ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 85
GITIN 83-85 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement
Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela Turkel, Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer,
(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
(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
(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
(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 ...
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).
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
(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
(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.
(b) The reason that ...
2. ... 'Chutz mi'Yerushasech' he meant - that should she die, he will
inherit her (as if he had not divorced her).
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".
(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
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".
(d) The outcome of all these She'eilos (with the exception of the first one
which Rav Nachman resolved) is - Teiku.
(a) The basic wording on the Get is - 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam'.
The basic wording on a Get Shichrur is 'Harei At bas Chorin'. Our Mishnahs
presents as an alternative - 'Harei At le'Atzmech'.
(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
(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
(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).
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.
(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
(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.
(b) What ...
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).
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).
(c) And the Sofer be careful ...
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.
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.