{"id":11936,"date":"2008-07-31T16:51:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-31T16:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_gittin_2127\/"},"modified":"2015-10-29T10:39:48","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T15:39:48","slug":"masechet_gittin_2127","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_gittin_2127\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Gittin 21a-27b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Gittin 21a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Mishnah<\/a>, there are limitations on the material that can be used for writing a get<\/em>. For example, all agree that a get<\/em> cannot be written on something that is connected to the ground, although there is a difference of opinion with regard to a situation where the get<\/em> was written on something connected to the ground, but was signed only after it was removed from there. Rashi<\/a> explains this based on an earlier Gemara<\/a> that requires the get<\/em> to be something that can be handed from husband to wife with no impediment. Others point to the reason suggested by the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> that explains that a get<\/em> is called a sefer<\/em> \u2013 a book \u2013 by the Torah<\/a>. Just as a book is something unconnected to the ground, so a get<\/em> cannot be connected to the ground.<\/p>\n

In addition to writing surfaces that are attached to the ground, Rabbi Yehuda ben Betera<\/a> forbids using paper that had been erased or using diftira<\/em>, since those can be forged easily. The Chachamim<\/a><\/em> of the Mishnah disagree, since \u2013 as the Gemara explains \u2013 they rely on the witnesses that attest to the validity of the document.<\/p>\n

Diftira<\/em> is a Greek word, which means a hide that has been processed and prepared for writing purposes. It, too, like the erased paper, is a writing surface that lends itself to being easily forged.<\/p>\n

In order to understand the rule regarding paper that had been erased, it is important to remember that at that time paper was made from very thin strips of papyrus that were pressed together. Pressing smoothing papyrus creates a truly smooth surface, on which erasures are very obvious. Once the top layer had been removed together with the writing that had been erased, a second or third erasure could be done without it being clear that an additional erasure had taken place.<\/p>\n

\n

Gittin 22a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a>, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira<\/a> forbids using paper that had been erased or using diftira<\/em> for a get<\/em>, since writing on those items can be forged easily. The Chachamim<\/a><\/em> of the Mishnah<\/a> disagree, since \u2013 as the Gemara<\/a> explains \u2013 they rely on the witnesses who attest to the validity of the document.<\/p>\n

In an attempt to define the term diftira<\/em>, our Gemara brings the opinion of Ulla<\/a>, who is quoted by Rabbi Chiya bar Assi as saying that there are three types of animal hides \u2013 matzah<\/em>, hiyfa<\/em> and diftira:<\/em><\/p>\n

Matzah<\/em> \u2013 as its name implies, is bland. It has been neither salted nor treated with flour nor with gall-nut.<\/p>\n

Hiyfa<\/em> \u2013 has been salted but not treated with flour or gall-nut.<\/p>\n

Diftira<\/em> \u2013 has been salted and treated with flour but not with gall-nut<\/p>\n

There are many stages in the processing of raw hides into leather, and significant differences in the way the processing is done, depending on the intended final use of the animal skin. The three stages mentioned in our Gemara do not encompass all of the different parts of curing hides, and deal very specifically with the processing stages in preparing an animal skin to be used for writing.<\/p>\n

After the hide is soaked, the remnants of the animal’s meat are removed and the initial processing is completed, it was common practice to soak the skin in salt (today it is soaked in other chemicals, as well). The next step is to put it into a flour and water mixture so that the leavening action of the flour mixed with water will help solidify the skin. The processing with gall-nuts is the final stage before the hide is ready to be used for writing.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> points out that klaf<\/em> \u2013 parchment \u2013 is not mentioned because it has reached a point in processing that it is considered a different entity, and not animal skin.<\/p>\n

\n

Gittin 23a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Mishnah<\/a>, anyone can be made a messenger to deliver a get<\/em>, except for a cheresh<\/em>, shoteh<\/em> and katan<\/em> as well as a suma<\/em> and a goy<\/em>. The cheresh<\/em>, shoteh<\/em> and katan<\/em> (deaf mute, imbecile and child) are normal categories of people who are not considered competent to carry out halakhic<\/a><\/em> requirements. The goy<\/em> (non-Jew) has no connection with Jewish divorce. The category that the Gemara<\/a> finds needs an explanation is the suma<\/em> \u2013 the blind person. Why is a blind person ineligible to deliver a get<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Rav Sheshet<\/a> explains that the problem stems from the fact that a suma<\/em> cannot recognize the person who gave him the get<\/em> nor the person who accepted it from him. Rav Yosef \u2013 who was, himself, blind, objects that a suma<\/em> can recognize people based on listening to their voices \u2013 tevi’ut ena d’kala<\/em> \u2013 which is what allows a suma<\/em> to sleep with his wife, and, for that matter, for every person to sleep with their spouse when it is dark at night. Rav Yosef suggests that this Mishnah is dealing with a specific case of a get<\/em> brought to Israel from the Diaspora, where the messenger must be able to testify that he saw the document being signed \u2013 something that a blind person cannot do.<\/p>\n

