The Every Mishna Bit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focusing on Masechet Gittin. This session has been generously sponsored by Mr. Chaimy Dana, a loyal student of the Daf Yomi, and his dear wife, may Hashem bless and sustain them. They have dedicated this Masechet with the intention that through our learning, we can avert the realities discussed within it from manifesting in life. We hope that this study brings them and all of Klal Yisrael blessings of shalom bayit, hatzlacha, and prosperity in all their endeavors. Amen.
Today, we begin our exploration on Daf Heh, studying in memory of Mordechai ben Yosef ben Sarah, Marat Zekena Tziyya bat Sarah, and Avraham ben Esther, may their souls find rest in Gan Eden. We also pray for a complete recovery for Moshe ben Dina Sarah, Ruchama bat Rachel, Sarah bat Ahava, Chaim Mordechai Eliyahu, and Mordechai Semach ben Mazal. May it be God's will to heal them and all those who are ill among the people of Israel. Amen.
We are currently on Daf Daled, Amud Bet, and we begin our study four lines from the bottom of the page. The Mishna states: “A person who brings a get from overseas and cannot declare, ‘It was written in my presence and signed in my presence’…” Here, we encounter a scenario where an individual brings a get from Medinat Hayam, but for some reason, he is unable to affirm the authenticity of the document with the required declaration. If there are witnesses who can confirm the signatures on the get, the document can still be validated. This means that if the shaliach himself could have made the declaration, it would serve as a verification. There is a debate among the authorities regarding the purpose of this declaration; some argue it is necessary to confirm the identity of the witnesses and ensure the document is not forged.
As the Gemara elaborates, we ask: What does it mean that the shaliach was unable to say ‘It was written in my presence’? The Gemara suggests a potential scenario where the shaliach is a heresh, a deaf-mute, who cannot make the declaration. However, this cannot be the case because a heresh cannot serve as a shaliach to bring a get in the first place. The Mishna clarifies that anyone is eligible to bring a get except for a heresh, shoteh, or katan, as they lack the necessary understanding.
Therefore, we must consider another case. Rav Yosef explains that we are discussing a situation where the shaliach was competent at the time of receiving the get but became incapacitated before making the declaration. In this instance, the shaliach was initially a pikeach, a wise individual, but before he could affirm the document, he became a shoteh, rendering him incapable of making the declaration. The Gemara then raises the question of how to proceed. The only option left is to verify the witnesses’ signatures through others.
The Gemara continues: According to Rabbah, this situation is acceptable because the purpose of the declaration is to verify the witnesses’ identities. If the husband later comes to challenge the validity of the get, proof is needed to confirm that the witnesses are legitimate. However, Rava raises a concern regarding the validity of the get itself, as he worries that the individuals in chutz la’aretz may not have written the get lishmah, with the proper intention. If it was not written lishmah, the document is invalid, regardless of the verification of the witnesses’ signatures.
The Gemara then introduces a new concept, stating that this discussion is relevant after the people in chutz la’aretz learned the law. If they are knowledgeable about the halakhot, we need not worry about the lishmah issue. The Gemara questions why we are discussing a case where the shaliach is unable to declare when, in fact, he could. If the people have learned the law, there is no need for the declaration anymore. The response is that the rabbis instituted a gezeira, a decree to maintain the original law, fearing that the people might revert to ignorance.
Further, the Gemara discusses the case of a woman serving as her own shaliach to bring a get. It is indeed possible for a husband to appoint his wife to carry the get, but she must also testify with the required declaration. Even though we are in an era where the law of lishmah is known, the rabbinic decree still applies to her. The Gemara explains that we do not want to create distinctions in the law regarding who must make the declaration, as doing so could lead to confusion. We want to maintain consistency across all cases.
As the discussion evolves, the Gemara contemplates the implications for the husband himself when he brings the get. If he arrives from overseas, should he also be required to make the declaration? The Gemara highlights that according to a certain baraita, the husband does not need to say the declaration when he brings his own get. This raises a question about the rationale behind the requirement for others while exempting the husband.
The Gemara concludes that the underlying concern is that the husband might later challenge the validity of the get, claiming it was not written lishmah. However, since he is the one delivering the get, this concern is mitigated. The Gemara emphasizes that we have learned significant insights in this discussion. We have established that when a shaliach brings a get and cannot declare, the proper procedure is to verify the witnesses’ signatures through others. If the signatures can be verified, the get remains valid.
In the case of a woman bringing her own get, the requirement for a declaration remains due to the rabbinic decree, even if it is not a common occurrence. The Gemara further clarifies that the rabbis did not create a distinction between cases that are prevalent and those that are not; rather, they maintained the requirement for the declaration across the board.
As we continue our study, the Gemara presents a new scenario involving two individuals who brought a get from overseas. They are not required to make the declaration, as their presence serves as sufficient testimony to the validity of the get. The Gemara explains that the reason for this is that two witnesses are inherently trusted, and their testimony is sufficient to validate the get without the need for the declaration.
Ultimately, we learn that the discussions around the declaration and the validity of the get involve nuanced considerations of intent, verification, and the rabbinic decrees that govern these matters. The Gemara emphasizes that these laws are essential for ensuring the integrity of the divorce process and protecting the rights of all parties involved.
In summary, the study of Masechet Gittin reveals the complexities of halakhic rulings regarding the validity of a get and the necessary declarations that must accompany it. Through careful examination of the Gemara, we gain insight into the principles that underpin these laws and their application in contemporary practice. May our learning be a merit for all involved, and may we continue to deepen our understanding of these vital matters.