Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be מסכת גיטין דף ל"ד עמוד א' six lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא starts: גידל בר אילאי. A man whose name was גידל the son of אילאי, שדר ליה גיטא לדביתהו. He sent a גט with a שליח to his wife. אזל שליחא, the שליח went. אשכחה, he found her, דהוה יתבה ונוולה. She was sitting and weaving. אמר לה, he said to her, הא גיטיך. Here is your גט. He didn't give it to her, he just showed her that here is the גט that your husband sent with me to give you. אמרה ליה, she said to him, זיל השתא מיהא. Now, go away from here. Don't give it to me now. ותא למחר, come back tomorrow. אזל לגביה, the שליח went back to the husband, ואמר ליה, and he said to him, he told him what happened, that his wife said come back tomorrow and he didn't give her the גט.

פתח ואמר, the husband started and he said, ברוך הטוב והמטיב. Blessed be He, the one that is good and does good. In other words, he said ברוך השם that you didn't give the גט. He did not say that the גט is בטל, but he showed a sign of happiness that the גט was not given, so he has a chance to change his mind and not to divorce her. So אביי אמר, אביי said, ברוך הטוב והמטיב ולא בטל גיטא. It's טאקע true that he said ברוך השם that the גט was not given, but still the גט is not בטל. And the שליח is able to go back to the wife and give her the גט, because in order to be מבטל the גט, you have to use a clear לשון of ביטול. But רבא אמר, רבא says, ברוך הטוב והמטיב ובטל גיטא, that since he said ברוך הטוב והמטיב that you did not give the גט, so that is enough that the גט is בטל, and the שליח cannot go ahead and give the גט anymore. And the גמרא says, ובמאי קמיפלגי? What is the סברא of their מחלוקת? בגילוי דעתא בגיטא קמיפלגי.

The argument is concerning if someone shows his דעת, reveals his intentions, in the case of a גט, is that valid or not? Is it sufficient for a person just to show that he wants to be מבטל the גט, or must he actually מבטל the גט through saying that the גט should be בטל? So אביי סבר, אביי holds, גילוי דעתא בגיטא לאו מילתא היא. That just to reveal your intentions by a גט is nothing, is not sufficient, and therefore, the גט is not בטל. And רבא סבר, and רבא holds, גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, that to reveal one's intentions to be מבטל the גט is something, that is as if he was מבטל the גט, and therefore, in this case, where he said that he is happy that the גט was not given, so he shows his intentions that he wants to be מבטל the גט, so even though he did not say clearly the גט is בטל, it is enough, and according to רבא, the גט is בטל. And the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, מנא אמינא לה? Where do I take this from? How do I know that the דין is that גילוי דעת by a גט is מילתא היא? And he says because דרב ששת אשקליה לגיטא לההוא גברא בעל כורחיה. There's a

