ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 17
GITIN 17 - Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of New Jersey have dedicated this Daf in memory
of Marcia's mother, Esther Friedman (Esther Chaya Raizel bat Gershom Eliezer) and
father, Hyman Smulevitz (Chaim Yisochar ben Yaakov).
(a) Whilst Rav Yehudah and the Rabbanan were visiting Rabah bar bar Chana, a 'Chavra'
came and removed the lamp that they had lit. The Chavri - are synonymous with the
Persians who ruled after the Babylonians.
(b) He removed the lamp - because that day happened to be a festival, and it was
forbidden by law, to kindle lights anywhere other in their places of worship on their
(c) Hashem sent Yisrael into Galus to Bavel and not to Rome - because the decrees of
the Romans were unbearable (as they learned much to their chagrin at the time of the
second Churban). This is very difficult however, because when Bavel was at the height
of power, Rome was a nonentity.
(d) When Rabah bar bar Chanah commented that the Romans were better than the Persians
- he was referring to the latter half of Galus Bavel from after the death of
Beltshatzar, the last King of Bavel and the takeover of Koresh, King of Persia), but
not the first half. This too, is strange however, in light of the relative calm that
Yisrael enjoyed at the hand of the Persians (as compared to the era of the Romans -
see Tosfos DH 'Ha').
(a) 'Echad Amar be'Fanai Nichtav, u'Shenayim Omrim be'Faneinu Nechtam, Kasher' which
Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts to - when the Eid Kesivah was the witness,
but not the Eidei Chasimah (because then there would be no witnesses on the
(b) We can extrapolate from here that two people who bring a Get from overseas - are
obligated to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' ([like the second Lashon on the previous
Amud], because otherwise, the Eid Kesivah would be totally superfluous).
(c) Rebbi Asi extrapolates from Rebbi Ami's statement - that 'Shenayim Omrim
be'Faneinu Nichtav, ve'Echad Omer be'Fanei Nechtam, Pasul' speaks even if all the
witnesses were appointed Sheluchim.
(a) On another occasion, Rebbi Ami heard Rebbi Yochanan say that even if the Get was
delivered by the Eidei Chasimah, it is Kasher.
1. We can now extrapolate that two people who bring a Get from overseas - do not need
to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' (like the first Lashon on the previous Amud).
(b) When Rebbi Asi queried Rebbi Ami about the contradiction, he replied that it was
a peg that cannot be moved - by which he meant that the second Lashon was the correct
2. Rebbi Asi extrapolates from Rebbi Ami's statement - that 'Shenayim Omrim
be'Faneinu Nichtav, ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam' - speaks specifically when the
single Eid Chasimah is the Sheli'ach, because if the two Eidei Kesivah would have
been the Sheluchim, the Get would be Kasher.
(a) If the Get is written and signed on the same day, it is always valid. It will
be invalid however - if it was signed at a later date than the one on which it was
(b) It is Pasul because it is a Get Mukdam (one which is predated, enabling him to
claim from the purchasers [unjustifiably] from the date that is signed).
(c) Rebbi Shimon argues with this ruling. In his opinion, Gitin are an exception, and
are Kasher even when they were written by day and signed by night.
(d) Gitin are different than other Sh'taros in this regard - because, unlike other
most Sh'taros, their function is not to claim with (and the fact that they are
predated is irrelevant).
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the reason Chazal instituted the insertion of the
date is because of 'bas Achoso'. We are afraid - that in cases when the woman commits
adultery, and happens to be her husband's niece, he might cover up her guilt by
providing her with an undated Get (with which she will able to 'prove' her
(b) According to Resh Lakish, the Takanah of dating a Get is - to enable the woman to
claim from the purchasers, the Peiros of her Nechsei Milug which her husband sold
after the date on the Get.