The expression used by Rav Yosef to explain how a blind person recognizes people is tevi’ut ena d’kala. Tevi’ut ayin<\/em> is the way a person recognizes an object that does not have a clear indication on it of who it belongs to. This is done by means of broader recognition techniques. Looking at a broad collection of indicators, a person can recognize something even if he cannot explain what specific thing proves that it is his \u2013 something similar to the concept of Gestalt in psychology.<\/p>\n

Ordinarily, tevi’ut ayin<\/em> refers to recognition of the object by use of visual cues. In our case the term is borrowed and applied to a parallel situation, one where the blind person can recognize people by means of their voices.<\/p>\n

\n

Gittin 24a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The third perek<\/em> of Masechet<\/a> Gittin<\/a><\/em> begins on our daf<\/em> and deals with two main issues:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. A continuation of the discussions of li-shmah<\/em> \u2013 the law requiring that a get<\/em> be written with a specific married couple in mind, and<\/li>\n
  2. The laws dealing with the messenger who delivers the get<\/em>. For example, if a messenger travels a significant distance to deliver the get<\/em>, he cannot be totally certain that the husband is still alive at the time that he hands the get<\/em> to the wife. As we have learned, a get<\/em> cannot be given after the husband has died. Although the woman is free to marry whether she is a widow or a divorcee, there are differences between those two situations regarding such laws as marrying a kohen<\/a><\/em> or being obligated in yibum<\/a><\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The first Mishnah<\/a> in our perek<\/em> teaches that a person cannot make use of a get<\/em> that was written without his knowledge, even if the names that appear in the document match his name and his wife’s name. The example that appears in the Mishnah is that if a person hears the scribe reading aloud and hears that he is writing a document with names that match his own, it cannot be used. Furthermore, even in cases where the get<\/em> was written with some level of intention, it will be invalid. For example, if a man is married to two women (something that was permissible until the enactment of the takanat<\/a><\/em> Rabbeinu Gershom<\/a>) who had the same name, he cannot use it to divorce one of them if his intent was to divorce the other one when the get<\/em> was written. Even if he told the scribe to write the get<\/em> and that he will decide later on which wife to divorce, the get<\/em> would be invalid.<\/p>\n

    The Ketav Sofer<\/a><\/em> asks why the Mishnah presents the case where a man hears the scribe saying his name aloud, rather than the simpler case of a person who simply finds an already written get<\/em> that has names that match his own. He suggests that such a get<\/em> would be invalid even if the man approaches the scribe as he is writing and asks him to have him in mind as he writes the name. Since the rest of the document was not written with this couple in mind it is invalid, even if the names are written with the proper intent.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Gittin 25a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    We learned in the Mishnah<\/a> on yesterday’s daf<\/em><\/a> that if a man married to two women who share the same name tells a scribe to write a get<\/em> for one of them and that he will decide later on which wife to divorce, the get<\/em> would be invalid. From this ruling our Gemara<\/a> wants to conclude that en berera<\/em> \u2013 that we do not take seriously a later action which clarifies an earlier issue. The question of whether or not halacha<\/a><\/em> recognizes berera<\/em> \u2013 the later clarification \u2013 is a topic discussed in relation to many laws throughout the Talmud. In an apparent contradiction to the conclusion of our Mishnah, the Gemara brings a rule about the korban Pesach<\/a><\/em>, in which it appears that yesh berera<\/em> \u2013 that a later action can clarify an earlier halakhic<\/em> situation.<\/p>\n

    The Mishnah (Pesachim<\/a> 89a<\/a>) teaches that when a father tells his children “I will slaughter the korban Pesach<\/em> on behalf of whoever gets to Jerusalem first,” whichever child reaches first is credited with the sacrifice for himself, and his siblings are included as well. This is the case even though the rule is that the only people who participate in a korban Pesach<\/em> are those who had arranged to do so in advance, apparently supporting the idea that yesh berera<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    In response to this question, Rav Yehuda<\/a> points out that the case of korban Pesach<\/em> cannot be compared to gittin<\/em>, since Rabbi Yochanan<\/a> explains that the children under discussion are adult children who are obligated in the sacrifice. According to this approach, the father would certainly have needed to include his children in the sacrifice before it was slaughtered, and that he, in fact, did so. The father did not disclose this to his children however, and in the interest of encouraging their enthusiasm, made them think that only the child who arrived in Jerusalem first would merit participation in the korban<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Gittin 26a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    In order to facilitate the work of scribes, the sages permitted them to write standard forms that would be ready for use. The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf<\/em> discusses how different types of standardized documents are written. Specifically the spaces that need to be left empty include \u2013<\/p>\n