story that רב ששת forced a certain person to give a גט, ואמר להו לסהדי, and the man, the husband that was giving the גט said to the witnesses, הכי אמר לכו רב ששת לבטל גיטא? That רב ששת said to you that the גט should be בטל? He did not say that 'I am מבטל the גט,' he just said to them that רב ששת had said that גט should be בטל. ואטרחיה רב ששת לגיטא אחרינא, and רב ששת made this man to give another גט. In other words, רב ששת felt that by him just saying that רב ששת said the גט should be בטל, that itself was מבטל the גט, even though he did not say clearly 'I am מבטל the גט,' but since he said something that showed that his intentions are to be מבטל the גט, he doesn't want the גט, that was sufficient for the גט to be בטל, and therefore רב ששת made him give another גט. So רבא said, from here I see that just to be מגלה דעת by the גט, to be מבטל the גט, is enough for the גט to be בטל. ואביי? So isn't that a קשיא on אביי? How could אביי say that גילוי דעת by a גט is not enough, when here we see from this story of רב ששת that by the person just being מגלה דעת, רב ששת made him give a second גט? So he answers, אטו רב ששת מבטל גיטא דאינשי הוה? Was רב ששת a person who could be מבטל the גט of people? The ביטול הגט can only happen through the husband himself. רב ששת, the רב, has no right to be מבטל a גט. So what happened there? When he said that רב ששת said they should the גט should be בטל, really איהו בטליה. He himself was מבטל it. He said the גט should be בטל. והאי דקאמר להו הכי, and the reason he said to them that רב ששת said the גט should be בטל, משום דפני, because he was being hit by רב ששת, so he was afraid to say that he is the one that's being מבטל the גט. So he excused himself and he explained that why was he מבטל the גט? Because רב ששת said so. But really he himself said clearly that the גט should be בטל. So therefore, it is not a case of גילוי דעת by a גט because he clearly was מבטל the גט. Just later on he said that it was because רב ששת told him so because he was afraid to say that he did it on his own. אמר אביי, then אביי said מנא אמינא לה? How do I know my opinion that גילוי דעת by a גט is nothing and it is not sufficient to be מבטל the גט? Because דרב יהודה אשקליה גיטא לחתניה דרבי ירמיה ביראה. רב יהודה forced the son-in-law of רבי ירמיה ביראה to give a גט ובטליה. But this man who was forced to give the גט was מבטל the גט. תנא אשקליה, so he forced him a second time to give another גט. ובטליה, and he was מבטל the גט a second time. הדר תנא ואשקליה על כורחיה, so then a third time he forced him to give the גט. ואמר להו לסהדי, but he said to the witnesses אסיבו כורבא דדיקלא, put pumpkins, put things into your ears, וכתובו ליה, and write the גט. Put things to stuff up your ears, so even if he will be מבטל the גט, you will not hear it, and the גט will not be בטל, and he will be able to give the גט. But the question is ואי סלקא דעתך if you think גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, that just to reveal the intentions is enough for the גט to be בטל, הא חזו ליה דקא רהיט בתרייהו. They will see that he is chasing them, so even though they will not hear the words that he will be saying that he is מבטל the גט, but they would see that he is chasing them trying to tell them something. Wouldn't this reveal his intentions that he wants to be מבטל the גט? So if that is enough for the גט to be בטל, so what did he gain by telling them to stuff up their ears? The גט still will be בטל when they will see that he is trying to reveal his intentions that he wants to be מבטל the גט. And that proves since he did tell them that they should stuff up their ears and then the גט would not be בטל, so this proves that גילוי דעת by a גט is not sufficient and the גט is not בטל. Then the גמרא asks: ורבא, what would רבא say to this proof of אביי? And the גמרא answers that רבא will say, האי דקא רהיט בתרייהו What made you say that in this case there is גילוי דעת, he reveals his intentions to be מבטל the גט? Because they see that he is chasing them and trying to say something, so that reveals that he is trying to be מבטל the גט. So רבא says, "No. By him chasing them does not mean that he is revealing his mind to be מבטל the גט. Because האי דקא רהיט בתרייהו, this that he is chasing them, maybe it is because דאמר להו, he is trying to tell them, אשור הבו ליה הא, hurry up and give her this גט, כי היכי דנשלם צערא דההוא גברא, in order that my pain, the pain of this person referring to himself, should be over with." So there is no גילוי דעת in this case. But אביי learns that this was a גילוי דעת that he wants to be מבטל the גט and therefore, according to אביי, there is a ראיה that גילוי דעת is not sufficient to be מבטל. And according to רבא, the reason why here the גט was not בטל was because this was not even גילוי דעת. There is no revelation of intention in this case that he wanted to be מבטל the גט. And the גמרא continues, ואמר אביי, and אביי said מנא אמינא לה? Where do I take my דין from? אביי wants to bring another proof to his דין that גילוי דעת by a גט is not sufficient. דההוא, there was this man דאמר להו, that said to some people, אי לא אתינא מכאן עד תלתין יומין, "If I do not come back within 30 days, ליהוי גיטא, let it be a גט." He gave a גט to his wife, but he said that if I do not come back within 30 days, then the גט should be a גט. אתא, he came back. He came back before the time was up, ופסקיה מברא. The river separated between him and the city he was supposed to enter, and he couldn't cross because there was no ferry to take across. אמר להו, he said to them, he screamed from across the river, "חזו דאתאי, חזו דאתאי! Look, I came back! Look, I came back!" Because he did not want the גט to be a גט, but he gave a condition if he doesn't come back within 30 days, the גט should be a גט. So he wanted to show that really he did come back. The only reason he's not there is because he cannot cross the river. ואמר שמואל, and שמואל said, לא שמיה מתיא. This is not considered that he came back. When he said, "If I don't come back within thirty days, it means that he has to come back to the city. And since he did not come back to the city within thirty days, it is as if he didn't come back, and the גט is a good גט. So אביי says that by him screaming, חזו דאתאי, look, I'm back, wasn't this a form of revealing his intentions that he does not want the גט to be a גט? And nevertheless, שמואל said that the גט is a good גט. So that proves that גילוי דעת by a גט is not sufficient, and therefore, the גט remains a good גט. ורבא, so what will רבא answer to this proof? He will say, אטו התם לביטולי גיטא בעי? Over there, was the person interested in being מבטל the גט? No, that's not what he was trying to do. When he screamed, חזו דאתאי, look, I came back, התם לקיומי תנאי קא בעי. He was trying to say that he fulfilled the condition. והא לא קיים תנאי, and really he did not fulfill his condition. His condition was that he should come back within thirty days, and he actually did not come back. So if he would have said something that would have showed his intentions to be מבטל the גט, then רבא says שמואל would not have פסקנ'ט that the גט is a good גט; שמואל would have said the גט is no good גט. The reason שמואל said that the גט is a good גט, because he did not show his intentions to be מבטל the גט; he just wanted to show that he was מקיים the תנאי, and that is not true because he really didn't come back. The גמרא continues: ההוא, there was this man, דאמר להו, he said to them, אי לא נסיבנא עד תלתין יומין, if I will not marry her up to thirty days, ליהוי גיטא, let the גט be a גט. She was already מקודש to him, so she is considered an אשת איש, and in order for her to be free, she must get a גט from this husband. So the husband said to her that if I do not marry her, I do not give you חופה within thirty days, then let the גט be a גט. כי מטא תלתין יומין, when the thirty days came up, אמר להו, he said to them, הא טרחנא, I am busy. Really I want to marry her, and the reason I was not able to marry her within the thirty days as I said, was because I was busy. In other words, really he wants the גט not to be a גט, and he does want to marry her. Now the question is, למאי ניחוש לה? What should we be חושש? What reason can we have here to say the גט is no good גט? Really the גט should be a גט, because he said if I don't marry you within thirty days the גט should be a גט, and he did not marry her within the thirty days, so the גט should be a גט. But is there any סברא to say that the גט should not be a גט? אי משום אונסא, if you will give a reason why the גט should not be a גט was because of אונס, that even though the condition for the גט was fulfilled—the condition was if he doesn't marry her by thirty days, and that was done, he did not marry her by thirty days—but the reason it was done was through an אונס. He did not want to really fulfill the condition, he was just forced to fulfill it because he was busy. So maybe since the condition was fulfilled not by his free will, but by אונס, so that should not be considered as if the condition was fulfilled, and the גט should not be a גט? We can't say that, because we have a