QUESTIONS: Rebbi Meir maintains that mid'Oraisa a Get sent to a woman or to an Eved is not valid when the sender changes his mind before it reaches the intended recipient. RASHI (DH Chazarah) explains that since the sender no longer wants to give a Get, the Shali'ach who delivers the Get is no longer considered the Shali'ach of the sender. Consequently, mid'Oraisa there is no Gerushin (or Shichrur) because the Torah requires that the Get be given from the hands of the husband or his Shali'ach into the hands of the woman (or the Eved), and here the person who delivered the Get was neither the one who wrote the Get nor his Shali'ach.

(a) Why does Rashi write that the Get is not valid because of "v'Nasan b'Yadah" (Devarim 24:1) -- because the husband did not put it into her hand? Even if the husband himself were to give a Get to his wife without intending to divorce her (but rather for her to look at and give back to him, for example), the Get would not be valid because a Get is valid only when it is given willingly by the one who wrote it with intention to be Makneh it to his wife (or Eved). In this case, where the Shelichus was repealed and the person carrying the Get delivered it to the woman or to the Eved against the will of the husband or the master, the Get will not be valid because there is no Da'as Makneh (intention of the giver), and not because of the verse which requires "v'Nasan b'Yadah."

(b) The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa mentions only those similarities between Shichrur and Get which do not also apply to Kidushin. Why, then, does the Beraisa mention the retraction of the document ("Chazarah")? If the man sends a Shtar Kidushin to a woman and then changes his mind before it reaches her hands, she does not become Mekudeshes! The Gemara answers that if the husband makes a Shali'ach to give his wife a get against her will ("Ba'al Korchah"), he may change his mind, but in the case of Kidushin there is no such thing as a Shali'ach bringing Kidushin against the will of the woman (Rashi, DH b'Shelichus).

What does the Halachah of giving a Get "Ba'al Korchah" have to do with the Halachah of Chazarah? The Beraisa also could have mentioned that Shichrur Eved is similar to Get Ishah with regard to the laws of writing it on something that is "Mechubar." Although these laws of "Mechubar" apply to a Shtar Kidushin as well, the Beraisa still needs to mention "Mechubar" because a man who sends his wife a Get against her will must also be careful that it is not written on something that is "Mechubar."

(c) Why does the Beraisa not mention the similarity between a Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved that both may be sent against the will of the recipient, which does not apply to Shtar Kidushin? (TOSFOS, DH b'Shelichus)

ANSWER: According to Rashi (see Insights to 9:4), the reason why the Beraisa does not mention similarities between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved that are Halachos mid'Oraisa is that it is obvious that a Shtar Shichrur is similar to a Get Ishah with regard to all of the Halachos mid'Oraisa, since the laws of Shtar Shichrur are derived from Get Ishah through the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah, Lah." As mentioned earlier, this explains why the Gemara initially assumed that the Beraisa is justified in listing the similarity between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved of Chazarah, since this similarity has nothing to do with the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah, Lah," but rather it depends upon other considerations (i.e. whether it is a Chov or a Zechus to the recipient). Why, then, does the Gemara eventually reject the answer of "Pesulim d'Oraisa Lo Katani" for the reason that the Beraisa lists the Halachah of Chazarah, if there is a good reason for why that Halachah is mentioned in the Beraisa even though it is a Halachah d'Oraisa?

According to Rashi, the answer is that the Gemara ascertained that the reason why the Beraisa lists the Halachah of Chazarah is not in order to teach that Shichrur of an Eved is a Chov to the Eved. Rather, the Beraisa is interested only in teaching Halachos that affect Shichrur and Get because of the way that the Shtar Shichrur and the Shtar of Get Ishah must be written, signed, or validated. The fact that the master can change his mind when he sends a Shtar Shichrur has nothing to do with the way the Shtar is written. Chazarah depends on an external factor -- that the result of the Shtar is not wholly beneficial to the Eved.

Therefore, the Gemara concluded that the similarity of Chazarah means something else entirely. It means that if the master sends a Shtar Shichrur to his Eved and changes his mind before the Eved receives it, even if the master later (after the Shtar is handed to the Eved) decides that he wants to free his Eved and he wants the Shtar to be valid, it still does not take effect. The reason for this is the Halachah that the master or his Shali'ach must give the Shtar to the Eved; the Eved cannot take it for himself from atop the ground. This Halachah is derived from the words "v'Nasan b'Yadah," as Rashi says later (24a, DH Lo Amar Klum). Although the verse says "v'Nasan" only in the Parshah of Get Ishah, the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah, Lah" teaches that a Shtar Shichrur must also be given to the Eved by the master (and not taken by the Eved). This is why the Gemara asks that the Beraisa should not list the Halachah of Chazarah; that Halachah is also derived through "Lah, Lah."

This also explains why the Gemara earlier (9b) does not ask why the Beraisa does not mention the Halachah that an Eved cannot take the Shtar for himself but it must be given to him, like a Get Ishah. The Gemara asks only that the Beraisa should mention the Halachos of "Lishmah" and "Mechubar." According to this explanation, the Gemara cannot ask why the Beraisa leaves out the Halachah that the master must give the Get to the Eved, because the Beraisa indeed mentions that Halachah (in the form of the Halachah of Chazarah), as the Gemara concludes!

