Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be מסכת גיטין דף ל״ב עמוד א׳ from the beginning of the fourth פרק. This משנה and the גמרא afterwards deals mainly with the דין of ביטול הגט, when a person wants to cancel a גט. And this refers to the case when a person sent a גט to his wife through a שליח. Because the דין is that not only is a person able to give a גט himself to his wife, but if he wants to send it through an agent, through a שליח, he is allowed to do so. As the גמרא learns it out in קידושין from different פסוקים, that שלוחו של אדם כמותו, that the שליח, the messenger, the agent of a person has the same דין as the person himself. And if a person wants to send a גט to his wife through a שליח, he may do so. And this משנה deals with a case that a person who sent a גט to his wife through a שליח wants to be מבטל it, wants to cancel this גט. And the משנה starts,

השולח גט לאשתו, if someone sends a גט to his wife through a שליח, והגיע בשליח, and he met up with the שליח, with the agent, או ששלח אחריו שליח, or he sent another שליח to meet up with the first שליח who has the גט, ואמר לו, and he said to that שליח, גט שנתתי לך בטל הוא, the גט that I gave you is cancelled, so the דין is הרי זה בטל, that that גט is cancelled, and the שליח cannot give that גט to this man's wife. And if the שליח does give that גט to this man's wife, the woman is not divorced, she remains an אשת איש, a married woman as before, because he was מבטל the גט. קדם אצל אשתו, if the husband did not meet up with the שליח that he sent with the גט, but he came to the wife herself, או ששלח אצלה שליח, or he sent a שליח to his wife directly, ואמר לה, and he said to her, גט ששלחתי לך בטל הוא, the גט that I sent you is בטל, הרי זה בטל, so that גט is בטל. So later on, if the שליח will give the גט to his wife, that גט is בטל and the woman is not divorced, she remains an אשת איש. But אם משהגיע גט לידה, if this happened after the גט already reached to her hand, in other words, the husband sent a שליח to the שליח that he sent before to give the גט, but he did not reach that שליח till after the שליח already gave the גט to the wife, or in the case where the husband came directly to the wife, but he only came to her after she already got the גט, in all these cases, שוב אינו יכול לבטלו, he cannot be מבטל it. Since she already received the גט, she is already divorced, so now the husband cannot be מבטל the גט anymore. Then the משנה continues, בראשונה, in the beginning, היה עושה בית דין במקום אחר ומבטלו, that when a person wanted to be מבטל a גט that he sent with a שליח, he did not have to catch up to the שליח and be מבטל it to the שליח, or come to his wife and be מבטל it by her, but what he was able to do was to gather together a בית דין in another place, not in the place of the שליח or the place of his wife. Wherever he himself was, he was able to get together a בית דין, which means get together three people, or two people according to the two opinions in the גמרא later on, and he would be מבטל it in front of those people, and that would be sufficient that the גט that the שליח has is בטל. And then when the שליח would give the גט to the wife, he would be giving a גט בטל and the wife would not be divorced.

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן שלא יהו עושין כן, that they should not do that. And the reason for that is מפני תיקון העולם, for a תקנה of the world, because she will not know that the גט is בטל because he was מבטל the גט in his own place, so she will think that the גט that she received is a good גט, and she will go and remarry based on this גט, and the truth is that this גט is not a good גט, and she is not allowed to remarry, she is an אשת איש as before. And therefore רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you should not make a בית דין in your own place to be מבטל the גט, but the only way you are able to be מבטל a גט is or by reaching the שליח, or by reaching the wife before she received the גט. Now, we will learn the גמרא that explains the משנה. הגיעו לא קתני אלא הגיע. The גמרא refers to the first few words of the משנה. The משנה said that if someone sends a גט to his wife והגיע בשליח, and he met up with the שליח and told him, "The גט that I gave you is בטל," so the דין is that it's בטל. So the לשון of the משנה is והגיע בשליח, he met up with the שליח. The לשון is not הגיעו, which would mean he reached him. And the difference is that הגיעו would mean that he tried to get him, he chased him, till finally he reached him. But the word הגיע means ואפילו ממילא, אפילו by itself automatically. In other words, he didn't try to reach the שליח, he just happened by chance to meet up with the שליח, and he told the שליח that the גט is בטל. And still, the משנה tells us that even though he did not try to reach the שליח to be מבטל the גט, but he just happened by chance to meet up with the שליח and he was מבטל it, still the דין is that the גט is בטל. And the חידוש is that ולא אמרינן, we do not say לצערה הוא דקא מכוון, that he was only interested in being מצער her, in annoying her. Because there is a סברא to say that since he did not try to reach the שליח, he really is not interested in being מבטל the גט. It's only that since he happened to meet the שליח on the way, so he decided, "Let me say that the גט is בטל," not really meaning it, in order for the wife to think that she is not divorced, so he will annoy her for a few months, and later on, in a few months from now, he will give her the גט. But in the meantime, let her think that she's not going to get the גט. But in essence, he did not mean that the גט should be בטל, he just meant to be מצער her. So we would think that because of that, the גט is not בטל, that when the person, the husband, met up with the שליח by chance and was מבטל the גט, we do not accept his ביטול, and the גט remains a כשר גט. So therefore, the משנה tells us that even if just הגיע בשליח, he just met up with the שליח, still we accept his ביטול and the גט is not a good גט. Then, the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, או ששלח אחריו שליח, or if the husband sent a שליח to the first שליח to tell him that the גט is בטל, so then the דין is that the גט is בטל. So the גמרא asks, למה לי? Why does the משנה have to tell us that, since we have a כלל that שלוחו של אדם כמותו, that the שליח of a person has the same דין as the person himself? So here, too, just like the husband himself has a right to be מבטל the גט in the hands of the שליח, so it's self-understood that the husband has a right to send a שליח to the שליח to be מבטל the גט. So why does the משנה have to tell us that if he sent a שליח to the first שליח, it is also good enough, and the גט is בטל? And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would think, לא אלימא שליחותיה דבתרא משליחותיה דקמא, that the שליחות, the mission of the second one, is not stronger than the שליחות of the first, דלבטליה, in order for him to be מבטל it, for him to cancel it out, because the first one, what right does he have to give the גט? Because of the דין of שליחות. Since he is a שליח of the husband, so מצד the דין of שליחות, he has a right to give the גט instead of the husband. What right does the second שליח have to come to the first שליח and tell him that the גט is בטל? Also because the דין of שליחות, that שלוחו של אדם כמותו. So we would think that since both of them are equal, both have the same power of שליחות, so why should we say that this power of the second one is stronger than the power of the first, and the second has a right to cancel out the first? קא משמע לן, so the משנה tells us no, that even if he sent a שליח to the first שליח, it is sufficient, and the גט is בטל. Then, the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה,

