Kiddushin, Daf Mem Tet, Part 1

 

Introduction

At the end of last week s daf we learned of a notion called merely indicating the place. What this means is that when a person gives a detail to an agent of sorts, he does not really care about the performance of the detail, he is just giving an example or some extraneous information. In today s sugya, Abaye notes that there are several tannaitic statements that could be interpreted using this rubric.

 

אמר אביי ר"ש ורשב"ג ור"א כולהו סבירא להו מראה מקום הוא לו ר"ש הא דאמרן רשב"ג דתנן גט פשוט עדיו מתוכו מקושר עדיו מאחוריו פשוט שכתבו עדיו מאחוריו ומקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו שניהם פסולים

ר’ חנינא בן גמליאל אומר מקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו כשר שיכול לעשותו פשוט

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הכל כמנהג המדינה

 

Abaye said: R. Shimon, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and R. Elazar, all hold that one merely indicates the place. R. Shimon, as stated. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel: for we learned:

A plain get, its witnesses are on the inside; a tied one, its witnesses are on the outside. If the signatures of a plain one are written on the outside, or of a tied one on the inside, both are invalid. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: If the signatures of a tied one are written on the inside it is valid, because it can be converted into a plain one.

R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: It all depends on local custom.

 

The first tanna who holds that one was merely indicating a place was R. Shimon from yesterday s source about kiddushin.

The second source is about divorce documents, and it deals with the difference between plain gets, whose witnesses sign inside the document, and tied gets, whose witnesses sign on the outside of the document, after it has been tied. The tannaim dispute whether a get can be valid if signed in the wrong way. The Talmud will now discuss the various opinions in this source.

 

והוינן בה ותנא קמא לית ליה מנהג המדינה

ואמר רב אשי באתרא דנהיגי בפשוט ועבד ליה מקושר א"נ באתרא דנהיגי במקושר ועבד ליה פשוט כולי עלמא לא פליגי דודאי קפידא כי פליגי באתרא דנהיגי בין בפשוט בין במקושר ואמר ליה עביד לי פשוט ואזל ועבד ליה מקושר מר סבר קפידא ומר סבר מראה מקום הוא לו

 

Now, we asked about this: does not the first Tanna agree that local custom [is the determining factor]? To which R. Ashi replied: In the place where a plain one is customary and a tied one is made, or in the place where a tied one is customary and a plain one is made, all agree that he certainly cares [what kind of get is made]. Where do they disagree? Where both are customary, and he [the husband] instructs him [the scribe], Make me a plain one, and he goes and makes him a tied one. One Master holds that he cares [about what type is made]; the other Master holds that he merely indicated a place to him.

 

R. Ashi explains the disagreement between the first tanna and R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. The first opinion holds that if both types of documents are customary in that particular place and the husband asked to make a particular one and the scribe makes the other kind, the get is invalid. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says that he does not really care, he was merely indicating a place.

ר’ אלעזר דתנן האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי ממקום פלוני וקבל לה גיטה ממקום אחר פסול ורבי אלעזר מכשיר אלמא קסבר מראה מקום היא לו

 

R. Elazar, as we learned: If a woman says: Accept a divorce on my behalf at such and such a place, and he accepts it elsewhere: R. Elazar ruled it valid. Thus he holds that she merely indicated a place to him.

 

The next tanna who holds he/she merely indicates a place is R. Elazar. If the woman tells her agent to receive a get at a certain place, and she receives it elsewhere, R. Elazar holds that the get is still valid. She did not really care where he accepted it.