Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 3

1) WHY A SINGLE WITNESS IS BELIEVED TO TESTIFY ABOUT A GET

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a single witness is believed to testify that the Get was written Lishmah and that it is not forged, because of a leniency that the Chachamim instituted in order to prevent situations of Agunah from arising. The Gemara asks that accepting the testimony of a single witness in this case is a *Chumra* and not a Kula, because if the husband challenges the Get, he will be believed and he will invalidate the Get!

The Gemara answers that since the Shali'ach must hand over the Get in front of a Beis Din, he is very careful to research the matter ("Meidak Dayek") and he will not let his reputation become ruined.

The simple understanding of the Gemara is that since the Shali'ach is so careful not to let his reputation become ruined, his words are very reliable and therefore his word is believed against the word of the husband. This indeed is what Rashi writes here (end of DH me'Ikara). However, Rashi prefaces those remarks by saying that since a Shali'ach does not want to ruin his reputation, he will make sure that the husband indeed wants to divorce the woman and that the husband will never consider coming to challenge the validity of the Get. Why does Rashi need to add these comments? If the Shali'ach's word is believed -- like Rashi writes -- against the word of the husband even when the husband does come and challenge the Get, then why is it necessary for the Shali'ach to make sure that the husband will not come in the first place?

ANSWER: There are a number of points in the Gemara that are unclear and need explanation. First, why does the Gemara ask that it is a Chumra to believe one witness in this case, because if two witnesses were required, "then the husband *would not come* and invalidate the Get?" The Gemara should have said that it is a Chumra because if two witnesses were required, "then *even if the husband comes*, he will not be able to invalidate the Get" (while if a single witness is believed, then the husband *will* be able to invalidate the Get)!

Second, the Gemara asks the same question according to the view of Rava, that accepting the testimony of a single witness is a Chumra and not a Kula, since, if the husband comes and challenges the Get, he will invalidate it! How can the Gemara assert that if the husband comes and challenges the Get he will invalidate it? The whole purpose of saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" according to Rava is in order to override the husband's challenge to the Get! It is obvious that the Chachamim instituted that the single witness will be believed more than the husband! Why, then, should we think that if the husband challenges the Get, the Get will be invalidated because of his word?

It is because of these questions that Rashi explains that the Gemara's question is not that the husband will be *believed in court* if he challenges the Get, but rather that if the husband challenges the Get, he might create a *rumor* that the Get is invalid and people will not want to marry the woman, thinking that she is still an Eshes Ish. The answer of the Gemara cannot be that the Shali'ach is "Meidak Dayek" and therefore he is believed more than the husband, because, first, we already knew that he is believed in court more than the husband, and, second, if a single witness is strong enough to counter the husband's challenge, and we suspect that the Get is forged, then the logic of "Meidak Dayek" cannot strengthen the testimony of the witness, since the very fact of his Shelichus is under suspicion. Even though he testifies in front of a Beis Din that he is a Shali'ach and he says "b'Fanai Nichtav," he is no more concerned about his reputation than the husband, who testifies in court that the Get is a forgery! Rather, the Gemara means that the Shali'ach is "Meidak Dayek" to find out for certain that the husband is divorcing his wife willingly and will not be interested in challenging the Get in the first place. This is the way Rashi explains the Gemara.

This explains why the Gemara says that if two witnesses were required, "the husband would not come and challenge the Get and invalidate it," but if a single witness is required "the husband will come and challenge the Get and invalidate it." The Gemara does not mean that the husband will actually disqualify the Get when he contradicts the single witness that the Chachamim required. As we have explained, the Gemara realized -- when it discussed the opinion of Rava -- that the Chachamim trusted the single witness to repudiate the claim of the husband. The Gemara's question is that if a single witness is required, the husband will not be afraid to challenge the word of the witness and to *spread a rumor* that the Get is invalid. Even though the Beis Din will not accept the word of the husband, nevertheless the very spreading of a rumor that the Get is not valid will harm the wife.

