The Eddie B Sit edition of the תלמוד בבלי Talmud Bavli, specifically the מסכת גיטין Masechet Gittin, has been graciously sponsored by our good friend and loyal תלמיד talmid of the דף יומי Daf Yomi, Mr. Haimy Dana and his dear wife, השם ישמרם ויחיים Hashem yishmerem ve-yachayem. He has dedicated this מסכת masechet with the intention that through our learning, we can avert the actual situations discussed from occurring in the real world. Therefore, we hope this study will bless him, his wife, and all of כלל ישראל Klal Yisrael with שלום בית Shalom Bayit and הצלחה והרווחה Hatzlacha ve-Harvacha בכל מעשה ידיהם bechol ma'aseh yedeihem. Amen.
Today's דף Daf is being studied לעילוי נשמת le-iluy nishmat מרדכי בן נסים Mordechai ben Nissim, צפורה בת שרה Zipporah bat Sarah, and מרת זקירה ציפא בת שרה u-Marat Zakira Tzipa bat Sarah. We also dedicate today's דף Daf for רפואה שלמה refuah sheleimah for משה בן שרה Moshe ben Sarah, שרה רחמה בת רחל Sarah Rochma bat Rachel, and שרה בת חוה Sarah bat Chavah, and משה בן דינה אסתר Moshe ben Dina Esther. May they all receive healing of both body and spirit, and may all the sick of our people Israel be granted a complete recovery. Amen.
We begin with דף כג עמוד ב Daf Kaf Gimmel Amud Bet, starting from the גמרא Gemara. Yesterday, we noted in the משנה Mishnah that there are certain women who are not believed to testify that a husband has died, using the phrase מת בעליך met ba'aleich. This means that if they come to testify about the death of a husband, they are not trusted, as they harbor animosity towards the woman and may wish to cause her harm. If the husband is indeed alive and they testify otherwise, it would lead to the woman potentially marrying again, thus rendering her אשת איש eshet ish, a married woman. However, these same women, who are not believed to say מת בעליך met ba'aleich, are trusted to bring a גט Get. The language of the משנה Mishnah states נאמנות להביא את גיטה ne'emanot lehavi et gittah, indicating that they are believed to bring the Get.
The גמרא Gemara then poses the question, מה בין גט למיתה ma bein Get le-mitah? What is the difference between a Get and death? The משנה Mishnah explains that the document itself serves as proof, using the phrase שהכתב מוכיח she-haktav mocheach. We will explore what this means in the גמרא Gemara.
The גמרא Gemara states, והתניא ve-ha tanya, רבה Rabbah teaches us a ברייתא braita: כשם שאין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה keshem she-ein ne'emanot lomar met ba'alah, just as they are not believed to say that her husband has died, כך אין נאמנות להביא גיטה kach ein ne'emanot lehavi gittah, they are also not trusted to bring the Get. This contradicts our משנה Mishnah. רב יוסף Rav Yosef responds, לא קשיא Amar Rav Yosef la kashya. The distinction lies in the location: כאן בארץ כאן בחוץ לארץ Kan ba-aretz, kan be-chutz la-aretz. In the land of Israel, if she is bringing the Get, let's say the mother-in-law is bringing it in ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael, she does not need to make any proclamation like בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, because the Get is in Eretz Yisrael, and we do not rely on her word; she is believed, what we call מהימנא mehemana.
However, in חוץ לארץ Be-chutz la-aretz, she needs to affirm the statement בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, as we are relying on her word, which is not believed. The concern here is not that these women might forge a Get, but rather that they might lie. Therefore, in Eretz Yisrael, we do not suspect that they will bring a forged Get; hence, it is considered כשר kasher automatically. In contrast, in Be-chutz la-aretz, they do not have a נאמנות ne'emanot.
This explains the difference between the משנה Mishnah, which states they are believed in Eretz Yisrael, and the ברייתא braita, which states they are not believed in Be-chutz la-aretz. Then the גמרא Gemara brings another perspective: אמר ליה אביי Amar leh Abaye, on the contrary, the opposite is more logical, איפכא מסתברא ipcha mistabra. In Eretz Yisrael, since she does not say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, when she brings the Get, if the husband comes along and questions it, he can claim he never gave it or that it was forged. The דין din is that we listen to him, as it was never validated with a statement of בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam. Thus, it can be said that she intends to cause a קלקול kilkul, bringing a Get in Eretz Yisrael without proper validation.