קדם הוא אצל אשתו, that if the husband himself came to the wife herself, and he told her that, "The גט that I sent with the שליח should be בטל," so then the גט is בטל. And the גמרא asks, למה לי? Why does the משנה have to tell us that? Isn't it self-understood that if he comes to the wife herself, definitely he is able to be מבטל the גט? And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would think, כי לא אמרינן לצערה קא מכוון, when don't we assume that only he meant to annoy her? הני מילי לשליח, that's only if he reaches the שליח and he tells the שליח the גט is בטל. אבל לדידה, but if he goes to her and he tells her directly the גט is בטל, ודאי, for sure, לצערה קא מכוון, he only means to annoy her. In other words, when he says said before that there is a סברא to say that maybe he does not mean to be מבטל the גט. He only means to annoy her. And the גמרא said, no, we don't accept that סברא, and we say, for sure, he meant what he said, and the גט is בטל. The גמרא now says, maybe, when don't we accept that סברא? That he only meant to annoy her? When he met up with the שליח, and he told the שליח that the גט is בטל. But if he goes to his wife directly, here there is more סברא to say that probably he only means to annoy her. Otherwise he wouldn't come to her to be מבטל the גט. And therefore we might think that in the case where he came to his wife directly and told her that the גט is בטל, we do not accept his words, because he only probably meant to annoy her, and the גט should remain a good גט. קא משמע לן, so the משנה tells us, no, that if he came to his wife herself, still we say that he meant what he said, and the גט is בטל, and she is not divorced. Then we continue פשט in the משנה. It says in the משנה, או ששלח אצלה שליח, or if the husband sent a שליח to his wife to say that the גט is בטל, so the דין is the גט is בטל. So the גמרא asks, למה לי? Why does the משנה have to tell us that? Since you told me that the husband himself, if he comes to his wife and tells her the גט is בטל, the גט is בטל, so we understand ourselves that the same דין would be if he sent a שליח to his wife, because the כלל is that שלוחו של אדם כמותו. So just like the husband himself has the right to be מבטל the גט by coming to his wife, so too we understand ourselves he has a right to send a שליח to his wife to be מבטל the גט. So why does the משנה have to tell us that? And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would think, איהו הוא דלא טרח, he himself would not trouble himself אדעתא לצעורה, only to be מצער her, only to annoy her. He himself would not go out of his way to reach his wife just to annoy her. אבל שליח, but if he sends a שליח, דלא איכפת ליה כי טרח, here we could say he doesn't mind if someone else, if the שליח, will go through a trouble. So here ודאי לצעורה קא מכוין, here certainly he only means to annoy her. In other words, when we said before that we do not assume that he meant to annoy her, but we say he probably meant what he said, is only when he himself comes to his wife. We don't assume that he's going to go through the trouble of finding his wife just to annoy her. So therefore, since he found her, he went through this trouble, probably he really meant what he said to be מבטל the גט. But if he sends a שליח to his wife, here he doesn't go through any trouble. It's only the שליח that's going through the trouble. So what does he care if the שליח will go through the trouble of finding his wife? So here there's a stronger סברא to say that probably he did not mean what he said, but the reason he sent a שליח was just to be מצער her. So therefore I would think that if the husband sends a שליח to his wife to be מבטל the גט, we do not accept the ביטול, and the גט remains a כשר גט. קא משמע לן, so therefore the משנה has to tell us, no, that even if he sent a שליח to his wife, we also accept his words, and the גט is בטל. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה,

אם משהגיע גט לידה, if all this happened after the גט already reached her hand, אינו יכול לבטלו, he cannot be מבטל. And the גמרא asks, פשיטא, it's very simple. Why does the משנה have to tell us that? It's self-understood that since she got the גט already, so she is already divorced, so how could we even think that the husband should be able to be מבטל the גט after she was already divorced? And the גמרא answers, לא, צריכא, it does have to tell us. Because of a certain case, the משנה has to tell us this דין. Because in a case דמהדר עליה מעיקרא לביטוליה, in a case where he tried to be מבטל it before, he was involved in trying to be מבטל it before the גט reached her hand. So מהו דתימא, I would think, איגלאי מילתא למפרע, that this reveals for before, this reveals retroactive דבטולי בטליה, that he really was מבטל it. Even though, in fact, he didn't reach the שליח or his wife to be מבטל it until after she got the גט, but he tried to reach her or he tried to reach the שליח before. So now that he did reach her and he did say the גט is בטל, this should prove that what he did before when he was trying to reach them was also in order to be מבטל. And therefore we would think that we would say that we accept his act of before, and it's as if he was מבטל the גט before the גט reached her hand. So קא משמע לן, so the משנה has to tell us, no, that since in fact he was מבטל it only after the גט reached the hand of his wife, so we do not accept his ביטול, because the ביטול was too late, and the גט remains a כשר גט. Now the גמרא will go into the different expressions a person may use in order to be מבטל a גט. And the כלל is as follows: We are talking here about a גט which is written כדת וכדין. It was written with all the הלכות, it is a כשר גט. It's just that the husband wants to be מבטל it, it should not be given to his wife. So therefore the only expressions that are valid is if the husband uses a לשון that shows that he is trying to be מבטל the גט from now on, that he doesn't want the גט, which is a כשר גט, but he does not want it to be given now to his wife. But if he will use a לשון, an expression, that will seem to be saying that the גט from before was not a good גט, that expression is not valid, we would not accept his words, because it would not be true. If he would be saying the גט is not כשר, that is not true because the גט is כשר. So therefore the only expression we would accept is an expression that shows that even though the גט is כשר, he wants it not to be good from now on. But an expression that would seem to be saying that it's not good from before, such an expression would not be valid, and we would not accept his words, and the גט would remain a good גט. And now we will learn the גמרא inside.

