Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) 2 MESSENGERS WHO BRING A GET

1. While they were talking, 2 Persians took their lamp. Rabah bar bar Chanah beseeched Hash-m - 'If we do not merit to be under your protection, please let us be under the Edomites!
2. Suggestion: This implies, the Edomites are better than the Persians.
3. Question: But R. Chiya taught, "Hash-m understood its way, he knew its place" - Hash-m knew that Yisrael could not endure the decrees of the Edomites, so he exiled us to Bavel.
4. Answer: It was better to be in Bavel until the Persians came.

(b) (Mishnah): 1 says 'it was written in front of me', 2 say 'it was signed in front of us' - it is valid.
(c) Version #1 (R. Ami , citing R. Yochanan): It is only valid when the one saying 'it was written in front of me' was a messenger to give the Get, for then it is as if we have 2 testifying to the writing and 2 testifying to the signing;

1. But if the ones saying 'it was written in front of us' are the messengers, it is invalid.
2. We infer, he holds that 2 messengers that bring a Get must make a declaration.

(d) Question (R. Asi): The previous case of the Mishnah says, 2 say 'it was written in front of us', 1 says 'it was signed in front of me' - it is invalid, R. Yehudah says it is valid;

1. Will you say that Chachamim disqualify it even when both men that saw it written are holding the Get?

(e) Answer (R. Ami): Yes.
(f) Version #2 (R. Ami, citing R. Yochanan): Even when the ones saying 'it was written in front of us' are the messengers, it is valid.

1. We infer, he holds that 2 messengers that bring a Get need not make a declaration.

(g) Question (R. Asi): The previous case of the Mishnah says, 2 say 'it was written in front of us', 1 says 'it was signed in front of me' - it is invalid, R. Yehudah says it is valid;

1. Will you say that Chachamim only disqualify it the men that saw it written are not holding the Get, but if they were holding it, it would be valid?

(h) Answer (R. Ami): Yes.
(i) Objection (R. Asi): But another time, you said differently!
(j) Answer: (R. Ami): This latter version is the correct one.

(a) (Mishnah): A Get was written by day and signed by {the same) day; or, it was written by night and signed by day; or it was written by night and signed by night - it is valid.
(b) If it was written by day and signed by night, it is invalid;

1. R. Shimon says, it is valid; he says, any document written by day and signed by night, is invalid, except for a Get of divorce.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Why was it enacted to put the date on a Get (of divorce)?
(d) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Lest a husband fraudulently save his wife from being killed for adultery by giving her a dateless Get (after she sinned);

1. In such a case, Beis Din would not know when the divorce happened, and could not kill her.
2. Sometimes a man would have enough compassion to save a wife that betrayed him, e.g. if he married his niece.

(e) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): So she will be able to prove from when the fruits of her possessions belong to her, i.e. the day he finished writing the Get.
(f) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish learn as R. Yochanan?

(g) Answer: Adultery is not common.
(h) Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan learn as Reish Lakish?
(i) Answer: He holds, the husband eats the fruits until the Get is given.
(j) We understand, according to Reish Lakish, why R. Shimon says that even if the Get was signed the following night (so the date is 1 day too early), it is valid (he holds, the husband forfeits the fruits from when he writes the Get, even if not yet signed).

1. Question: According to R. Yochanan, what is R. Shimon's reason?
2. Answer: R. Yochanan admits that according to R. Shimon, the date on a Get is on account of the fruits; he argues according to Chachamim.

(k) According to R. Yochanan, we understand the argument between R. Shimon and Chachamim.

1. Question: According to Reish Lakish, on what do they argue?
2. Answer: R. Shimon holds that from the writing of the Get until it is signed, the fruits belong to her; Chachamim say, to him.

(l) Contradiction: But R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish elsewhere hold opposite to their positions here!

1. (R. Yochanan): A wife receives the fruits of her land from the day her husband writes a Get;
2. (Reish Lakish) The fruit is hers from the day he gives it.

(m) Answer: Those opinions were recorded in error, they should be switched to match their opinions here.
(n) Question (Abaye - Mishnah): 3 types of Gitin are invalid, but if a woman remarried after receiving such a Get, children from the new marriage are Kesherim (one of them is a Get without a date) - what did the enactment to put a date on the Get accomplish?
(o) Answer (Rav Yosef): l'Chatchilah, she may not get married with such a Get.
(p) Question: If he will cut off the date and give her the Get - the enactment does not help!
(q) Answer: We are not concerned for such swindlers.
(r) Question: If the Get does not specify the day, only which Shemitah cycle (within the Yovel cycle), or the year, or the month, or the week - what does the enactment help (if the adultery was during that period, we do not know which came first, we cannot kill her!)
(s) Answer: If she had adultery in the previous period, she will be killed; regarding fruits, she receives them from the beginning of the next period.

1. Even when the day is specified on the Get, we do not know if it was in the morning or afternoon! We must say, the date helps if she had adultery on a previous day, she will be killed; and she receives the fruits from the beginning of the next period
2. Similarly, when the Get only specifies the Shemitah cycle or..., it helps for previous/subsequent Shemitah cycles or...