The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli Masechet Gittin has been sponsored by our good friend and loyal student of the Daf Yomi, Mr. Haim Idana and his dear wife, may God protect them with life. He has dedicated this Masechet according to the principle our Sages teach us: that when one learns something, it can avert that item from happening. Thus, we learn Masechet Gittin so that it will remain in the theory of learning and never come to fruition in actuality. May he and his dear wife and all of Klal Yisrael be blessed with Shalom Bayit and abundant success in all their endeavors, Amen.
We now begin the next chapter, Chapter Six, starting from the Mishnah: "One who sends a divorce document to his wife." The Mishnah discusses a scenario where a man sends a divorce document (a get) to his wife via an agent (a shaliach). However, the man changes his mind. So, he reaches the shaliach to tell him to stop, or he sends another shaliach to catch up with the first shaliach, or he runs to his wife himself before the shaliach gets there, or he sends a shaliach to his wife before the first shaliach gets there. In all these cases, if he tells the shaliach, "The get I sent you, nullify it," it is nullified. This is because he intercepted the shaliach. However, once the get reaches the wife's hands, it is too late; he cannot nullify it.
Initially, one did not even have to go catch the shaliach. It was enough for the husband, wherever he was, to gather three men in front of a rabbinical court (a Bet Din) and declare, "That shaliach who is on his way to deliver the get, it is nullified." As long as he nullified the shaliach in front of the Bet Din, it was considered nullified. That was the initial law, but it was changed. What happened? Rabban Gamliel and the Elders instituted a "Tikkun Ha'olam" – an enactment for the betterment of the world. What does "Tikkun Ha'olam" mean here? Obviously, if the husband nullified the shaliach in front of the Bet Din, the shaliach would not know about it and would proceed to deliver the get. The wife would then receive a get that was, in fact, nullified, but she would be unaware. What would she end up doing? She might remarry based on a nullified get, leading to serious halachic problems. So, the Rabbis said, "We must nullify this." No more nullifying an agent in front of a Bet Din. You must do it either by sending another shaliach or by going yourself and physically intercepting the get.
The Gemara here begins by analyzing the Mishnah's language: "He sent the get to his wife." The word "Yigia" (והגיע) sounds like he caught up with the shaliach by chance or by mistake. If the Mishnah had said "Higio" (השיגו), it would sound like he was running after him and caught him intentionally. "Yigia" implies he happened to be going on his way and bumped into the shaliach. "Higia" sounds like he met him by chance, perhaps because the shaliach was slow, and the husband was anyway going in that direction. Even so, the get is nullified, even if he met him by mistake, by chance. The Gemara asks, "And we do not say that he is merely trying to cause anguish to his wife?" One might argue that if he did not intend to go see him but just ran into him, perhaps he is merely trying to cause his wife pain or delay the divorce for a month or two, not truly intending to nullify the get. If he truly wanted to nullify it, he would have run himself. The fact that he just bumped into the shaliach could mean it is not a real nullification. In that case, if the shaliach delivered the get a month later, the get would be valid. That is why the Mishnah explicitly states that we do not say this; even if he met him by mistake and happened to bump into him and told him the get is nullified, we do not say he is just trying to cause pain to his wife to delay it.
The Mishnah then states, "Or he sent a shaliach." What is the purpose of this case? You might have thought that a second shaliach does not have stronger power than the first shaliach to nullify the get. Why would I think that? Why should the second shaliach not have more power than the first? Again, you have the case where he sent a shaliach to nullify the first shaliach's mission. You might have thought you do not listen to the second shaliach. Why should I listen to him? How do you appoint a shaliach? Through speech (dibbur). You appoint them verbally. You might have thought that one verbal appointment cannot nullify another verbal appointment. The Mishnah teaches us that the husband's sending of a second shaliach, even through verbal instruction, can nullify the original verbal instruction he gave to the first shaliach.