If, however, this is true, then why does the Gemara add the words "and invalidate it?" We are only afraid that the husband will challenge the validity of the Get and spread a rumor, but we are not afraid that he will invalidate it! (See TOSFOS, DH Chad Asi, who is bothered by this question and concludes with the somewhat forced explanation that "invalidate it" is not to be taken literally.) In addition, why does Rashi find it necessary to add that since the Shali'ach is "Meidak Dayek," even if the husband does challenge the validity of the Get *the Shali'ach is believed* and his testimony overrides the testimony of the husband?

The answer is that what we have said until now is only true according to Rava. Rabah, though, requires the testimony of "b'Fanai Nichtav" not because the husband might [falsely] challenge the Get and say that it is forged, but because *we* (i.e. Beis Din) are genuinely afraid that the Get truly was not written Lishmah. (It is true that TOSFOS 2b, DH l'Fi (2) suggests that even according to Rabah, the Chachamim were afraid only that the husband would *falsely* claim that the Get was not written Lishmah; they were not actually concerned that the Get was actually not written Lishmah. Rashi (2b, DH v'Rabanan), though, takes the approach that the Chachamim were afraid that the Get was truly not written Lishmah.) The enactment of our Mishnah was that the Shali'ach who says "b'Fanai Nichtav" is trusted to allay our concerns. However, this only allows us to trust the Shali'ach as long as nobody else challenges his words. The Chachamim did not give his words the power to contradict the husband if he comes and claims that the Get was actually not written Lishmah. Therefore, according to Rabah, the Gemara's question was not just that when a single witness testimony that the Get is Lishmah, the husband will come and *spread a rumor*. The question was that if the husband comes and says that the Get was not written Lishmah (or forged), he will be *believed* in court to contradict the single witness, as Rashi explains (DH d'Iy Matzrechas)! That is why the Gemara says that the husband will "*invalidate* the Get."

Rashi therefore explains that the Gemara -- when explaining the opinion of Rabah -- answers that when the witness testifies that the Get was written Lishmah, we trust his testimony *more* than that of the husband since the Shali'ach is "Meidak Dayek." Even if the husband claims that the Get was not written Lishmah, nevertheless since he admits that the Shali'ach *was* a valid Shali'ach, we have a Chazakah that the Shali'ach is "Meidak Dayek" and we accept the Shali'ach's testimony that the Get was written Lishmah.

When the Gemara explains the opinion of Rava later on the Amud, though, it cannot be suggesting that the husband would be believed to cancel out the testimony of the Shali'ach (since the entire purpose of the enactment in the Mishnah is to *trust* the Shali'ach against the word of the husband). Therefore, the Gemara's question must be that the husband will *spread a rumor* against the word of a single witness, and the Gemara's answer is that the Shali'ach will take pains to see that the husband is not interested in spreading a false rumor about the Get, as Rashi explains. The reason the Gemara uses the term "the husband will come and *invalidate* the Get" when discussing Rava's opinion is because it used the identical term when discussing Rabah's opinion earlier on the Amud. (Tosfos often refers to such a phenomenon, calling it "Agav.")

Tosfos here, on the other hand, does not explain this way, since he follows his own opinion expressed earlier, that even according to Rabah we are only afraid that the husband will spread a false rumor -- we have no doubts about the actual validity of the Get. Hence, even when explaining the view of Rabah, the Gemara must have known that the Shali'ach *will* be trusted to override the husband's word, since that was the entire purpose of the enactment of the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)

3b

QUESTION: Rabah requires the Shali'ach who brings the Get from Medinas ha'Yam to say both "b'Fanai Nichtav" and "b'Fanai Nechtam" in order to testify that the Get was both written and signed Lishmah. The Gemara asks who the Tana of our Mishnah is who requires that the writing (Kesivah) of a Get and the signing (Chasimah) must both be Lishmah. We find that Rebbi Meir requires only that the Kesivah be Lishmah, while Rebbi Elazar requires only that the Chasimah be Lishmah.