כלל: אין אונס בגיטין, that the תירוץ, the excuse of אונס, of being forced, is not acceptable in the case of a גט. So therefore, as long as the condition was fulfilled, even though it was fulfilled באונס, nevertheless, we say the condition was fulfilled and the גט is a גט. אי משום גילוי דעתא בגיטא, but if you're going to give a different reason why we should say that the גט is no good גט, because he was מגלה דעת that he does not want the גט to be a גט, when he said that the reason I didn't marry you was because I was forced, I was busy, so through that he is showing that he does not want the גט to be a גט, and maybe since he was מגלה דעת that he wants to be מבטל the גט, that is the reason why the גט should not be a גט? Well, that already is פלוגתא דאביי ורבא. That depends already on the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. According to אביי, גילוי דעתא בגיטא is not sufficient, and therefore this is no reason for the גט not to be a גט. But according to רבא that holds גילוי דעתא בגיטא is מילתא היא, so according to רבא this is a reason why the גט should not be a גט. But in truth, תוספות explains that even according to רבא in this case, the גט is a good גט, because even though רבא holds גילוי דעתא בגיטא מילתא היא, but the way the גמרא explained before in a case similar to this, that this is not considered גילוי דעת by a גט according to רבא. Because according to רבא, what the person tried to say when he said the reason I didn't marry you was because I was busy, all he tried to say was that I did not fulfill the condition. I gave you a גט on condition I do not marry you. So even though I didn't marry you, but it's not considered that I fulfilled my condition because I really do want to marry you, I didn't marry you just because I was busy. So all he's trying to say is that he did not fulfill the condition, but he is not trying to say that he is מבטל the גט. So according to רבא, this is not in the category of גילוי דעת בגט, and therefore, even according to רבא, the גט here remains a good גט. The only difference is, according to אביי, it is considered גילוי דעת בגט, as the גמרא said before, but it is still a גט because גילוי דעת is not sufficient to be מבטל the גט. According to רבא, the גט is a גט, because this is not even גילוי דעת בגט, because he did not try to show that he wants to be מבטל the גט, he did just try to show that the condition was not fulfilled. Then the גמרא continues, ההוא דאמר להו, there was this man that said to them, he was מקדש a woman, and he said to them, אי לא נסיבנא לריש ירחא דאדר, if I will not marry her by the beginning of the month of אדר, by ראש חודש אדר, ליהוי גיטא, let this גט be a גט. כי מטא ריש ירחא דאדר, when ראש חודש אדר came, אמר להו, he said to them, אנא לריש ירחא דניסן אמרי, didn't I say that if I don't marry her by ראש חודש ניסן that's when the גט should be a גט? I did not say by ראש חודש אדר. אמרי, let's say, למאי נחוש לה? What should we suspect? Why should we think maybe the גט should not be a גט? אי משום אונס, if the reason is because of אונס, that he thinks that he said that he will marry her by ראש חודש ניסן, and therefore, the fact that he didn't marry her by ראש חודש אדר was באונס, and therefore, even though it seems like the condition was fulfilled, the condition for the גט was fulfilled, and therefore the גט should be a גט, but the reason it was fulfilled was by force, not by his free will, it was by mistake, and therefore maybe we should say that it is not considered as if the condition was fulfilled, and the גט should not be a גט? So we say, no, that's not a good enough reason because of the כלל, אין אונס בגיטין, because an excuse of אונס is not acceptable by גיטין, and therefore, since, in fact, the condition was fulfilled for the גט, the גט is a גט even though it was fulfilled באונס. אי משום גילוי דעתא, and if you're going to give a reason why the גט should not be a גט, because by saying that he was מגלה דעת that he does not want the גט to be a גט, so פלוגתא דאביי ורבא, this already depends on the מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. According to אביי, that גילוי דעת בגט is not enough, so here, too, even though he was מגלה דעת that he doesn't want the גט, the גט still remains a good גט. But according to the סברא of רבא, that גילוי דעת בגט is enough, so in this case, the גט would be בטל. But here, too, as we said before, according to תוספות, in fact, even according to רבא the גט would not be בטל, because according to רבא a case like this is not considered גילוי דעת בגט, because he's not trying to reveal his intentions that he wants to be מבטל the גט, all he is doing is trying to say that the condition of the גט was not fulfilled. And now the גמרא concludes: והלכתא כנחמן, the הלכה is like רב נחמן, and this refers to the first מחלוקת in the גמרא between רב נחמן and רב ששת, whether the ביטול that they used to do in front of a בית דין was supposed to be done in front of three or it was sufficient to do in front of two. So רב נחמן said that it could be done in front of two, and רב ששת said it has to be done in front of three, so the הלכה is like רב נחמן that it was done in front of two. והלכתא כנחמן, the הלכה is also like the other thing that רב נחמן said, that the הלכה is like רבי in both cases. We learned that there was a מחלוקת between רב נחמן and others whether the הלכה is like רבי in both מחלוקות that רבי has with רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. One מחלוקת was that after the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, if a person is מבטל in front of a בית דין, is that בדיעבד בטל or not? That רבי said it is בטל, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said that it's not בטל. Then there was another מחלוקת between רבי and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that if a person says to ten people, "Write a גט to my wife," that רבי holds he's allowed to be מבטל one without the other, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says you only could be מבטל one in front of the others, so רב נחמן said that the הלכה is like רבי in both of these arguments, while others said that in one of the things the הלכה is like רבי, and one is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So here the גמרא says, והלכתא כנחמן, the הלכה is like רב נחמן, that we פסקן like רבי in both of the מחלוקות. And also, והלכתא כנחמני, the הלכה is like אביי, and this is concerning the last מחלוקת between אביי and רבא, whether we say גילוי דעתא בגיטא is מילתא היא or not, that רבא holds גילוי דעתא בגיטא is enough and the גט is בטל, and אביי says it is not enough, so the הלכה is like אביי. And the reason it refers to אביי as נחמני, so רש״י says, because אביי was a יתום, was an orphan, and he was raised by רבה. רבה was called רבה בר נחמני, רבה's father's name was נחמני. So because he was raised by רבה, רבה called אביי by the name of his own father, and therefore quotes the ערוך that says a different reason why אביי is referred to as נחמני. He says אביי's real name was נחמני. But since he was raised by רבה בר נחמני, רבה did not want to call him by his real name because this was the name of his own father. So he did not want to use the name of his own father. So instead, he called him אביי. Because אביי is Aramaic for the word אבי. אבי means my father. Instead of calling him by the name of his father, he called him with the word my father, but in ארמי, in Aramaic, it turned into אביי. Or from the word אבי, if you say it in slang, it turns into אביי, just like in Yiddish if you want to call someone טאטע, you would say טאטעלע and so forth, so here too, instead of אבי, it turned into אביי. But anyway, the הלכה is like אביי that גילוי דעת בגיטא is לאו מילתא היא. And as רש״י brings down here, this happens to be one of those few הלכות where we פסקן like אביי against רבא. Usually the כלל is that wherever there is a מחלוקת between אביי and רבא in the גמרא, the הלכה is like רבא, except in six cases, and the סימן for these six cases is יע״ל קג״ם: יו״ד, עי״ן, למ״ד, קו״ף, גימ״ל, מ״ם. This is a ראשי תיבות, an abbreviation of six הלכות that we פסקן like אביי. The גימ״ל of this יע״ל קג״ם is גילוי דעת בגיטא, that here we פסקן like אביי that גילוי דעת בגיטא לאו מילתא היא, is not sufficient, and the גט is not בטל. And now we will continue with learning the משנה. משנה says, בראשונה, in the beginning, originally, היה משנה שמו ושמה, שם עירו ושם עירה, when the husband would write a גט, he would change his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, because the דין is that in a גט you must write the name of the husband, you must write the name of the wife, you must write the name of the city of the husband, and you must write the name of the city of the wife. So in a case where the husband had two names, one name in the city where he lived and another name in the city where the גט was being given, or the same with the woman, that she had two names, one in the city that she lived and one in the city the גט was given, so what they used to do was, they used to write the city where the גט was given and use only the name of the person that was used in that city.