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, we learn in the ברייתא, that if the husband uses the לשון, בטל הוא, it is בטל, it is canceled, or he uses the לשון, אי אפשי בו, I don't want it, דבריו קיימין, his words stand, we accept his words. But if he would use the expression פסול הוא, it is פסול, or אינו גט, it is not a גט, לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything, we do not accept his words. And the reason for that is because the last two expressions do not mean that he is being מבטל it מכאן ולהבא, from now and on, but he means what it seems to be saying is that the גט from before was no good. When he says פסול הוא, it is פסול, it's like making a statement that this גט is not a כשר גט. Or when he says אינו גט, it is not a גט, it's as if he's making a statement that the גט is not a גט, but not that he is saying the גט shall not be a good גט. And therefore, when he uses any of these two expressions, לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything, we do not accept his words. And the גמרא asks, למימרא, let us say, דבטל, that the expression בטל, לישנא דליבטל משמע, is משמע a לשון that it should be בטל for the future, that's what it seems to be saying. Since the ברייתא said that if he uses the term בטל הוא, we do accept his words, so obviously that the expression בטל means that it should in the future be בטל, and not in the past that it was בטל. But the גמרא asks, how can you say that? והאמר

רבה בר איבו אמר רב ששת, didn't רבה בר איבו say in the name of רב ששת, ואמרי לה, and others say, אמר רבה בר אבוה, that רבה בר אבוה was the one that said that, that מקבל מתנה, that a person who receives a present, שאמר, that he said, לאחר שבאת מתנה לידו, after he received the present, he said that מתנה זו מבוטלת היא, this מתנה should be מבוטל, or he says this מתנה, this present, תבטל, should be בטל, or he says אי אפשי בה, I don't want it, לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything. But if he says בטלה היא, it is בטל, or he says אינה מתנה, it is not a מתנה, דבריו קיימין, his words do stand, we do accept his words. In the case of a מתנה, it is just the opposite of the case of גט. In the case of גט we said that the only expression that is valid if the expression says that the גט should not in the future be good. But if he uses an expression that the גט is not good from before, such an expression is not valid. In the case of a present it is just the opposite. When a person receives a present and he makes a קנין on it, he does the act of acquisition and the present become his, now there is nothing that he could do to nullify that acceptance of the present. The only thing he could do is that he could give it away, he could be מפקיר it, but the present is his at this moment. So if he says after he received the present that the present shall not be a present, then his words are not valid, and it does not go back to the giver because it's his already and there's nothing he could do about it. On the other hand, if he says that the present was never a present from before, he never received it as a present, so here his words are valid because the כלל is that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that when a person himself admits in monetary things that certain things or certain money is not his, Then we believe his words, we accept his words, more than we would accept the words of a hundred witnesses. So therefore, if someone says that this present was never given to me, he himself is admitting that he never received it. And since הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, we accept his words, and we say he never received the present, and then automatically it goes back to the one that gave it. But if he says that even though I took the present, and it's mine, I from now on want the present should not be a present, that's not valid, and would not go back to the giver. And that's what רבא בר אבוה or רבה בר אבוה was saying, that if he received the present, and after he got the present he said that this present should be מבוטלת היא, or תבטל, or אי אפשי בה, doesn't mean anything. Because these are expressions that show that he does not want the present should be a present from now on, and that he cannot do. But if he says בטלה היא, or אינה מתנה, so in this case דבריו קיימין, we accept his words, because these are terms that express the fact that it was never a מתנה from the beginning, from before. But the גמרא says,

אלמא we see, בטל מעיקרא משמע, that if he used the term בטל, it means from before, not for the future that it shall be בטל, but it means that it is בטל from before. So it's a קשיא to the ברייתא that we said before: that if he uses the term בטל הוא, we say the גט is בטל. And since we say this דין in the case of גט, it means that the expression בטל הוא is for the future. And in the case of מתנה, we said that בטלה היא is also valid, so obviously it means for the past, that it was never a מתנה, it was בטל from before. And even though before we used the לשון בטל הוא, and now we're using the לשון בטלה היא, it's really the same thing. The only difference is that by the case of גט, since it's לשון זכר, so therefore we use a לשון זכר, בטל הוא. In the case of מתנה, since מתנה is לשון נקבה, so we use the לשון בטלה היא. But really, בטלה היא and בטל הוא have the exact same meaning. And that's why the גמרא asks that how could the ברייתא say that if you use the לשון בטל הוא by גט it is valid, since we know that if you use the לשון בטלה היא by מתנה it is also valid, and that shows that the expression בטל means for before, not for the future. And the גמרא answers, אמר אביי, אביי says, בטל שתי לשונות משמע, that בטל is משמע, has the meaning of two expressions: משמע דבטל ומשמע דליבטל. It could mean that it was בטל, it is בטל from before, and it could mean that it should be בטל. It has both meanings. And therefore, גבי גט, in the

