The Adi Bitset edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Gittin, has been generously sponsored by our esteemed friend and devoted talmid of the Daf Yomi, Mr. Chaimy Dana, along with his beloved wife, Hashem yishmerem v'chayaym. This Masechet is dedicated with the intention that through our study, we can avert the difficult situations addressed within it from manifesting in reality. May this learning bring blessings of Shalom Bayit and success to him, his wife, and all of Klal Yisrael in all their endeavors. Amen.
Today's Daf is being recited in memory of Mordechai Kenig ben Yosef ben Sarah, Marat Zakia Netty Afa bat Sarah, and Rav Avraham ben Esther. May their souls find peace in Gan Eden. Amen. We also pray for the complete healing of Moshe ben Sarah, Moshe ben Dinassa, Ruchama bat Chefz-Sarah bat Rachel, and all those in need of healing among the sick of Israel. Let us say Amen.
We begin today's Daf on Samech-Gimmel Amud-Bet, starting from the Mishna at the bottom of the Amud: "Ha'isha she'amra kabel li gitti." A woman instructs her shaliach, or messenger, to receive her get, the divorce document. The shaliach then claims he indeed received it from the husband, but he does not have the actual get because it has been torn up. The Mishna states that in such a case, two distinct groups of witnesses are required to validate the situation. These witnesses must testify: first, that the woman indeed appointed this man as her shaliach; and second, that they witnessed the husband give the get to the shaliach, who then tore it up. The Gemara clarifies that these witnesses can be the same individuals, provided they saw both events. Alternatively, it could involve different witnesses, as long as the testimony is corroborated.
Next, we encounter a new case: the husband asserts that he gave the get to the shaliach as a pikadon, meaning he entrusted it to him for safekeeping. However, the shaliach claims it was given for the purpose of divorce. This leads to a machloket, or dispute, regarding whom to believe. Rav Huna asserts that the husband is believed, while Rav Chisda argues in favor of the shaliach. Rav Huna's reasoning is based on the premise that if the husband intended to divorce, he would have directly given the get to his wife, as they reside in the same city. Therefore, it is more plausible that he merely entrusted it to the shaliach for safekeeping.
Conversely, Rav Chisda maintains that the shaliach is trusted because the husband had confidence in him when he entrusted the get. This trust implies that the husband accepted the risk of the shaliach potentially misrepresenting the situation. Thus, if the shaliach claims he was acting as the woman's shaliach kabala, he must be believed.
Rav Abba challenges this reasoning, citing the principle that a confession by a litigant is as credible as a hundred witnesses. If the shaliach is believed in the case of monetary disputes, why should he not be trusted regarding the get? The Gemara responds that monetary matters differ since the owner can willingly relinquish his claim. In this case, however, the get must be given explicitly for the sake of divorce, and thus, the husband's assertion that it was a pikadon holds more weight.
As the discussion continues, the Gemara refers to a Braita that states the shaliach is indeed believed concerning the get, which raises further questions about the nature of the witnesses required. The Mishna reiterates that two sets of witnesses are necessary, highlighting the importance of establishing clear and credible testimony in matters of divorce.
The Gemara then poses a question regarding the tearing of the get. It is suggested that this action may have been taken as a precaution during times of persecution when the authorities prohibited the observance of mitzvot. The fear of repercussions led individuals to destroy evidence of their divorce to protect themselves.
Rav Huna's position is reaffirmed, stating that if the woman claims the shaliach informed her that the get was given for the purpose of divorce, she is believed. This is due to her possessing a migo, a principle that allows an individual to assert a claim based on the possibility of a stronger claim they could have made. Thus, her testimony is credible, as she could have claimed that the husband gave the get directly to her.
As the discussion transitions to the next Mishna, we learn about a na'ara me'orasa, a girl engaged at the age of twelve. Both she and her father have the right to receive her get. This Mishna emphasizes the dual agency in the divorce process for a girl of this age, illustrating the balance of authority between the father and the daughter.
The Gemara explores the implications of this dual authority, particularly concerning the father’s role in receiving the get. Rabbi Yehuda argues that two hands cannot acquire simultaneously, asserting that only the father can receive the get while he is alive. The Gemara then investigates what happens if the girl is orphaned, affirming that she can receive her own get if she has reached the appropriate age and maturity.
In the course of the discussion, the Gemara also addresses the criteria for a girl to be able to hold her get. If she cannot properly safeguard it, she cannot initiate a divorce. The Gemara outlines specific benchmarks for determining a girl's capacity to manage her own get, linking this to her mental maturity and understanding of the divorce process.
In conclusion, the intricacies of these halachic discussions reveal the profound considerations surrounding personal agency, responsibility, and the legal frameworks governing marriage and divorce. The principles laid out in the Mishna and explored in the Gemara serve to guide the community in navigating these delicate matters with care and precision.