Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

9) ONE THAT CANNOT MAKE THE DECLARATION

(a) (Mishnah): One who brings a Get from Chutz La'aretz and cannot say 'it was written and signed in front of me' - if it has signatures, it may be validated through the signatures.
(b) Question: What does it mean, 'He cannot say it was written and signed in front of me'?
(c) R. Yehudah says, he must say it if he brought a Get from Rekem or eastwards; Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz; from Ashkelon or further south is as Chutz La'aretz; from Ako or further north is as Chutz La'aretz;

1. R. Meir says, Ako is as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.

(d) One who brings a Get within Eretz Yisrael need not say 'it was written and signed in front of me'; if the Get is contested, it will be verified through its signatures.

1. Suggestion: The messenger is a deaf-mute.
2. Rejection: A deaf-mute cannot bring a Get!

i. (Mishnah): Anyone can bring a Get, except for a deaf person, lunatic or minor.

(e) Answer (Rav Yosef): The messenger gave the Get when he was healthy; before he said 'it was written and signed in front of me' he became deaf.

1. This fits well for Rava - since the declaration cannot be made, the Get is validated.

(f) Question: According to Rabah, validation does not help the concern that it is not Lishmah!
(g) Answer: The Beraisa is after people in Chutz La'aretz learned the law of Lishmah (so this is no longer a concern).
(h) Question: If so, even if the messenger can make the declaration, why should he?
(i) Answer: It was decreed that messengers should still say it, lest people in Chutz La'aretz will again forget the law.
(j) Question: If so, why does it suffice to validate the Get of the messenger that was healthy and became deaf?
(k) Answer: That is an unusual case, Chachamim did not decree in unusual cases.
(l) Question: But it is unusual for a wife to be a messenger on her own Get, and a decree was made!

1. (Mishnah): A woman can bring her own Get, but she must say 'it was written and signed in front of me.'

(m) Answer: We require her to say it, so there should be 1 uniform law of messengers.
(n) Question: If so, the husband should also have to say it - but he does not!

1. (Beraisa): If the husband brings the Get, he need not say 'it was written and signed in front of me'.

(o) Answer: The whole reason for saying 'it was written and signed in front of me' is because we are concerned that the husband will say the Get is invalid. Since he brought it himself, he will not say it is invalid!

(a) Question (Shmuel): 2 messengers that bring a Get from abroad - must they make the declaration?
(b) Answer (Rav Huna): No - if they would say that they saw the divorce, they would be believed!

1. This fits well for Rava - the husband cannot claim that the Get is a forgery (i.e. he did not authorize it), since both messengers will contradict him, so there is no concern.

(c) Question: According to Rabah, we should be concerned that it is not Lishmah!
(d) Answer: The Beraisa is after people in Chutz La'aretz learned the law of Lishmah.
(e) Question: If so, even by 1 messenger, there should be no need for the declaration!
(f) Answer: It was decreed that a messenger should still say it, lest people in Chutz La'aretz will again forget the law.
(g) Question: If so, even by 2 messengers, they should have to say it!
(h) Answer: That is an unusual case, Chachamim did not decree in unusual cases.
(i) Question: But it is unusual for a wife to be a messenger on her own Get, and a decree was made!

1. (Mishnah): A woman can bring her own Get, but she must say 'it was written and signed in front of me.'

(j) Answer: We require her to say it, so there should be 1 uniform law of messengers.
(k) Question: If so, the husband should also have to say it - but he does not!

1. (Beraisa): If the husband brings the Get, he need not say 'it was written and signed in front of me'.

(l) Answer: The whole reason for saying 'it was written and signed in front of me' is because we are concerned that the husband will say the Get is invalid. Since he brought it himself, he will not say it is invalid!
(m) (Beraisa): A man brought a Get from abroad and did not say 'it was written and signed in front of me'; if it was validated, the Get is valid; if not, not;

1. The enactment to say 'it was written and signed in front of me' was made to be lenient on the wife, not stringent.

(n) This fits well for Rava - once the Get is validated, there is no other concern.
(o) Question: According to Rabah, we should be concerned that it is not Lishmah!
(p) Answer: The Beraisa is after people in Chutz La'aretz learned the law of Lishmah.
(q) Question: But we said, it was decreed that a messenger should still say it, lest people in Chutz La'aretz will again forget the law!
(r) Answer: The case is, she already got married (relying on the Get).