case of גט, לישנא דמהני ביה קאמר. We assume that when a person is interested in being מבטל a גט, and he uses the לשון בטל הוא, he probably meant to use this expression in a way that it should be valid. And since בטל הוא could mean for the future, and he is interested in being מבטל the גט, so we assume he probably meant it in a way that it should be valid. And therefore we say what he meant was that it should be בטל in the future. גבי מתנה, in the case of the present, לישנא דמהני בה קאמר. We assume that he meant the word בטל in a way that it helps in the case of מתנה. And since in the case of מתנה the only way that ביטול would help if it means for the past, so we assume that that's probably what he meant, he meant for the past. Since the word could mean the past and mean the future, so in each case we translate it, we interpret it that he meant it the way that it would help in that case. Then the גמרא continues, אמר אביי, אביי says, נקטינן, we accept, in other words, we know the הלכה that שליח מתנה הרי הוא כשליח הגט, that if you send a שליח with a present to somebody, it has the same דין as if you send a שליח with a גט. Just like when you send a שליח with a גט you have a right to be מבטל the גט, and then the שליח is not allowed to give the גט to the wife, the same way with a מתנה, that if you send a שליח with a present to somebody, the giver of the present, the משלח, the sender, has a right to be מבטל the שליח, and the שליח is then not allowed to give the present. And the גמרא says נפקא מינה, the difference that will come out from this דין, which דין will be an outcome of this כלל that a שליח מתנה has the same דין of a שליח הגט? להולך לאו כזכי דמי, concerning the דין that הולך is not like זכי. And this refers to a כלל that we have that זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, that you could be מזכה somebody something without the person being there. In other words, the

rule is, the כלל is generally, that a person does not acquire acquire something, until he makes a קנין on the object or the thing, whatever it is, that he wants to acquire. Then the דין is that the person himself does not have to make the קנין, he is allowed to send a שליח, and when the שליח makes the קנין, then automatically at that moment the person who sent the שליח becomes the owner of the object, because we say שלוחו של אדם כמותו. And therefore, the moment the שליח makes the קנין, the משלח becomes the owner of that object. Then there is another דין, that if a person wants to give something to somebody else, for instance, if ראובן wants to give something to שמעון, and it is for the benefit of שמעון to receive that thing, that object, so then you can make שמעון the owner of that object without even שמעון knowing about it. What ראובן would have to do, he would have to give the object to a שליח, to a person, and tell the person, you be זוכה for שמעון. And the moment this שליח makes the קנין, the act of acquisition on that object, that moment this object belongs to שמעון even though שמעון doesn't even know about it, and שמעון never appointed a שליח to make the קנין for him. But ראובן has a right to be מזכה for שמעון an object if it is a זכות for him, if it is for his benefit. If it is not for his benefit, then the דין is that you cannot make him the owner of the object until he knows about it, or he makes a שליח, etc. But in the case of a זכות, you are allowed to be מזכה something for someone else without even him knowing about it. But in order to do that, you would have to tell the שליח, be זוכה for שמעון, which means you make the קנין for שמעון. But let's say the ראובן who is giving the object to שמעון does not say to the שליח, be זוכה for שמעון, he says take it to שמעון. So here the שאלה in גמרא is, when he says הולך, take it to שמעון, is it as if he said be זוכה for שמעון, and then as soon as the שליח takes it, automatically שמעון is the owner of that object? Or do we say since he did not use the term be זוכה for him, he just used the term take it to him, so as long as it didn't get to שמעון, so then שמעון is not the owner of the object? And this is

what the גמרא is saying here, that when אביי said that the דין is that you're allowed to be מבטל a שליח of a מתנה, just like you're allowed to be מבטל a שליח of a גט, that proves that הולך לאו כזכי דמי, that when you say to a שליח, take this present to שמעון, this is not as if you said be זוכה for שמעון. Because if הולך would be like זכי, so as soon as ראובן says to the שליח, take this object to שמעון, so automatically it belongs to שמעון already, because when the שליח made the קנין, it is as if he is the שליח of שמעון, and it belongs to שמעון. And now how could ראובן, the sender of the מתנה, have חרטה, change his mind, and be מבטל that מתנה? And since אביי said that you are allowed to be מבטל a מתנה when you send it with a שליח, obviously that when you gave it to the שליח, it didn't become שמעון's yet, and therefore you're able to be מבטל it. So that proves that הולך לאו כזכי דמי, הולך is not like זכי. Because if he would say זכי, if he would give it to the שליח and say be זוכה for שמעון, then טאקע ראובן, the sender, would not be able to be מבטל it. But since he did not say זכי, he said הולך, so שמעון is not זוכה yet, not קונה yet, and therefore ראובן is allowed to be מבטל it. And the גמרא continues,

רבינא אשכחיה לרב נחמן בר יצחק, רבינא found רב נחמן בר יצחק, דתלי וקאי, he was hanging on to בעיברא דדשא, on to the hinge of the door, וקמיבעיא ליה, and while he was doing that, he asked him a question. בטל מהו? What would be the דין if the husband uses the expression בטל? He didn't say בטל הוא, because when we say בטל הוא, it said in the משנה and the ברייתא that that is valid. The שאלה is if he just And the reason is as we said before, because when he says it should not help, it should not release, it should not let go, etc., so it's a לשון of להבא, a לשון for the future, and we said before if you use a לשון for the future, it's valid. But if he says it does not release, or it does not help, or it does not let go, or it does not divorce, etc., so he's not saying what it should do for the future, he is stating a fact that this גט does not help, this גט does not release, etc. So in a case like that, his words are not valid, because it is a לשון of the past. And we said before that when the husband uses a לשון of למפרע, a לשון of the past, in the case of ביטול הגט, his words are not valid. Then the גמרא continues, איבעיא להו, they ask ניבעי They ask the question:

What would be if he uses the term הרי הוא חרס? It is חרס, it is pottery. מהו, what is the דין? אמר ליה רבינא לרב אחא בריה דרבא, רבינא said to רב אחא, the son of רבא, ואמרי לה, and others say, רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי, that רב אחא, the son of רבא, said to רב אשי: מאי שנא, why should this be different מהרי הוא הקדש, הרי הוא הפקר? From when a person uses the term: this shall be הקדש or this should be הפקר. We find many times in the גמרא that when a person wants to be מקדיש something, when a person wants to give away an object that he owns, he wants to give it away to הקדש, he wants to give it away to the fund that the בית המקדש had for בדק הבית, for the fixing of the בית המקדש, etc., which was הקדש. So if he uses the term הרי הוא הקדש, this shall be הקדש, then that is valid and the object that he said it about becomes הקדש, now belongs to the בית המקדש, belongs to הקדש. Or if a person wants to be מפקיר something, wants to drop his ownership over something, so when he says, הרי הוא הפקר, let this be הפקר, so then the object becomes הפקר. And over there, too, we understand that the only expression that would be valid if it's an expression that is for the future. Because he is talking about an object that belongs to him, an object that does not belong to הקדש. What he wants to do is make it הקדש from now, that now this object that till now belonged to him should become הקדש. And the same in the case of הפקר: the object belongs to him. He now wants to be מפקיר it מכאן ולהבא, from now and on. So the only expression that would help is an expression that means from now on. So it comes out that the expressions that should be used by הקדש or by הפקר have the same דין as the expressions that should be used by ביטול הגט. So therefore, just like by הקדש and הפקר, we see that if he used the expression הרי הוא הקדש or הרי הוא הפקר it is valid, so why shouldn't the expression הרי הוא חרס by the case of ביטול הגט also be valid? And that so he פסקנ'ט that the דין is that הרי הוא חרס is valid. Then the גמרא continues with a שאלה, with a question: חוזר ומגרש בו או אינו

חוזר ומגרש בו? After the husband was מבטל the גט, can he now use the same גט to divorce with it or can he not use the גט to divorce with it? In other words, the שאלה is that when the husband is מבטל the גט, does that mean that he is מבטל the גט, that the גט itself, the שטר הגט, the document itself is בטל, is not valid anymore and it cannot be used anymore? Or is the פשט that he is just מבטל the שליחות, the שליחות, the mission of the שליח is not valid anymore? The appointment that the משלח appointed the שליח to do the שליחות for him is בטל. And since the שליח is not a שליח anymore, he has no right to give the גט. But it has no effect on the document itself, on the גט itself. And therefore, if the husband decides now that he does want to divorce her, he is allowed to use the same גט to divorce her. And now he would just have to give it himself or appoint another שליח, or even to appoint the same שליח, but he have to re-appoint him again because the שליחות that he appointed him before was בטל. And that is the שאלה of the גמרא: Can he use the גט to divorce with it again or can he not use the גט to divorce with him again because not only the שליחות is בטל, but the גט, too, is בטל? And the גמרא says, רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן says, חוזר ומגרש בו, that he is allowed to use it now to divorce with it. רב ששת אמר, but רב ששת says, אינו חוזר ומגרש בו, that he's not allowed to use it to divorce with it. Because רב נחמן holds that when you're מבטל the גט you're only מבטל the שליחות, and therefore the גט remains a כשר גט. But רב ששת holds that when you're מבטל the גט, you're actually מבטל the גט itself, the document itself, and therefore you're not allowed to use it now. The גמרא says, והלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן. The הלכה is like רב נחמן, that you are allowed to use the גט again because the גט, the document, is not בטל. The גמרא asks a קשיא: איני, it is not so? והא קיימא לן, don't we פסקן the דין, הלכתא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן, the הלכה is like רבי יוחנן, דאמר, that he says חוזרת, that she's allowed to change her mind? This is concerning a case where a person gives a woman money or שוה כסף, an object which is worth money, in order to be מקדש her, and he says to her that you should be מקודש to me, you should become my wife, after thirty days. He gives her the קידושין now, but he says that the קידושין should be חל, the קידושין should take effect, only after thirty days. And there is a שאלה whether within these 30 days she is allowed to have חרטה, she's allowed to change her mind. And רבי יוחנן says she is allowed to change her mind. And that's what we פסקן, that the woman is allowed to change her mind within the 30 days. And what happens? The קידושין is not חל, the קידושין takes no effect. And she must give the money back, and she is not מקודשת, she is not a married woman. So we see from there that as long as the קידושין was not חל, and you have חרטה, you change your mind from the קידושין, this is מבטל the whole קידושין, this cancels out the whole קידושין. So the same thing should be here, that when he is מבטל before the גט is חל, he is מבטל the גט, so the דין should be that the whole גט should be בטל, and you should not be able to use the גט again. So how can we say here that the הלכה is like רב נחמן, that you are allowed to use the גט again, when concerning the other דין by the case of the קידושין, we say the הלכה is like רבי יוחנן, that when you have חרטה, so then the whole קידושין is בטל? So it seems to be a contradiction. The גמרא answers, הכי השתא, what kind of comparison is it? התם, over there in the case of קידושין, דיבור ודיבור הוא, it's only words against words. Because what made the קידושין good in the beginning? Because she accepted the קידושין, she said she's ready to accept the קידושין. What is going to cancel the קידושין now? Again, her words, by her saying that she does not want the קידושין. So it's words, the second set of words, against the first set of words. So the כלל is אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור, so the second words, the second statement, is מבטל, cancel out, the first statement. So therefore we say that the words of קידושין from before are בטל, and the קידושין is no קידושין. But it has no effect on the money itself. The money now can be used by the man again to be מקדש a woman, because the money doesn't lose its דין of קידושין, it's only the חלות קידושין, the effect of the קידושין that came through her acceptance of the קידושין is בטל, because she said later on in her words that she does not want the קידושין. But הכא, here in the case of גט, נהי, טאקע, even though דבטליה לשליחותיה דשליח, that the husband was מבטל the שליחות, the mission of the שליח, before he appointed him as a שליח. How did he appoint him as a שליח? Through words, through saying he should be the שליח. So now when he has חרטה, when he changes his mind, and he is מבטל the שליח, so his words that he says now cancel out the words of before when he appointed him as a שליח. Because for the same reason as we said before, דיבור could be מבטל דיבור. So therefore he could be מבטל the שליחות of the שליח. But גיטא גופיה, the גט itself, מי קא בטיל, could he be מבטל? The גט itself, which was a מעשה, it was written, it was done. So something that is a מעשה, דיבור, words, cannot be מבטל a מעשה. So the husband cannot be מבטל the גט itself. And that's why רב נחמן says, חוזר ומגרש בו, that he could divorce with it again, even though in the case of קידושין we פסקן that when she has חרטה from the קידושין before it is חל, the whole קידושין is בטל, and there it is because there is no מעשה involved, while here there is a גט, and the גט itself cannot become בטל. Now the גמרא goes back to the משנה to explain the other parts of the משנה. It said in the משנה,

