ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 27
GITIN 27 - 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) If the Sheli'ach who is bringing the Get loses it and then finds it
again, our Mishnah rules that sometimes the Get is Kosher and sometimes it
is not. It is Kasher - if he finds it immediately.
(b) The Get is not Kasher should he find it only later - because of the
possibility that it is not the Get that he lost, but that someone else lost.
(c) The Get will be Kasher even if he finds it only later - should he find
it inside a receptacle that can be clearly identified.
(d) In the event that the Sheli'ach recognizes the Get, it will be Kasher
(though it is unclear why we should rely on the recognition of someone who
is not a Talmid-Chacham).
(a) The Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a rules that someone who finds
Gitei Nashim or other Sh'taros, should not return them to either party, not
even to the person who is named as the recipient - in case the one who wrote
it changed his mind, and did not hand it over to the recipient.
(b) This ruling clashes with our Mishnah - because it implies that, if the
one who wrote the Sh'tar instructed the finder to hand it over to the
recipient, then he would indeed be obligated to do so, even if a long time
had elapsed from the time that it was lost.
(c) Rabah therefore establishes our Mishnah in a location where many
caravans stop (similar to a modern bus-station), where the Get could have
fallen from one of many travelers, whereas the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a is
speaking in a place which is not so well frequented.
(d) We add to this - the condition that another Yosef ben Shimon (besides
the one who lost it) is known to reside in the same town, before the Tana
of our Mishnah will invalidate the Get.
1. Rav Huna ruled - that the Get that was found in his Beis-Din, and in
which the Sofer had written 'in Sheviri the town that is on the River
Nachis', was invalid.
(b) We can now extrapolate from Rabah's ruling there - that he is of the
opinion that a Sh'tar is Kasher, even if it is found in a public place
(which Rav Huna's Beis-Din certainly was), as long as it has not been
established that another Yosef ben Shimon resides in the same town.
2. Rav Chisda instructed Rabah - to go out and investigate what the Halachah
would be in that particular case (because he knew that Rav Huna would ask
him about it the following day).
3. Rabah extrapolated from the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din
Yachzir' - that the Sh'tar which Rav Huna had invalidated was actually
Kasher, seeing as it had been substantiated by Beis-Din, and there was no
longer any suspicion that the husband had written the Get but not yet handed
(c) When a Get was found in the flax-house of Pumbedisa - Rabah ruled that
it should be returned, because two flaws are required in order to invalidate
a Get that is not found immediately, and in this case, there was only one.
(d) Some say that it was the house where they soaked the flax; whereas
according to others, it was the house where they sold it. In the former
case - the location was not well-frequented but another Yosef ben Shimon was
known to reside in the same town; whereas in the latter case - the location
was well-frequented but no other Yosef ben Shimon was known to reside there.
(a) The Tana in a Beraisa rules that if someone finds a Get in the street,
then, assuming that the husband agrees, he must return it to the woman (even
after a long time). Rebbi Zeira reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah,
(which invalidates a Sh'tar that the Sheli'ach lost and found only later,
for fear that this may not be the Get that he lost) - by establishing the
latter when the Get was lost in a location that is well-frequented (like
Rabah did above), and the former, in a location that is not.
(b) Whether the Beraisa speaks when there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the
same town or not - is subject to two opinions; some say that it speaks even
when there are (like Rabah), and others, when there are not, in which case
Rebbi Zeira argues with Rabah.
(c) Should the husband not admit that he wrote the Get, the finder does not
return it to either of them. He does return it to the woman, because of the
fear that she will use it to remarry, even if she is not divorced. and he
does return it to the husband - because of the fear that she is really
divorved, and even when she later brings Eidei Mesirah to prove it, and when
she claims her Kesuvah, he will produce the Get and claim that he already
paid her, and she gave him the Get as a receipt.
(a) The reason that ...
1. ... Rabah prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah and
the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a ('Matza Gitei Nashim ... Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir,
she'Ani Omer ... ') is - because it is preferable to ask from one Mishnah on
another Mishnah that on a Beraisa.