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן, so רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן, שיהא כותב, that he should write in the גט, איש פלוני, this and this man, write the name of the man that is used in that city, but you should add the words וכל שום שיש לו, and any other name he might have. And when you write the woman's name, you should write אשה פלונית, this and this woman, mention her name, but you should add the words וכל שום שיש לה, and any other name she might have. And the reason he made this תקנה was מפני תיקון העולם, for a תקנה, for a betterment of the world. Because if he would only use the name of the city the גט was given, so later on when people would see that גט, and he is not known in other places with that name, so people would say it is not the husband that gave her the גט. And therefore, they would say she really was not divorced, and she was an אשת איש when she remarried, and the children born from the second marriage are ממזרים. So in order to avoid that problem, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you should write after the name, write the words וכל שום שיש לו, any other name he might have. So then when people will see the גט and say, "Well, this is not the husband, because this is not his name," we will tell them, "Look, it says that he has more names. So maybe this was the name he used over there, but he has other names, and that's how you know him, with the other names, and there is no reason for anybody to say that the גט is not a valid גט."

תוספות, however, learns that when the משנה says that you should write איש פלוני וכל שום שיש לו, or אשה פלונית וכל שום שיש לה, it does not mean that you would actually write the words וכל שום שיש לו, the name and then add the words "and any other name he might have", or write her name and add the actual words "and any other name she might have", but what the משנה means that you should actually put in the names. That you should write this and this person, using his name, and then if he has any other name, you should put in those other names, and the same with the woman, that if she has any other names, you should write her name and add any other name that she might have with the names, not just using the words וכל שום שיש לו or וכל שום שיש לה. And the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, שלחו ליה בני מדינת הים לרבן גמליאל, the people, the יידן from מדינת הים, from outside of ארץ ישראל, sent a message to רבן גמליאל, and they asked him, בני אדם הבאים משם לכאן, the people who come from there to here, if there's a person that comes from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ, שמו יוסף, let's say his name is יוסף, וקורין לו יוחנן, but he is called here יוחנן, or his name is יוחנן, וקורין לו יוסף, and here they call him יוסף, היך מגרשין נשיהם, how should they divorce their wives? Which name should they use in the גט? עמד רבן גמליאל והתקין, so רבן גמליאל got up and made a תקנה, שיהיו כותבין, that they should write, איש פלוני וכל שום שיש לו, the man so-and-so and any other name he might have, and אשה פלונית וכל שום שיש לה, and this and this woman and any other name she might have. מפני תיקון העולם, this was for the betterment of the world. That in this case, nobody would be able to say that the גט she has was not given to her by her husband, because the name written in the גט is not the name that he is known by, or they might say that this is not the woman that received the גט because she is not known with that name. So by adding the words וכל שום שיש לו, and any other name she might have, or by the man any other name he might have, so there is no reason for a person to suspect that the גט was not given by the husband to this woman. And the גמרא continues,

אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, והוא דאיחזק בתרי שמי, that this is only if we know that this person has two names. When did רבן גמליאל make the תקנה that you must add the words וכל שום שיש לו, that in addition to the name you must write and any other name he might have, only if we know that he has two names. So then you write one name, and you add and any other name he must have. But if we do not know that he has two names, so we don't have to write the words וכל שום שיש לו. And the same thing with the woman, that if we know she has another name someplace else, then we add to her name the words וכל שום שיש לה. But if we do not know she has another name, there is no need to add the words וכל שום שיש לה. אמר ליה רב אבא לרב אשי, רב אבא said to רב אשי, רב מרי ורב אלעזר קיימי כוותך, that you should know that רב מרי and רב אלעזר also hold like you. Then the גמרא says, תניא כוותיה דרב אשי, we actually learn in a ברייתא like רב אשי. We learn in a ברייתא, היו לו שתי נשים, if a person had two wives, אחת ביהודה ואחת בגליל, one in יהודה and one in גליל, ולו שני שמות, and he has two names, אחד ביהודה ואחד בגליל, one name that he is known with in יהודה and one name that he is known with in גליל, וגירש את אשתו שביהודה בשמו שביהודה, and he divorced his wife of יהודה using his name of יהודה, ואשתו שבגליל בשמו שבגליל, and he divorced his wife of גליל using his name of גליל, אינה מגורשת, she is not divorced, עד שיגרש את אשתו שביהודה בשמו שביהודה ושם דגליל עמו, until, unless he divorces his wife of יהודה using his name of יהודה, but the name of גליל along with it, ואשתו שבגליל, and he divorces his wife of גליל, בשמו שבגליל, with his name of גליל, ושם דיהודה עמו, and the name of יהודה along with it. He must use both names in both cases. But if יצא למקום אחר, if he went out to another place, to a third place, not יהודה and not גליל, וגירש באחת מהן, and he divorced his wife using only one of his two names, מגורשת, she is divorced. And the גמרא asks, והא אמרת, didn't you say, ושם דגליל עמו, that you must use the name of גליל too? In other words, how could the ברייתא say that if he came to a third place he could use only one of the two names when the ברייתא said before that you must use both names in all cases? אלא שמע מינה, but this proves that הא דאיחזק הא דלא איחזק. Few people, שרה, called her שרה.

אמרי נהרדעי, so נהרדעי said, the חכמים that studied in נהרדעא said, that when you write a גט, you must write מרים וכל שום שיש לה, that you should put down the name that she is used by most people, and add to that name the words וכל שום שיש לה and any other name she might have. ולא, but do not write שרה וכל שום שיש לה. Not mention the name that is used only by a few people and her real name should be only hinted by the words וכל שום שיש לה, but the opposite: you have to write the name that she is called by most people, and the name that she is called by some people should be only only hinted through the words וכל שום שיש לה. And now we will continue with the משנה. משנה says, אין אלמנה נפרעת מנכסי יתומים, an אלמנה, a widow, that comes to collect her כתובה, because the דין is that when a person dies, his wife is supposed to collect the money that he wrote in the כתובה that she would get. And she collects it from the נכסים, from the property that her husband left over. So the משנה tells us that a woman, an אלמנה, cannot collect the כתובה from the property that the יתומים inherited from their father, from her husband, אלא בשבועה, only with a שבועה. She must first swear that she did not collect her כתובה in the lifetime of her husband. And after she gives that שבועה, that's when the יתומים will give her the כתובה from the נכסים of her husband. ונמנעו מלהשביעה, the חכמים held themselves back from making her swear, as the גמרא will give the reason later why the חכמים did not want her to swear. But what happened was that since they did not make her swear, she was not able to collect her כתובה. So אלמנות, widows, would lose out on their כתובה.