This answers the first question as well. Why does Rashi write that when the master changes his mind the Shichrur is not valid because of the requirement of "v'Nasan"? He should explain that it is not valid because the master does not want to free his Eved! The answer is, as explained above, that the Gemara understands that the case in the Beraisa is where the master consents to the Shichrur after it has already reached the hands of the Eved. In such a case, where the master does have intention for the Shichrur to be valid, the only reason the Shichrur is not valid is because of "v'Nasan," since the Get Shichrur was not given by the master (or by someone appointed by him as his Shali'ach) to the Eved.

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not mention laws which do not apply to Kidushin. The logic behind this is that if the Halachah applies to Kidushin, the reason it applies is because of the Hekesh which compares Gitin to Kidushin. Any Halachah which can be derived through that Hekesh may also be applied to Shichrur through the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah, Lah," and therefore the Beraisa would not have to teach that this Halachah applies to Shichrur.

The Gemara then asks that the Halachah of Chazarah does apply to Kidushin and yet the Beraisa still mentions it. It applies to Kidushin because it is inherently a Chov for a woman to become married, since marriage prohibits her to everyone else. Therefore, the Shtar Kidushin takes effect only when it reaches the hands of the woman. When the husband sends a Shtar Kidushin with a Shali'ach and he changes his mind before it reaches the hands of the woman, and then he changes his mind again and wants the Kidushin to take effect, the Kidushin will not be valid because it was not given to her by the man (or by his appointed Shali'ach), and a Shtar Kidushin has the requirement of "v'Nasan" just like a Get, because of the Hekesh. Accordingly, the Gemara asks, why does the Beraisa mention that the Halachah of Chazarah applies to Shichrur if it is obvious? Any law which is derived through the Hekesh to apply to Kidushin is also learned through the Gezeirah Shavah to apply to Shichrur!

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa intends to teach that when the husband appoints a Shali'ach to give a Get to his wife (or the master appoints a Shali'ach to give a Shtar Shichrur to his Eved) Ba'al Korchah, against her will, and then he changes his mind before it reaches her, and then he changes his mind again -- after she receives it -- and decides that he does want it to take effect against her will, the Get does not take effect. This is a Halachah that does not apply to Kidushin (since he cannot make Kidushin take effect against the woman's will). Therefore, the Beraisa finds it necessary to mention that this Halachah nevertheless is derived from Get Ishah to Shichrur Eved, even though it is not derived from Get Ishah to Kidushin through the Hekesh.

One may ask, however, why should the Gemara assert that this Halachah does not apply to Kidushin? This seems to be the same Halachah of "v'Nasan" which does apply to Kidushin when the man wants the Kidushin to take effect with the woman's consent. As such, it is a Halachah which applies to Kidushin.

The answer is that the Halachah of "v'Nasan" which applies to a Get Shichrur given Ba'al Korcho, against the will of the Eved, could not have been inferred from the Halachah of "v'Nasan" which applies when a Kidushin is given with the consent of the woman. These two Halachos are two different levels of the requirement of "v'Nasan." The reason for this is that "v'Nasan" does not require the master to physically hand the Shtar to the Eved. Rather, even if he does something that causes the Shtar to enter the domain of the Eved (or if the husband causes the Get to enter the domain of his wife), it is considered a fulfillment of "v'Nasan." (See TOSFOS 77b, DH v'Teizil, and RASHI there, DH Harei Zu Chazakah.)

When a Shtar Shichrur is delivered to the Eved without the consent of the master, and then the master decides that he wants to free his Eved and the Eved consents to make a Kinyan on the Shtar Shichrur, it is clearly the Eved who is instigating the Kinyan by wanting to acquire the Shtar Shichrur. Therefore, it is not considered "v'Nasan." One might have thought, however, that when the master decides that he wants the Shichrur to take effect against the will of the Eved, even though the Shichrur takes effect only when it enters the domain of the Eved and the Eved acquires it against his will, that this is considered as though the master instigated the Kinyan (and has fulfilled the requirement of "v'Nasan"). The Beraisa therefore teaches that the Shichrur is not valid because it does not fulfill the requirement of "v'Nasan" (since the master did not physically bring it into the domain of the Eved). This is a Halachah that cannot apply to Kidushin, and therefore the Beraisa finds it necessary to teach that this Halachah does apply to Shichrur (because of the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah, Lah").

This approach explains the connection between the Halachah of Chazarah and the Halachah of giving a Get against the will of the recipient. This also answers the question of Tosfos, who asks why the Beraisa does not list the Halachah that Shtar Shichrur and Get Ishah both may be given against the will of the recipient. As explained above, the Beraisa is interested in listing only Halachos that apply to the writing, signing, or validating of the Shtar, and not Halachos that depend on external factors and that do not relate to the Shtar itself. (See TORAS GITIN.)