Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) REQUIREMENTS OF A GET

1. Suggestion: Perhaps we should be concerned that the language of divorce in the Torah can serve as a Get.
2. Rejection: A Get must be written with intention to divorce that particular woman - the Sefer Torah was not written with this intent.
3. Suggestion: Perhaps we should be concerned that the husband bribed the scribe from the beginning to write that part of the Torah with intent to divorce his wife.
4. Rejection: A Get must contain the names of the husband and wife and their cities - the Sefer Torah lacks these.

(b) Question: If so, the law is obvious - what did Rav Yosef come to teach?
(c) Answer: That water in which gallnuts were soaked is not valid writing on parchment treated with gallnuts.
(d) (Rav Chisda): A Get was not written for the sake of the wife. If the scribe traces over the letters, intending to make the Get valid for her - R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue whether this works.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): A scribe was writing a Sefer Torah; the next word to write was Hash-m's name. He thought he needs to write 'Yehudah'; he mistakenly omitted the 'Daled' (so the letters of Hash-m's name were written, but without the required intent for Hash-m's name). He may trace the quill over the letters, to sanctify the name;
2. Chachamim say, this is not an ideal writing of Hash-m's name.

(e) Rejection (Rav Acha bar Yakov): Perhaps Chachamim only said that regarding a Sefer Torah, for one should beautify Mitzvos; but they would admit, that one can fix a Get!
(f) Rav Chisda: I can show that all Gitin are invalid.
(g) Question (Rava): Why?

1. Suggestion: If because The Torah says "He will write", and (the practice is that) she pays the scribe - perhaps Chachamim enacted that the money she pays belongs to the husband (so the scribe is his agent)!

(h) Answer: Rather, because the Torah says "He will give", and Gitin lack even minimal monetary value (a Perutah) to be considered giving.
(i) Question: Perhaps the Torah only requires giving a Get, not something of value!

1. Support (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): A Get written on something forbidden to benefit from - it is valid.

(j) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): A Get written on something forbidden to benefit from - it is valid.
(k) (Rav Ashi): We may derive this from a Mishnah - 'One may write a Get on an olive leaf'.
(l) Rejection: That is no proof - although an olive leaf is not worth a Perutah, many leaves together are worth a Perutah;

1. But something forbidden to benefit from has no value at all!

(m) (Beraisa - Rebbi): A Get written on something forbidden to benefit from - it is valid.

1. Levi taught this law in Rebbi's name - the audience was unreceptive. Levi taught this law in the name of Chachamim - the audience was receptive.

i. This shows, this is the correct law.

(a) (Beraisa): "He will write" - and not carve out.
(b) Question: May we deduce that carving is not considered writing?

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): A slave with a Get of freedom written on a &tablet or & - he is free;
2. He does not go free if the text of a Get of freedom is embroidered on a cap or &.

(c) Answer (R. Elazar): If he carves out the letters themselves (the shapes normally written), it is considered writing, but not if he carves out the (shapes of the) insides (and surrounding area) of the letters (leaving the shapes of the letters raised).
(d) Question: Is carving out the insides of the letters really not considered writing?!

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): The writing (of the headplate of the Kohen Gadol) was not sunken in, rather raised, as gold Dinarim (coins).

i. The writing on gold Dinarim is made by compressing the insides of the letters!

(e) Answer: The writing is as gold Dinarimin in 1 respect, unlike it in another

1. It is as gold Dinarim in that the writing was raised; but the letters are written on the headplate, whereas the insides are compressed on gold coins.

(f) Question (Ravina): A die for stamping coins - does it only compress the background of the writing, or does it also cause the writing to rise?
(g) Answer (Rav Ashi): It only compresses.
(h) Question (Beraisa): The writing was not sunken in, rather raised, as gold Dinarim.

1. You cannot say that coins are stamped by compressing - the letters (of the headplate) must be written!

(i) Answer: The writing is as gold Dinarim in 1 respect, unlike it in another

1. It is as gold Dinarim in that the writing was raised; but the letters are engraved on the headplate by pounding from the other side, whereas by coins, the area around the writing is compressed.

(a) Question (Rava): A husband wrote a Get on a gold plate. He told his wife, 'Take your Get, it is also payment of your Kesuvah' - what is the law?
(b) Answer (Rav Nachman): It is considered payment of the Kesuvah.
(c) Question (Beraisa): 'Receive your Get, and the rest (the part not under the letters of the Get) should count towards payment of the Kesuvah' - his words are fulfilled.

1. This is only because the Get contains more than just the area under the letters - if not, the Get would not count towards the Kesuvah!
2. Answer: No - even if the Get only contains what is under the letters, the Get does not count towards the Kesuvah!

i. The Beraisa teaches, even when there is excess, it only counts towards paying the Kesuvah when the husband stipulates.
ii. Question: Why is this?
iii. Answer: The excess is the margin of the Get (and would normally be considered as part of the Get).

(d) (Beraisa): 'This is your Get, but the paper is mine' - she is not divorced; 'This is your Get, on condition that you return the paper to me' - she is divorced.
(e) Question: (Rav Papa): What if the husband says that he is keeping the margin between the lines, or between the words?

1. This question is unresolved.
2. Question: This should be invalid, for it is as if he gives her separate strips, but a single Get must be given!
3. Answer: The case is, the letters reach from 1 line (or word) to the next, i.e. what she keeps is connected.

(f) Question (Rami bar Chama): A slave was established to belong to Reuven. A Get is written on the slave, and he is now by Reuven's wife.

1. Do we say that Reuven gave the slave to his wife - or, did the slave himself flee to this wife?
2. Question (Rava): In any case, it should be invalid - the writing can be erased, and hence forged!

i. Question: How does Rava understand our Mishnah, which says that a Get may be written on a slave's hand!
ii. Answer: Our Mishnah is as R. Elazar; witnesses that see the Get given, they make it a valid Get, even though it is forgable.
iii. Culmination of question: Rami bar Chama's question only applies when we do not have witnesses that saw him give her the slave - how will he answer Rava's question?

3. Answer: The Get was tattooed on the slave's hand.

i. This answer may also be used by Rava to explain the Mishnah.

(g) Question: What is the answer to Rami bar Chama's question?
(h) Answer: Reish Lakish taught, having animals in one's possession is not a proof of ownership (since they may have walked away from their real owner; here, also, perhaps the slave came to her on his own)!
(i) Question (Rami bar Chama): A woman was known to own a tablet; her Get is now written on it, and she is holding it. Do we say that she knew to let her husband acquire it when he wrote the Get, or not?
(j) Answer #1 (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Bava): There was a village near Yerushalayim, in which an elder used to lend everyone; he would write the documents himself, and witnesses would sign. Chachamim permitted this.

1. Question: The document must belong to the one who gives or mortgages his property (i.e. the borrower)!
2. Answer: We assume, he knew to acquire the document to the borrower (and similarly, a wife knows to acquire the tablet to her husband).

(k) Objection (Rava): That is no proof - an elder knows the law, perhaps a woman does not!
(l) Answer #2 (Rava - Mishnah): A cosigner that signed underneath the witnesses - the lender may collect from the cosigner's unmortgaged property, but not from his mortgaged property. (We assume, the lender knows to acquire the document to him when he signs)!
(m) Objection (Rav Ashi): That is no proof - perhaps a man knows to acquire the document, but a woman does not!
(n) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): A woman can write her Get herself, and a man can write the receipt for paying the Kesuvah himself, because only signatures validate a document