Previous daf

1)

(a) Now that it is possible to cancel the Shelichus of a Get - it will make no difference whether he intercepts the Sheli'ach ...

1. ... personally, or whether he sends a Sheli'ach after him to do so.
2. ... or whether he goes directly to his wife and informs her that the Shelichus is canceled.

(b) Neither will it make any difference whether he informs his wife directly that he has canceled the Shelichus, or whether he sends her a Sheli'ach to do so.

(a) All that we just learned applies after Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken's Takanah. Before the Takanah - he was even permitted to form a Beis-Din and cancel the Shelichus without the Sheli'ach or the woman knowing about the cancellation.

(b) Raban Gamliel instituted this Takanah - because he was worried that the Sheli'ach, not knowing about the cancellation, will hand the Get to the woman, who, not knowing about it either, will use the Get to go and remarry (when in fact, she is still married), and all her children from her second husband will be Mamzerim.

(a) The Tana writes 've'Higi'a ba'Sheli'ach', intimating that he met him by chance (rather than 've'Higi'o' [meaning that he made a point of catching up with him]) - to teach us that he fact that he did not make any effort to catch up with him, does not mean that he is merely pulling his wife's leg; but that, in spite of his casual approach, he really meant to cancel the Get.

(b) And he found it necessary to add the case ...

1. ... 'O she'Shalach Acharav Sheli'ach' - to teach us that even though both of them are Sheluchim, the second Shelichus has the power to negate the first one.
2. ... 'Adam Hu Eitzel Ishto' - that even if he went straight to his wife (and not to the Sheli'ach), he is still not pulling her leg.
3. ... 'O she'Shalach Etzlah Sheli'ach' - that even then, when he might not really care so much for the Sheli'ach's time and effort, he still means it seriously, and is not pulling her leg.

(c) He needed to teach us the Seifa 'Im mi'she'Higi'ah Get le'Yadah, Shuv Eino Yachol Le'vatlah' - even in a case where he had made every effort to cancel the Get before it reached her hand, in which case we might have said that, due to the revelation that he really had intended to cancel it, when he does informs her of the cancellation, it should take effect retroactively.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa differentiates between the Lashon 'Bateil Hu' and 'I Efshi Bo' on the one hand, and 'Pasul Hu' and 'Eino Get' on the other. The former pair is considered a valid cancellation - because both Leshonos imply the future tense (pertaining to the Shelichus), following the regular cancellation process; whereas the latter pair are not - because both Leshonos imply that he is coming to declare the Get invalid (when really, it is perfectly Kasher), rather than the Shelichus.

(b) Rabah bar Avuhah says that if, after receiving a gift, the recipient declares 'Matanah Zu Mevuteles', 'Tibatel' or 'I Efshi Bah', the gift stands - because these Leshonos imply the future tense, and, having acquired the gift, it is not possible to become rid of it without a Kinyan; whereas if he says 'Beteilah Hi', the gift is indeed canceled - because it implies the past tense, and what he is saying is that he did not accept it in the first place.

(c) In the latter case, despite the fact that the gift is now in his domain, the gift is canceled, because, since 'Beteilah Hi' implies the past tense - we apply the principle that (as far as money matters are concerned) 'Hoda'as Ba'al-Din ke'Me'ah Eidim Dami', and no witnesses are required.

(d) Abaye reconciles this apparent discrepancy (that by Get, 'Bateil Hu' implies the future, whereas by Matanah, 'Beteilah Hi' implies the past) - by pointing out that 'Bateil Hu' really has a dual meaning; it can mean both the past and the future, in which case we take for granted that whoever uses the Lashon, intends to use it in a way that is effective.

5)

(a) Abaye say that a Sheli'ach Matanah is like a Sheli'ach ha'Get - with regard to 'Holech La'av ki'Z'chi' (meaning that, in spite of the principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', if someone says to his Sheli'ach 'Holech Matanah li'P'loni', the recipient has not yet acquired it, and the donor is able to retract).

(b) Ravina found Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak leaning on the door-post, seemingly flummoxed by the She'eilah whether 'Bateil' will be effective without adding 'Hu'. The outcome of this She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.

(c) The difference between the Lashon 'Get Zeh Lo Yo'il', 'Lo Yatir' ... 'Lo Yegaresh', 'Yehei Cheres', 'Yehei ke'Cheres' on the one hand, and 'Get Zeh Eino Mo'il', 'Eino Matir' ... 'Eino Megaresh', 'Cheres Hu', 'ke'Cheres Hu' is - that the former are all effective (because they imply the future), whereas the latter are not (because they imply the past).

(d) Ravina asked Rav Acha Brei de'Rava (or the latter asked Rav Ashi) what the Din will be if he said 'Harei Hu Cheres'. He replied with a straightforward proof from Hekdesh - where 'Harei Hu Hekdesh' is effective (as it also is by Hefker), proving that 'Harei Zeh' always implies the future.

(a) We ask whether, once the husband has canceled the Get, he is permitted to use it at a later stage. The basis of the She'eilah is - whether he cancels the Shelichus or the Get (which is possible as long as it has not been sent - see Tosfos DH 'Rav Sheishes').

(b) Rav Nachman permits him to do so. Rav Sheishes - forbids it.

(c) We rule - like Rav Nachman.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that if a man gives a woman money betrothing her after thirty days, and then cancels the Kidushin - the Kidushin is canceled.

(b) Despite our ruling like Rebbi Yochanan in this case, and the Kidushin is Bateil, we nevertheless rule like Rebbi Nachman, who maintains that the Get is not Bateil - because in the case of Kidushin, it is not the money that he cancels (which in fact, can be used again for the same purpose), only the Kidushin, which is no more than words. Likewise here, he is canceling the Shelichus, and not the Get (which, like the money, can be used again).

(a) Before Raban Gamliel's Takanah, it was possible to cancel the Get in front of a Beis-Din. According to Rav Nachman, the Beis-Din here may comprise two people - whereas Rav Sheishes requires three.

(b) Rav Nachman maintains here that two people are also considered a Beis-Din - because they are not issuing rulings, only imparting information, whereas elsewhere, where they are issuing rulings, and a majority opinion is generally sought, three are required.