Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE EAST WIND

(a) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): It causes even a peg in the wall to soften.
(b) Answer #3 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): Even a reed woven into a wicker basket softens.

2) SINCERITY WHEN CANCELLING A GET

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get to Reuven's wife. Reuven found Shimon and told him that the Get is void, or sent someone to tell him this - the Get is void;
(b) If Reuven told his wife, himself or via a messenger, that the Get is void - it is void.

1. If she already received the Get, Reuven cannot invalidate it.

(c) At first, a husband that wanted to invalidate a Get would assemble a Beis Din and declare before them that it is void; for the betterment of all the world, R. Gamliel enacted that this should not be done.
(d) (Gemara): The Mishnah does not say, Reuven caught up to Shimon, rather, he chanced upon him; still, we say that the Get is invalid, and Reuven is not merely saying this to pain his wife.
(e) Question: Why must the Mishnah also teach the case when Reuven had a messenger tell Shimon that the Get is void?
(f) Answer: One might have thought, the second agent (to invalidate the Get) is no stronger than the first agent, and the Get remains valid - we hear, this is not so.
(g) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach the case when Reuven told his wife before she received it?
(h) Answer: One might have thought, only when he tells Shimon, then we say that the Get is truly void; but when he tells his wife, surely his intent is only to pain her, not to invalidate it;

1. We hear, this is not so (in either case it is void).

(i) Question: Why must the Mishnah teach the case when Reuven had a messenger tell his wife?
(j) Answer: One might have thought, Reuven himself would not bother to find his wife and tell her, just to pain her; but he is not concerned for the exertion of a messenger, and would make a messenger just to pain her;

1. We hear, this is not so (in either case it is void).

(k) (Mishnah): If she already received the Get, Reuven cannot invalidate it.
(l) Question: This is obvious!
(m) Answer: The case is, we know that he was pursuing Shimon to invalidate it.

1. One might have thought, this reveals that retroactively, the Get is void - we hear, this is not so.

(a) (Beraisa): If Reuven said 'It is Batel (void)' or 'I do not want it', his words take effect; 'It is Pasul (invalid)' or 'It is not a Get' - his words have no effect.
(b) This implies that 'It is Batel' means it should be void.

1. Question: But Rabah bar Avuha taught, one who received a gift and then said 'The gift is Mevuteles (voided)' or 'It should be void' or 'I do not want it', his words do not take effect; 'It is Beteilah (void)' or 'It is not a gift' - his words take effect!

i. We see, 'Batel' implies, it was void from the beginning!

2. Answer (Abaye): 'Batel' has both connotations - from the beginning, or it should be void.

i. Regarding a Get, he means the latter, for this works (to stop the divorce); regarding a gift, he means the former, for that works (to undo the gift).

(c) (Abaye): A messenger to give a gift is like a messenger to give a Get.

1. This teaches that if the sender says 'Bring', he does not mean that the messenger should acquire on behalf of the recipient.

(d) Question (Ravina): If the husband only says 'Batel' - what is the law?

1. This question is unresolved.

(e) (Rav Sheshes): 'This Get will not work', or 'It will not permit/abandon/send/or divorce'; 'It should be pottery/as pottery (i.e. worthless)' - he words take effect;
(f) 'This Get does not work', or 'It does not
permit/abandon/send/or divorce'; 'It is pottery/as pottery' - he words do not take effect.
(g) Question: 'Behold, it is pottery' - what is the law?
(h) Answer (Ravina): This is just like 'Behold, this is Hekdesh or Hefker' (which means, it should now become so - also by Get, it means this, and his words take effect).

(a) Question: Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get, and canceled it - can Reuven later use the Get?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Yes, he can.
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): He cannot.

1. The law follows Rav Nachman's opinion.
2. Question: But R. Yochanan said that a woman that accepted engagement to take effect after 30 days, she can retract - and the law follows R. Yochanan's opinion! (Here also, the Get should become void!)
3. Answer: There, her initial acceptance was mere words, so her latter words nullify her initial words;

i. Here, the husband nullifies the appointment of the messenger - but a Get itself (which is more than mere words) does not become void!

(d) (Mishnah): At first, a husband would assemble a Beis Din...
(e) Question: In front of how many men must he nullify the Get?
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): In front of 2.
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): In front of 3.

1. Rav Sheshes says 3, because the Mishnah says, he would assemble a Beis Din.
2. Rav Nachman holds, 2 people are also considered a Beis Din.

(h) Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): 'I hand over to you judges, Ploni and Ploni (the judges on the Beis Din for Prusbul).