Previous daf

1)

(a) We just quoted the Beraisa where Rebbi invalidates a Get that contains any conditions in writing (even 'al-M'nas'), whereas the Rabbanan say that whatever invalidates the Get orally will also invalidate it in writing, and whatever does not invalidate the former, will not invalidate the latter either. According to Rebbi Zeira, they argue in a case where it is written before the Toref. The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we decree 'al-M'nas' on account of 'Chutz' (Rebbi) or not (the Rabbanan).

(b) In the event that the T'nai is inserted after the Toref - both agree that the Get is Kasher.

(c) The author of our Mishnah, which we established by 'Chutz', and which validates 'al-T'nai' - might then be the Rabbanan (if it speaks before the Toref) or even Rebbi (if it speaks after the Toref).

(a) Rava disagrees with Rebbi Zeira, establishing the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim by after the Toref. According to him, the Machlokes is whether we decree after the Toref on account of before it (Rebbi), or not (the Rabbanan).

(b) In the event that the T'nai was written before the Toref - both will agree that the Get is Pasul.

(c) The author of our Mishnah, which we established by 'Chutz', and which validates 'al-T'nai' - must then be the Rabbanan.

(a) Rebbi Avin's father quoted a Beraisa before Rebbi Zeira 'Kasav Get al-T'nai, Divrei ha'Kol Pasul'. In view of the fact that, as we just learned, Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue over this point, Rebbi Zeira amends the Beraisa to read - 'le'Divrei ha'Kol Kasher', and the Tana is speaking after the Toref (in keeping with his own interpretation of the previous Beraisa).

(b) Rebbi Zeira preferred to establish the Beraisa like this, rather than to amend 'Divrei ha'Kol Pasul' to 'Harei Zeh Pasul', and establish it before the Toref like Rebbi - because whoever misquoted the Beraisa is more likely to have confused 'Divrei ha'Kol Kasher' with 'Divrei ha'Kol Pasul' than 'Harei Zeh' with 'Divrei ha'Kol'.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if someone says to his wife 'Harei At ...

1. ... Ela le'Aba u'le'Avicha, le'Achi u'le'Achicha, le'Eved u'le'Oved-Kochavim' - the Get is Kasher (because in all these cases, the T'nai cannot be fulfilled anyway, since Kidushin with any of them is ineffective.
2. ... Ela Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot, Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael' - the Get is Pasul, since, even though they are Chayvei La'avin, Kidusshin is nevertheless effective by all of them (in which case it transpires that they are all a Shiyur).

(b) The Tana concludes the Reisha with the words 'u'le'Chol Mi she'Ein Lo Alav Kidushin' and the Seifa, with 've'Chol Mi she'Yesh Lo Alav Kidushin Afilu ba'Aveirah, Pasul'. From the K'lal of the ...

1. ... the Reisha - we include other Chayvei K'risus.
2. ... the Seifa - we include other Chayvei La'avin.

(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether 'Chutz mi'Kidushei Katan' is considered a Shiyur (seeing as the Kidushin of a Katan is not effective. The side to say that it should be effective is - the fact that every Katan eventually grows up (he is a potential a grown-up).

(b) Rav Nachman resolves Rava's She'eilah from the Mishnah in Kesuvos - which permits a Ketanah to receive her own Get after being married off by her father (which is Kidushin d'Oraysa), despite the fact that this seems to contravene the principle "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (since she was not able to receive her own Kidushin, why should she able to receive her own Get)?

(c) This proves - that we consider someone who stands to become a Gadol as if he was already a Gadol in this regard. Consequently, we will do likewise with regard to Shiyur, and the Get will be Pasul.

(d) We ask a similar She'eilah first with regard to someone who says ' ... Chutz min ha'Noladin' (who will eventually be born) and then with regard to 'Chutz mi'Ba'al Achosah' (whose wife stands to die). We cannot use our Mishnah, which does not consider Eved and Oved-Kochavim as a Shiyur, despite the fact that they are potential converts, to resolve the She'eilah by ...

1. ... 'Chutz min ha'Noladin' - because whereas the conversion of an Eved and Oved-Kochavim is not a natural phenomenon, the birth of a baby is.
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Ba'al Achosah' - because whereas conversion is not common (not every Nochri converts, not every Eved is set free), death is (everyone eventually dies).

(a) Rava subsequently asked Rav Nachman whether 'Chutz mi'Z'nusech' is considered a Shiyur, since he retained jurisdiction over her with regard to Bi'ah. It might nevertheless not be considered a Shiyur - since he not retain jurisdiction over her with regard to marriage.

(b) Rav Nachman tried to resolve this She'eilah from 'la'Aba u'le'Avich' in our Mishnah, which is not considered a Shiyur, which implies that were he to make the same T'nai regarding somebody else, it would be a Shiyur. And the Tana can only be speaking about Z'nus, seeing as marriage is not applicable by a father.

(c) Rava refuted this proof however - by establishing the case in our Mishnah by marriage (the motions of marriage, which are not valid in the case of the woman's father, but valid in the case of others). (d) He then asked him whether 'Chutz mi'she'Lo ke'Darkah' or 'Chutz me'Hafaras Nedarehah' is considered a Shiyur or not. The reason that ...

1. ... 'Chutz mi'she'Lo ke'Darkah' is considered a Shiyur, despite the fact that it is not part of the regular Ishus (to have children) is - because the Torah compares the two in the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Mishkevei Ishah".
2. ... 'Chutz me'Hafaras Nedarehah' is considered a Shiyur, seeing as it is not part of the principle Ishus (Bi'ah) is - because the Torah renders it an integral part of Ishus, when it writes in Matos "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu".