The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar, and he requires that the Chasimah be Lishmah *mid'Rabanan*. The Gemara rejects this answer based on a Mishnah. The Mishnah (86a) says that according to the Tana Kama, there are three types of Gitin which are Pasul, but if the woman marries with it and bears a child, the child is not a Mamzer (the Amora'im (86a) argue whether the woman may remain married based on such a Get or whether she must get divorced from her second husband; according to everyone, though, the child born from that marriage is not a Mamzer). Two of those cases are when there are no witnesses signed on the Get but the Get is handwritten by the husband, and when only one witness is signed on the Get (where the scribe who wrote the Get is counted as the second witness). Rebbi Elazar argues and says that even though there are no witnesses signed on the Get, if the Get was given in front of witnesses, the Get is valid. The Gemara asserts that this shows that Rebbi Elazar does not require that the Chasimah be Lishmah even mid'Rabanan (he does not even require witnesses to sign at all).

RASHI is bothered by the Gemara's proof. How do we see from here that Rebbi Elazar accepts, l'Chatchilah, a Get that does not have witnesses signed on it? Perhaps when he says that the Get is "Kasher," he means that the Get is valid only mid'Oraisa, but mid'Rabanan it needs witnesses signed on it!

Rashi (DH Lo Ba'i, and DH v'Im Nises) explains that Rebbi Elazar must accept -- even mid'Rabanan -- a Get without signatures of witnesses, since the Tana Kama himself agrees that the Get is valid mid'Oraisa, and it is only invalid mid'Rabanan. Therefore, when Rebbi Elazar argues and says that it is valid, he must mean that it is valid even mid'Rabanan.

REBBI AKIVA EIGER (in Gilyon ha'Shas and in Derush v'Chidush Rebbi Akiva Eiger) challenges Rashi's proof. Rashi seems to be proving that Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get more readily than the Tana Kama does, because otherwise he is not arguing with the Tana Kama. Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks that there certainly is another point of dispute between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar. The Tana Kama only accepts, b'Di'eved, a Get that is written with the husband's own handwriting, or at least has one signature of a witness, while Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get even when there are no witnesses signed on it, and when the husband did not write the Get himself! Perhaps Rebbi Elazar's dispute with the Tana Kama involves whether a Get with no witnesses is also valid b'Di'eved. How do we see from Rebbi Elazar's words that he has a second dispute with the Tana Kama and he accepts a Get with one or no witnesses signed on it, even l'Chatchilah? It must be that the second argument is inferred from Rebbi Elazar's choice of words. He does not say that in the case of a Get without witnesses "the child is Kasher," which are the words that the Tana Kama uses, but rather he says only "Kasher," implying that not only is the child Kasher, but that the Get is Kasher as well and may be used l'Chatchilah. This is the only way to prove that Rebbi Elazar argues with the Tana Kama regarding using a get without witnesses l'Chatchilah.

Why, then, does Rashi prove that Rebbi Elazar accepts, l'Chatchilah, a Get without signatures, by saying that this *must* be his point of dispute with the Tana Kama? Rashi should prove it from the fact that Rebbi Elazar uses the word "Kasher," which shows that he argues with the Tana Kama with regard to using a Get with the signature of only one witness, and which should also show that he accepts the Get l'Chatchilah! (See RASHASH and Acharonim.)

ANSWER: First, we must clarify what is bothering Rashi. Why does Rashi need to emphasize that Rebbi Elazar must be accepting the Get l'Chatchilah since he argues with the Tana Kama? It is obvious from the Beraisa that Rebbi Elazar holds that a woman is permitted to get married with a Get with no witnesses signed! Rebbi Akiva Eiger appears to have understood that the Beraisa itself does not provide clear proof, since -- when Rebbi Elazar says "a Get without witnesses is Kasher" -- he might mean that only the child is Kasher. Rashi proves that he must mean that the Get is Kasher, too, because otherwise he would be agreeing with the Tana Kama. This is why Rebbi Akiva Eiger questions Rashi's explanation, since Rebbi Elazar argues on a second point of the Tana Kama and says that one does not need any witnesses signed on the Get.