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן, so רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה, שתהא נודרת ליתומים כל מה שירצו, that instead of giving a שבועה, instead of swearing, she would make a נדר to the יתומים whatever they would want. In other words, the יתומים would tell her to make a נדר that if she already collected the כתובה, then she should not be able to do whatever thing they would mention. So she herself would know that if she is lying and she really did collect her כתובה, all her life she would be אסור to do or to eat or whatever it should be that the יתומים made her make the נדר about. And we don't assume that this woman would be ready to accept upon herself a נדר for all her life. So therefore, this would be a sufficient proof that she really did not collect her כתובה yet. And after she would make this נדר, וגובה כתובתה, she would collect her כתובה. And the משנה continues with another תקנה of רבן גמליאל, that והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם, that the witnesses should sign the גט because of a תקנה for the world. And the גמרא explains that this משנה could be translated and interpreted according to רבי אלעזר and according to רבי מאיר. We find there is a מחלוקת between רבי אלעזר and רבי מאיר whether עדי מסירה כרתי or עדי חתימה כרתי.

According to רבי אלעזר, you don't really need מדאורייתא עדים to sign the גט. When we need עדים by גט, it is only by מסירת הגט. When the husband or the שליח of the husband gives the גט to the wife or to the שליח of the wife, you must have עדים watching the מסירה, this giving over of the גט to her. But you do not have to have עדים sign the גט. רבי מאיר holds עדי חתימה כרתי, that you must have עדים sign the גט, and those are the most important עדים. So the גמרא explains that according to רבי אלעזר, that מדאורייתא you don't have to have עדים sign the גט, this is what the משנה means: that it's only a תיקון העולם, it is only for a תקנה of the world that the עדים should sign the גט, that we should know who were the עדים that testified on the גט, and if ever we have to find out if the גט is כשר or not, we will know whom to look for. But the גמרא says really the משנה could also go according to רבי מאיר. And even though according to רבי מאיר מדאורייתא the עדים must sign the גט, the פשט in the משנה is that originally, the עדים did not have to write their names. It was enough that they had their signature without their names. They were able to write אני פלוני חתמתי עד, me so and so signed as an עד, and he didn't have to actually write his name ראובן, שמעון, or whatever it was. He could use the word פלוני, אני פלוני חתמתי עד. So רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה that they should have to write their names in the signatures, that just in case we ever have to find them to testify on the גט, we will know whom to look for. And it's important to note here that רש״י says that when the משנה uses the לשון מפני תיקון העולם, which seems to be referring to the words והעדים חותמין על הגט, really רש״י says these three words, מפני תיקון העולם, refer to both cases of the משנה. The first case, that רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה that the woman should be נודר to the יתומים whatever they will want, and the second thing, that the עדים should sign on a גט, both of these things were מפני תיקון העולם. So these words go on both cases of the משנה. Then the משנה continues,

והלל התקין פרוזבול, הלל was מתקן a פרוזבול מפני תיקון העולם, for the betterment of the world. A פרוזבול is concerning a דין of שמיטה. Like this: the דין is that when שמיטה comes, a creditor is not allowed to claim his loans that is owed to him from the one that borrowed. The פסוק says that we have to be משמיט all the חובות, we have to drop all the loans. But הלל הזקן saw that people would stop lending money before שמיטה came around, so therefore he was מתקן a פרוזבול, that this would make that the person should be able to collect his loans even after שמיטה. And the concept of the פרוזבול was, that the דין is that only an individual person is not allowed to collect the loans, but if the loans are owed to בית דין, the בית דין is allowed to collect. And a פרוזבול would be a שטר where the creditor would write that he gives over all his loans to בית דין, that they should be the one to collect it. So הלל was מתקן the פרוזבול for this תקנה in order for people not to be עובר on the עבירה of not lending money. So therefore he made a תקנה that there is a way for the creditor not to lose his loans, so that would not stop people from lending money before שמיטה. Now the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה that an אלמנה cannot collect her כתובה from the יתומים until she swears. The גמרא

asks: מאי איריא אלמנה? Why do we mention אלמנה? אפילו כולה עלמא נמי, the same applies to everybody, דהא קיימא לן, because we פסקן: הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים, anybody who comes to collect a חוב from the property of the יתומים, לא יפרע אלא בשבועה, should not collect it unless he swears. This is a דין that applies to any בעל חוב, to any creditor. If a creditor would come to the יתומים and say that your father owed me money, and therefore I want you to pay up his חוב from his estate, they do not have to pay unless the creditor will swear that he never got paid. So it seems like this is a דין by any בעל חוב, by any creditor. So how come the משנה says that an אלמנה that comes to collect her חוב, her כתובה, she must swear? But the דין is not only by אלמנה, this is a general דין that anybody who wants to collect a חוב that is owed by the person who died, must first swear. And the גמרא answers: אלמנה איצטריכא ליה, that he must tell us the דין concerning an אלמנה. In other words, the truth is that this דין applies to anybody who wants to collect a חוב that was owed by the person who died. But there is a special חידוש that this דין also applies to an אלמנה. Because סלקא דעתך אמינא, because I would think that משום חינא, in order for her to have grace, אקילו רבנן גבה, the רבנן were מקיל by her, since the חכמים usually try to do everything for a woman to be able to remarry. So we would think that in order for her to have grace in the eyes of men, so the חכמים would make it easier for her, that she should be able to collect her כתובה without swearing, קא משמע לן, that's why the משנה has to tell us that even an אלמנה, in order for her to collect the כתובה from the נכסי יתומים, she also must swear. But on this דין that an אלמנה cannot collect her כתובה unless she first swears,

