[18a - 33 lines; 18b - 46 lines]
1)[line 1]מנה ומאתים הוא דאית לה!MANEH U'MASAYIM HU D'IS LAH!- it is [no more than] 100 or 200 Zuz that she receives!
2)[line 3]לא אונןLO ONEN - he does not have the Halachic status of a mourner immediately following the death of a close relative (ANINUS: ARUSAH)
(a)There are seven relatives for whom one is obligated to arrange burial (understanding of RASHI of the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, Sotah 3a). These are his father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, and spouse. On the day upon which one of these relatives passes away, he has the Halachic status of an Onen according to Torah law. An Onen who is a Kohen may not perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash unless he is the Kohen Gadol (Vayikra 10:7, 21:1-4). Moreover, no Onen - not even a Kohen Gadol - may partake of Kodshim, Bikurim, or Ma'aser Sheni (Mishnah Bikurim 2:2).
(b)The Rabanan decreed that these prohibitions apply for a time after Aninus mid'Oraisa has passed. Tana'im and Rishonim disagree, however, as to the nature of this Gezeirah. There is an additional disagreement as to whether Aninus mid'Oraisa always applies for the entire day of death or if it applies for only part of the day under certain circumstances. With regard to these questions, Aninus may be broken into five time periods, as follows:
1.On the day of death, prior to the burial - all opinions agree that one is an onen mid'Oraisa.
2.On the day of death, following the burial - according to RASHI (Pesachim 90b DH ha'Onen, Zevachim 15b DH Onen) only Aninus mid'Rabanan applies. According to the RAMBAN (TORAS HA'ADAM) Aninus mid'Oraisa still applies.
3.The night following the death (according to Rashi in #2, before the burial; according to Ramban in #2, even after the burial) - Tana'im disagree as to whether Aninus is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan (Zevachim 99b). Most Rishonim rule that such Aninus is not mid'Oraisa but rather mid'Rabanan.
4.Following the day of death, if the body has not been buried - Aninus applies only mid'Rabanan (Zevachim 100b) until the end of the day of burial. Similarly, on the day of "Likut Atzamos" (when the remains of one's seven closest relatives are exhumed and re-buried), the Rabanan decreed that one is an Onen for that entire day.
5.The night following the day of burial - the Tana'im (Zevachim 100b) disagree as to whether or not Aninus mid'Rabanan applies. The Halachah follows the opinion which maintains that it does not.
(c)The Beraisa cited by our Gemara rules that a Kohen does not have the status of an Onen if his Arusah dies.
3)[line 3]ולא מטמא להV'LO MITAMEI LAH - he is subject to the usual prohibition forbidding a Kohen from becoming Tamei (TUM'AS KOHANIM)
(a)Kohanim are prohibited from coming into contact with most corpses. The exceptions to this rule are his mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister (with whom he shares at least a father, and who is an unmarried virgin), and wife (whom he was permitted to marry). A Kohen is obligated to become Tamei and handle the burial of these relatives (Vayikra 21:1-4).
(b)This prohibition applies to male Kohanim only. The daughter or wife of a Kohen may become Teme'ah whenever she wishes to.
(c)The Beraisa cited by our Gemara rules that a Kohen may not become Tamei if his Arusah dies.
4)[line 4]ולא מטמאה לוV'LO MITAM'AH LO- (a) she is not required to become Teme'ah [and take care of his burial, unlike a full-fledged wife (see above, entry #2:a)] (RASHI here); (b) she is not required to become Teme'ah [immediately before and during Pesach, Shavu'os, and Sukos, when every Jew, both male or female, must be careful to remain Tahor] (preferred explanation of RASHI to Yevamos 29b, RITVA); (c) This does not teach anything, but rather is included to parallel the aforementioned Halachah that a Kohen may not become Tamei for his Arusah (first explanation cited by RASHI to Yevamos 29b); (d) some do not have these words in their Girsa of the Beraisa (mentioned by RASHI to Sanhedrin 28b)
5)[line 4]אינו יורשהEINO YORSHAH - he does not inherit the estate of his wife (YERUSHAS HA'BA'AL: ARUSAH)
(a)One is entitled to inherit his wife's estate upon her death. Tana'im disagree as to whether this Halachah is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan in nature. Those who rule that it is mid'Rabanan maintain that according to Torah law her estate is inherited by her sons, her father, or her next-closest blood relative. The Rabanan transferred her inheritance to her husband through their ability of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" (the authority of Beis Din to declare any property ownerless; see Background to Gitin 55:46). Those who maintain that a husband inherits his wife mid'Oraisa derive it from a verse (Bamidbar 27:11) (Bava Basra 111b).
(b)The Beraisa cited by our Gemara rules that a husband does not inherit the estate of his Arusah.
