Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah cites the case of a man who said to a Sheli'ach 'Hiskabel Get Zeh le'Ishti ... Im Ratzah Lachzor, Yachzor', from which Rav Huna bar Chiya extrapolates - that a man wants his Get to take effect in whichever way possible, irrespective of which Lashon he uses. In that case, why did Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav say (in the case of 'Havei Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti ... Afilu Higi'a Get le'Yadah, Einah Megureshes') 'Afilu Higi'a Get le'Yadah, Einah Megureshes'?

(b) This is not a Kashya according to Rav Ashi's interpretation of Rav Nachman - because, as we explained, according to him, it is a question there of the Sheli'ach retracting from his original Shelichus, which does not apply here at all.

(c) We answer Rav Huna bar Chiya's Kashya - by differentiating between this case, where the husband obviously knew that he cannot appoint a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, and must have therefore meant to appoint him as a Sheli'ach le'Holachah (in spite of what he said), and Rav Nachman's case, where the husband erred in believing the Sheli'ach that his wife had said 'Hiskabel Li Giti'.

(a) Based on the fact that a Ketanah cannot appoint a Sheli'ach, the Tana of the Beraisa says that if a Ketanah said to a Sheli'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti' - the Get is not effective until it reaches the woman's hand.

(b) We refute Rava's proof from here that when the husband gives his wife a Get, he wants it to take effect in whichever way possible (like we asked before on Rav Nachman) - in exactly the same way as we refuted the previous proof, by differentiating between a man who knows when 'Hiskabel' is ineffective (and therefore appoints a Sheli'ach le'Holachah), and one who errs in the Sheli'ach's words.

(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana speaks about a case of 'Havei Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti; Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Havei Li Giti, ve'Hu Amar Holech ve'Ten Lah, Z'chi Lah ve'Hiskabel Lah'.

1. The Beraisa concludes - 'Ratzah Lachzor Yachzor, mi'she'Higi'a Get le'Yadah, Megureshes'.
2. We initially establish the Beraisa - 'Kabalah a'Kabalah, ve'Holachah a'Holachah', making the first case the equivalent of that of Rav Nachman, in whose opinion, the Get should not take effect at all.

(b) Consequently, we establish the Beraisa - 'Kabalah a'Holachah ve'Holachah a'Kabalah'.

(c) We try to prove from the fact that, in the case of 'Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Havei Li Giti ... Holech ve'Ten Lah, Im Ratzah Lachzor Yachzor' - that the husband relies on the Sheli'ach. Otherwise, the Get ought to take effect immediately, like his wife said.

(d) We refute this proof however, by pointing out that the She'eilah whether the husband relies on the Sheli'ach or on his wife, speaks when he said '*Heilech* K'mo she'Amrah', whilst this Beraisa is talking about *'Holech'*.

(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states 'Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Hu Amar *Holech ve'Ten Lah*, Z'chi Lah ve'Hiskabel Lah ... Lo Yachzor' - because he holds Holech ki'Zechi'.

(b) Rebbi Nasan - agrees with the Tana Kama by 'Z'chi Lah ve'Hiskabel Lah', but not by 'Holech ve'Ten Lah', because he holds 'Holech La'av ki'Zechi'.

(c) After echoing the words of the Tana Kama, Rebbi adds a case where it would be possible for the husband to retract - where the husband first said 'I Efshi she'Tekabel Lah' (like we learned in our Mishnah).

(d) The compiler of the Beraisa might be adding Rebbi's opinion to teach us the Chidush of 'I Efshi', or he might be coming to teach us - that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi.

5)

(a) Rebbi Nasan holds 'Holech La'av ki'Zechi'. We ask - whether he does not concede that 'Heilech ki'Zechi'.

(b) We ...

1. ... try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'ha'Ishah she'Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti, (and he said to the Sheli'ach '*Holech* Get Zeh le'Ishti') Ratzah Lachzor Lo Yachzor' - which we suggest, means 'Heilech' (a proof that Rebbi Nasan holds 'Heilech ki'Zechi').
2. ... refute this proof - by establishing the author as the Rabbanan, and leaving 'Holech' intact.

(c) We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'Lefichach, Im Amar Lo ha'Ba'al I Efshi she'Tekabel Lah Ela Holech ve'Ten Lah, Ratzah Lachzor Yachzor' - 'Ha Im Lo Amar I Efshi, Ratzah Lachzor, Lo Yachzor'.

(d) We establish this Beraisa too - like the Rabbanan. 'Holech' like in the previous Beraisa - means literally 'Holech', not 'Heilech' (like we initially suggest).

