Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A "WHIFF" OF A GET

(a) (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): A man wrote a Get to divorce his wife, then decided not to - she is forbidden to Kohanim;

1. Beis Hillel say, even if he gave her a Get on condition, if the stipulation was not fulfilled, she is permitted to Kohanim.

(b) (Gemara - Rav Yosef brei d'Rav Menasheh): If there is talk that a Kohen wrote a Get to divorce his wife, and they are living together - what do we do?
(c) Answer (Shmuel): We do not make him divorce her; the matter needs investigation.
(d) Question: What must be investigated?

1. Suggestion: If we must check whether we silence rumors - but Shmuel is from Nehardai, there they do not silence rumors!

(e) Answer: Rather, we must check whether people say 'wrote a Get' when a man gave a Get.
(f) Question: Even if they do - but they also say this when he only wrote it, why should she be forbidden?
(g) Answer: She is forbidden because of a doubt, perhaps they meant that a Get was given.
(h) Question: Why would he have to divorce her? Rav Ashi taught, we are not concerned for rumors that begin after marriage!
(i) Answer: If she married another Kohen, he would have to divorce her.
(j) Question: This will make people think that her children from the first husband are disqualified from Kehunah (because she really was divorced)!
(k) Answer: No - because we only forced the new husband to divorce her, not the first husband, people will assume that he divorced her right before he died.
(l) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The decline in the generations is awesome!

1. The early generations were stringent, as Beis Shamai (who forbid a woman to Kehunah because of rumors that a Get was written):
2. Later generations are lenient as R. Dosa.

i. (Beraisa - R. Dosa): A captured woman may eat Terumah - just because the captor put his hands on her, should she be forbidden to Terumah?!

3. Also: Early generations would enter their produce into the house through the gate, in order to obligate themselves to tithe it;

i. Later generations enter their produce through the roof or yard in order to exempt it from tithes.
ii. (R. Yanai): Produce need only be tithed once it sees (is brought in through) the opening of the house - "I eradicated the sanctified things from the house".
iii. (R. Yochanan): Even entering the yard obligates one to tithe it - "They will eat in your gates and be satiated."

(a) (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): A man divorced his wife and spent the night with her in an inn - he need not give her another Get;

1. Beis Hillel say, he must.

(b) This applies when she was divorced from Nisu'in; if she was divorced from engagement, all agree that a second Get is not needed because he is not so intimate with her.
(c) (Gemara - Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): The argument is when witnesses saw that they had relations;

1. Beis Shamai hold, a man would have extramarital relations; Beis Hillel say, he would not (he surely engaged her).
2. If witnesses did not see relations, all agree that a second Get is not needed.

(d) (Mishnah): If she was divorced from engagement, all agree that a second Get is not needed because he is not so intimate with her.
(e) Question: If the case is, witnesses saw relations - what difference does it make if the divorce was from Nisu'in or engagement?
(f) Answer: Indeed, the Mishnah is when witnesses did not see relations; R. Yochanan holds as R. Shimon ben Elazar.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): If witnesses did not see relations, all agree that a second Get is not needed;

i. Beis Shamai hold, a man would have extramarital relations; Beis Hillel say, he would not.

(g) Question: The Mishnah is when witnesses did not see relations - why do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue?
(h) Answer: There are witnesses that they were secluded, but not that they had relations.

1. Beis Shamai say, witnesses that saw seclusion cannot be considered witnesses that they had relations; Beis Hillel say, (he surely had relations with her), they are considered as witnesses that they had relations.
2. If she was divorced from engagement, all agree that a second Get is not needed because he is not so intimate with her, witnesses on seclusion are not as witnesses on relations.

(i) Question: How can Yochanan hold as R. Shimon ben Elazar - R. Yochanan said that the law is always as an unauthored Mishnah!
(j) Answer: Amora'im argue which of these R. Yochanan said.

(a) (Mishnah): If a woman remarried after receiving a bald Get (a Mekushar (tied) Get in which there are more folds than witnesses), all the fines of the previous Mishnah apply.
(b) Ben Nanus says, anyone may sign on a bald Get to complete the required number of witnesses; R. Akiva says, the only invalid witnesses allowed are relatives that are valid witnesses in other cases.

1. A Mekushar Get is one in which there are more knots than witnesses.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Why is a bald Get invalid?
(d) Answer: It is a decree on account of when the husband says 'All of you sign this Get' (the Get is invalid unless all sign).
(e) (Mishnah): Anyone may sign on a bald Get to complete the required number of witnesses...
(f) Question: Why does R. Akiva hold that a slave cannot sign?
(g) Answer #1: Because people will come to believe that the slave is a proper witness.
(h) Rejection: If so, also by relatives we should be concerned that people will think that relatives can testify!
(i) Answer #2: Rather, people will think that the slave is of proper lineage.
(j) Rejection: If so, a robber (who has proper lineage) should be able to sign - but R. Akiva only permits relatives, for they are valid witnesses in other cases!
(k) Answer #3: Rather, people will think that the slave was freed.

1. Likewise, a robber may not sign, lest people will think that he repented.
2. There is no concern by relatives - all know that he is a relative!

(l) (R. Zeira): They argue by a Get with at least 4 folds - but if the Get has only 3, all agree that the third witness must be (a valid witness or) a relative.
(m) Question (R. Zeira): A Mekushar Get needs 3 witnesses just as a standard Get needs 2 -why is a relative acceptable as the third witness?
(n) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We are more lenient by the third witness on a Mekushar Get, since it is only mid'Rabanan.

1. Support (Beraisa - ben Nanus): A Mekushar Get had 7 folds and 6 (valid) witnesses, or 6 folds and 5 witnesses, or 5 folds and 4 witnesses, or 4 folds and 3 witnesses; a slave signed to complete it. If she remarried, the children are not Mamzerim;
2. R. Akiva says, the children are Mamzerim.
3. If there are 3 folds, all agree that only (a valid witness or) a relative can sign.
4. Rav Yosef's text (of the last clause) in this Beraisa reads: If there are 3 folds, all agree that only a valid witness can sign.

(o) (R. Yochanan): Only 1 relative may sign, not 2, lest the Get be validated through 2 relatives and 1 valid witness.

1. Support (Rav Ashi): The above Beraisa in each case said that all witnesses except 1 are valid.

(p) (Abaye): We learn that the relative may sign in the beginning, middle or end, since the Mishnah did not specify where he must sign.
(q) (Abaye): A Mekushar Get may be validated from any 3 signatures, even if they are not consecutive.

1. If not - we would have fixed a place for relatives to sign, and even more would be allowed to sign.

(r) R. Ami would tell people (with a Mekushar Get lacking 1 witness) to have a slave from the market complete it.