Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that even if the man threw a Get to his wife in the bed that they were sharing, she would not be divorced. Rava restricts this to a bed that belongs to him, but should it belong to her, she would be divorced, and this is substantiated by Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa. The problem with this ruling is - that this would prove that the vessels belonging to a purchaser acquire on behalf of their owner even when they are lying in the domain of the seller (this will be explained further shortly).

(b) We answer that Rava is speaking about a bed that is higher than ten Tefachim - which is considered an independent domain.

(c) Even though the feet of the bed are below ten Tefachim - the owner is not fussy about them, and does not mind his wife using that space.

(a) We also learned in our Mishnah that if the man threw a Get into his wife's basket, she is divorced. Here too, we ask the same Kashya that we asked previously (that this would mean that the vessels belonging to the purchaser can acquire in the domain belonging to the seller) - something which we avoid at all costs, because it is an Machlokes in Bava Basra which cannot be proven from a Mishnah or Beraisa.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya therefore establish the Mishnah when her basket is hanging from her. When ...

1. ... Resh Lakish says 'Keshurah Af-al-Pi she'Einah Teluyah', he means that she will acquire the Get even if the basket was dragging along the ground, whereas the previous Amora'im are speaking specifically when it is both tied to her and suspended from her body.
2. ... Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes our Mishnah when the basket is hanging from between her thighs - he means that she is sitting down, and her husband is not fussy if she uses the space where she is seated for her personal use.
3. ... Rav Mesharshaya b'Rav Dimi establishes our Mishnah by a husband who is a basket salesman - he means that he will therefore not be fussy if she leaves her basket in the room where he keeps his baskets (the case in our Mishnah).

(c) Rava explains Rebbi Yochanan, who answers 'Makom Cheikah Kanuy Lah, Makom Kelasah Kanuy Lah' - to mean that a man is generally not fussy about the space that his wife uses for her own personal use.

(d) The Beraisa supports this explanation. We prove this from the fact that it includes all things that are like a basket (which specifically comes to include things like bags) - from the fact that the Beraisa adds this phrase, from which we see that anything that she uses regularly is included, for the reason that Rava suggests.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that, if a man handed his wife a Get instructing her to accept a Sh'tar Chov or if she found it behind him, and upon reading it, she discovered that it was a Get - she is not divorced.

(b) For the Get to be valid, he must say - 'Hey Gitech' (Here is your Get!' [even if he says it after she has read it]).

(c) If he placed it in her hand whilst she was asleep, and then, when she awoke, she read it and discovered that it was a Get - she is not divorced either, for the same reason (until he says 'Hey Gitech!').

(a) The problem with the second case in our Mishnah (when the woman picked up the Get from behind her husband after he said 'Hey Gitech') is - that, as Rava already taught us 'T'li Gitech me'al Gabei Karka, Lo Amar K'lum' (and we initially think that she picked up the Get from the ground).

(b) We amend this to mean that the Get was actually stuck in his belt behind him and she took it from there. This is better than picking it up from the ground - because it speaks when he bent his thigh to help her take it (and is included in 've'Nasan be'Yadah'.

(c) Our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi in a Beraisa. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is more stringent. According to him, in all the cases in our Mishnah - the husband must first take the Get back before saying 'Hey Gitech!', for the Get to be valid.

(d) Rebbi and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar repeat the same Machlokes regarding the case when he placed the Get in her hand when she was asleep. Even though they argue in the case of ...

1. ... 'Kinsi Sh'tar Chov Zeh' (and 'Shalfaso me'Achorav'), they nevertheless need to argue in the case of 'Nasnah be'Yadah ve'Hi Yesheinah' - to teach us that Rebbi is lenient, not only in a case where the woman is in a state to be divorced, but even in a case where she is not.
2. ... 'Nasnah be'Yadah ve'Hi Yesheinah', they nevertheless need to argue in the case of 'Kinsi Sh'tar Chov Zeh ... ' - to teach us that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is stringent, not only in a case where the woman is not in a state to be divorced, but even in a case where she is.

(a) Rava says that if a man writes a Get and gives it to his wife's slave whilst he is awake, she is not divorced - because the Get is now guarded with the knowledge of the Eved, rather than with the woman's knowledge.

(b) We object to the other half of his statement 'that if he places it in the slave's hand whilst he is asleep, she is divorced', on the grounds that a slave is a walking Chatzer. Rava said that whatever cannot acquire when it is walking, cannot acquire even when it is standing or sitting. In that case, he will not acquire when he is sleeping either.

(c) Rava said that the Get is valid - in a case where the Eved is bound (see Tosfos 21a DH 've'Hilchesa').

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if a man throws his wife a Get and it lands ...

1. ... close(r) to him - she is not divorced.
2. ... close(r) to her - she is.
3. ... Mechtzah al Mechtzah - Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes.

