Previous daf

1)

(a) When a certain man gave his wife a Sefer-Torah as a Get, Rav Yosef rejected it outright. He was not concerned that her husband may have ...

1. ... written a Get using Mei Milin - because it was customary to write their Sifrei Torah on parchment that had been treated with gall-nuts, and we have already learned that 'Ein Mei Milin al-Gabei Mei Milin'.
2. ... paid a Sofer to write the Sefer Torah (or at least the Parshah of Get) Lish'mah, because even if he did - the names of the man and woman do not appear in the Sefer-Torah, nor does their town of residence.

(b) Rav Yosef was coming to teach us that - 'Ein Mei Milin al-Gabei Mei Milin'.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah says that if a Sofer omitted the 'Daled' from Yehudah, which he mistakenly meant to write instead of Hashem's Name - all he needs to do is to overwrite the four letters Lish'man.

(b) The Rabbanan do not permit it ('Ein Hashem min ha'Muvchar').

(c) Rav Chisda extrapolates from this Machlokes that, if a Sofer wrote a Get she'Lo Lish'mah - Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan will dispute whether it will suffice to overwrite the letters, just as they do there.

(d) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov refutes Rav Chisda's proposal however, on the grounds that - the Rabbanan's reason (of "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu") will not apply to writing a Get, in which case they will agree with Rebbi Yehudah there (that overwriting the letters Lish'mah is permitted).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Kasav Lah'' (in the masculine form) - that it is the husband who must write the Get.

(b) Nevertheless, the Chachamim instituted that it is the woman who pays the Sofer for the Get, and not her husband - because otherwise, there are men who will withhold the Get from their wives, leaving them Agunos.

(c) Rav Chisda would not have been justified in disqualifying all the Gitin in the world ...

1. ... in view of "ve'Kasav Lah'', in which case, it ought to be the man who pays for the Get - because (based on the principle 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker') the Rabbanan may well have declared the P'rutah that the woman pays the Sofer Hefker, placing it in her husband's domain.
2. ... due to the fact that its intrinsic value is generally less than a P'rutah, and the Torah writes "ve'Nasan" (implying something of value) - because "ve'Nasan" might refer, not to the value, but to the factual handing over of the Get (irrespective of its value).

(d) We prove this latter point - by quoting the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who sent to Bavel (Shalchu mi'Tam) 'Kasvo al Isurei Hana'ah, Kasher'.

(a) We refute Rav Ashi's support for Shalchu mi'Tam from our Mishnah, which permits writing a Get on an olive leaf (which is certainly worth less than a Perutah) - on the grounds that a Get worth less than a Shaveh Perutah may be acceptable, due to the fact that every half-Perutah adds up towards a Perutah, whereas something that is Asur be'Hana'ah does not, and is therefore unacceptable.

(b) Rebbi too, is of the opinion that a Get written on Isurei Hana'ah is Kasher. The people praised Levi, not when he Darshened it in the name of Rebbi, but when he Darshened it in the name of the Rabbanan (which is permitted in order to spread the truth) - because people tend to praise the lenient opinion.

(c) We learn from the fact that Levi went to such lengths to get the people to accept Rebbi's ruling from him - that it must be Halachah.

(a) The Tana of a Beraisa learns from the word "ve'Kasav" - 've'Lo Chakak' (that an engraved Get is Pasul).

(b) he Tana of another Beraisa says that if a slave received a Get Shichrur was ...

1. ... engraved on a board or scratched on to a ledger - he is free.
2. ... loosely embroidered on a woolen hat or ornament - he is not.

(c) We reconcile the second Beraisa, which considers engraving to be writing, with the first Beraisa, which does not - by establishing the former, when the writing is sunken (known as 'Chok Yereichos') in which case it was punched into the surface, and the latter when the writing protrudes (known as 'Chok Tochos') in which case, it is the surface beside the writing that was punched, leaving the letters intact (but without having been written).

(d) And we reconcile the first Beraisa, which does not consider writing that protrudes to be writing, with another Beraisa, which describes the Tzitz as 'protruding like golden Dinrim' - by establishing the latter when the letters were punched from the back, in which case, even though the letters protrude, they are also Chok Yereichos, whereas the writing on golden Dinrim is punched from the front, in which case the letters are formed by punching the area around them (and are Chok Tochos). Consequently, 'like golden Dinrim' means that they resemble golden Dinrim in appearance, but not in the way that they are formed.

(a) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether the die to stamp coins is Michratz Charitz - meaning that it is purely Chak Tochos, which is not considered writing, or Kinufei Machnif - meaning that it also squashes the letters themselves, even as it punches the space around them.

(b) The ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether a Get that is written using this die is valid or not.

(c) Rav Ashi replied - that it is Michratz Charitz and a Get written with it would be Pasul.

(d) When the Tana compares the writing of the Tzitz to golden Dinrim - it refers only to the physical appearance of the Tzitz to golden Dinrim, seeing as in both cases, the letters protrude, but not to the way in which they are formed, as we just explained.

7)

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman what the Din will be if a man handed his wife a Get written on a sheet of golden, and informed her that this was also to serve as her Kesuvah. Rav Nachman replied - that both the Get and the Kesuvah are valid.

