they had previously been married (and are therefore familiar with each other), but not if they had only been betrothed.




(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Machlokes when witnesses actually saw them being intimate, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether a person will perform an immoral act (when he can just as well legalize it - Beis Shamai), or not (Beis Hillel).

(b) If they were not seen being intimate - then even Beis Hillel will agree that the woman does not require a second Get.

(c) We refute this interpretation of our Mishnah from the Seifa which differentiates between whether they had previously been married or just betrothed. Because - if the Tana is speaking when they were seen being intimate, what difference will it make whether they had previously been married or not?

(d) We therefore establish ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan - like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who establishes the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel when the couple were seen being intimate.
2. ... our Mishnah - which must be speaking when they were seen making Yichud, but not being intimate, and the basis of their Machlokes is whether (we say 'Hein Hein Eidei Yichud, Hein Hein Eidei Bi'ah' (the witnesses of Yichud are automatically witnesses that there was Bi'ah - Beis Hillel), or not (Beis Shamai).
(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, if they were actually seen being intimate, then even Beis Shamai will agree that she will require another Get, because 'Hein Hein Eidei Yichud, Hein Hein Eidei Bi'ah'.

(b) But that is only if they had previously been married and were familiar with each other. If they had only been betrothed, then we will not say 'Hein Hein Eidei Yichud, Hein Hein Eidei Bi'ah'.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah invalidates a Get Kere'ach, adding it to the list in the opening Mishnah of the Perek ('Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... '). A 'Get ...
1. ... Mekushar' - is a Get which the Sofer folds after each line or two, and a witness signs on the back of each fold.
2. ... Kere'ach' - is one with more folds than signatures.
(b) Chazal instituted a Get Mekushar - for the sake of Kohanim, who due to a tendency to be short-tempered, would often hastily divorce their wives, and then, when their anger abated and they were sorry for what they had done, the damage could not be undone. So Chazal instituted a Get Mekushar, which takes a long time to write (giving their anger time to abate before the Get is finished).

(c) A Get Kere'ach is Pasul - because it appears as if not all the designated witnesses signed.

(a) ben Nannes permits anybody to sign on a Get Kere'ach (in order to fill in the missing signatures) - seeing as the Get is really Kasher anyway, and it is only to avoid the suspicion that not all the designated witnesses signed that they need to sign.

(b) Rebbi Akiva qualifies ben Nannes' ruling - permitting relatives (who are basically Kasher witnesses) to sign, but not someone who is absolutely Pasul le'Eidus (e.g. a thief or a slave).

(c) Rebbi Akiva's reason cannot be because ...

1. ... people might think that a slave is Kasher le'Eidus - because then why do we permit a relative to sign? Why do we also not suspect that people will assume him to be Kasher le'Eidus?
2. ... people might declare the slave Kasher to marry a bas Yisrael - because then there would be no reason to forbid a thief to sign, since he is permitted to marry a bas Yisrael anyway. And Rebbi Akiva *does*.
(d) The reason that Rebbi Akiva validates a relative to sign on a Get Kere'ach, but not a slave or a thief is - because whereas in the latter case, the Beis-Din will probably jump to the conclusion that the slave was set free (on the basis of which they will permit him to marry a bas Yisrael and to testify), and that the thief did Teshuvah (and is now eligible to testify), whereas in the former case, everyone knows that a relative is a relative (and permitting him to sign will not lead to any errors).
(a) Ben Nannes ...
1. ... argues with Rebbi Akiva, and permit anybody to sign on a Get Kere'ach - as long as at least three Kasher witnesses have signed, and he is the fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh.
2. ... concedes to Rebbi Akiva that only a relative (who is Kasher elsewhere) is eligible to sign on a Get Kere'ach - if there are only two Kasher witnesses and he is the third.
(b) Despite the fact that three by a Get Kere'ach is like two by an ordinary Get, this be acceptable - because the third witness on a Get Kere'ach signs purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) A Beraisa supports the previous statement of Rebbi Zeira quoting ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah. Rav Yosef and Rav Papa amend the Lashon 'Ein Mashlimin Alav Ela Karov' - to 'Ein Mashlimin Alav Ela Kasher' (in which case there is no distinction between two Eidim on an ordinary Get and three on a Get Kere'ach).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan restricts the number of non-Kasher witnesses who sign on a Get Kere'ach to one, because if there were two - we are afraid that they might subsequently validate the Get through them plus one of the Kasher witnesses.

(b) Rav Ashi substantiates this from the Beraisa which we just alluded to - which presents a list of Gitin Kerachim from seven witnesses down to three, and in each case, only one of the signatures needed to be complemented by one Pasul witness.

Next daf


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