The MBZ edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focuses on the tractate of Masechet Gittin. This series has been generously sponsored by our esteemed friend and dedicated student of Daf HaYomi, Mr. Haimi Dana, and his beloved wife, may Hashem protect and sustain them. The study of this tractate is dedicated to the principle that learning can avert unfortunate events from occurring in reality. Thus, we engage in the study of Masechet Gittin to keep its content theoretical and to bless Mr. Dana, his wife, and all of Klal Yisrael with peace in their homes and success in all their endeavors, Amen. Today’s daf, Daf Yud Chet, is being studied in memory of my grandfather, le'ilui nishmat mor zekeni, son of Yosef and Sarah, and my grandmother, Yaffa, daughter of Sarah, and in memory of Avraham, son of Esther. May their souls find peace in Gan Eden, Amen. We also pray for a complete recovery for Moshe from Dina, Sara Ruchama daughter of Tova, and Sara daughter of Rachel. May it be Your will that they receive healing of body and soul, and may healing come swiftly, and thus we say, Amen.
We begin today’s daf on Yud Zayin Amud Bet with the words Amar leh Abaye le-Rav Yosef. The discussion revolves around a get mukdam, a divorce document that is written on one day and signed on the following day. According to Tanna Kamma in the Mishnah, such a get is indeed pasul (invalid). The Gemara provides two reasons for this ruling. The first reason, according to Rabbi Yochanan, relates to the concern of bat achoto; a husband might be able to cover for his wife if she commits znut (adultery) while still married. If there is no date on the shtar (document), or if it is pre-dated, the husband can claim she was divorced at the time of the infidelity, thus concealing her misdeeds. Therefore, it is essential to include the correct date on the shtar.
The second reason given by Rabbi Resh Lakish concerns perot (fruits). Without a date on the shtar, the husband could consume the fruits even after the divorce, while the wife would be unable to reclaim them. This pre-dating issue could lead to the husband benefiting from the fruits that rightfully belong to her post-divorce. As stated earlier, her language was that if the husband sells the fruits of her property after the divorce, she will be able to reclaim her rights to them. If there is no date, he can continue to sell the fruits, and when she claims them in court, he can argue that he sold them before the divorce.
The Gemara then states: Amar leh Abaye le-Rav Yosef, there are three types of gittin that are pasulin, but if they were used and she remarried based on those gittin, the children are kasher. One of these is a get that has an early date. This is only valid bedi'avad (after the fact). The Gemara asks: What benefit did the sages achieve with their decree if it can still be used anyway? The Gemara responds that the decree prevents a man from obtaining such a get initially, as the scribes will not write a get with an early date, knowing it cannot be written lechat'chilah (initially) in such a manner.
However, the Gemara raises a concern: What if he had the date in the get, but the husband removed it? In such a case, the get was initially valid, but if he cuts out the date, he can still claim it was written correctly. The Gemara answers: Amar leh l'ramai lo chaishinan, we do not suspect a deceiver in such a manner, especially since it would be evident that he tampered with the get. The Gemara continues to discuss various scenarios, examining the implications of different cases and the validity of the get.
Next, the Gemara addresses a case where a vague date is written, such as a week or month, and questions whether this constitutes a valid date. Rashi explains that if the date is imprecise, the get remains kasher as long as it is recognized as a valid time frame. The Gemara then questions the efficacy of such a vague date: What benefit does it provide if it is permissible lechat'chilah? The Gemara concludes that it serves to protect against potential issues of znut committed before the date and perot after the get is given.
In the following discussions, the Gemara analyzes various cases of gittin and their implications, including the validity of a get written in one location and delivered in another, and the potential for deception regarding the date. The Gemara ultimately concludes that the burden of proof lies with the wife to demonstrate that she did not commit znut during her marriage, especially in cases where the get is brought from overseas.
Through these discussions, we see how the Gemara intricately weaves together halachic principles, addressing concerns about validity, timing, and the implications of actions taken by the husband and wife. Each ruling reflects a deep understanding of human behavior and the need to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and divorce.