Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that if a man throws a Get to his wife, who is standing on the roof, she is divorced as soon as the Get reaches the airspace of the roof. The problem with this ruling is - that, as we just explained, air which does not automatically protect the Get, cannot acquire, and the air on an open roof does not protect the Get from the wind. Consequently, if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or a shower of rain erased the writing before it landed, the woman ought not to be divorced.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by a roof with a Ma'akeh (a parapet - and the Get is guarded by the walls of the parapet even whilst it is in the air). Ula bar Menashe Mishmeih de'Avimi establishes it even by a roof without walls - when the Get has already fallen to within three Tefachim of the roof, in which case it is considered as if it was resting on the roof.

(c) The Tana issues the same ruling in to the reverse case (when the husband threw the Get from the roof to the Chatzer, in which case his wife is divorced as soon as the Get leaves the airspace of the roof. The ramifications of this ruling are - if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or it was burned by a fire.

(d) To explain why the woman divorced, even though it initially appears that the airspace of the Chatzer is not guarded, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel and a number of other Amora'im establish the Seifa - when the outer walls of the Chatzer are higher than those of the roof.

(a) Someone who throws an object on Shabbos from one Reshus ha'Rabim to another Reshus ha'Rabim via a Reshus ha'Yachid, is Chayav according to Rebbi - because he holds 'K'lutah K'mi she'Hunchah Damya' (once an object enters the airspace of a Reshus, it is as if it was resting in that Reshus).

(b) According to the Chachamim - he is Patur (because they hold 'K'lutah La'av K'mi she'Hunchah Damya').

(c) Rebbi Aba asked Ula whether the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi, who holds 'K'lutah k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya' - to which he replied that the Rabbanan only argue with Rebbi with regard to Shabbos, but when it comes to Gitin, they agree with him that she is divorced, provided the Get is guarded.

(d) Regarding the ruling in the Seifa, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah when the Get was blotted out or burned as it was descending but not on its ascent - because he can only be considered as having given her the Get if it was already descending (because we consider it as having landed), but not whilst it is still ascending.

(a) The Tana rules that even if a dog subsequently caught the Get and ran off with it, or it was burned by a fire, once it leaves the airspace of the roof, the woman is divorced. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah restricts the case of when the Get is burned by fire - to where the Get arrived in the airspace of the Chatzer before the fire was did.

(b) Because - if the fire arrived in the Chatzer first, the Get would not be destined to land in the Chatzer, and the woman would not be divorced.

(a) When Rav Chisda says 'Reshuyos Chalukos le'Gitin', he means - that if a husband lends his wife one area for her Get, we do not assume that he has lent her an adjoining one.

(b) Rava tried to pinpoint the source for Rav Chisda's Din as the Reisha of our Mishnah (where the man threw the Get to his wife on the roof). The Tana cannot be speaking when both the roof and the Chatzer belong to ...

1. ... her - because then, the Get would not need to reach the airspace of the roof for her to be divorced.
2. ... him - because then, she would not be divorced, even if it did.

(c) The case in the Reisha must therefore be when the Chatzer belongs to him, and the roof, to her.

(d) Based on the fact that Rava does not want to establish the Seifa by his roof and her Chatzer (so that the Reisha and the Seifa should not speak in different cases), he establishes both the Reisha and the Seifa when the entire area really belongs to the husband; the Reisha speaks when he lent her the roof and the Seifa, when he lent her the Chatzer (proving Rav Chisda's theory, that a person who lends someone one location does not automatically lent him an adjoining one).

6)

(a) Rava lists three Dinim that are peculiar to Gitin. We have already learned that although the Rabbanan maintain with regard to Shabbos 'K'lutah La'av k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya', they will agree with Rebbi that 'K'lutah La'av k'Mi she'Hunchah Damya' in our case, where the Get is guarded. Rav Chisda says - that if someone threw something from the Reshus ha'Rabim to on top of a hundred Amah post that is stuck in the ground in a Reshus ha'Yachid - he is Chayav (because the Reshus ha'Yachid goes up to the sky).

