Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

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';

1. (R. Zeira): R. Shimon holds as R. Elazar, that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given.
2. This implies, the first Tana does not hold as R. Elazar!
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.

(b) Question: But the law that one may tell the messenger not to give the Get - this is mid'Oraisa, and it was taught!
(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 taught!
(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 Kosher.

(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;
2. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim are established to keep, they keep it more meticulously than Yisrael.

(d) Our Mishnah cannot be as the first Tana - if so, all documents with Kusi witnesses would be accepted!
(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!
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.

(g) Answer: Really, the Mishnah is as R. Elazar -the case is, a Yisrael signed underneath the Kusi.

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 other.
(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.

i. The judges would not write a document if the money was not given, for this would damage their reputation.

(d) Question: Why is a document of a gift valid - (if made by the Nochri courts) it has no power to transfer property!
(e) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The law of the kingdom (that court document transfer property) is (recognized by the Torah as) law.
(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 divorce).