תוספות asks a קושיא: We know that the time of payment of the כתובה is only after he divorces her or after he dies, but while they are married and he is alive, the time of payment is not up yet. We also know that the גמרא says in בבא בתרא that according to ריש לקיש, and we פסקן like him, there is a חזקה that אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו, that a person does not pay up his debts within the time, a person only pays after the time comes for him to pay. So according to that חזקה, we have to assume that the husband did not pay up the debt while he was alive and married to her, because the time for him to pay is only or when he divorces her or when he dies. So then תוספות asks: Why do we suspect that she already received her כתובה, and therefore we make her swear that she didn't, when the חזקה proves that she definitely did not collect the כתובה, since before her husband died the time hasn't come for collection yet, and there is a חזקה that a person does not pay a loan until the time comes? And תוספות answers that this חזקה of אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו, that a person does not pay up till the time comes, is only concerning a regular loan. But when the חוב is a חוב that comes with a תנאי בית דין, is a חוב that the בית דין is מחייב, that the בית דין, the הלכה, the תורה obligates a person to give, here we do suspect that maybe he paid before the time came. And therefore in the case of a כתובה, since it is a תנאי בית דין that you must give a כתובה, so we do suspect maybe he paid her the כתובה before he died, or maybe he gave her something, an object, that this should be a source of her collecting her כתובה when the time will come for her to collect it. But then תוספות asks, if so, what is the גמרא's קושיא? Why the משנה has to tell us that an אלמנה must swear, when really any בעל חוב who comes to collect after the person dies must swear, the גמרא could have answered very simply: there is a big חידוש in the case of אלמנה, that even though the חוב she is trying to collect is תוך זמנו, there is more reason to say that she did not collect her חוב before, because before the husband died, the time hasn't come for him to pay up yet, and still the דין is that she must swear. So that is a big חידוש. So the גמרא could have said that that's why the משנה tells us specifically by אלמנה that she must swear, to tell us this חידוש, that even though the חוב before was still called תוך זמנו, nevertheless she has to swear. And תוספות answers that the גמרא feels that it would have been a bigger חידוש to tell us that a regular בעל חוב who is owed the money not because of a תנאי בית דין has to swear לאחר זמנו, bigger חידוש than to tell us that a woman who's collecting her כתובה as a תנאי כתובה has to swear בתוך זמנו. And therefore the גמרא asks, why does the משנה tell us the דין concerning אלמנה? It would have been a bigger חידוש if the משנה would have told us this דין concerning a regular בעל חוב, that he also must swear before he collects his חוב. Concerning the גמרא that we learned earlier, the story that רב יהודה forced the son-in-law of רב ירמיה ביראה to give a גט, and eventually he told the עדים to stuff up their ears so they shouldn't hear his ביטול. So the רשב״א asks an interesting קושיא. The גמרא says a little later that the הלכה is like רב נחמן that said that the הלכה is like רבי in both cases. In other words, the הלכה is like רבי that ביטלו מבוטל, that if a person is מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין, not in front of the שליח or in front of the wife, so then בדיעבד the גט is בטל even though he did against the תקנה of רבן גמליאל. So the רשב״א asks, what did רב יהודה gain by telling the עדים to stuff up their ears they shouldn't hear his ביטול? He could go out and find himself a בית דין, and in front of the בית דין he would be מבטל the גט, and since בדיעבד we say ביטלו מבוטל, so the גט would have been בטל even if they stuffed up their ears. And because of that the רשב״א says that we must say that רב יהודה holds not like the גמרא says that הלכה is like רבי, but he holds like the other אמוראים that the גמרא mentioned before that hold that in this מחלוקת the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that you cannot be מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין. But the פני יהושע says that there is no ראיה from this גמרא that רב יהודה holds that the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because could be he also holds the הלכה is like רבי, that בדיעבד if you're מבטל in front of a בית דין, the גט is בטל. But the reason רב יהודה did not suspect that maybe he would go out and be מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין is because when he told them to stuff up their ears, the husband did not know that their ears were stuffed up. So what would happen? He went over to them, telling them the גט is בטל, they did not hear that he was מבטל the גט, but he thought that they did hear. So he felt that it was not necessary for him to go out and find a בית דין to be מבטל the גט, because as far as he was concerned, the גט was בטל already. And therefore, רב יהודה felt it was sufficient to tell them to stuff up their ears, and he did not have to do something to prevent him from going out and finding a בית דין and being מבטל in front of the בית דין. The חתם סופר also deals with this

question, and he also says that from this גמרא is no ראיה that רב יהודה held that the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. And he gives a different reason why רב יהודה didn't have to suspect that the husband might go out and find himself a בית דין and be מבטל it in front of the בית דין, because the חתם סופר says רב יהודה probably tied him up and kept him in the room so he should not be able to go out and find himself a בית דין. And the only thing he was able to do was to be מבטל it in front of the עדים, and since they stuffed up their ears, so his ביטול was no ביטול. And the חתם סופר even brings a ראיה that this is the פשט in the גמרא, because the גמרא later on said that this case according to רבא was not considered גילוי דעתא בגיטא, because when they had their ears stuffed and they saw him running after them, trying to tell them something, to them it did not prove that he tried to be מבטל the גט. As far as they're concerned, maybe what he is saying is, the גמרא says, that go ahead, rush up, give the גט as fast as you can, in order that the צער, my צער, should stop. So the חתם סופר asks, what kind of צער, what kind of pain did he have that he wanted to stop? As soon as he said to them they should write and give the גט, as far as he's concerned, the whole thing is over. What kind of צער did he have? What did he want to stop? But the חתם סופר says the פשט was that as long as the גט was not given, they tied him up. They wouldn't let him go out because they were afraid he would find a בית דין and be מבטל. So they tied him up, and that's what he was saying to them, as far as they were concerned, when they saw him chasing them, they could think that what is he saying? Go ahead, finish it fast, so they will untie me and let me out of the house. So from here he says we see, on the contrary, that באמת רב יהודה held like רבי that ביטלו אינו מבוטל. And that is the reason that they tied him up and they gave him צער, to make sure that he should not be able to be מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין. And now that we are

