Gittin, Daf Heh, Part 3

 

Introduction

This section is also largely similar to the two sections we have already learned this week.

 

תָּא שְׁמַע הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אִם נִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו כָּשֵׁר וְאִם לָאו פָּסוּל הֱוֵי לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם לְהַחֲמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ

לְרָבָא נִיחָא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא

 

Come and learn: One who brings a get from abroad and gave it to her but did not say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence if it can be upheld by its signatures, it is valid and if not it is invalid. This is what is meant by the saying They did not require him to say It was written in my presence and signed in my presence to be stringent upon her but rather to be lenient upon her.

For Rava this goes well, but for Rabbah it is a difficulty.

 

If the agent cannot make the declaration, then the get may still be validated by its signatures. The requirement for the declaration is meant to make things easier on her for it to be easier to validate the get so that she can get remarried. Not to make things more difficult on her. Again, this makes sense to Rabbah. But the same difficulty as above can be raised here how can we ever uphold a get by its signatures. Even if we know who signed the get, how do we know it was written with her in mind?

 

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ

כְּשֶׁנִּיסַת

 

What are we dealing with here? After they learned.

But did you not say [that we do not allow this] lest the matter return to its prior state?

[This refers to a case] where she was already married.

 

Again, the Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that the people outside of Israel had learned the laws.

The Talmud now raises a difficulty based on the previous sections where we said we are concerned that they again forget the rules. So how can we not have that concern here?

The answer is that this source refers to a case where she was already remarried. The rabbis were lenient in upholding the get lest the get be disqualified and her second marriage invalidated.

 

אִי הָכִי הֱוֵי לָא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם דְּנִיסַּת הוּא

 

If so, it should have said, This is what is meant by the saying They did not require him to say It was written in my presence and signed in my presence to be stringent upon her but rather to be lenient upon her because she was already married.

 

If the reason for leniency was that she is already married, then the source should have said explicitly that they were lenient because she is already married. This is an essential piece of information, one that should not have been left out.

 

הָכִי קָאָמַר וְכִי תֵּימָא לְהַחֲמִיר עֲלַהּ וְלַפְּקַהּ הֱוֵי לֹא הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ

טַעְמָא מַאי דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ הַשְׁתָּא בַּעַל לָא קָא מְעַרְעַר אֲנַן נֵיקוּם וּנְעַרְעַר עֲלַהּ

 

This is what it says: And if you were to say, that we should be stringent upon her and remove her from her husband, this is what is meant by the saying They did not require him to say It was written in my presence and signed in my presence to be stringent upon her but rather to be lenient upon her.

Why? Lest the husband come and protest and disqualify [the get]. Now that the husband is not protesting, should we protest it.

 

The Talmud now rereads the baraita. The end of the baraita is read as specifically responding to the thought that we should be stringent upon her and remove her from her new husband. The baraita says that we do not. The answer here is new. The rabbis do not need to disqualify a get that the husband is not protesting against. Without the husband protesting the validity of the get, why should the court preempt any protest and disqualify it?