The Mishnah continues, "Or he got to his wife." What is the purpose of this case? You might say that he is not intending to cause his wife anguish, and he means to nullify the get when he tells the shaliach. But when he himself goes to the wife in front of her and says, "Oh, the get, it is not going to happen," what might he be intending to do? Perhaps he wants to pain her, to drag her on for a little longer. Maybe there you would say that he does not really mean to nullify it; he is just trying to pain his wife. The Mishnah teaches us, no. When he tells his wife, even face-to-face, that the get is not a get, he really means it; he is not doing it merely to pain her.
The Mishnah further states, "Or he sent a messenger to her to tell her it is nullified." What do you need this case for? You might argue that if he does not mean to nullify the get but merely to needle his wife, he would not trouble himself to go there and tell her that it is not a get. But if he sends a shaliach to his wife, it costs him nothing. So, you might think that when he sends a shaliach to his wife to say, "I am not giving you the get," he is really just trying to stall it. The Mishnah teaches us that even when he sends a shaliach to the wife, it is a valid nullification. In each case of the Mishnah, the common denominator is that the get is nullified: whether he catches the shaliach even nonchalantly, without specific intent; or he sends another shaliach to nullify it, even though it was not his direct verbal instruction; or even if he is the one who goes to the wife, and we do not say he is merely causing anguish; and even if the shaliach was sent, where there is a greater reason to say he did not toil, the get is indeed nullified in all cases.
The Gemara then says, "Once the get gets to her hand, he cannot nullify it." This seems obvious; of course, once she has the get, he cannot nullify it. The Gemara explains that this case is necessary because it refers to a situation where he is running after her in order to nullify the get. One might have thought that perhaps retroactively, the get is nullified, meaning that his intent, though not yet expressed, would nullify it from the moment he started running. The Mishnah teaches us, no. What is the case? We will learn later that this is the opinion of Rava. Rava holds that it is enough for a husband to have what is called "gilui da'at" – to express an intention – that he wants to nullify the get, and the get is nullified. Technically, according to Rava, if the get was on its way to the wife, and the husband was screaming, "Nullify, nullify! I do not want the get!" as long as he shows his intent, that should be enough to say the get is nullified.
However, here, Tosafot explains the case: the shaliach is on the way to deliver the get, and the husband is running. At this point, we do not know why he is running. We do not know if he is running to urge the shaliach to go faster or to nullify the get. It is not clear; it is not evident to us. Tosafot explains that Rava, who says that "gilui da'at" concerning a get is effective, refers only to a situation where this intent becomes known before the get reaches her hand. But if that "gilui da'at" only becomes known after the get reaches her hand, then it is not effective. In this case, before the get reached her hand, the man was running, but we did not know why. Therefore, now that she has the get, you might want to say that retroactively, when we find out that the man was running to nullify it, it should be nullified. We say, "Sorry," it has to be evident at the time you are running. If it is not evident, Tosafot calls that "Devarim Shebalev" – thoughts in the heart – which are not halachically effective. So, to review: the husband sent a shaliach. The get reached the wife. The Mishnah says, "Once it gets to his wife, game over; it cannot be nullified." One might have thought that since he was running, and the get reached his wife, retroactively, his running would show his intent to nullify it. But we say, you are right, normally "gilui da'at" works when it is an explicit "gilui da'at." In this case, when he was running, we did not know why he was running; therefore, it is considered "Devarim Shebalev," and thus, the get is a valid get.
The Gemara continues, "Our Rabbis taught in a Baraita: If a person tells the shaliach, 'The get that I gave you is nullified,' his words are valid." This means these words are considered legitimate to nullify a get, because he is essentially saying that from this point forward, the get has no validity. However, if he comes along and says, "The get that I gave you is invalid," or "It is not a get," he has said nothing. The Baraita states that this would be no good. He gave the shaliach a valid get; he is just coming to say that from here on, the get is nullified. Rashi explains that "invalid" (pasul) implies he is not nullifying the messenger's mission, but rather saying something about the get itself, that the get is invalid, which is not true. Rashi says, "He said nothing and merely burdened himself," meaning that in this case, the language used is ineffective.
