(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. Which other two things belong to this list?
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. How many Arayos are there 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. Seeing as we normally assume only the child of Chayvei Kareis to be a Mamzer, how come that these two latter cases (of Yevamah le'Shuk), which are only Chayvei La'avin, are included in our Mishnah?
(b) What is the last case in this list of K'nasos?

(c) Rebbi Elazar restricts this insertion to where the mistake is discovered immediately (which will be explained later in the Sugya).
Why did Chazal not extend it to where the husband produced the Get later?

(a) When the Tana speaks about 'Malchus she'Einah Hogenes' he is referring to Rome.
Why does he refer to Rome as a 'Malchus she'Einah Hogenes'?

(b) Why did Chazal require the Malchus to be inserted in the Get?

(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.
What did Rav Hamnuna say in the name of Ula? According to which Tana did he say this?

(d) How do we know that this is the opinion of our Mishnah?

3) Having taught us the K'nas by ...
  1. ... 'Leshum Malchus she'Einah Hogenes', why did the Tana have to then add the case of 'Leshum Malchus Madai, Leshum Malchus Yavan'?
  2. ... 'Leshum Malchus Madai, Leshum Malchus Yavan', why did he need to add the case of 'Leshum Binyan ha'Bayis'?
  3. ... 'Leshum Binyan ha'Bayis', why did find it necessary to add 'Leshum Churban ha'Bayis'?
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah includes the case of 'Hayah be'Mizrach ve'Kasav be'Ma'arav'.
Why can this not be referring to a Sofer who changed the place of domicile of the husband?

(b) Then what does it refer to?

(c) What instructions would Rav and Rav Huna issue to their respective Sofrim to do, whenever they wrote a Get ...

  1. ... in Shili (even though they knew that it would be handed over in Hini)?
  2. ... in Hini (even though they knew that it would be handed over in Shili)?
Answers to questions



(a) All of the stringencies in our Mishnah are based on the opinion of Rebbi Meir, as we explained earlier.
What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quote the Chachamim as saying? What is a 'Santer'?

(b) What did Rabah rule in the case where they wrote the date according to the year the mayor of Bashchar came to power?

(c) Why will even Rebbi Meir ...

  1. ... in our Mishnah agree in this case?
  2. ... who disqualifies the Get in the case of Santer, agree here?
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav too, maintains that the Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir in all the cases of Shalom Malchus.
Do they argue in all the other cases in the Mishnah.

(b) How does Rav Ashi prove this from our Mishnah 'Shinah Shemo u'Sh'mah ... , Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... '?

(a) What do 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'?

(b) What did Rav Hamnuna rule with regard to a Shomeres Yavam who had relations with a stranger?

(c) How does Rav Hamnuna then explain the inference from our Mishnah?

(a) The second Lashon works in the reverse, and concludes 'Nis'u Dafka' (like the Sugya began, not like Rav Hamnuna).
What are we worried about in the case when she married?

(b) With which case would we be likely to confuse this one, were it to be permitted (see Tosfos DH 'Nis'u)?

(c) Why are we not worried when she committed adultery without actually marrying?

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, why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat the Din in the case of a Tzarah who performed Yibum?
  2. ... a Tzarah who performed Yibum, why did he need to repeat the Din in the case of a Tzaras Ervah?
(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) or 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.
How does Rav Ada bar Ahavah explain it?

(b) The Tana concludes 'Lo Kol Heimenu min ha'Rishon le'Abed Zechuso shel Sheini'. According to Shmuel, considering that they have not yet married, on what grounds does the Tana refer to him as 'Sheini'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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