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa makes a distinction between 'Holech Get Zeh le'Ishti' - in which he permits him to retract, and Heilech Get Zeh le'Ishti' - in which case he does not.

(b) The author of this Beraisa must be - Rebbi Nasan, who holds 'Holech La'av ki'Zechi', and who we now see, concedes 'Heilech ki'Zechi'.

(a) The basis of Rav Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav's ruling that in a case of 'Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Ishtecha Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti, ve'Hu Amar Holech ve'Ten Lah, Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes' - is Rav's Safek whether Holech ki'Zechi or not.

(b) Rav also says 'Holech Manah li'Peloni she'Ani Chayav Lo Chayav be'Acharayuso, ve'Im Ba Lachzor, *Eino Chozer*' (suggesting that he holds 'Holech ki'Zechi') - because in the latter case we apply the principle 'Safek Mamona le'Kula' (and the money is currently with the creditor), whereas in the former case, the predominant principle is 'Safek Isura le'Chumra'.

(a) Rav prohibits a woman from appointing a Sheli'ach to receive her Get from her husband's Sheli'ach. Rav's reason might be because it is a slight on her husband not to receive the Get directly or it might be - because of a decree in case he places the Get in a Chatzer which she only acquires afterwards.

(b) The ramifications of the two reasons will be - in a case where she appointed her Sheli'ach before he appointed his (in which case it is no longer comparable to a Chatzer that she acquired later, yet the reason of slighting her husband will still apply).

(c) Rebbi Chanina - permits the woman to appoint a Sheli'ach to receive her Get from her husband's Sheli'ach.

(a) When the Sheli'ach (le'Holachah) who brought that woman's Get found her kneading dough - she told him to become a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah and to hold on to the Get.

(b) Rav Nachman quoted Rebbi Chanina here - inasmuch as, if he knew that the Halachah was like him, he would have ruled that the woman was divorced.

(c) Rava however, objected - on the grounds that the Sheli'ach did not have time to report back to the Meshale'ach between one Shelichus and the other, and such a Shelichus is invalid (as we learned above, on Daf 24a).

(a) Rebbi Ami agrees with Rava, though Rebbi Chiya bar Aba is uncertain. He finally rules le'Chumra - based on the principle 'Safek Isura le'Chumra'.

(b) When a case came before Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa, he ruled that the woman required 'Get va'Chalitzah'. Seeing as the two are a contradiction in terms, what he obviously meant was 'Get me'Chayim (should she wish to get married, and in the event that she did not) Chalitzah le'Achar Misah'.

(a) In another case where the witnesses erred and wrote the woman's name as Tafasa, instead of Nafasa, Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa Amar Rav said - that the witnesses had completed their Shelichus, and that they had no authority to proceed any further without the husband's consent.

(b) Rabah objected to this ruling however - on the grounds that one cannot refer to writing something on a piece of paper as having completed one's Shelichus.

(c) He would have agreed with Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa - had the Sheli'ach who wrote the Get handed it over to the Sheli'ach who was to take it to the woman, and it got lost (in which case they would have no authority to write a second Get).

(d) Rav Nachman even disagrees with Rabah. He finally rules - that seeing as the husband wanted the Get to be written and handed over to his wife, until this has taken place, their Shelichus remains intact, even if it means writing a hundred Gitin to achieve it.

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman 'Kisvu u'Tenu li'Sheli'ach, Mahu? Seluki Salik Lehu, O Dilma le'Tircha Didhu Chayash'? When he said ...

1. ... 'Seluki Salik Lehu' - he meant to say that maybe the husband only appointed them as Sheluchim up to the time that they hand the Get to the second set of Sheluchim, at which point their Shelichus will end (and, should the Get become lost, they are not authorized to write a second one).
2. ... 'le'Tircha Didhu Chayash' - he meant that perhaps the husband was only removing from them the onus of taking the Get all the way to his wife, but not relieving them of the Shelichus (and should the Get become lost, they retain the authority to write a second one).

(b) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is - Teiku.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - equates a woman who says to her Sheli'ach 'Tul Li Giti' with one who says 'Hiskabel Li Giti'. The Beraisa says - that 'Tul Li, ve'Sa Li (which the Rif and the Rosh omit from their text) vi'Yehei Li be'Yadech' all have the same Din as 'Hiskabel Li Giti'.

(a) A woman who appointed a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah requires two pairs witnesses - should the Sheli'ach then claim that he received the Get on her behalf but it got torn up. Two witnesses are then required to testify that the Sheli'ach was appointed in their presence, and two witnesses, that the Sheli'ach received the Get but it got torn up.

(b) This does not necessarily entail four people - because, the same two witnesses can testify both times or one for each event combined with a third witness from the street.