The Gemara asks, "Are you telling me that when you say the word 'nullified' (batel), that is future language? That 'batel' means that it should be nullified?" Consider a case of receiving a gift (matanah). A person receives a gift. After the gift comes to his hand, he says, "This gift is nullified," or "It should be nullified by my receiving it," or "I do not want it." He has said nothing. Rashi explains that the receiver receives the gift even against his will. What is the practical difference (nafka minah)? If, for example, someone is owed money by the receiver, that creditor can come and take the gift from the receiver, because it is considered the receiver's property. All these languages the receiver used are future languages. He cannot receive it and then say, "I am not going to receive it." He just received it. All the languages used by the receiver of the gift do not work because they are future terminologies. However, the Gemara continues, if he says, "It is not a gift," those are past languages, so then his words are valid. So, what do you see from here? That the word "batel" or "betelah" is past tense. But by a get, we said that when he says "batel," that is future tense. So, make up your mind: how do you judge the word "batel"? Is it a forward word, a future word, or a past word? There is a contradiction between the get and the matanah cases.
Abaye says, "As you read Rashi, 'Batelah' means 'it was nullified'." That is why in the matanah case, it was nullified before he received it. "The admission of a litigant is like a hundred witnesses." This simply gives us the mechanics of how this works. When the litigant, the person himself who is receiving the gift, comes along and says, "I do not want it," you believe him. He is like a hundred witnesses. "And if he says he did not acquire it, it returns to the giver." The Gemara gives an example: "I wrote and gave this field to so-and-so." The receiver says, "I never got it." So, that is what it is. He is believed. He is saying, "You are telling me that I received the item? I am the litigant; I am telling you I never received the gift." Therefore, he is believed. Anyway, the Gemara comes along and says, the word can go either way. It is past tense by matanah, and it is also future. You use the word that is effective in each situation. Rashi says that when a person uses a word, he is going to use the word and its connotation that is effective in each situation. It is like we said about him, "I can go either way." He is like a shaliach who is delivering a get. What is the practical difference (nafka minah)? When we tell a person, "Go give the gift to such and such a person," this opinion holds that the words "go and walk the gift" or "bring the gift to that person" are not as if the owner said, "I want you to acquire it for him." Normally, we have a law that once the receiver of the gift gets the gift, he could acquire it for the person who is supposed to get it. The shaliach brings the gift, so this is a merit for the person to receive a gift, so he could acquire it. But Abaye holds that just like by a get, it is not a get until it gets to her hands, and the shaliach is not the final recipient. So too by a matanah, even though it is a merit, when he says "go," it is not yet acquired. Therefore, the sender of the gift can retract. If you say it is done once the shaliach gets it, then the sender cannot retract. But if you say "go" is not like an acquisition, it is like a get, and we said he can retract until it gets there, so by matanah also he can retract until it gets there. Rashi says, "Nafka minah, fourth line: 'Go' is not like an acquisition, and even though a gift is a merit, he can retract. 'Go' is not like an acquisition." When you tell a person to "go," it is not considered like you are telling them to acquire it.
Next case: Ravina found Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak standing by the threshold of the door. He asked him, "What if a person tells the shaliach just the words 'nullified' (batel)?" He did not say the words "it is nullified for you" or "it is not a get." We are narrowing it down. He said, "Go either way," depending on whether you are talking about a matanah or a get. Rashi says, "What do you say?" It does not matter. It still has two tenses, and depending on the context in which you use it, it will be okay. The Gemara says, "Such a question! It remains unresolved (Tiku)." So, it is a big question. The Gemara leaves it in the "Tiku," meaning it is unresolved. Who could make the difference? Rav Shesha said, "And we learn in a Baraita: 'This get will not be effective, it will not make you permissible, it will not cause separation, it will not send you, and it will not divorce you. It will be like pottery.' His words are valid." Why? Because all these are future expressions. He is not saying, "The get I gave you was garbage." He is saying, "Listen, shaliach, going forward, it is no good anymore." That is a way of nullifying the shaliach's mission. However, if he comes along and says, "The get has no effectiveness," or "It does not make permissible," "It does not cause separation," "It does not send," "It does not divorce," "It is like pottery" (in the present tense), he said nothing. Again, because he is saying, "Now it is not so." The get has effectiveness; it is just that you want to nullify the agency. So, when you come along and say, "The get is nothing, the get is a zero," that is not a true statement. It does not nullify the agency. Rashi explains, "It is not effective" implies he is not nullifying the agency. "It testifies" implies he is testifying that it is invalid, like he is just saying something about the get. But we do not see an invalidity in the get. "Let them validate the get with their seals," meaning it is kosher. Therefore, you have to use a language where you say, "From here on in, I am nullifying." What are you nullifying from here on in? The shaliach's mission. But if you come along and say a language that mostly nullifies the get itself, saying "the get is no good," that is not a true statement; therefore, it does not nullify the shaliach. But why is it working in the future against the get? In the future case, why? Because I am telling you, "From here on in, do not give the get." Yes, that is basically what he is telling him. Sure, the shaliach, we are going to see, could use the get again. That is the next question. Can you use the get a second time? But the point is, in the future, when you tell the guy, "The get I gave you is a good get, but from now on, I do not want you to deliver it. I do not want you to be the delivery boy."