6)[line 8]מגופה דמתנ' קא הדר ביהMI'GUFAH D'MASNISIN KA HADAR BEI- [changed his mind not due to his concern over the inability of a widowed Arusah to claim her Kesuvah, but rather] he retracted his objection due to [an inference from] the Mishnah itself
7)[line 14]לא שבקתןLO SHEVAKTAN- [she] would not allow me (lit. us)
8)[line 15]בעינא לאנסובי ביהBA'INA L'INSUVEI BEI- I need it [as proof that I have been divorced] to get [re]married
9)[line 16]למיקרעיהL'MIKRE'EI- to [partially] tear it
10)[line 16]אגביהAGABEI- upon it
11)[line 17]גיטא דנןGITA DENAN- this Get
12)[line 19]אטו כל דמגבי בבי דינא מגביATU KOL D'MAGVEI B'VEI DINA MAGVEI?- do all those who collect [their Kesuvah with a Get] do so in Beis Din? A message written on the Get stating that it was valid notwithstanding that which it was torn would not be acceptable unless it was notarized by Beis Din.
13)[line 20]ושחרורי עבדיםV'SHICHRUREI AVADIM- documents stating that Nochri slaves have been set free [at which point they become full-fledged Jewish converts]
14)[line 21]דייתיקיDAITIKEI- the Gemara (19a) explains the type of document to which this refers
15)[line 21]מתנהMATANAH- documents through which one gave another a gift
16)[line 21]ושובריןV'SHOVARIN- or receipts
17)[line 22]ונמלך עליהן שלא לתנןV'NIMLACH ALEIHEN SHE'LO LI'TNAN- and he changed his mind regarding them [and decided] not to give them
18)[line 25]המביא גטHA'MEVI GET - the agent that the husband has sent to divorce his wife (GET: SHALI'ACH L'HOLACHAH)
(a)A marriage can be dissolved in one of two ways. One is through the death of either spouse. The other is through the presentation of a "ספר כריתות" "Sefer Kerisus" (lit. document of severance) by the husband to his wife. This document must be placed into her possession ("ונתן בידה" "v'Nasan b'Yadah") in the presence of two witnesses (Devarim 24:1). In the language of Chazal, this document is called a Get (pl. Gitin).
(b)A Get may be written upon any surface, such as paper, parchment, shards of pottery, leaves (that will not wither), the hand of a slave, or the horn of a cow. It may not, however, be written upon that which is still growing from the ground.
(c)The main body of a Get consists of the words "Harei At Muteres l'Chol Adam" - "You are hereby free to [marry] whomever you wish." It must also contain the full names of both husband and wife (i.e., their first names along with those of their fathers), their places of residence (or birthplace, according to some), the location of the writing of the Get, and the date. If any of these details is missing or incorrect, then the Get is invalid (Gitin 34b, Yevamos 91b). The Get must be written Lishmah - with the express intent of using it to divorce the woman mentioned therein (20a).
(d)One need not hand the Get directly to his wife. He may appoint a Shali'ach (delegate) to bring the Get to her and deliver it in his stead. Such a Shali'ach is termed a "Shali'ach l'Holachah." A woman may also appoint a "Shali'ach l'Kabalah" to receive a Get from her husband (or his Shali'ach). In the case of a Shali'ach l'Kabalah, she becomes divorced as soon as the Shali'ach receives the Get. She may also appoint a Shali'ach to receive the Get for the purpose of bringing it to her. Such a "Shali'ach l'Hava'ah" does not act as her agent; she will not be divorced until she receives the Get from the Shali'ach l'Hava'ah.
(e)The Mishnah cited in our Gemara discusses a Shali'ach l'Holachah.
19)[line 26]לאלתרL'ALTAR- immediately; i.e., before a caravan would be able to encamp there and potentially drop a Get (Gitin 27b)
20)[line 27]כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויותKAN B'MAKOM SHEHA'SHAYAROS METZUYOS- here [in the Mishnah in Gitin where the Get is valid only when found immediately, the case is one in which the Get was lost] in a place frequented by caravans
21)[line 29]והוא שהוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחתV'HU SHE'HUCHZEKU SHNEI YOSEF BEN SHIMON B'IR ECHAS- and [the case is one] in which two people named Yosef ben Shimon (i.e., two people of the same name) have been established to live in the same city (namely, the one mentioned in the Get)
22)[line 31]דההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי דינא דרב הונאD'HA'HU GITA D'ISHTACHACH BEI DINA D'RAV HUNA- for [we learn from the case of] that bill of divorce found in the Beis Din of Rav Huna
23)[last line]בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהראB'SHAVIREI MASA D'AL RACHIS NAHARA- [that a certain man divorced his wife] in the [Babylonian] city of Shavirei located on the Rachis river (or canal). The name of this city may possibly mean a caravan station (related to "Shayara" - a caravan).