בראשונה היה עושה, in the beginning, a person would make a בית דין in his own place and be מבטל the גט in front of the בית דין. And he didn't have to reach the שליח or reach his wife. And רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן not to do that anymore, and the only way you could be מבטל a גט after the תקנה of רבן גמליאל was only if you reach the שליח or you reach the wife. And the גמרא says, איתמר, we learned, בפני כמה הוא מבטלו, in front of how many was he able to be מבטל? When it said in the משנה that originally the דין was that you were allowed to be מבטל in front of a בית דין, so the גמרא's שאלה is, what does that בית דין mean? How many people? So רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן says, בפני ב', it was sufficient to do it in front of two people. רב ששת אמר, רב ששת said, בפני ג', that it had to be done in front of three people. And the גמרא explains: רב ששת אמר בפני ג', רב ששת says it has to be in front of three. Where does he take that from? Very simple. בית דין תנן, it says in the משנה that he would do it in front of a בית דין, and we all know a בית דין is three people. But רב נחמן אמר בפני ב', רב נחמן says it could be done in front of two people. אי, it says in the משנה בית דין, so he says, לבי תרי נמי בית דין קרו להו. Two people can only can also be called a בית דין. And therefore, when it said in the משנה that it was done in front of a בית דין, it means in front of two people. The גמרא says, אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said, מנא אמינא לה, where do I take this from? Where do I take this concept? that two people can also be called a בית דין. Usually we know that three people make up a בית דין. So רב נחמן is trying to bring a ראיה that two people can also be called a בית דין. And he brings a ראיה from a משנה. And this is a משנה concerning the דין of פרוזבול. פרוזבול is a document that is written in connection with שמיטה, because the דין is that when שמיטה, the seventh year, comes around, it is משמט all the חובות. This drops all the loans, that any loan that is owed by anybody, he does not have to pay. And then the דין is that the מלוה, the one that is owed the money, the lender, is not allowed to claim the money, is not allowed to ask for the money. So it says in the גמרא that הלל הזקן saw that because of this דין, people would not lend any money when it came close to שמיטה, because they were afraid that they would not pay up before שמיטה, and שמיטה would come and they would lose the money. And by not lending money before שמיטה, they were עובר on the פסוק where it says that a person must open his hand, lend money if he is able to. So הלל הזקן saw that people were עובר on that עבירה, so he made a תקנה that would help the person that he should be able to collect his money even after שמיטה. And he did this by making the תקנה of פרוזבול, which means that the מלוה, the lender, would write a שטר, would write a document, and in the document it would say that all the חובות that he has, all the loans that are owed to him, he gives over to בית דין, that the בית דין should be the ones to collect the חובות, not him. And the