finished with the דינים of ביטול הגט, it is interesting to note an interesting תשובה in the צמח צדק in חלק אבן העזר, and he also speaks about it in his חידושים על הש״ס on this גמרא here in גיטין, concerning an interesting מעשה that happened in his time concerning ביטול הגט, and the answer that he gave. There was a person who was giving a גט to his wife, and while the סופר was writing the גט and the עדים were there, something happened that he got upset. So he started screaming with this expression, this is a mixture of Russian and Yiddish, he said, האדיע האדיע ניטא קיין גט, which means stop, stop, there is no גט. Or in לשון קודש it would mean אין כאן גט, there is no גט. ניטא קיין גט, there is no גט here. And they asked the צמח צדק the שאלה, is this a לשון that is valid for ביטול הגט, and therefore the גט is בטל, and he would have to write a new גט? Or is it a לשון that is not מבטל the גט? And it's all based on the גמרא that the גמרא says that only if you use a לשון that means that you are being מבטל the גט מכאן ולהבא, from now and on, only such a לשון is valid. But if you use a לשון that would be saying that the גט was בטל from before, למפרע, such a לשון is not valid, as the גמרא explained before, because he is only stating a fact that the גט is פסול, and that is not true. Therefore, the only לשון he could use if he says the גט shall be בטל מכאן ולהבא. So the שאלה really here is that when you use a לשון אין כאן גט, there is no גט here, is that a לשון that is משמע מכאן ולהבא, that from now on he is being מבטל the גט? Or is it a לשון that is משמע למפרע, and is משמע that the גט is no good גט from before? Really, the

משכנות יעקב was asked this question too. And in his תשובות in אבן העזר סימן ל״א, he tries to resolve this question by proving from a different case that the לשון אין כאן is a לשון that means למפרע, for the past, not for the future. Because we find that when a חכם is מתיר a נדר, when a חכם nullifies a vow, a נדר, the expression he uses is אין כאן נדר, there is no נדר here. So let's see, what does the חכם do when he nullifies a נדר? So we know that a חכם is עוקר הנדר למפרע. That when a חכם nullifies a נדר, he tears out, he nullifies, he destroys the נדר למפרע, retroactive from the time the נדר was made. So according to that, the משכנות יעקב says, we see that the לשון אין כאן is a לשון למפרע, is a לשון that works retroactive for before. And therefore he says, in the case of a גט, where the person used the לשון אין כאן גט, this is a לשון that is not valid, because by a גט, only if you use a לשון that means from now on, that לשון is valid, so therefore the לשון אין כאן is not valid. But the

צמח צדק, he brings the same ראיה from נדרים, but just to the opposite direction. He says that since we see by נדרים that the לשון is אין כאן נדר, that is a ראיה that the לשון אין כאן means מכאן ולהבא, means from now on, and therefore in the case of a גט, this לשון would be a valid לשון to be מבטל the גט, and he would need another גט. And he explains it as follows. Even though we know that when a חכם is מבטל a נדר, he is מתיר the נדר למפרע, to before, but the פשט is not that he makes it as if there was never a נדר, and he goes back to the time when the נדר was made, and he is מבטל it then. The פשט is that now, when he is making the התרת נדרים, he is now being מבטל the נדר למפרע. The ביטול, the התרה helps for before, but it is being done now. It is as if the חכם is saying that I now am being מבטל the נדר that you have, and the ביטול that I am doing now helps retroactive, helps from the time you made the נדר, but the ביטול is actually taking place at the moment the חכם is saying אין כאן נדר. And he quotes from the בית יוסף in סימן רכ״ח in the beginning of הלכות נדרים, where he brings a תשובת הרמב״ן in סימן רס״ב, where he says that ביטול הנדר, התרת נדרים is similar to somebody who unties a קשר, unties a knot. That when you untie a knot, it's as if the knot was never tied. From here the צמח צדק says that we see that it is like untying a knot. When you untie a knot, even though it looks as if it was never there, but actually, when was it untied? At the moment that the person untied the knot. It just helps for before, but it is done at the moment he unties the knot. And the same is with התרת נדרים of a חכם, that even though it helps למפרע, but it is done now. And therefore the לשון אין כאן that the חכם says means that now I am taking away the נדר, and that will help למפרע. And

based on that, the צמח צדק paskens that in the case where the person said, האט ער, האט ער ניט קיין גט, that אין כאן גט, there is no גט here, in a case like that he said, the גט was בטל, because the לשון אין כאן is a לשון מכאן ולהבא, and in the case of גט a לשון מכאן ולהבא is valid, and therefore he paskened that the person had to give another גט, because the first גט that he wrote, he was מבטל.