The Gemara asks, "If he comes along and tells the shaliach, 'It is pottery' (Hare Hu Heres), what is the ruling?" Is that "lehabba" (future) or "leshavar" (past)? Until now, we said "Yehe Heres" (it shall be pottery), which is future. But if he says, "It is pottery," is that considered future or not? When a person comes along and wants to make something ownerless, he says, "It is ownerless." That is future: "I want to make it from now on and going forward." Or he goes to an animal and says, "It is consecrated." That is also future. So, you see, it is future terminology. Now the Gemara has a question: good, he used these terminologies, future terminology. Could he reuse the get? Does it do something to the get, or is it just affecting the shaliach's mission? That is the question. Rashi asks, "If he used the get, can he reuse it afterwards? Or is it a good thing? Do you say the get is nullified, and the agency is empty? Or does the Mishnah mean he sends the get, or does he nullify it?" We can send it, but the get is not nullified. Really, the question is the mechanics: are you nullifying the get, or are you nullifying the shaliach? If you are nullifying the shaliach but the get is intact, reappoint him, and it is okay. Or are you taking away the effect of the get itself, that get is nullified, then you need a new get. So, the Gemara says that he is nullifying the shaliach, but the get remains effective. If you just appoint a shaliach again, you can use the same get.
The Gemara brings a contradiction. We follow the Baraita, which is in a case where a man gives a lady money and tells her, "Be consecrated to me." And she receives the money. And then, within 30 days, she comes along and says, "Nullified! I do not accept." So, we understand at this point that she is nullifying the money, and it still says similarly. She is nullifying the money. Similarly here, when he comes along and nullifies, he is nullifying the get, just like the lady who received the money comes along and says, "I do not accept," so this money is ineffective. Similarly, by a get, where the Baraita says, "It is nullified." So, what is he saying? The get is ineffective. So, that is a question on Rav Nachman. The Gemara says, "Is that a fair analogy?" There, it is one verbal nullifying another verbal. One verbal instruction comes and nullifies another verbal instruction. This means, initially she said she would receive it, and now she changes her mind and says, "I am not going to receive it." Good. So, one word can nullify another word. And here also, what are you nullifying? Your words that you were appointing the shaliach. How do you appoint a shaliach? Verbally: "Deliver the get." And I call him and say, "You know what? Do not deliver the get." But he is not nullifying the get itself. The get, the document itself, that is a tangible item. There is a distinction. He did not nullify the get, which is your analogy. In that case of the betrothal (kiddushin), the money is not nullified. If you say it clearly, can the husband use that money again for a kiddushin? Of course, the money remains the money. All the lady was doing was nullifying a verbal acceptance. Verbal can nullify verbal. Similarly by a get, his verbal appointment of a shaliach can nullify the appointment of the deed of the appointment by verbal nullification. But the get itself, that is a tangible item. Rashi explains that initially when she received the money, it was her verbal acceptance. So, her retraction, her verbal retraction, the money did not become invalid. All he is doing is telling his verbal agent that there is no one who can save him. Because of this, the get that he is holding is not being made invalid. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen.