GITIN 29 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
 

12th CYCLE DEDICATION
GITIN 29 (8 Av) - Dedicated in honor of the second Yahrzeit of Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, a holocaust survivor who met all of life's challenges with courage and fortitude, by her daughter and son-in-law Diane and Andy Koenigsberg and family.

1)

TOSFOS DH "Aval"

תוס' ד"ה "אבל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why finding out that he was sentenced is indeed evidence he was killed.)

אע"ג דאמר בסנהדרין (דף מב:) שהיה אחד רוכב על סוס וסודרין בידו מצאו לו זכות היה הלה מניף בסודרין

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (42b) says that a person would ride on a horse and hold cloths (normally used for headwear) in his hand, and if a merit was found for the defendant he would wave the cloths. (Note: Accordingly, how could we assume that the defendant would actually be killed?)

מכל מקום לא שכיח.

(b)

Answer: It was uncommon to find merit at this stage.

2)

TOSFOS DH "Rabban Shimon"

תוס' ד"ה "רבן שמעון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this does not contradict a Gemara in Kidushin.)

והא דדרשינן (קדושין דף מא.) ושלח ושלחה מלמד שהשליח עושה שליח

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) derives from the words "And he will send/her" that a messenger can make another messenger. (Note: Is this Gemara against the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?)

היינו היכא דאין הבעל מקפיד.

(b)

Answer: This is only where the husband does not mind.

3)

TOSFOS DH "mi'Shoom"

תוס' ד"ה "משום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos our Gemara, and why a husband would have to write a Get in light of an earlier Mishnah.)

פירש בקונטרס שעליו לכתוב את הגט ואינו רוצה שידעו רבים שאינו יודע לכותבו

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that it is incumbent on him (the husband) to write the Get, and he does not want that the public should know that he does not know how to write a Get.

והא דקאמר יכתבו ויתנו

(b)

Implied Question: He says that they should write and give the Get. (Note: Why does he ask them to give the Get as well?)

אגב יכתבו נקט יתנו

(c)

Answer#1: Once he said that they should write, he also said that they should give it. (Note: He does not mind if others give it.)

אי נמי על ידי שיאמרו לאחר שיתן ירגיש בדבר שהבעל לא כתבו ומקפיד גם על הנתינה

(d)

Answer#2: Alternatively, if they will say to someone else that he should give the Get, he will realize that the husband did not write the Get. This is why the husband mind that they should give the Get.

וא"ת מאי בזיון איכא והא תנן (לעיל דף כב:) האשה כותבת את גיטה אלמא אין על הבעל לכתוב

(e)

Question: What kind of embarrassment is there? Doesn't the Mishnah say (22b) that a woman writes her Get? This implies that the husband does not even have to write a Get!

וי"ל דלעולם על הבעל לכתוב אלא הא קא משמע לן דאפילו אשה כותבת כשר דידעת לאקנויי.

(f)

Answer: Actually, the husband has to write it. The Mishnah there merely tells us that even if the woman would write it, the Get would be kosher, as we would trust that she knows how to give it over to the husband. (Note: This means that she understands that she must give it over for the purpose of it becoming her husbands (so that he can divorce her with it), and is not just passing it to him.)

4)

TOSFOS DH "u'Mili"

תוס' ד"ה "ומילי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara later (66b) does not seem to ask applicable questions from our Gemara.)

ר"מ ור' יוסי פליגי לקמן בפ' התקבל (דף סו:) באומר לשלשה תנו דקסבר ר"מ דעשאן ב"ד ור' יוסי פליג דאפי' אמר לב"ד הגדול שבירושלים ילמדו ויכתבו ויתנו לה אבל באומר לשנים תנו או לשלשה כתבו ותנו אפילו ר"מ מודה דיכתבו ויתנו ולא מימסרי לשליח כדמוכח מתניתין דהתם

(a)

Explanation: Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi argue later (66b) regarding someone who says to three people "Give (this Get to my wife)." Rebbi Meir holds that he made them a Beis Din. Rebbi Yosi argues that even if he said this to the Beis Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim, they should learn (how to write a Get if they do not know how), write it, and give it to her. However, if someone says to two people "give," or he says to three people "write and give," even Rebbi Meir agrees that they should write and give the Get, and in such a case we do not say they can give this over to be done by a messenger, as is clear from the Mishnah there.