1. Question: If so, why does the Beraisa say that the enactment to say 'it was written and signed in front of me' was made to be lenient on the wife, not stringent - the reason we do not disqualify the Get is because she already remarried!
2. Answer: The Beraisa says thusly: if you would think that we should be stringent and say that she must leave her husband - the enactment to say 'it was written and signed in front of me' was made to be lenient on the wife, not stringent.

3. (According to Tosfos, this is Answer #2; according to Rashi, it is the culmination of the answer): The whole reason for saying 'it was written and signed in front of me' is because we are concerned that the husband will say the Get is invalid. If the husband is not contesting the Get - should we contest it?!

(a) R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua Ben Levi: 1 learns as Rabah, the other as Rava.
(b) R. Yehoshua Ben Levi must hold as Rabah.

1. R. Shimon Bar Aba brought a Get before R. Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asked if he must make a declaration.
2. R. Yehoshua Ben Levi: You need not - only previous generations, which were not proficient in Lishmah, had to make a declaration.

(c) Objection #1: This cannot be - we concluded that Rabah is also concerned that witnesses will not be available to validate the signatures.
(d) Objection #2: We concluded that Rabah holds that there is a decree to make the declaration even today, lest people forget the law again!
(e) Answer: There was another messenger with R. Shimon Bar Aba; out of honor for R. Shimon Bar Aba, the other messenger was not mentioned.
(f) Question: In front of how many witnesses must the Get be given?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or R. Chanina): In front of 2.
(h) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yochanan and R. Chanina): In front of 3.
(i) We can prove that R. Yochanan holds that it may be given in front of 2.

1. Ravin Bar Rav Chisda brought a Get (from abroad) in front of R. Yochanan; R. Yochanan told him to give it in front of 2 witnesses and to make the declaration.

(j) Suggestion: The opinion that says it may be given in front of 2 holds that the concern is Lishmah; the opinion that it must be given in front of 3 holds that the concern is validation (the declaration validates the Get, so a Beis Din is required).
(k) Objection #1: We saw that R. Yehoshua Ben Levi holds that the concern was Lishmah, so R. Yochanan must hold that the concern is validation - but he holds, it is given in front of 2!
(l) Objection #2: Rabah agrees to Rava (all are concerned for validation)!
(m) Answer #1: R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argue whether a messenger can become a witness, and the witness can become a judge.

1. The opinion that says it may be given in front of 2 holds that a messenger can become a witness, and the witness can become a judge (so the messenger is included to form a Beis Din of 3 judges).
2. The opinion that says it must be given in front of 3 holds that a messenger can become a witness, but a witness cannot become a judge.
3. Objection: But we hold, in mid'Rabanan laws, a witness can become a judge!

(n) Answer #2: Rather, the opinion that says it must be given in front of 3 holds that since a woman may be a messenger, we are concerned that they will rely on her to be 1 of the 3 judges for the Beis Din;

1. The other opinion says that people know that a woman cannot be a judge, we are not concerned for such a mistake.

(o) Support (for R. Yochanan) (Beraisa - R. Meir): A messenger brought a Get from abroad; he gave it, but did not say 'it was written and signed in front of me.' If she got married, she must leave her husband; if she had children, they are Mamzerim;

1. Chachamim say, the children are not Mamzerim.
2. The messenger should take back the Get, give it again in front of 2, and make the declaration.

(p) Question: Does R. Meir really hold that because the messenger did not say 'it was written and signed in front of me', she must leave her husband, and her children are Mamzerim?!
(q) Answer: Yes! This fits R. Meir's opinion in general.

1. (Rav Hamnuna): R. Meir holds, anyone that deviates from the procedure that Chachamim fixed for Gitin, (if she got married) she must leave her husband, and her children are Mamzerim.

(a) Bar Hedya wanted to bring a Get; he came before R. Achai, who was appointed over Gitin.

1. R. Achai: You must see every letter written (so you will be able to say 'it was written and signed in front of me').

(b) He came before R. Ami and Rav Asi; they said, this is unnecessary.

1. Moreover, this should not be done, lest people will doubt the validity of previous Gitin, by which this was not done.

(c) Rabah Bar Bar Chanah brought a Get; only half of it was written in front of him.
(d) (R. Elazar): Even if (you saw) only the first line written Lishmah, that is enough.
(e) (Rav Ashi): It suffices to hear the pen scratching on the paper.