POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 77
GITIN 77-79 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement
Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela Turkel, Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer,
1) FROM WHEN THE STIPULATION STARTS
(a) (Abaye): If he says '(This is your Get) when the sun will
leave its case' - all agree, this means, from when it
rises; if he died during the night, it is a posthumous
Get, and invalid;
***** PEREK HA'ZOREK *****
(b) 'On condition that the sun will leave its case' - he
means, the Get should take effect immediately;
1. (Rav Huna): Saying 'on condition' is as saying 'from
(c) The argument is when he says 'If it will go out'.
1. Those that hold as R. Yosi, who says that the date
on a document shows that it should take effect from
the date, say that it is as if he said 'It should be
a Get from today if I die';
(d) (Mishnah): 'Write and give a Get to my wife if I don't
come within 12 months' ...
2. Those that argue on R. Yosi say that it is as if he
said 'It should be a Get if I die'.
(e) Suggestion (Rav Yemar): R. Yosi (who says that the Get is
valid) must hold that a Get on condition may be written,
even if the condition is not fulfilled!
(f) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No - this case is different, for he
should have said 'If I don't come within 12 months, write
1. He instead said 'Write...if I don't...' to show that
the Get should be written now.
(g) (Beraisa): '(Give a Get if I do not come) after the
Shemitah cycle' - we wait 1 year after Shemitah; 'after a
year' - we wait (another) month; 'after a month' - we
wait 1 week;
2. Chachamim say that there is no difference between
the 2 ways of saying it.
(h) Question: 'After Shabbos - what is the law?
1. (R. Zeira): The 3 days after Shabbos are considered
after Shabbos; the 3 days before the next Shabbos
are considered before Shabbos.
(i) (Beraisa - Rebbi): 'After the festival' - we wait 30
1. R. Chiya taught this law in Rebbi's name - the
listeners approved; he taught it in the name of
Chachamim - the listeners did not show approval.
i. He concluded, the law is not as this teaching.
2) A GET THROWN INTO THE WIFE'S DOMAIN
(a) (Mishnah): A man threw a Get to his wife when she was in
her house or courtyard - the Get is valid;
(b) If he threw it in his own house or courtyard, even if she
is in a bed with him, it is invalid;
(c) If he throws it into her garment or basket, it is valid.
(d) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know this?
(e) Answer (Beraisa): "And he puts in her hand" - one might
have thought, he must put it in her hand, not in her roof
or yard - "and he puts" teaches that he may put in
anywhere (that belongs to her).
(f) We learn similarly regarding a thief.
1. (Beraisa): "(The stolen item is found in) his hand"
- one might have thought, only if it entered his
hand, but not his roof or yard - "found, will be
found" teaches, no matter where (in his property) it
(g) The Torah had to teach in both cases.
1. Had it only taught regarding Get - one might have
thought, that is because she is divorced against her
will; but theft, which is only when he intends, it
must go to his hand;
(h) Question: The Mishnah says 'Her yard' - but a husband
acquires his wife's property, it is as his yard!
2. Had it only taught regarding theft - one might have
thought, the Torah punishes a thief, but divorce
requires that it enters her hand.
(i) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): The case is, he wrote to her 'I
have no claims to your property'.
(j) Question: This doesn't help!
1. (Beraisa): One who says to his partner 'I have no
claims on this field, I have no engagement in it, my
hand is withdrawn from it' - his words are void.
(k) Answer #2 (R. Yanai): He wrote this to her when she was
1. He holds as Rav Kahana and as Rava.
2. (Rav Kahana): A Rabbinical inheritance - one may
stipulate that he does not want to inherit it.
3. (Rava): One who says 'I do not want the enactment
Chachamim made to help me' - in a case as this (Rav
Huna's law), we heed his words.
3) ACQUISITION THROUGH ONE'S PROPERTY
(l) Objection (Rava): Even when he puts the Get in her hand,
we must explain why it works - her hand also belongs to
i. (Rav Huna): A woman can tell her husband 'Do
not feed me, and I will not give you my
(m) Answer #3 (Rava): We must say, the moment the Get is put
in her hand, she is divorced and receives jurisdiction
over her hand;
1. Also by her roof or yard, the moment the Get enters
them, she is divorced and they are hers.
(n) Question (Ravina): Why does Rava say that we must explain
why a Get works when he puts it in her hand?
1. Granted, he owns the productivity of her hands, but
he does not own her hands!
(o) Answer (Rav Ashi): Rava meant, we must explain the
opinion that a slave can himself receive a Get of freedom
from his master.
1. A slave's hand is as his master's hand (whatever he
acquires belongs to the master)!
(p) A dying man wrote a Get to his wife as Shabbos was
approaching. He was not able to give it before Shabbos;
he did not expect to survive until after Shabbos.
2. Rava answered, when a Get of freedom is put in a
slave's hand, he simultaneously goes free and gets
the ability to acquire for himself;
i. This can also explain how a woman can receive a
Get in her roof of yard!
1. Rava: He should give her as a gift the place where
the Get is resting; she should close the door there
to acquire it through Chazakah.
i. (Mishnah): One acquires through Chazakah by
locking up, fencing, or breaching a fence.
2. Rav Ilish: How will it help her to acquire the area
- what a wife acquires belongs to her husband!
3. Rava was embarrassed. Later, it was found that she
was only engaged.
4. Rava: A husband only gets what his wife acquires
after Nisu'in, not during engagement.
5. Retraction (Rava): Even if there already was
Nisu'in, my suggestion works - she acquires the area
at the moment of divorce!
i. Question: Rava already said this above!
ii. Answer: That above statement was Rava's
conclusion regarding this case.
(a) (Mishnah): She is in her house...(she is divorced when he
throws the Get in).
(b) (Ula): It must be, she is standing next to her house or
(c) (R. Oshiya): No, she may even be in a difference city.
(d) Question: But the Mishnah says, she is in her house!
(e) Answer: It means, it is as if she is in her house;
because her house is being guarded on her volition, she
(f) Suggestion: Ula holds, when the Torah says that she can
receive the Get in her yard, this is because her yard is
considered as her hand (and must be near her); R. Oshiya
holds, her yard is as her agent.
(g) Rejection: No - all hold, it is as her hand.
1. (Ula): It must be near her, as her hand;
(h) A man threw a Get to his wife in the yard; it fell on a
piece of wood.
2. Objection (R. Oshiya): If so, we should require that
it be attached to her, as her hand!
3. (R. Oshiya): Rather, it must be guarded by her
volition, as her hand.
i. This excludes a yard not guarded by her
1. (Rav Yosef): If the piece is 4 Amos by 4 Amos, it is
a domain to itself, and she is not divorced; if it
is less than this, it is as the yard, and she is
(i) Question: Whose yard is it?
1. Suggestion: If it is her yard - even if the piece is
4 by 4, she should be divorced!
(j) Answer: The case is, he lent her a place in his yard to
acquire the Get.
2. Suggestion: If it is his yard - even if the piece is
not 4 by 4, she should not be divorced!
1. A person only lends 1 place - if the wood is as a
place unto itself, he did not lend it as well.
2. We assumed that the piece is not 10 Tefachim tall -
if it was, it is a place unto itself even if it is
not 4 by 4 Amos.
3. We assumed that the wood does not have a special
name - if it did, it is a place unto itself even if
it is not 4 by 4 and not 10 Tefachim tall.