(b) If however, a man threw his wife a Get on to the same post (even if it belonged to her) she would not be divorced - because, even though it is considered a Reshus ha'Yachid regarding Shabbos, it is not considered a guarded place regarding Gitin.

(c) The third Din concerns two adjoining roofs. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbids someone who is standing on his rooftop on Shabbos, to collect water from his neighbor's adjoining rooftop - because the same as the houses to which the roofs belong are considered different domains (without an Eiruv), so too, are the roofs.

(d) Rava says that although regarding Shabbos, they are considered two different domains - they are not considered different domains regarding Gitin, when both roofs belong to the husband. We do not apply the principle cited above, that someone who lends one area, does not necessarily lend the other. Because as far as two adjoining roofs are concerned, a man does not tend to be fussy about someone who borrows one of his roofs using the other one.

7)

(a) Abaye said that if a man throws a Get from his outer Chatzer to his wife's inner one, assuming that the walls of his Chatzer are higher than hers - she is divorced, because her Chatzer is duly guarded by his.

(b) The Din in the equivalent case of two boxes, if the man throws a Get into the inner box that belongs to her and whose walls are lower that his is - that she is not divorced.

(c) The Din of the two boxes differs from that of the two Chatzeiros - because the walls of a box (unlike those of a Chatzer) are made to contain and not to guard.

(d) She is not divorced in the case of the two boxes only because the Get did not rest in the box. If it did, this would not be a case of 'the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the seller' (which is subject to a Machlokes Amora'im, as we learned earlier) - because Abaye is speaking in a case when the outer box does not have a base, in which case her box in lying on the ground (of her Chatzer or of a domain which authorizes her to acquire in it).

(a) Beis Shamai validates a Get Yashan - when the couple secluded themselves between the writing of the Get and its handing over.

(b) Beis Hillel invalidate it.

(c) The basis of the Machlokes is whether the Chachamim issued a decree - that, should the woman have children before her husband actually gives her the Get, people might say that the Get preceded the children (giving them a bad name).

(d) In the event that she married with a Get Yashan, Rebbi Aba Amar Shmuel permits the woman to remain with her second husband. In the second Lashon, he is even more lenient - there he holds that even if she was only divorced, she is permitted to remarry Lechatchilah.

(a) The Tana says - 'Kasav le'Shum Malchus she'Einah Hogenes, le'Shum Malchus Madai, le'Shum Malchus Yavan, le'Binyan ha'Bayis, le'Churban ha'Bayis' - Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... '.

(b) The Get under discussion is being written - in Bavel.

(c) All of these cases invalidate the Get - because the Chachamim required the relevant Malchus to be inserted in the Get.

(d) The Tana of the Mishnah says that if a Sofer wrote a different location than where the Get was written or than where the witnesses signed (see Tosfos 80a. DH 'Ki') - 'Teitzei mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh ... '.

(a) She also requires a Get from both men. She is not entitled to claim her Kesuvah or any of the Tena'ei Kesuvah.

(b) The children that she subsequently bears from either man are Mamzeirim - those of the second are Mamzeirim d'Oraysa; those of the first, Mamzeirim de'Rabbanan.

(c) If either husband is a Kohen - he is not permitted to bury her. (d) Nor do they retain the right to receive whatever she finds or produces, or to nullify her vows.

(a) She will ...

1. ...become Pasul to marry a Kohen (even should both men die) if she is a bas Yisrael - because she is a Zonah.
2. ... lose her right to eat Ma'aser, if she is a bas Levi and Terumah de'Rabbanan, if she is a bas Kohen - on the basis of a K'nas (a penalty for being careless).

(b) When the Tana says that neither set of children will inherit her Kesuvah in the event of her death, he is referring, not to her Kesuvah (which she is not entitled anyway, as we just learned, but to the 'Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin' (the extra portion which *her* sons normally receive over and above the regular Kesuvah).

(c) If both men die without children, and each one has a brother - then each brother is obligated to perform Chalitzah.

(d) The brother of the second husand requires Chalitzah - in case people suspect that her first husband divorced her and the second one married her legally?