Perhaps Rashi found the proof from the Beraisa unclear for another reason. The Gemara later (86a) asks why the Mishnah does not include a case of "Get Yashan" in its list of Gitin that are valid only b'Di'eved. The Gemara answers that there are different levels of b'Di'eved. The three Gitin mentioned in the Mishnah quoted here are only valid when the woman has already remarried based on the Get. If she has not yet remarried, she must get a new Get from her former husband. A Get Yashan, however, is Kasher b'Di'eved as soon as it is given to the woman, and once she has received the Get Yashan, she may remarry based on that Get.

How, then, can we prove from this Mishnah that Rebbi Elazar, who argues with the Tana Kama, allows a Get without the signatures of witnesses to be given to a woman l'Chatchilah? Even though he says "Kasher," implying that the Get is Kasher and not just the child, perhaps he means that once the Get is delivered to the woman, she may use it, but l'Chatchilah, when writing a Get and giving it to a woman, he requires that witnesses sign it! That is why the Shali'ach must say "b'Fanai Nichtav, uv'Fanai Nechtam" when handing over a Get to the woman.

This explains why Rashi does not cite the word "Kasher" as proof that Rebbi Elazar accepts such a Get l'Chatchilah. What, then, is the Gemara's proof that according to Rebbi Elazar, a Get without the signatures of witnesses may be given to the woman l'Chatchilah?

Rashi explains that from the Tana Kama we see that if anything is wrong with the signatures in the Get, even mid'Rabanan (for example, when a Get is written by the husband, or when the scribe's handwriting is considered a second witness), then we do not allow the woman to get married with such a Get; she must receive a new Get before she may get married (unlike a Get Yashan, in which the signatures are fine). There is no reason to assume that Rebbi Elazar disagrees with the Tana Kama on this point. He only argues that a Get does not need signatures of witnesses altogether. Since Rebbi Elazar allows the woman to get married l'Chatchilah when a Get without signatures was given to her (he says that such a Get is "Kasher," referring to the Get itself and not just the child), therefore we may assume that he does not invalidate the Get even l'Chatchilah, and if a Get is written without witnesses, it may even be given to the woman l'Chatchilah.

Why does Rebbi Akiva Eiger not understand Rashi in this manner? Perhaps Rebbi Akiva Eiger bases his comments on the words of TOSFOS (DH d'Tenan) who asserts that if the Chasimah is only required to make the Get valid l'Chatchilah, but, b'Di'eved, once the Get is given the woman may get married based on it, then we would not require the Shali'ach to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." (Saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" was not enacted in order to prevent a Pesul l'Chatchilah. It was only enacted in order to prevent a Pesul b'Di'eved.) Tosfos proves this from the Gemara which says that according to Rebbi Meir, although a Get cannot l'Chatchilah be written on something Mechubar, attached to the ground (which shows that l'Chatchilah the laws of Chasimah apply to Kesivah as well), nevertheless Rebbi Meir would not require saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" to testify that the Kesivah was done Lishmah. Accordingly, it would not be necessary for Rashi to prove that Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get without witnesses even l'Chatchilah. Even if it was not Kasher l'Chatchilah, he would still not require saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" since the Get would be valid as soon as it is handed over.

However, we may defend our explanation of Rashi by pointing out that Rashi does not necessarily agree with Tosfos on this point. RASHI (DH Ein Kosvin) seems to give a different way to explain why Rebbi Meir does not require, l'Chatchilah, that a Get be written Lishmah, even though he does require, l'Chatchilah, that the Get not be Mechubar when it is written. If the Get is written on something Mechubar, then the witnesses might forget to cut it off before they sign it. However, if the scribe wrote it she'Lo Lishmah, that is no reason to fear that the witnesses will forget and sign it she'Lo Lishmah! (See Tosfos 4b, end of DH v'Chasmu.) Therefore, Rashi finds it necessary to prove that Rebbi Elazar accepts giving a Get to a woman, l'Chatchilah, when it has no signatures. (M. Kornfeld)