18b----------------------------------------18b
24)[line 1]חיישינן לשני שויריCHAISHINAN LI'SHNEI SHAVIREI- we must suspect that there are two places called Shavirei [and even though there is only person of this name in the one that is known to us, there is another by this name in the other city called Shavirei]
25a)[line 2]פוק עיין בהPUK AYEIN BAH- go and delve into this matter
b)[line 2]דלאורתא בעי מינך רב הונאDIL'URSA BA'I MINACH RAV HUNA- for this evening Rav Huna will ask you [about it]
26)[line 3]נפק, דק, ואשכחNAFAK, DAK, V'ASHKACH- he went out, researched, and found
27)[line 5]דכי מקום שהשיירות מצויות דמיD'CHI MAKOM SHEHA'SHAYAROS METZUYOS DAMI- it is akin to a place frequented by caravans [since there is a constant stream of people coming and going]
28)[line 6]פשיטPASHIT- he resolved
29)[line 7]עבד רבה עובדא בההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי כיתנא דפומבדיתא כשמעתיהAVAD RABAH UVDA B'HAHU GITA D'ISHTACHACH BEI KISNA D'PUMBEDISA K'SHEMAITEI- Rabah ruled in accordance with his ruling in the case of a Get found in the "flax house" in Pumbedisa (where he was Rosh ha'Yeshivah). The parentheses around the words "b'Hahu Gita d'Ishtachach" appear to have been added in error.
30)[line 9]היכא דמזבני כיתנאHEICHA D'MEZAVNEI KISNA- [the "flax house" refers to] where flax is sold
31)[line 11]היכא דתרו כיתנאHEICHA D'SARU KISNA- [the "flax house" refers to] where flax is soaked [in water in order to soften it before it is combed]
32)[line 13]רמיRAMI- posed a contradiction
33)[line 16]מודהMODEH- admits [that he divorced his wife and that the Get therefore belongs to her]
34)[line 22]דלא נהדרD'LO NEHADAR- that [Rebbi Zeira ruled that] it should not be returned
35)[line 24]רבה לא אמר כר' זיראRABAH LO AMAR K'REBBI ZEIRA- Rabah did not ask [a contradiction between the Mishnah in Gitin and the Beraisa in Gitin] like Rebbi Zeira [did, but rather posed a contradiction between the Mishnah in Gitin and our Mishnah]
36)[line 24]מתניתין אלימא ליה לאקשוייMASNISIN ALIMA LEI L'AKSHUYEI- [since] he considered it a stronger question when asked from a Mishnah
37)[line 28]ולעולם כדקיימא לן; לאלתרL'OLAM KED'KAIMA LAN; L'ALTER- and it is really as we established; [namely] immediately
38)[line 38]אבראיAVRAI- outside [of Beis Din]
39)[line 38]כגון...KEGON...- (the answer to the contradiction posed above is that) [that which our Mishnah teaches that a lost Get should be returned] is in a case...
40)[line 39]מעולם לא חתמנוME'OLAM LO CHASAMNU- we have never signed
41)[line 41]אתרמי שמא כשמאISRAMI SHEMA K'SHEMA- it happened that the name[s on the Get that was found] are the same as the name[s of the couple that lost their Get]
42)[line 43]דקא אמר, "נקב יש בו בצד אות פלונית"D'KA AMAR, "NEKEV YESH BO B'TZAD OS PELONIS"- [the husband] said, "There is a hole [in the parchment of the Get] next to a such-and-such letter"
43)[line 44]נקב בעלמאNEKEV B'ALMA- [if he said,] "There is a hole [somewhere in the Get]"
44)[line 45]סימנים אי דאורייתא אי דרבנןSIMANIM IY D'ORAISA IY D'RABANAN - Whether or Not a Non-Specific Identifying Mark may be Relied Upon Mid'Oraisa or only Mid'Rabanan
(a)There are times when one must offer a Siman - an identifying characteristic - in order to either establish ownership or prove identity. The two classic examples of one who is required to offer a Siman are he who wishes to recover his lost item, and a woman who wishes to prove that a corpse is that of her husband, thereby allowing her to remarry.
(b)Very general Simanim, such as the color of the lost item or clothes of the deceased, are certainly not enough to provide proof. Very specific Simanim (Simanim Muvhakim), such as the specific shape of a home-baked loaf of bread, or a highly unusual body feature, are certainly acceptable. It is unclear, however, if a Siman that lies between the two extremes is valid only mid'Rabanan or even mid'Oraisa.
(c)For most lost items, there is no practical difference between these two options. In the case of a lost Get, however, one may return it to the woman who claims to have lost it only if such Simanim are valid mid'Oraisa. This is because she can use the Get to remarry, and a Siman that is valid only mid'Rabanan is not sufficient to permit the prohibition against a married woman marrying another. Similarly, one may identify a dead man, thereby allowing his wife to remarry, only if Simanim are d'Oraisa. (See also Insights to Yevamos 120:1.)
(d)A hole next to a specific letter in a Get is a Siman Muvhak. The general Siman of a hole somewhere in the Get, however, is general enough that it is subject to this question. Our Gemara suggests that the reason why Rav Ashi requires that the Siman offered by the husband be a hole next to a specific letter is that he is unsure of whether Simanim are d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan. RASHI explains that it could be that Rav Ashi was certain that such Simanim are valid only mid'Rabanan. Since he would have ruled the same way even if he was merely unsure, however, our Gemara cannot prove that he was any more than unsure.