Kvod Harav,
Our study group are having a lot of trouble understanding the discussion of minting (as opposed to engraving, where material is actually removed) in Gittin at the bottom of page 20a and the beginning of page 20b. When one presses down on part of the gold, it becomes compressed and exerts pressure on the rest of the metal which comes up into the cracks in the die, as Ravina seems to be suggesting- therefore such a Get should be kosher.
1) What is the sevara that a minted get isn't kosher? It seems impossible to press only the outside, because the letters will automatically be pushed up- one can't just compress gold it would seem.
2) In general, do we have two different kinds of minting here? (if so, what is the kind that is not kosher?) or is there in fact only one kind of minting and the argument is just on whether the pressure on the outside of the letters is the same as the force pushing the letters into the cracks in the die, or whether they are somehow distinct forces (and how would such a svara, if it is the svara of Rav Ashi, work?).
I apologise for the confusion- the more we are osek in this sugya the more confused we get. Any help would be very much appreciated!
Daniel Moskovich, Copenhagen, Denmark
(1) The reason to disqualify a minted Get is that it has not been written. We need the Get to be a written document and this writing even has certain specific requirements, such as "LiShmah". This is only true according to Rebbi Elazar who holds Eidei Mesirah Karti, as Rebbi Meir who holds Eidei Chasimah Karti does not require that the Get be written. He learns that when the Torah says "v'Kasav", it refers to the signing of the Get.
Consequently, according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, if the Get has been made through any process that creates the letters indirectly it is considered invalid, as it has not been written. This would include if a person poured ink on the Get so that the letters become recognisable as the blank space between the ink. Similarly, if a person chiseled a piece of wood in such a way that the letters of the Get were made to protrude from the surrounding part of the wood the Get would be invalid for this reason. Therefore the Gemara says that if a coin is minted in such a way that the words become legible through the area surrounding the letters becoming indented, the Get is invalid.
(2) There are two types of minting. One is that used for Dinrei Zahav, in which the form used has a hollow shape in it. The second is one in which the form protrudes. The latter is certainly acceptable for a Get and is referred to as Chok Yereichos. The former is referred as Chok Tochos and the Gemara assumes at first that it is not acceptable, since no action has taken place on the actual letter in its production. However, the Gemara proceeds to quote Ravina as having entertained the possibility that such a method of minting is acceptable for a Get since perhaps the downward pressure of the form causes the parts of the coin not subjected to this pressure to rise since the metal that is displaced is forced sideways. Rav Ashi rejected this suggestion, perhaps not because he disagreed with the facts, but because the letter is not substantially produced by this displacement, or alternatively because the metal which does become part of the letter is not at the top of the letter which is visible, and read.
Dov Freedman
Kvod HaRav,
Thank you very much for your informative response! I thought it over, but I'm still not clear though on how Rav Ashi can reject Ravina's suggestion. You write that Rav Ashi's sevara might be either:
1) The letters are not substantially produced by the displacement, OR
2) The metal which does become part of the letter is not at the top of the letter which is visible, and read.
I can't understand in either of these reasons where the distinction Rav Ashi is making lies between forces and materials. The letter is created only by the displacement Ravina talks about, so I can't understand reason 1. For reason 2, how can he separate between the metals? After all, the metal of the letter (including the metal at the top) is being forced up by the same pressure which forces the part of the metal which isn't the letter down, via the pressure of the metal to the sides. Another question that might make this clearer:
If we wrote a mirror image of the text with ink on thin paper so the text was visible on the other side, and then glued it to a board so the other side was the visible one, would such a Get be valid? Here also, the bottom of the ink rather than the top of it is being read- would such a distinction make a difference?
Thank you, and I apologise for bothering you again,
Daniel Moskovich
I will try to explain. The first reason was that although Rav Ashi agreed with Ravina that there is some affect on the letter itself he was still of the opinion that the affect was not significant enough to say that this can legitimately be considered that the letter has been written. This is because the main factor for the letter's protrusion is not due to any direct act on the letter but rather due to pressure around the letter. Even though there is some direct affect on the letter, since this is much less significant than the affect on the area around the letter, we do not consider that the letter has been written.
The second reason, was that the effect is not "read". In other words, although the letter is also produced by some metal being forced into the letter and causing a protrusion, the actual part of the letter that protrudes was also visible before. So in fact, the letter has not been produced by the compression, as we only consider the part of the letter that is seen and read.
We could offer a third explanation, that Rav Ashi held that even though the form causes a change in the letter, since this change is not the direct effect of the act of the pressure on the form and the coin, but rather an indirect effect, we do not consider this sufficient to say that an act of writing has taken place.
In your example the Get would be valid according to all the explanations, since the part that is visible has had a significant direct act done to it.
Dov Freedman