(b) We might infer from the Beraisa which presents the case of a man who handed his wife a Get with the words 'Hiskabli Gitech, ve'Ha Sha'ar li'Kesuvasech' - that the Sh'tar itself cannot serve as a Kesuvah at the same time as being a Get (a Kashya on Rav Nachman).

(c) Rav Nachman will explain - that the Chidush of the Beraisa lies, not in the inference, but in the actual statement, which teaches us that, if not for the condition, the remainder of the Sh'tar would not serve as a Kesuvah.

(d) The reason for this is that, unless specifically stated, people normally intend the excessive paper (or even gold) on a Sh'tar to serve as part of the Sh'tar and not as a gift.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that if a man handed his wife a Get and said ...

1. ... 'Here is your Get, but the paper remains mine' - she is not divorced (because he is obligated to give her the Get as a gift).
2. ... 'Here is your Get on condition you return the paper to me' - she is divorced, due to the principle 'Matanah al-Menas Lehachzir, Sh'mah Matanah'.

(b) Rav Papa asked what the Din will be if he stipulates that the paper between the lines and the words are to remain his. The problem with this She'eilah is that, cutting out the blank lines entails cutting up the Sh'tar into pieces - and the Torah writes "Sefer (Echad)" and not many Sefarim.

(c) We resolve the problem - by establishing the case when each line of writing contains long letters that reach the line of writing below it. In this way, the Sh'tar remains intact even after the excess space has been cut out (see Maharam and Rashash).

(a) In connection with a slave who was known to belong to the husband, and whom the woman now produces with a Get written on his hand, Rami bar Chama asked - whether the husband actually handed the slave to her (in which case she is divorced), or whether he walked there by himself (in which case she is not).

(b) Rava retorted that there was another problem with the case - namely, that the writing on the slave's hand was erasable (and who knows whether her husband had not inserted a condition in the Get which she erased and re-wrote.

(c) Our Mishnah is not a problem according to Rava - because it speaks when there were Eidei Mesirah ([who read the Get and are aware of any condition that was written in it] and the author will be Rebbi Elazar, who requires Eidei Mesirah).

(d) Rami bar Chama eliminates the problem of the woman having tampered with the Get on the hand of a slave - by clarifying that his She'eilah concerns a Get that was, not written, but carved into the hand of the slave.

(a) We resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from a statement by Resh Lakish - who said that 'Godros' (animals, who live in pens ['Gedeiros']) do not have a Chazakah (meaning that possession is not a proof of ownership, seeing as they may well have walked into one's field on their own). It is obvious then that the same will apply to slaves, in which case the woman will have to prove that her husband handed her the slave.

(b) Rami bar Chama then asks what the Din will be if a man writes a Get on a tableau which is known to have belonged to his wife - whether we assume that the woman was Makneh the tableau to her husband, or that perhaps she was not conversant with that concept.

(a) Abaye tries to resolve Rami bar Chama's second She'eilah from a Beraisa, which presents the testimony of Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim (Rashash) concerning an elder who lived in a small village near Yerushalayim - who used to lend everyone in the village money. When the loan would take place, he would write the Sh'taros himself.

(b) Abaye tries to extrapolate from there - that that elder must have handed the Sh'tar for the debtor to hand back to him (a proof that people are aware of the concept of the recipient having to hand over the Sh'tar the him to return, when necessary). Otherwise, how could the debtors property have become Meshubad to the elder, to whom they had not handed the Sh'tar (and the Navi Yirmiyah refers to the Sh'tar of a loan as "Sefer ha'Makneh", indicating that it is the borrower who must hand over the Sh'tar to the creditor).

(c) Rava rejects this proof - on the grounds that the fact that the elders know the Halachah is no proof that everybody else does.

(a) So Rava tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa -where the Tana validates a Sh'tar even if the guarantor signed his name after the Sh'tar was already completed and handed to the creditor, permitting the latter to claim from the garantor's available (but not from Meshubadim [property that he subsequently sold]).

(b) One cannot claim from Meshubadim with this Sh'tar - because, seeing as the there is no Sh'tar with witnesses to render the garantor's property Meshubad at the time when he signed, there is no Kol (and subsequent purchasers of the his property have no way of safeguarding their own interests).

(c) Rava extrapolates from there - that even ordinary people are aware of the need to be Makneh the Sh'tar to the borrower (or in this case, to the garantor) to hand back to them. Otherwise, how will the Sh'tar (which only affects the garantor after it reaches the hands of the creditor) obligate the garantor at all.

(d) Rav Ashi refutes Rava's proof from here that even women are also conversant with the need to be Makneh under similar circumstances, thereby validating the Get written on what was previously known to be her property - on the grounds that women are not necessarily conversant with all the things that men are.

(a) Rav Ashi finally resolves Rami bar Chama's She'eilah from a Mishnah in Eiduyos. According to the Tana there - the woman is responsible for having the Get written and paying for it, proving finally that women too, are conversant with this concept, since, for the Get to be Kasher, she must have been Makneh it to her husband for him to hand it to her.

(b) The husband writes the receipt of the Get and hands it to his ex-wife.