Gittin - Daf 11
- שמות מובהקין
The Gemara on the previous Daf explained that Rebbe Shimon considers a get signed by idolators valid, because he holds like Rebbe Elazar that עדי מסירה כרתי – the witnesses to delivery enable the get to sever the marital bond, even without signatures. The Gemara asked that a document which is מזוייף מתוכו – internally faulty, is invalid, even though no signatures were necessary. This is because of a concern that people may come to use the signed witnesses for the delivery as well, for which they are not qualified. The Gemara answers: בשמות מובהקין – The Mishnah refers to signatures of distinct names, i.e., obviously gentile names. People know they are not valid witnesses and will not rely on them. In a Baraisa, Rebbe Shimon reported that such gittin are valid even when written by ordinary gentiles (non-judges), although they are unreliable, because these documents are only used for the actual divorce or שחרור, and not for proof. The Chachomim only invalidated monetary documents (such as sales), which are used as proof, when written by ordinary gentiles. Rebbe Akiva considers even such documents reliable.
- Machlokes about retracting a גט שחרור after handing to a shaliach
The next Mishnah states: האומר תן גט זה לאשתי ושטר שחרור זה לעבדי – One who says to his shaliach, “Give this get to my wife,” or “Give this גט שחרור to my slave,” Rebbe Meir holds: אם רצה לחזור בשניהן יחזור – If he wants to retract from either of them, he may retract, because neither get takes effect until it reaches its recipient. The Chachomim partially disagree: בגיטי נשים אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים– This is true regarding women’s gittin, but not regarding גיטי שחרור. They explain the distinction: לפי שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו– Because one may benefit another person even in his absence (i.e., without his authorization), but one cannot disadvantage another person except in his presence (i.e., with authorization). All agree that a divorce is a disadvantage for the woman, since it includes a loss of financial support, and therefore cannot be performed by a shaliach without her authorization. The Chachomim consider freedom to be an advantage only (and therefore takes effect immediately), שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי– because if he [the master] wishes not to feed his slave, he may, so the emancipation is not considered a loss of support. Their dispute is elaborated on further on Daf 12.
- התופס לבעל חוב
Rav Huna and Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef were once sitting before Rebbe Yirmiyah, who was dozing. Rav Huna sought to deduce from the Chachomim’s opinion: התופס לבעל חוב קנה – one who seizes property for a creditor, the creditor acquires it. In our Mishnah, the shaliach was only instructed to give the גט to the slave, yet the master cannot retract. This must be because the shaliach can acquire the גט on behalf of the slave immediately, since it is a benefit to him. This is equivalent to seizing property on behalf of a creditor whose borrower did not pay. Rav Yitzchak responded: ואפי' במקום שחב לאחרים – Would this prove even where the seizure disadvantages others? In the Mishnah, acquiring the get for the slave is to the detriment of the master, who can no longer retract. If so, one could even seize property on behalf of a creditor to the detriment of other creditors, who will not be able to collect their own debts. Rav Huna agreed. Rebbe Yirmiyah awoke and chided them that Rebbe Yochanan says a creditor does not acquire property seized on his behalf (when it disadvantages others) and explained the Mishnah’s reason: כל האומר תנו כאומר זכו דמי – Anyone who says “Give,” is as if he says, “Acquire for the recipient.” Thus, the shaliach was instructed by the master to acquire the גט for the slave.
