POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 10
GITIN 9 & 10 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz
Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) WHAT IS UNIQUE TO GITIN OF DIVORCE AND FREEDOM
(a) Question: The end of the Mishnah teaches, 'R. Shimon
says, even these are Kosher';
2) KUSIM AS WITNESSES
1. (R. Zeira): R. Shimon holds as R. Elazar, that a Get
is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given.
(b) Question: But the law that one may tell the messenger not
to give the Get - this is mid'Oraisa, and it was taught!
2. This implies, the first Tana does not hold as R.
3. Answer: They all hold as R. Elazar regarding what
empowers a Get; they argue regarding names (the
signatures) that Yisraelim are not called by.
(c) Retraction: Rather, the Beraisa only listed laws that do
not apply to documents of engagement.
(d) Question: But the law that one may tell the messenger not
to give the Get - this applies to engagement, and it was
(e) Answer: Engagement is different - the messenger cannot
give the document against the will of the woman; by Gitin
of divorce and freedom, the Get may be given against the
will of the wife or slave.
(a) (Mishnah): Any Get that has a Kusi witness on it is
invalid, except for Gitin of divorce or freedom;
1. They once brought a Get before R. Gamliel, and the
witnesses were Kusim - R. Gamliel ruled that it is
(b) (Gemara) Question: Our Mishnah is unlike all the Tana'im
of the following Beraisa!
(c) (Beraisa): The Matzah of Kusim is permitted; one who eats
it on the first night of Pesach fulfills the Mitzvah;
1. R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful
about the details of Mitzvos;
(d) Our Mishnah cannot be as the first Tana - if so, all
documents with Kusi witnesses would be accepted!
2. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim
are established to keep, they keep it more
meticulously than Yisrael.
(e) Out Mishnah cannot be as R. Elazar - he would say, even a
Get of divorce with a Kusim witness is invalid!
(f) It cannot be as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel - he would not
distinguish between Gitin of divorce and other documents!
1. If Kusim are established not to bear false testimony
- they should be valid for both!
(g) Answer: Really, the Mishnah is as R. Elazar -the case is,
a Yisrael signed underneath the Kusi.
2. If Kusim are suspected to bear false testimony -
they should be invalid for both!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps Kusim are established not to
bear false testimony regarding divorce, but are
suspected regarding other documents.
4. Rejection: If so, even 2 Kusim signed on a Get
should be valid!
i. (R. Elazar): The Mishnah only accepts a Get
with 1 Kusi signed on it.
3) DOCUMENTS OF COURTS OF NOCHRIM
1. Unless the Yisrael knew that the Kusi is reliable,
he would not let him sign before him.
(h) Question: If so, if 1 Kusi signed (first) on other
documents this should also be valid!
(i) Answer: We must say, we are concerned that the Kusi is
unreliable; the Yisrael signed before the Kusi signed.
1. The Yisrael expected someone more important than
himself to sign as the other witness, therefore he
signed at the bottom.
(j) Question: Here also, we should be concerned, perhaps the
Yisrael signed first (at the bottom), expecting someone
more important than himself to sign as the other witness!
(k) Answer (Rav Papa): The fact that we have no such concern
proves that witnesses on a Get must sign in front of each
(l) Question: Why is this?
(m) Answer (Rav Ashi): It is a decree on account of the case
when the husband says 'All of you should sign this Get'.
(If not all sign, the Get will be invalid, but will
appear to be valid if at least 2 signed!)
(n) (R. Elazar): The Mishnah only accepts a Get with 1 Kusi
signed on it.
(o) Question: That is clear from the Mishnah - it says, any
Get that has 1 Kusi as a witness is invalid (except for a
Get of divorce or freedom)!
(p) Answer: One might have thought, Gitin of divorce or
freedom are valid even if both witnesses are Kusim;
1. The Mishnah spoke of 1, for even 1 Kusi witness
disqualifies other documents.
(q) Question: Is it really true that 2 Kusim on a Get
invalidate the Get?
1. (Mishnah): They brought a Get of divorce before R.
Gamliel; the witnesses were Kusim, and R. Gamliel
said it is Kosher!
(r) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah should say "Its witness"
was a Kusi.
(s) Answer #2 (Rava): Really, R. Gamliel allows even 2 Kusim;
he argues on the first Tana.
1. The Mishnah is abbreviated; it should read thusly:
R. Gamliel allows even both witnesses to be Kusim.
i. There was a case, and R. Gamliel ruled that the
Get is valid.
(a) (Mishnah): All documents written by Nochri courts, even
though Nochrim signed them, are valid, except for Gitin
of divorce or freedom;
(b) R. Shimon says, even these are valid; they are only
invalid when done by commoners.
(c) (Gemara): The Mishnah does not distinguish between
documents of sale and gift.
1. We understand why documents of sale are valid - the
giving of the money made the acquisition, the
document is merely a proof.
(d) Question: Why is a document of a gift valid - (if made by
the Nochri courts) it has no power to transfer property!
i. The judges would not write a document if the
money was not given, for this would damage
(e) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The law of the kingdom (that court
document transfer property) is (recognized by the Torah
(f) Answer #2: The Mishnah reads, 'except for documents like
Gitin of women (i.e. that are not merely proofs, but
change ownership or status).
(g) (Mishnah): R. Shimon says, even these are Kosher ...
(h) Question: But Nochrim have nothing to do with divorce,
their Gitin have no affect!
(i) Answer (R. Zeira): R. Shimon holds as R. Elazar, that a
Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given.
(j) Question: But R. Aba taught, R. Elazar admits that an
intrinsic forgery (a Get in which the testimony of the
signed witnesses is invalid - here, the judges are
invalid witnesses of divorce) is invalid!
(k) Answer: The case is, the judges' names are clearly
non-Jewish (so no one would rely on them as witnesses of