Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FROM WHEN THE STIPULATION STARTS

(a) (Abaye): If he says '(This is your Get) when the sun will leave its case' - all agree, this means, from when it rises; if he died during the night, it is a posthumous Get, and invalid;
(b) 'On condition that the sun will leave its case' - he means, the Get should take effect immediately;

1. (Rav Huna): Saying 'on condition' is as saying 'from now'.

(c) The argument is when he says 'If it will go out'.

1. Those that hold as R. Yosi, who says that the date on a document shows that it should take effect from the date, say that it is as if he said 'It should be a Get from today if I die';
2. Those that argue on R. Yosi say that it is as if he said 'It should be a Get if I die'.

(d) (Mishnah): 'Write and give a Get to my wife if I don't come within 12 months' ...
(e) Suggestion (Rav Yemar): R. Yosi (who says that the Get is valid) must hold that a Get on condition may be written, even if the condition is not fulfilled!
(f) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No - this case is different, for he should have said 'If I don't come within 12 months, write and give...';

1. He instead said 'Write...if I don't...' to show that the Get should be written now.
2. Chachamim say that there is no difference between the 2 ways of saying it.

(g) (Beraisa): '(Give a Get if I do not come) after the Shemitah cycle' - we wait 1 year after Shemitah; 'after a year' - we wait (another) month; 'after a month' - we wait 1 week;
(h) Question: 'After Shabbos - what is the law?

1. (R. Zeira): The 3 days after Shabbos are considered after Shabbos; the 3 days before the next Shabbos are considered before Shabbos.

(i) (Beraisa - Rebbi): 'After the festival' - we wait 30 days.

1. R. Chiya taught this law in Rebbi's name - the listeners approved; he taught it in the name of Chachamim - the listeners did not show approval.

i. He concluded, the law is not as this teaching.

2) A GET THROWN INTO THE WIFE'S DOMAIN

(a) (Mishnah): A man threw a Get to his wife when she was in her house or courtyard - the Get is valid;
(b) If he threw it in his own house or courtyard, even if she is in a bed with him, it is invalid;
(c) If he throws it into her garment or basket, it is valid.
(d) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know this?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): "And he puts in her hand" - one might have thought, he must put it in her hand, not in her roof or yard - "and he puts" teaches that he may put in anywhere (that belongs to her).
(f) We learn similarly regarding a thief.

1. (Beraisa): "(The stolen item is found in) his hand" - one might have thought, only if it entered his hand, but not his roof or yard - "found, will be found" teaches, no matter where (in his property) it is found.

(g) The Torah had to teach in both cases.

1. Had it only taught regarding Get - one might have thought, that is because she is divorced against her will; but theft, which is only when he intends, it must go to his hand;
2. Had it only taught regarding theft - one might have thought, the Torah punishes a thief, but divorce requires that it enters her hand.

(h) Question: The Mishnah says 'Her yard' - but a husband acquires his wife's property, it is as his yard!
(i) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): The case is, he wrote to her 'I have no claims to your property'.
(j) Question: This doesn't help!

1. (Beraisa): One who says to his partner 'I have no claims on this field, I have no engagement in it, my hand is withdrawn from it' - his words are void.

(k) Answer #2 (R. Yanai): He wrote this to her when she was engaged;

1. He holds as Rav Kahana and as Rava.
2. (Rav Kahana): A Rabbinical inheritance - one may stipulate that he does not want to inherit it.
3. (Rava): One who says 'I do not want the enactment Chachamim made to help me' - in a case as this (Rav Huna's law), we heed his words.

i. (Rav Huna): A woman can tell her husband 'Do not feed me, and I will not give you my earnings'.

(l) Objection (Rava): Even when he puts the Get in her hand, we must explain why it works - her hand also belongs to him!
(m) Answer #3 (Rava): We must say, the moment the Get is put in her hand, she is divorced and receives jurisdiction over her hand;

1. Also by her roof or yard, the moment the Get enters them, she is divorced and they are hers.

(n) Question (Ravina): Why does Rava say that we must explain why a Get works when he puts it in her hand?

1. Granted, he owns the productivity of her hands, but he does not own her hands!

(o) Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava meant, we must explain the opinion that a slave can himself receive a Get of freedom from his master.

1. A slave's hand is as his master's hand (whatever he acquires belongs to the master)!
2. Rava answered, when a Get of freedom is put in a slave's hand, he simultaneously goes free and gets the ability to acquire for himself;

i. This can also explain how a woman can receive a Get in her roof of yard!

(p) A dying man wrote a Get to his wife as Shabbos was approaching. He was not able to give it before Shabbos; he did not expect to survive until after Shabbos.

1. Rava: He should give her as a gift the place where the Get is resting; she should close the door there to acquire it through Chazakah.

i. (Mishnah): One acquires through Chazakah by locking up, fencing, or breaching a fence.

2. Rav Ilish: How will it help her to acquire the area - what a wife acquires belongs to her husband!
3. Rava was embarrassed. Later, it was found that she was only engaged.
4. Rava: A husband only gets what his wife acquires after Nisu'in, not during engagement.
5. Retraction (Rava): Even if there already was Nisu'in, my suggestion works - she acquires the area at the moment of divorce!

i. Question: Rava already said this above!
ii. Answer: That above statement was Rava's conclusion regarding this case.

(a) (Mishnah): She is in her house...(she is divorced when he throws the Get in).
(b) (Ula): It must be, she is standing next to her house or yard.
(c) (R. Oshiya): No, she may even be in a difference city.
(d) Question: But the Mishnah says, she is in her house!
(e) Answer: It means, it is as if she is in her house; because her house is being guarded on her volition, she is divorced.
(f) Suggestion: Ula holds, when the Torah says that she can receive the Get in her yard, this is because her yard is considered as her hand (and must be near her); R. Oshiya holds, her yard is as her agent.
(g) Rejection: No - all hold, it is as her hand.

1. (Ula): It must be near her, as her hand;
2. Objection (R. Oshiya): If so, we should require that it be attached to her, as her hand!
3. (R. Oshiya): Rather, it must be guarded by her volition, as her hand.

i. This excludes a yard not guarded by her volition.

(h) A man threw a Get to his wife in the yard; it fell on a piece of wood.

1. (Rav Yosef): If the piece is 4 Amos by 4 Amos, it is a domain to itself, and she is not divorced; if it is less than this, it is as the yard, and she is divorced.

(i) Question: Whose yard is it?

1. Suggestion: If it is her yard - even if the piece is 4 by 4, she should be divorced!
2. Suggestion: If it is his yard - even if the piece is not 4 by 4, she should not be divorced!

(j) Answer: The case is, he lent her a place in his yard to acquire the Get.

1. A person only lends 1 place - if the wood is as a place unto itself, he did not lend it as well.
2. We assumed that the piece is not 10 Tefachim tall - if it was, it is a place unto itself even if it is not 4 by 4 Amos.
3. We assumed that the wood does not have a special name - if it did, it is a place unto itself even if it is not 4 by 4 and not 10 Tefachim tall.