Conversely, in Be-chutz la-aretz, when she says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, the husband’s claim of ערעור irur is not believed, and therefore she has a נאמנות ne'emanut. The fundamental principle here, according to אביי Abaye, is that these women are suspected of even forging a Get. In Eretz Yisrael, when she brings the Get without making a statement, she risks causing a situation where her daughter-in-law may marry someone else while still being married to her original husband, leading to a significant halachic issue.
In contrast, רב יוסף Rav Yosef holds a different perspective. According to him, even in Be-chutz la-aretz, there is concern that she could cause a קלקול kilkul. Even though she states בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, if witnesses come and prove she was not present at the time of the statement, the Get is invalidated, leading to a scenario where she cannot stay with her new husband and cannot return to her original husband.
Thus, the מחלוקת machloket between אביי Abaye and רב יוסף Rav Yosef revolves around whether these women are believed in Eretz Yisrael or Be-chutz la-aretz. One underlying concept here is that רב יוסף Rav Yosef is only concerned that she may lie, while אביי Abaye is worried that she may even forge a Get. To clarify, in Eretz Yisrael, when the Get is brought without a statement, it raises the concern of a forged Get, while in Be-chutz la-aretz, the concern is primarily about lying.
Next, the גמרא Gemara discusses רבי שמעון בן אלעזר Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who states in the name of רבי עקיבא Rabbi Akiva that a woman is believed to bring her own Get from a קל וחומר kal v'chomer. The reasoning is that if the five women who are not believed to testify about their husband's death are trusted to bring a Get, then the wife herself, who is believed to say מת בעליך mais ba'aleich, is certainly trusted to bring her own Get.
The גמרא Gemara responds, פשיטא peshita. It seems obvious that she can bring her own Get from the law of מת בעליך mais ba'aleich. The גמרא Gemara continues with the reasoning that in a place where they must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם befanay nichtav u-vefanay nechtam, she too must say it. The גמרא Gemara concludes that the case of the woman bringing her own Get must also be in Be-chutz la-aretz, where she must affirm the statement.
As we delve further into the גמרא Gemara, we encounter a new משנה Mishnah: כל גט שנכתב שלא לשום אשה Kol get shenichtav shelo lishum isha. Any Get that is written not for the sake of the woman being divorced is פסול pasul. The משנה Mishnah provides a few examples to illustrate this point. For instance, if a man is walking in the street and hears a sofer (scribe) saying, “So-and-so is divorcing his wife from such-and-such a place,” and he recognizes his name and his wife’s name, he cannot use that Get, as it was not written for him.
Another example involves a man who wrote a Get for his wife but then changed his mind. If another man in town finds that Get and claims it is valid because they share the same names, it is also פסול pasul. The reasoning is that the Get must be explicitly for the woman he intends to divorce. If he writes a Get for the older wife and attempts to use it for the younger wife, it is invalid. Lastly, if he tells the sofer to write a Get for whichever wife he chooses, it is similarly פסול pasul, as it lacks the necessary intention.
The גמרא Gemara now examines why each case is a חידוש chidush. The first case illustrates that the Get was not even written for the sake of divorce; it was written for instructional purposes. The second case, while written for divorce, was for a different woman, and thus cannot be used. The third case, where the husband has two wives with the same names, demonstrates that even if he wrote it for one, he cannot use it for the other. The final case shows that the husband cannot leave it open-ended; it must be explicitly for the intended recipient.
In conclusion, the גמרא Gemara emphasizes that a Get must be written לשמה lishma, for the specific woman intended to be divorced, and that the Torah's language emphasizes this requirement. The concept of ברירה brirah, or retroactive selection, does not apply in this context, as the Torah explicitly states that the Get must be intended for that woman at the time of writing.
Thus, we have explored the various cases surrounding the validity of a Get, highlighting the importance of intention and specificity in the process of divorce according to halachic principles. We conclude this discussion with a reminder of the significance of clear intention in all acts of divorce, ensuring that the sanctity and rules of marriage are upheld.