דין is that only חובות, loans that are owed to a private person, the דין of שמיטה applies that you're not allowed to claim those חובות. But if the בית דין are the ones that are going to claim the חובות, by them the דין of שמיטה does not apply, they're allowed to do that. So what הלל was מתקן was that you would write a שטר that you give over to the בית דין all your חובות, that they should collect it whenever they want. So when the מלוה would come later on to the לוה with this שטר, and the לוה would answer that I don't have to pay you because שמיטה passed, the מלוה would show him the שטר. In the שטר it says that the loan was given over to the בית דין, and שמיטה is not משמט, and he still owes him the money. So we learn in the משנה, דתנן, it says in the משנה in שביעית, that what would say in the פרוזבול, the לשון of the פרוזבול was, מוסרני לפניכם, I give over to you, פלוני ופלוני הדיינים, so and so and so and so, the judges, שבמקום פלוני, that are in this specific place, I give over to you all my loans. And here we see that the דין is that you have to give it over to דיינים, to judges, to a בית דין, and nevertheless, the לשון of the משנה is פלוני ופלוני, two people: one person, פלוני, and another person. So here we see that even though there are only two people here, nevertheless, we call them דיינים, and this also makes up a בית דין. So רב נחמן says that from here I take my כלל that two people can also be called a בית דין. So the קושיא now in the גמרא is, ורב ששת, what would רב ששת do? רב ששת says it means three because it says in the משנה בית דין, but don't we see from that משנה that two people are also called a בית דין? And he answers, אטו תנא כי רוכלא, is the תנא like a peddler, ליחשיב וליזיל, that he should mention, go on and mention everything? A peddler, whatever he has, he shows, and he says I have this, and I have that, and I have that, he mentions everything he has. The תנא is not like a peddler. The תנא does not have to say פלוני ופלוני ופלוני to make sure that we understand it means three. He just said פלוני ופלוני, he only mentioned two, but really he means three, because everyone knows a בית דין is made up of three, so he doesn't have to tell us that. So he just mentioned פלוני ופלוני for us to get the idea, but really what he meant was פלוני ופלוני ופלוני, that they have to have three people. Then רב נחמן continued, אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said, מנא אמינא לה, where do I take it from? I have another ראיה that two people can be called a בית דין concerning the same דין of פרוזבול. דתנן, we learn in the משנה in שביעית, הדיינים חותמין למטה או העדים, that when they write this שטר, this document, this פרוזבול, and when it comes to sign, or the דיינים will

sign, the judges will sign, or the witnesses, the עדים will sign. So here we see that the משנה compares the witnesses to the דיינים, either of them could sign. מאי לאו, don't you think, דיינים דומיא דעדים, that the דיינים are similar to the עדים, since the משנה says that the דיינים or the עדים could sign, it puts them together on one line, so that shows that the דיינים are like the עדים. מה עדים שנים, just like the עדים, the witnesses are only two, אף דיינים דיינים נמי שנים, the דיינים are also only two. So from here I take this דין, that two people can be called a בית דין. But רב ששת, what would רב ששת do to answer this question? Doesn't it seem to prove that דיינים are two because it says דיינים together with עדים? So he says, מידי איריא? Who compares it? Who forces us to say that they're both the same? הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא. This has its own דין, and this has its own דין. Because the משנה says that the דיינים or the עדים sign under the document, it doesn't mean that the דיינים are the same amount as the עדים. If the דיינים sign, it's three, because the דיינים are three. If the עדים sign, it's two. But it's no proof that the דיינים are like the עדים, that just like the עדים are two, the דיינים are two. Then the

גמרא goes to explain that משנה that we just mentioned: למה לי למיתני דיינים, למה לי למיתני עדים? Why does the משנה have to tell us that either the דיינים or the עדים are able to sign? It's self-understood. If the עדים sign, then certainly it's good. That is the דין of a שטר, that two עדים, two witnesses sign a שטר, and that's a כשר שטר. The same would apply if דיינים sign, if the judges sign, so it's also good. Because the דיינים are the ones that take care of the פרוזבול. So if the דיינים themselves sign that we were the דיינים that took the חובות of this person, so that certainly is good. So why does the משנה have to tell us that whether the דיינים or the עדים sign, it is valid? The גמרא answers: הא קא משמע לן, this comes to teach us a דין, דלא שנא כתב בלשון דיינים, it makes no difference whether it was written in the expression, in the לשון of judges, of דיינים, וחתמי עדים, but עדים were signed, ולא שנא כתב בלשון עדים וחתמי דיינים, and it makes no difference if it was written בלשון of עדים, and the דיינים signed. Because it's understood that when דיינים write a שטר, they write it in a form of דיינים. In other words, they would write that we, the judges, were sitting and this person came to us and gave us over all his חובות. That is a לשון of דיינים. And then they would sign with the names of the דיינים, and each one would write his name and add at the end of his name, דיין. If the שטר would be written by עדות, then they would write it differently. They would write that we, the עדות, testify that we saw this and this man come to the דיינים and gave over his חובות to the דיינים, and they would sign their names and write the word עד after each name. But what would be if the לשון of the שטר, the לשון of the פרוזבול, was written in a לשון of דיינים? It started off by saying we, the דיינים, sat together and this person came to us and gave us his חובות. And at the end, when it came to the signatures, it wasn't signed by the דיינים, it was signed by the witnesses. Or the opposite, if it was a שטר written in the לשון of witnesses: We saw how this and this person came to the בית דין and gave over his חובות, and then it would be signed not by the witnesses, it would be signed by the three דיינים. So we would think it's not כשר, because this doesn't coincide. The לשון of the שטר that's written for דיינים should be signed by דיינים. The לשון of the שטר written by עדות should be signed by the עדות. And that's the חידוש of the משנה. When the משנה says that whether the עדות or the דיינים sign, it's okay, it comes to tell us that it makes no difference in which לשון the שטר was written, anybody who signs is okay. Whether it was written in the לשון of דיינים and the עדים signed, or it was written in לשון of עדות and the דיינים signed, it is a כשר שטר. Now we will go back to the beginning of the גמרא, because there are a few important points to make.