(a) He also asked from 'Chutz mi'Terumasech' and 'Chutz mi'Yerushasech'. When he said ...

1. ... 'Chutz mi'Terumasech' he meant - that, should she marry a Kohen, she will be forbidden to eat Terumah.
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Yerushasech' he meant - that should she die, he will inherit her (as if he had not divorced her).

(b) The reason that ...

1. ... 'Chutz mi'Terumasech' is considered a Shiyur is - because the Torah renders this an integral part of marriage, when in Emor, it permits her to eat Terumah using the words "Kinyan Kaspo".
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Yerushasech' is considered a Shiyur is - because by the same token, the Torah writes in this connection "li'She'ero ve'Yarash Osah".

(c) Finally, Rava asked Rav Nachman about 'Chutz mi'Kidushech bi'Sh'tar', which might not be considered a Shiyur, since he has left her the possibility of becoming betrothed through Kesef or Bi'ah. On the other hand, it might be considered a Shiyur - based on the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", which compares each of the three methods of Kinyan, with the result that each of the three must be possible to effect, otherwise it is a Shiyur.

(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos (with the exception of the first one which Rav Nachman resolved) is - Teiku.

8)

(a) The basic wording on the Get is - 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam'.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah adds 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lichi Mina'i Sefer Tiruchin, ve'Igeres Shevukin - ve'Get Piturin'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah's version of the Get concludes 'li'Mehach le'Hisnasva le'Chol Gever de'Yisyatzvan' - meaning 'to go and marry any man you want'.

(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is whether 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos (an unclear indication [that he is divorcing her with this Get]) Havyan Yadayim' or not. The Rabbanan hold 'Havyan Yadayim'. Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Lo Havyan Yadayim, because people might otherwise think - that he is dicorcing her with the oral statement alone, and that the Sh'tar is nothing more than a proof that she is divorced.

10)

(a) If one wrote ...

1. ... 'Harei At bas Chorin' the Get would be Batel - because this is not a Lashon of divorce, but of freedom (and a woman is free even when she is married).
2. ... (on a Get Shichrur) 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam' she would remain forbidden to marry a Jewish man, just as she had been previously - because she is still his Shifchah, and a Shifchah is forbidden to a Jew.

(b) Rav Ashi was not sure whether 'Harei At le'Atzmech' is a Lashon of divorce or not - because it might also mean that she is independent from a work point of view (i.e. what she produces is hers because he will no longer provide for her).

(c) Ravina resolves this She'eilah from our Mishnah, which considers this a Lashon of acquiring herself with regard to a Shifchah - whom the master acquired totally, then how much more so regarding a wife, whom the husband does not acquire.

(a) We learned in Perek ha'Shole'ach that if someone sells his slave to a Nochri, he is obligated to redeem him, even if it costs him ten time his value. After redeeming him however - he must set him free and write him a Get Shichrur.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds that the Get Shichrur is unnecessary - if when he sold him, he wrote a Sh'tar 'Ono' - which Rav Sheishes explains, comprises 'le'che'she'Tivrach Mimenu, Ein Li Eisek Bach'.

(c) Rav Chanin me'Chuzna'a proved from here - that 'Ein Li Eisek Bach' is an appropriate Lashon for a Get Shichrur.

(a) Abaye insists that in the Get, one does not write ...

1. ... 've'Dein' (with a Yud) - because that would imply that he is obligated ('min ha'Din') to divorce her.
2. ... 'Igeres' (with a Yud after the 'Alef') - because that would be a Lashon of 'roof' (instead of 'document').
3. ... 'li'Mehach (with a Yud after the 'Lamed') - because that would imply that she will be his from the time that he writes the Sh'tar.
4. ... 'li'Mechach' - which would imply that he is joking with her (and is not serious about divorcing her).

(b) What ...

1. ... 'di'Sehavyan' and 'de'Sisyatzvan' have in common is - that both are written with three 'Yudin' in the middle (and not just two), because otherwise one might read the words 'de'Yishavyan' and 'de'Yisyatzvan' (referring to other women).
2. ... 'Sefer *Tiruchin*' and 'Igeres *Shevukin*' have in common is - that the 'Vav' in both words should be slightly prolonged, because otherwise, they may resemble 'Yudin', in which case they will pertain to divorced women generally, rather than to this particular woman.

(c) And the Sofer be careful ...

1. ... to prolong the second 'Vav' of *'ve'Kadu* Patris' - so that it should not resemble a 'Yud', implying that he is sending her away 'Kedi' (with nothing - i.e. without a Get).
2. ... not to write 'le'Isnasva' but 'le'Hisnasva' - because otherwise, he might separate the 'Lamed' and the 'Alef' from the rest of the word, in which case the words will read 'Lo Sisnasva' (You cannot get married).

(a) Rava instituted that one writes in every Get ' ... Eich P'lanya bar P'lanya Patar ... '. We cannot prove from the fact that Rava omitted 've'Dein ... ' that we rule like the Rabbanan and not Rebbi Yehudah - because Rava, whose objective is only to teach us what he adds to the Get (and not what we already know) also omitted other parts of the Get ('Di Sehevyan ... ').

(b) Rava inserted the Lashon ...

1. ... 'mi'Yoma D'nan' - to preclude from Rebbi Yossi, who holds 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav', and according to whom this would not be necessary. This is to prevent any possible rumors from spreading that it was a 'Get le'Achar Misah' stigmatizing her family when she subsequently remarries without performing Chalitzah (even though strictly speaking, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi).
2. ... 'u'Le'olam' - to eliminate the problem of Rava's She'eilah from Rav Nachman (cited above), if a man gives his wife a Get on the condition that today she is divorced and tomorrow she is not.