(b) The same will apply to a Sh'tar Kidushin that a man throws to a woman and to the money that the debtor throws to the creditor (at his request) into the Reshus ha'Rabim. The ramifications of the latter case should it fall close(r) to ...

1. ... the creditor are - that he is considered as having repaid his loan. Consequently, if the money should then get lost, he will be Patur from paying again.
2. ... the debtor are - that he has not yet paid and, should the money then get lost, he will remain obligated to pay.
3. ... Mechtzah al Mechtzah - then it is a Safek, and he pays half.

(a) Rav explains 'close to her' to mean within her four Amos and 'close to him', within his four Amos. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' to mean that they were both standing in the same four Amos, and the Get landed in between them. When we ask 'Let's see who got there first', we mean to ask - that whoever arrived first at that spot acquires those four Amos (and not the second one).

(b) The problem that we have with the suggestion that they both arrived simultaneously - is that this clashes with the principle 'I Efshar Letzamtzem' (two people cannot possibly do something at precisely the same moment [though it is unclear why we cannot say that in spite of the principle, they did not know who arrived first).

(c) So Rav Kahana tries to establish the case when there were exactly eight Amos between them, and the Get landed - half in his Reshus and half in hers.

(d) The problem with this answer is - that when all's said and done, the Get has not left his domain and she is not divorced?

9)

(a)

1. Rebbi Yochanan interprets 'Karov Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean closer to him or closer to her, even if it is a hundred Amos away.
2. Rav Sh'man bar Aba elaborates. Quoting Rebbi Yochanan, he explains 'Karov Lo' and 'Karov Lah' to mean - whichever is better able to guard the Get. Consequently, 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah' means that either both of them or neither of them (on their own - see Tosfos) are able to guard it.

(b) When they informed Rebbi Yochanan that Rebbi Yonasan (who lived in Eretz Yisrael) explained the Mishnah in the same way - he commented on their Babylonian colleagues depth of understanding.

(c) He refered to him as 'Bavla'i' - because Rebbi Yonasan moved from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan's explanation has the support of a Beraisa. Initially, we explain the statement there 'Kol she'Karov Lah mi'Lo u'Ba Kelev ve'Natlo, Einah Megureshes' to mean - that even though the Get fell close to her, the moment a dog takes it, it becomes nullified.

(b) The problem with this interpretation is - that if the Get was valid when it fell close to her, why should it become invalid when a dog took it? Since when is a woman obligated to guard her Get against dogs and thieves? So what the Beraisa really means to say is - that as long as the Get fell close enough to her to guard it against dogs, it is valid.

(c) Shmuel's explanation of our Mishnah is the most radical of all. After telling Rav Yehudah that, by 'Karov Lah', the Tana means that she can bend down and pick it up without having to move from where she is standing, he added that one should not even rely on that, but make certain that the Get actually reached her hands (or her domain), before validating it.

(d) Rav Mordechai told Rav Ashi that such a case occurred (where the Get fell close to her), where there was a Yavam, and the Beis-Din ruled - that she should perform Chalitzah (even though she was legally divorced).

(a) With reference to our Mishnah, Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the Din of 'Karov Lah' to Gitin - because it does not require her Da'as.

(b) Our Mishnah writes ...

1. ... 've'Chein le'Inyan Kidushin' - because the Torah compares Kidushin to Gitin with the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah".
2. ... 've'Chein le'Inyan ha'Chov ... ' (bearing in mind that to establish our Mishnah when the creditor said 'Z'rok Li Chovi ve'Hipater' would be too obvious for the Tana to insert) - because it is speaking when he said 'Z'rok Li Chovi be'Toras Gitin'.

(c) The Chidush of the Tana is - that he cannot later claim that he was merely pulling his leg.

(a) Rav Chisda rules that if the woman is holding the Get, but the man still has the string to which it is attached in his hand - she is divorced, provided he is unable to pull it out of her hands.

(b) If he is able to pull the Get out of her hands, she is not divorced - because the Torah writes "K'risus" (and as long as he has jurisdiction over the Get, it cannot be considered 'K'risus').

(a) Rav Yehudah states that if a husband places a Get into his wife's sloping hand, she is not divorced, in spite of the fact that the Get will fall within her four Amos anyway - because he is speaking when the Get never reached the ground (e.g. it got burned up [by a stray flame]).

(b) Rebbi Elazar asked - whether when Chazal instituted the Din of the four Amos that surround a person acquire on his behalf, they incorporated the air that serves those four Amos or not.

(c) We ...

1. ... try to resolve his She'eilah from Rav Chisda's ruling - because if they did, then why, in the previous case, does Rav Chisda rule that she is not divorced?
2. ... establish Rav Chisda - when she is standing in a location when, the moment the Get fell out of her hand, it was due to get lost (e.g. beside a river [or a fire that had been burning there before]), in which case, even Rebbi Elazar will concede that the air does not acquire.