והא דקאמר בגמ' שלחו ליה מבי רב לשמואל אמר לשנים כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי ואמרו לסופר וכתב וחתמו הן מהו שלח להו תצא והדבר צריך תלמוד ופריך מהא דאמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יוסי דאמר מילי לא מימסרן לשליח הוה מצי למיפרך דבשנים אפילו ר"מ מודה דלא מימסרן

(b)

Implied Question: The Gemara says that they sent a question from Rav's house to Shmuel. Someone said to two people that they should write and give a Get to his wife. They said to a scribe that he should write the Get, which he did, and they signed it. What is the law? Shmuel sent back that the law is that she should separate from the man whom she married (after receiving this Get), but this requires study. The Gemara asks on this conclusion (that this requires study) from Shmuel's ruling that the law follows Rebbi Yosi who says that words cannot be given over to a messenger. The Gemara could have asked that regarding two people who are told, even Rebbi Meir agrees that words are not given over to a messenger.

אלא ניחא ליה לאקשויי שמואל אדשמואל

(c)

Answer#1: The Gemara did not do so, as it preferred asking a contradiction in Shmuel.

ועוד דהוה מצי למימר דטעמיה דר"מ משום בזיון דבעל וקסבר שמואל דבכתיבה ליכא בזיון אבל בחתימה כשיחתמו אחרים הוא דאיכא בזיון דמיפרסמא מילתא בחתימה טפי

(d)

Answer#2: Additionally, the Gemara could have answered this question by saying that Rebbi Meir's reasoning is because of the embarrassment of the husband. Shmuel might hold that writing itself is not a denigration. However, by the signing there is a lot of denigration, as it becomes more known by the signing.

ומיהו הוה מצי למיפרך מדשמואל דהכא דקסבר טעמא משום מילי דאמר מתנה הרי היא כגט

(e)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked a question from Shmuel's opinion here, as he holds that the reason why words cannot be given over by a messenger is not because of denigration, as he holds that the same holds true by someone who is told to write a present document. (Note: Denigration does not apply by a present document.)

אלא כיון שהיה צריך להביא משמואל דהכא ה"נ פריך מאידך דשמואל דהתם.

(f)

Answer: However, because it had to quote Shmuel's opinion here, it asked a question from another opinion of Shmuel there.

5)

TOSFOS DH "Ka'an"

תוס' ד"ה "כאן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara fits with the opinion that a Shomer she'Masar l'Shomer is Patur.)

אפילו למאן דאמר בהמפקיד (ב"מ דף לו.) שומר שמסר לשומר פטור שהרי מסרו לבן דעת דאין יכול לומר לו אין רצוני שיהא פקדוני ביד אחר

(a)

Implied Question: There is an opinion in Bava Metzia (36a) that if a Shomer gives an object he is watching to another Shomer, he is exempt if something happens to the item, as he gave it over to a knowledgeable person. The owner cannot say that he did not want his object to be watched by others. (Note: Why, here, is this considered a good claim?)

נהי דלא מיחייב מ"מ לכתחלה אין לו לעשות.

(b)

Answer: While that opinion holds that one is not liable if he does so, he agrees that one should not do so Lechatchilah.

6)

TOSFOS DH "Heicha"

תוס' ד"ה "היכא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara uses this terminology.)

נקט הכי משום דמתניתין איירי בחלה השליח הראשון ולא הגיע לעיר שהאשה שם.

(a)

Explanation: The Gemara used this terminology because our Mishnah is discussing a case where the first messenger fell ill, and did not reach the city where the woman was residing.

29b----------------------------------------29b

7)

TOSFOS DH "Shikol"

תוס' ד"ה "שקול"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our case is different than a similar case in Kesuvos.)

משמע דוקא שהקפיד על לקיחת החפץ תחלה פליגי אבל הב לה גיטא ושקול מינה חפץ לא

(a)

Explanation: This implies that they argue in a case where he insisted that the messenger receive the object first. However, if he said that the messenger should first give the Get and then take the object, there is no argument.

ותימה דבפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פה.) אמרי' דלא שנא א"ל שקול שטרא והב ליה זוזי ולא שנא אמר ליה הב ליה זוזי ושקול שטרא משלם דאמר ליה לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי כיון שהזכיר לקיחת השטר אע"פ שהזכיר לבסוף

(b)

Question: This is difficult. In Kesuvos (85a), we say that it does not matter whether he said to take the document and then give him money or whether he said give him money and then take the document. In any event the messenger pays, as he can tell the messenger that he sent him to help him, not to make problems for him. He has this claim because he mentioned that the messenger should take the document (and the messenger did not do so), even if he mentioned that the messenger could give the money first. (Note: In our Gemara, however, the implication is that this is only a problem because he mentioned that the messenger should take the object first.)

