Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A WOMAN MAY BRING HER OWN GET

(a) Question: Will Rav Yosef say that the previous Mishnah deals with a Get from Chutz La'aretz, and also the end of our Mishnah, but the beginning of our Mishnah deals with a Get within Eretz Yisrael?!
(b) Answer: Yes - since it says (in the beginning of our Mishnah) 'The written Get proves that she is not lying' - it does not say, the Get and her declaration prove.
(c) (Mishnah): A woman can bring her own Get...
(d) Question: She is already divorced once she receives the Get (why is a declaration needed)?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): Her husband told her, you are only divorced when you come before the Beis Din of Ploni.
(f) Objection: Still, once she gets there, she is divorced from her initial reception of the Get - she is not an agent, why is there a declaration?
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): He told her, when you get there, put the Get on the floor and take it.
(h) Objection: But that is as (the usual case of) telling her to take her Get from the floor (i.e. when the husband put it on the floor);

1. (Rava): A husband told his wife to take her Get from the floor - she is not divorced.

(i) Answer #3: He told her to be an agent to give the Get; when she gets there, she should become an agent to receive the Get, and to take it.
(j) Objection: But she cannot fulfill her mission until she herself acts on her own behalf - such an appointment is invalid!
(k) Correction: Rather, he told her to be an agent to give the Get; when she gets there, she should appoint an agent to receive the Get.

1. This answer works according to the opinion that a woman can appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband.
2. Question: According to the opinion that a woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband - how can we answer?
3. Answer: The reason she cannot appoint is because (presumably) the husband views this as a disgrace, and did not authorize his agent to give the get to her agent - here, he said this is what he wants her to do!
4. This works according to the opinion that the reason she cannot appoint is because the husband views this as a disgrace.

i. Question: According to the opinion that the reason is that Chachamim decreed, because this resembles purchasing a courtyard in which the husband put the Get (which is invalid) - how can we answer?
ii. Answer #1: Rather, he told her to be an agent to give the Get; when she gets there, she should appoint an agent to give the Get back to her.
iii. Answer #2: He told her to be an agent to give the Get; when she gets there, she should make the declaration, and appoint Beis Din as an agent to give the Get back to her.

2) A GET THAT IS NOT LISHMAH

(a) (Mishnah): Any Get that was not written for a particular woman is invalid.

1. A man overheard scribes saying the words of a Get as they wrote it. The names on the Get were the same as his and his wife's names - this is invalid.
2. Even further - Reuven wrote a Get for his wife, then decided not to divorce her. He found another man in his city with the same name, and their wives had the same names - the second man may not use it.

3. Even further - Reuven had 2 wives with the same name. He wrote a Get for the older wife - he cannot use it to divorce the younger wife.
4. Even further - Reuven told a scribe to write a Get for one of his wives, later he will decide which one - he cannot use it to divorce either wife.

(b) (Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says, 'Even further - Reuven wrote a Get for his wife, then decided not to divorce her' - how does this differ from the first case in the Mishnah?
(c) Answer (Rav Papa): In the first case deals with scribes that often write for practice.

1. Support (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah says, the scribes were calling out the words (to other scribes) - it does not say, they spoke the words as they wrote them.

(d) Question: Why is the second case a bigger Chidush?
(e) Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Not only the first case, where the Get was not written for divorce - but even in the second case, when the Get was written for divorce, it is invalid.

1. The third case teaches, even when the Get was written for that man to divorce his wife, it is invalid.
2. The fourth case teaches, even when the Get was written to divorce this wife (just he did not specificy which one at the time of writing), it is invalid.

(f) Question: What is the source that all these are invalid?
(g) Answer: Had the Torah only said 'He will give a Sefer of cutting in her hand', one might have thought, only the first case is invalid, since it was not written to cut; but if a man wrote it to divorce his wife, another man with the same name could use it;

1. The Torah said "He will write (a Sefer of cutting)" to teach that this is not so. Had the Torah only written this, one might have thought, the second case is invalid, since that man did not write it; but if a man wrote it to divorce one wife, he could use it to divorce another wife;
2. The Torah said "For her" - it must be written for her sake. Had the Torah only written this, one might have thought, the third case is invalid, since he did not write it for that wife.
3. Question: What does the last case teach?
4. Answer: There is not Bereirah (a person cannot later specify for whom the Get was written).

(h) (Mishnah): If a man wrote it to divorce his older wife, he cannot use it to divorce the younger one.
(i) We infer - it is only invalid to divorce the younger wife, but it can be used to divorce the older wife.
(j) (Rava): We may learn from here, if 2 men in the same city have identical names, either may present a loan document and force the borrower to pay him (i.e. the borrower cannot claim, perhaps I owe the other man with your name).
(k) Objection (Abaye): If that is a valid inference - from the previous case (He found another man in his city with the same name...the second man may not use it) - we should infer, the second man may not use it, but the first man may. (And we should learn, if 2 men in the same city have identical names, a lender may present a loan document against one of them to pay him.)

1. But we hold, if 2 men in the same city have identical names, no one may present a loan document to force one of them to pay him (i.e. the borrower can claim, I do not owe you, the other man with my name owes you)!
2. You must say, in the Mishnah, we have witnesses that saw the Get given (and know which man gave it), and the Mishnah is as R. Elazar;

i. Also in the third case, we have witnesses that saw the Get given (and know which wife it was given for), and the Mishnah is as R. Elazar.

(a) (Rav): If any of the Gitin in the Mishnah was given, the woman becomes disqualified to marry a Kohen, except for the first case.
(b) (Shmuel): Even if the first case, she is disqualified from Kehunah.

1. This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.
2. (Shmuel): Wherever Chachamim called a Get 'invalid' - it does not permit her to remarry, but it disqualifies her from Kehunah;

i. Wherever Chachamim called a Chalitzah 'invalid' - it does not permit her to remarry, but it disqualifies her from doing Yibum.