Earlier in the גמרא, what we learned, that the משנה teaches us that even if the husband tried to be מבטל the גט before, but didn't manage to do it till after the גט was given to his wife, so the גמרא says that the משנה tells us that we do not say איגלאי מילתא למפרע, that this proves from before that he really was מבטל it before it got to her. But we say that the ביטול came after it got to her, and that ביטול is not valid. So תוספות asks a קשיא, that this seems to contradict the גמרא on דף ל״ד. Later on in the גמרא on דף ל״ד, we find a מחלוקת between אביי and רבא concerning the דין of גילוי דעתא בגיטא. That means that when somebody is מגלה דעת, reveals his intentions in order to be מבטל a גט, so then the שאלה is, is that as if he was מבטל it or not? For instance, the story in the גמרא is that somebody sent a שליח with a גט to his wife. And when he came to his wife, his wife said leave now and come back tomorrow. So the שליח did not give her the גט, came back to the husband, and he said to the husband, you know she told me to come back tomorrow so I didn't give it to her. So the husband said, ברוך הטוב והמטיב, thank God that you didn't give it. So the שאלה in the גמרא there is, is this considered that he was מבטל the גט or not? Because he did not actually use an expression of ביטול הגט, he just expressed his intention that he is happy that the גט was not given. So אביי says that גילוי דעתא בגיטא לאו מילתא היא, that this does not mean anything, even though he said something and he did something which would be showing that he wants to be מבטל, but as long as he actually was not מבטל the גט, the גט is not בטל. But רבא says that גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, and that is enough and the גט is בטל. Since we פסקן like רבא, so the דין is that גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, that if you're just מגלה דעת for ביטול הגט, that is sufficient and the גט is בטל. So that seems to contradict our גמרא here. Our גמרא here says that if the husband tried to be מבטל before, we do not accept the ביטול. And over there רבא says that if a person is not מבטל it, but just shows that he's trying to be מבטל it, that is sufficient and the גט is בטל. And

תוספות says that there is a big difference between these two cases. The case here, where the person wanted to be מבטל the גט and didn't manage to do it, for instance, he chased the שליח trying to be מבטל the גט, but didn't get to him till after the שליח gave the גט to his wife. In a case like that, when he chased the שליח, we did not know what he had in mind. It's only after he was מבטל the גט, after she got the גט, when we found out what he had in mind when he chased the שליח. Because while he was chasing the שליח, as far as we're concerned, maybe he was trying to tell him, "Go ahead, give it to her faster, I want to get finished with it as fast as possible." There is no ראיה from the act that he was doing that he wants to be מבטל the גט. So that is not considered גילוי דעת בגיטא. He is not revealing his mind that he wants to be מבטל it. The only reason we should think maybe it is ביטול, because of what he did later. And that's what the משנה tells us, that we do not say אגלאי מילתא למפרע, that later the ביטול should help retroactive for what he did before. But in the case of רבא, when he was מגלה דעת, when he showed that he wants to be מבטל the גט, which was before she got the גט, we understood בשעת מעשה. At the moment he did it, we understood what he meant. So it's not that later on it proves what he had in mind before, but בשעת he tried to be מבטל the גט, even though he didn't do it technically, he wasn't מבטל the גט, but he did something that we at that moment understand that he wants to be מבטל the גט. And therefore, if we hold גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, that גילוי דעת is enough, so it's as if he was מבטל the גט then. But in the case of our גמרא, where בשעת מעשה, even though he had in mind to be מבטל it, but we did not know about it till later, so that is not acceptable, because the כלל is that דברים שבלב אינם דברים. Things that a person has in mind, words that he has in mind, but is not clear, we do not see it, we do not know it, אינם דברים, they're not considered words. So even if later on he says that, "I had in mind before to be מבטל it," and even if we would believe him, and we would say, "You're right, you טאקע had that in mind, we trust you," but since at that moment it was only דברים שבלב, they were only words of the mind, of the heart, they are not sufficient to be מבטל. And therefore in a case like that it is not בטל. But in the case of רבא it is not דברים שבלב, these are not words of the heart, of the mind, because we could see what he has in mind, because we see that he said for instance, "ברוך הטוב והמטיב," so we know what he had in mind. And therefore in a case like that רבא says גילוי דעתא בגיטא is מילתא היא, and it is a גט בטל.

Another important thing in the גמרא here is concerning the מחלוקת between רב נחמן and רב ששת, that רב נחמן says that you're allowed to use the גט to divorce with it again, while רב ששת says that you're not allowed to use this גט to divorce with it again. And the גמרא said that why is this different than the case of קידושין? Because in the case of קידושין it is דיבור ודיבור, it is her second statement that is canceling out her first statement. But here it is not דיבור ודיבור, here it's not words against words. It is when the person is מבטל, his words could only help the first words, which was the appointment of the שליח, but he cannot be מבטל the גט. And it seems like the פשט is because the גט is not דיבור, the גט is מעשה, the גט was done already. So the words of the husband cannot be מבטל the מעשה of the גט. But תוספות brings in that this is only according to the גירסא in our גמרא. But the same גמרא is in קידושין, and over there we have a different גירסא. And according to that גירסא it seems that not the פשט that the husband cannot be מבטל the גט, it is only that we do not assume that's what he meant. But if the husband would say clearly that he is intending to be מבטל the גט, the גט would be בטל, and we do not consider the גט מעשה. Because the גמרא in קידושין says, not the way we have in our גמרא, נהי דבטליה לשליחותיה דשליח, גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל? The גמרא there says it a little bit different: נהי דבטליה מתורת שליחות, even though he was מבטל him from the דין of שליחות, מתורת גט לא בטליה, but from the דין of גט he was not מבטל it. So from the way the גמרא's גירסא is there, what it's saying is that even though the husband was מבטל him from שליחות, the husband was not מבטל the גט. So it seems to be saying that the reason the גט is not בטל because the husband was not מבטל the גט. But if the husband would clearly be מבטל the גט, then the גט would be בטל. While from our גמרא it seems that even if the husband would clearly be מבטל the גט, the גט would not be בטל. Because the גמרא uses the לשון, גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל? The גט itself, could it become בטל? So as if the גמרא is saying that the גט itself cannot become בטל. And the reason for that is because the גט is considered מעשה, while from the גמרא over there it seems that the whole reason is, מי קא בטליה, is he מבטל it? In other words, but if he would have been מבטל the גט, the גט would have been בטל.