ויש לומר דשאני התם שפרעון המעות תלוין בשטר ובהזכרת לקיחת השטר גלי דעתיה שירא שלא יאמרו סיטראי נינהו.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara there is different, as the entire payment depends on his getting the document. When he mentioned the (need to get back) document, he is showing that he is frightened that the creditors will say that the money paid back was from an oral loan (not the loan documented in the loan document). (Note: This indeed happened in the case in Kesuvos (ibid.).)

8)

TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Yochanan"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי יוחנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.)

פי' בקונט' דקפידת הבעל אינו אלא שלא ישאר החפץ ביד האשה אבל במה שאמר ליה שיטול הימנה חפץ והוא משלח ביד אחר אין הגט נפסל

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the husband only minds that the object should not stay in the hands of the woman. However, when he says to him that he should take the object from her and he will send it with someone else, the Get does not become invalid.

ולא ישלחנו ביד אחר דקתני במתניתין

(b)

Implied Question: The Mishnah says that he should not send it with someone else. (Note: Why would the Mishnah say this if he did not mind if someone else takes it?)

היינו טעמא שמא לא ימסור לשני דברים כהוייתן או השני לא ידקדק בהן ויפסול הגט

(c)

Answer: The reason is that he might not pass on to the second person exactly what he was supposed to do, or the second person might not be careful about the instructions and will thereby cause the Get to become invalid.

ולפי זה הא דקתני שאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר

(d)

Implied Question: Accordingly, the Mishnah made a statement that he does not want his object in the hands of another. (Note: How does this fit with what has just been said? Didn't we just say he doesn't mind?)

היינו ביד אשתו

(e)

Answer: It means that he doesn't want his wife to have it.

וזה נראה דוחק וגם זה דוחק דלא ישלחנו ביד אחר שלא ישכח לומר כאשר אמר הבעל

(f)

Implied Question: This seems to be a forced answer. It is also forced to say that he does not want him to send another person in order that the person will not forget to say exactly what the husband wanted him to say.

ונראה לריב"א דכשאמר שקול מינה חפץ והדר הב לה גיטא שתולה שליחות הגט בחפץ פוסל ר' יוחנן נמי כשמשלח ביד אחר אפי' לא שינה שליח השני מדעת הבעל ונטל ממנה החפץ קודם נתינת הגט דכיון שתולה שליחות הגט בחפץ כל מה שמשנה מדעת הבעל בחפץ נפסל הגט

(g)

Opinion: It appears to the Riva that when he says that the messenger should take this object and then give her the Get, he is making the Shelichus be dependent on the object. In such a case Rebbi Yochanan says that the Get is invalid if he sends it with another person, even if the second person does no deviate from the husband's plan, and he takes the object from her before giving her the Get. Being that he made the Shelichus dependent on the object, if he deviated from the mindset of the husband regarding the object, the Get becomes invalid.

והכי פי' רבי יוחנן פוסל בו בשליח ראשון כששינה וכ"ש בשלוחו ואפי' בלא שינוי ולא ישלחנו ביד אחר אפי' לא ישנה דקפיד הבעל שאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר פי' ביד השליח השני ור"ל כו' כדפי' בקונט'.

1.

This is what Rebbi Yochanan means. Rebbi Yochanan invalidates the Get if the first messenger deviates from the husband's words, and certainly the Get is invalid if the messenger makes a messenger, even if the second messenger does not deviate. He should not send it with someone else, even if he will not deviate, as the husband minds that his object will end up with someone else. This means, he minds that his object will end up with a second messenger. The explanation of Reish Lakish's opinion is as explained by Rashi.

9)

TOSFOS DH "Hachi Garsinan"

תוס' ד"ה "הכי גרסינן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Rav Ashi is not saying anything significantly different than in the first version.)

וקאתי רב אשי לפרש מאי טעותא

(a)

Explanation: Rav Ashi is coming to explain why this is a mistake.

ולב' הלשונות רב אשי מכוונים ולא קאי א"ד אלא אמילתא דרבא.

1.

In both versions of the Gemara, Rav Ashi has the same opinion. The second version only makes a difference in Rava's statement (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh and Ya'avetz).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF