Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava says that if a man gives the Get for his wife to his slave, whom he writes out as a gift to her - that she acquires the slave and the Get is valid.

(b) A walking Chatzer - cannot acquire for its owner?

(c) The woman is divorced when her Get is brought by her slave - because we are talking about a slave who is trussed up, and unable to walk.

(d) We cannot answer that it speaks when the woman received the Get whilst the slave was standing still - because Rava has already talk that 'a Chatzer that cannot acquire whilst it is walking, cannot acquire when it is standing still either.

(a) Rava repeats the same Halachah with regard to a Get which the husband placed in his Chatzer, before being Makneh her the Chatzer. We might have thought that the woman is not divorced ...

1. ... in the latter case (when the Get is in the Chatzer) even though she is in the former (when the Get is on the slave) - because there we might have decreed on account of 'Chatzer ha'Ba'ah le'Achar mi'Ka'an' (a Chatzer that comes afterwards).
2. ... in the former case, even though she is divorced in the latter case - because there we might have thought that we will decree a slave that is trussed up on account of one that is not.

(b) The case of 'Chatzer ha'Ba'ah le'Achar mi'Ka'an' is - where her husband placed her Get in somebody else's Chatzer, who subsequently sold it or gave it to her. The woman is not divorced, because it was not her husband who gave her the Get.

(a) Based on the assumption that Chatzer is derived from Yad, Abaye asks on Rava - that, since Chatzer is derived from Yad, just as the Yad of a woman can receive her divorce even against her will, her Chatzer must be able to do likewise, and the slave in our case cannot acquire against her will, seeing as she has the right to decline to accept the gift.

(b) Rav Shimi bar Ashi asks on Abaye from a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah (who is appointed by the woman), who can only be appointed with the woman's consent, even though Yad can acquire against her will? Abaye refutes this Kashya on the grounds that ...

1. ... he considers Rav Shimi bar Ashi's theory erroneous - because Shelichus is not derived from Yad (like Chatzer is), but from the Pasuk "ve'Shilach" 've'Shilchah'.
2. ... Shelichus le'Kabalah can also occur against her will - there where her father appointed a Sheli'ach to receive her Get.

4)

(a) Considering that it is possible to sever the horn from the cow, we ask why the Tana of our Mishnah requires the husband to give his wife the cow on whose horn the Get is written. We do not ask the same Kashya with regard to the Get that is written on the slave's hand - because it would be forbidden to cut it off, seeing that he is obligated to fulfill all the Mitzvos.

(b) We answer the initial Kashya - by quoting the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ... ve'Nasan Lah", implying that the sequence is writing and immediately giving, and not writing severing and giving (i.e. that nothing should need to interrupt between the writing of the Get and giving it to the woman).

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Kasav Lah Sefer Kerisus". If, as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili understands, "Sefer" is restrictive, and consequently "ve'Kasav Lah" comes to validate any surface for writing a Get, he will learn from "Sefer" - that a Get written on anything that has life or that is eaten is invalid.

(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - because the Torah writes "Sefer", and not "ba'Sefer".

(c) According to them - the word "Sefer", merely comes to teach that one should record the required wording of the Get on any surface.

(d) The Rabbanan, who do not need a Pasuk to include any surface (seeing as "Sefer" does imply a restriction) learn from "ve'Kasav Lah" that a woman can only be divorced through Kesivah (a Get), but not through money. We would otherwise have thought that she can - because of the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", which compares Gitin to Kidushin.

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the juxtaposition of "Sefer" to "Kerisus" - what the Rabbanan learn from "ve'Kasav" (that a woman can only be divorced through Kesivah [a Get], but not through money).

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus" - that the Get must sever all connections between husband and wife.

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns this from "Kares" 'Kerisus'. According to the Rabbanan - "Kareis" 'Kerisus' does not imply two D'rashos. (d) Based on the previous D'rashah, if a man says to his wife 'Here is your Get on condition that you ...

1. ... never go back to your father's house' - the divorce is not valid (because their relations will never be completely severed.
2. ... do not return to your father's house for thirty days' - it is, because in thirty days time, their relations will be completely severed.

(a) One cannot write a Get on Mechubar (something that is connected to the ground - because of the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ve'Nasan" and not 've'Kasav, ve'Katzatz ve'Nasan".

(b) The Tana Kama says - that a Get that is written on Mechubar is valid, provided it was Talush (detached) before it was signed and handed over.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah requires the Kesivah, as well as the Chasimah, to take place on Talush.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira invalidates a Get that is written on paper on which something was already written and erased, and one that was written on Diftera (which will be explained later) - because we suspect that the woman will erase any condition that her husband wrote on the Get, and because the parchment has already been written on, it will not be noticeable.

(b) The Chachamim - validate it.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and many other Amora'im explain that when, after invalidating a Get that is written on Mechubar, the Tana then goes on to teach us what the Din will be if it was - he is speaking when the husband only wrote the Tofeis (the secondary details), but left the Toref (the names of the husband, the wife and the date) blank, to fill in after it was detached.

(b) The author of our Mishnah, which requires the Kesivah of the Get to be on Talush, but not necessarily the Chasimah, must be Rebbi Elazar (who does not require Chasimah min ha'Torah).

(c) Despite the fact that the main part of the Get is the Toref, Rebbi Elazar nevertheless forbids writing the Tofeis on Mechubar - because he decrees the Tofeis on account of the Toref.

(a) Resh Lakish establishes the Seifa by the Chasimah (meaning that in the Seifa, the Tana comes to stress that the Chasimah was performed be'Talush) - in which case, the author will be Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Eidei Chasimah Karsi'. Consequently, it is the Chasimah which must be performed be'Talush.

(b) Resh Lakish explains ...

1. ... the Reisha ('Ein Kosvin') to mean - that one may not *write* the Toref on Mechubar, in case one comes to *sign* it bi'Mechubar.
2. ... the Seifa ('Kasvo bi'Mechubar ... ') - that even if he did write the Toref bi'Mechubar, it is still Kasher, as long as he had it signed be'Talush.

(a) If a man writes a Get on a holed flower-pot and gives it to his wife, she is divorced. We might have thought otherwise - because he may first break the flower-pot into pieces and give her the piece containing the Get (which would be Pasul because of "ve'Kasav ve'Nasan" and not 've'Kasav ve'Katzatz ve'Nasan'.

(b) According to Abaye, the same will apply to a Get that he wrote on a leaf that is growing in a holed flower-pot. Rava however, holds -that the Get is Pasul in case the husband decides to detach the leaf before handing the Get to his wife, which will be Pasul because, seeing as the flower-pot is holed, the leaf is considered joined to the ground, and he will have picked the Get from Mechubar, which is Pasul?

(c) The reason that Rava validates the Get that is written on the flower-pot, but invalidates the one that is written on a leaf is - because whereas in the latter case, he is likely to tear off the leaf before handing it to his wife, in the former, he is unlikely to break the flower-pot, spoiling a useful object (see Tosfos Rid, beginning of 22a).