The MDY Sit Edition and audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Gittin, has been generously sponsored by our esteemed friend and loyal student of the Daf Yomi, Mr. Chaimy Dana, and his beloved wife, may Hashem protect and sustain them. He has dedicated this Masechet with the understanding that through learning, we can avert negative occurrences from manifesting in reality. Thus, we engage with Masechet Gittin so that its teachings remain theoretical and do not come to fruition in practice. May this learning bless him, his wife, and all of Klal Yisrael with peace in their homes and success in all their endeavors. Amen.
Today’s Daf is Daf Kaf-Zayin. We study this Daf in memory of Mordechai Yitzchak ben Sarah, Marat Zeckanit Yaffa bat Sarah, and Avraham ben Esther. May their souls find peace in Gan Eden. Amen. This Daf is also dedicated for the complete healing of Moshe ben Dina, Sarah Ruchama bat Rachel, and Sarah bat Rachel. May they receive healing for both body and soul, and may their recovery come swiftly from Heaven, as we say, Amen.
We begin today’s study of Daf Kaf-Zayin, Amud Rishon, starting from the top line with a new Mishnah. The Mishnah states: Hamavi get, a messenger who is bringing a get to divorce someone’s wife, and what happened? Ve’avad hemeno, he lost the get. If they find it immediately, kasher. Thus, we say the get is kasher, and it should be returned to the messenger so that he can deliver it. However, if it is not found immediately, pasul. If it is not found immediately, the get is pasul, as she might say: Shema me’acher nafal, perhaps it fell from someone else, ve’ein zeh shelo, and it is not his. This implies that we must assume that the names on the get are the same, and therefore we have a safek. Consequently, we cannot give it back to him.
However, if they find it in a chafitza or a deloskema, a chafitza being a leather pouch that is identifiable, or a deloskema, a type of wallet, the point is that it is a container with a siman, a sign. Therefore, if the messenger can identify it by this siman, or if he recognizes the get by a particular siman that is on it, then it is kasher. The Mishnah clarifies that even if it is found anywhere, even on the floor, it is kasher as long as it is identifiable through a siman.
Now the Gemara will delve into the details of this case. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a Mishnah in Bava Metzia: Matza gitei nashim, if one finds a get in the street or a release for a slave, and the man is on his deathbed, he can verbally gift whatever he wants, and it is considered as if it has been written and delivered. Therefore, when he dies, it is as though the items have already been transferred to that person. What they would do is write a daytekei to confirm what the shechiv mera said. If one finds such a document in the street, he should not return it, neither to the husband nor to the wife. Why? She’ani omer, because I say, ketuvin hayu, it could be that the get was written, v’nimlach aleihem, and then they changed their minds about giving it. The Mishnah emphasizes that one should not return it to either the husband or the wife.
From this, we learn that if the husband, upon finding the get, says, “No, no, give it to her,” she is to receive it. The only reason we withhold it is due to the uncertainty of whether he changed his mind. If the husband explicitly states that he wants to give it to her, we can give it to her even after a long time. This presents a contradiction between our Mishnah in Gittin and the Mishnah in Bava Metzia.
The Gemara addresses this contradiction: Amar Rabbah, no question. In our Mishnah, it refers to a case where the get was lost in a city with a lot of traffic. Therefore, after a long time, one must be concerned that this get belongs to someone else. However, in Bava Metzia, it refers to a small town with little traffic. Thus, even after a long time, there is no concern that it came from someone else.
The Gemara further elaborates that even in a place with heavy traffic, one must also consider the possibility of two individuals named Yosef ben Shimon living in the same town. If both factors are present—heavy traffic and two individuals with the same name—then there is a safek, and we cannot return the get. However, if there is no heavy traffic or only one individual with that name, we can return the get to the messenger.
The Mishnah in Gittin indicates that if the get falls on the floor after a long time, it is not acceptable. In contrast, the Mishnah in Bava Metzia implies that if the husband states that it is his get, we can return it even after a long time, indicating a contradiction. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that in the case of Gittin, heavy traffic and two individuals with the same name create a concern that the get may belong to someone else.
The Gemara continues to analyze the details of these cases, emphasizing the importance of the context in determining whether the get can be returned. The discussion reveals that the presence of heavy traffic coupled with the existence of two individuals with the same name creates a situation of doubt, preventing us from returning the get.
In conclusion, this intricate exploration of the halachot surrounding the return of a lost get highlights the delicate balance of legal reasoning in Jewish law. The distinctions made by the sages provide a framework for understanding the complexities of personal status and the implications of each ruling. As we engage with these texts, we are reminded of the profound responsibility that comes with the power of divorce and the sanctity of marital relationships.