(c) Resh Lakish declines to learn like Resh Lakish because adultery is uncommon (and
Chazal do not tend to incorporate uncommon cases in their decrees). Rebbi Yochanan
declines to learn like Resh Lakish - because, in his opinion, the husband may
continue to eat Peiros right up to the time that he hands her the Get (irrespective
of the date written in the Sh'tar).
(a) Rebbi Shimon validates a Get which is predated, according to ...
1. ... Resh Lakish, who gives the reason for the Takanah of writing the date on a Get
as 'Mishum Peiros' - because, according to Rebbi Shimon, the husband loses his rights
to the Peiros of his wife's property already from the moment he decides to divorce
her (i.e. from when he writes the Get).
(b) According to Resh Lakish (seeing as the Rabbanan agree that one inserts the date
in a Get to enable the woman to claim 'Peiros'), the dispute between Rebbi Shimon and
the Rabbanan is - concerning the Peiros that the husband ate between the writing of
the Get and its signing: according to the Rabbanan, he only loses the right to the
Peiros from the time of the Chasimah, in which case a Get that is dated before that
is Pasul; whereas according to Rebbi Shimon, he loses the rights already from the
time of the Kesivah.
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, who gives the reason as 'Mishum bas Achoso' - because Rebbi
Yochanan concedes that Rebbi Shimon's reason for inserting the date in a Sh'tar is
'Mishum Peiros' (like Resh Lakish), whereas the reason that *he* gave followed the
opinion of the Rabbanan.
(c) We just learned that, according to Resh Lakish, a divorced woman claims the
Peiros that her husband ate from the time that he wrote (or signed) the Get, whereas
Rebbi Yochanan permits him to eat them up to the time that he actually gives her the
Get. Clearly then, the quote where Rebbi Yochanan writes (that she claims the Peiros)
'mi'Sha'as Kesivah, and Resh Lakish, 'mi'Sha'as Nesinah'- is a misquotation, and must
(a) We have already quoted the Mishnah in ha'Megaresh 'Sheloshah Gitin Pesulim, ve'Im
Niseis, ha'V'lad Kasher'. Abaye asked Rav Yosef from there on the Takanah of
inserting the date in a Get - because one of the three cases is a an undated Get. Now
if it is nevertheless Kasher, what did the Chachamim gain by instituting such a
Takanah in the first place?
(b) Rav Yosef's replied - that since, by and large, the Sofrim will obey Chazal and
follow the Takanah, it can certainly not be said that the Takanah was in vain.
(c) We are not afraid that, after the Sofer has written the Get, the husband will cut
off the date and hand the Get to his wife (seeing as it will be Kasher anyway) -
because the deception would be so obvious that he will only give himself a bad name
by doing so.
(a) In spite of Rav Yosef's ruling, validating a Get even if it only contains which
seventh-year cycle, which year, which month or which week, one cannot ask what Chazal
gained by this Takanah (seeing as it is permitted to predate the Get by anything up
to a week, and sometimes even up to seven years) - because at least the date will
determine which seven-year cycle she sinned.
(b) Rav Yosef replied that it is at least effective to determine the seven-year cycle
that preceded it or that follows it. By the six-year cycle ...
1. ... that preceded it - he meant that if his wife sinned before that period, she
will be proclaimed guilty and sentenced to death.
(c) The six-year cycle ...
2. ... that follows it - he meant that if her husband sold Peiros during that period,
she is entitled to claim them from him.
1. ... that preceded it cannot pertain to the fruit - because (due to the principle
'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah') even if the Sh'tar had been undated, she
would not be able to claim the fruit that he ate earlier, unless she could prove that
when he ate them, he was no longer entitled to do so.
(d) Rav Yosef proves his point - from a case where a man gave his wife a Get on the
same day that she committed adultery. This can never be determined, seeing as the
time of day is never inserted in a Sh'tar.
2. ... that follows it cannot pertain to when his wife committed adultery - because
(due to the principle 'Safek Nefashos Lehakel') Beis-Din would not be permitted to
sentence her to death, even if the Get was not dated.