(b) The Beraisa implies that it speaks after a long time more than the
Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a because otherwise, there would be no Chidush, since
it is obvious that, if the Kesuvah was lost and found immediately, and the
husband also admits that he wrote it, it is Kasher; whereas the Chidush in
the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a lies in the actual Halachah 'Harei Zeh Lo
Yachzir' (irrespective of the inference, which is the topic of discussion).
2. ... Rebbi Zeira prefers to deal with the discrepancy between our Mishnah
and the Beraisa ('Matza Get Ishah ba'Shuk, bi'Z'man she'ha'Ba'al Modeh,
Yachzir la'Ishah ... ') - because there is nothing in the Mishnah in Bava
Metzi'a to suggest that the Get was not found immediately after it was lost.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah explains that the witnesses testify that they only signed
on one Sh'tar with these two names on it - in order to resolve both the
Kashya of Rabah and that of Rebbi Zeira. Both the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a
and the Beraisa speak in such a case.
(b) The Chidush will then be - that we do not go so far as to suspect that
not only are there two couples with identical names, but that there are even
two sets of witnesses with identical names, who signed on two different
(c) Rav Ashi establishes the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a and the Beraisa when
the person who lost the Sh'tar testifies that there is a hole beside such
and such a letter. The reason that he requires such a strong Si'man (and not
make do with a hole anywhere on the Sh'tar) - is because he is not sure that
Simanim (which are not Muvhakim [well-defined]) are d'Oraysa, in which case
Si'manim Muvhakim (which are definitely d'Oraysa) are required.
(a) When Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis-ha'Medrash, they
returned it to him for one of two possible reasons - either because of
Si'manim or because of Tevi'as Ayin (recognition).
(b) The difference between the two reasons is - whether the Get would have
been returned under the same circumstances to someone who was not a
Talmid-Chacham (who is believed regarding Tevi'as Ayin but not regarding
Si'manim (assuming they are not d'Oraysa).
(c) It is necessary to say that Rabah bar bar Chanah gave Si'manim that were
not Muvhakim - because if they were, there would have been no Safek why they
returned the Get to him, and there would have been no difference between
Rabah bar bar Chanah and anybody else.
(d) Assuming that Beis-Din returned him the Get on the basis of Si'manim,
they must have held that 'Simanim d'Oraysa' - because if Simanim were
mi'de'Rabbanan, then they would be effective in the realm of money-matters
(where Beis-Din have the power of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker'), but not in
cases of Isur, such as permitting a married woman to re-marry.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Sheli'ach who loses a Get and then
finds it is believed that the Get that he found is the one he lost provided
he finds it immediately. The Tana'im in a Beraisa argue over the meaning of
'immediately'. According to Rebbi Nasan, it means within the time it takes
for a caravan to stop there and camp.
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar gives the Shiur as the time it takes for a
person to keep check that nobody passed by - meaning that nobody passed by
the location of the lost Get from the time it was lost until it was found.
(c) 'Yesh Omrim' is slightly more lenient. According to him, it doesn't
matter if someone passed by that location - as long as he did not stop
(d) Rebbi gives the Shiur as within the time it takes to write a Get.
1. Rebbi Yitzchak says - the time it takes to read it?
2. 'Acheirim' says - the time it takes to write a Get and read it.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like 'Yesh Omrim' (within the time it
takes for someone to keep check that nobody stopped at that location); Rabah
bar bar Chanah quoting Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel - like Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar ( ... that nobody passed by that location).
(b) They not just say 'Halachah ke' ... ', rather than state the Halachah as
if it was their own opinion - because they switch the Tana'im's opinions,
and to have just say 'Halachah ke' ... ' would have been confusing.
(a) With regard to the Get itself, the Beraisa describes ...
1. ... a hole besides a certain letter as an acceptable Si'man.
(b) If he finds it after the required time has elapsed ...
2. ... long or short Get as an unacceptable Si'man.
1. ... tied to a purse or to a ring, which he recognizes - the Get is
(c) Our Mishnah validates the Get even after the required time has elapsed,
if the Sheli'ach finds it in a Chafisah or a Delusk'ma.
2. ... in a drawer in his house - the Get is Kasher, too.
1. Rabah bar bar Chanah describes a 'Chafisah' as - a leather shepherd's bag
2. ... a 'Delusk'ma' as a - an old man's satchel.