טעמא דאיכא כתב הא ליכא כתב לא—The reason is because there is writing, but if there is no writing; no

OVERVIEW שמואל ruled that if a husband gave his wife a blank paper and said to her, ‘here is your גט’, she is divorced, because there is the possibility that he wrote it במי מילין. The גמרא challenges the ruling of שמואל from a ברייתא (regarding שטר פסים). תוספות clarifies the question and also the ruling of שמואל including the meaning of נייר חלק.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא דבעינן דאיכא כתב משום דחזר ואמר שטר פסים הוא – And if you will say; the reason we require that there is writing in order that it should be a גט, is because he later said it is a שטר פסים – וכי האי גוונא הכא גבי נייר חלק אם חזר ואמר נייר חלק הוא היה נאמן – And if it were in the same situation here regarding the blank paper, if he later said it is a blank paper, he would be believed – אבל לעולם כל זמן שאמר גט הוא מגורשת ולא קשה מידי לשמואל¹ – However, as long as he said it is a גט and did not retract, she is divorced, so there is no difficulty to reconcile שמואל with the ברייתא of שטר פסים. תוספות answers: ויש לומר [דכיון] דסלקא דעתין השתא דמגורשת ודאי קאמר שמואל² – And one can say; that since we presently assume that שמואל meant that she is certainly מגורשת (not just merely that we are concerned that perhaps she is מגורשת) – אם כן לא חשיב ריעותא במאי שהוא נייר חלק³ – If this is indeed so (that if he gave her a נייר חלק she is מגרושת ודאי) therefore the fact that it is a נייר חלק, that is not considered a defect in the גט – ואם כן כשחזר ואמר נמי נייר חלק הוא אית לן למימר דלאו כל הימנו לאוסרה – So therefore even when he later states it is a נייר חלק we should rule that he is not believed to prohibit her from marrying someone else (not as תוספות assumed in the קושיא) – כמו היכא דאיכא כתב⁴ – Just as he is not נאמן לאוסרה when there is a כתב (in the case of שטר פסים). תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והיכי סלקא דעתין דמגורשת ודאי קאמר כיון דנראה שהוא נייר חלק – And if you will say; how could it even have entered our minds that שמואל meant she is ודאי מגורשת since visibly it is a נייר חלק?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר כיון דאמר הרי זה גיטך בדבר מועט מהימנינן לבעל – And one can say; since the husband said; ‘here is your גט’, we believe the husband even with a minimal proof that there is a גט (written במי מילין) – תוספות supports this concept from elsewhere: כי היכי דאמרינן בעל שאמר גירשתי אשתי נאמן הואיל ובידו לגרשה⁵ – Just as we rule that a husband who claims, ‘I divorced my wife’, he is believed, since it is in his power to divorce her – תוספות offers another option why we assumed that she is ודאי מגורשת by a נייר חלק: אי נמי דאיירי דקריוה בי תרי מעיקרא ועייליה לבי ידיה ואפקיה⁶ – Or you may also say; that we are discussing a case where initially two עדים read the גט, and after they read it the husband took it in his hands and he brought it out and gave it to her. We initially assumed that she is ודאי מגורשת (even though she is now holding a נייר חלק) – דלא חיישינן דלמא חלפיה – For, we are not concerned that perhaps he exchanged the גט, which the עדים read, with a נייר חלק, but rather we assume that it is the same גט. Now תוספות addresses the issue, how come it is blank now?! ונייר חלק דקאמר שמואל לא בשעת נתינה ראו שהוא נייר חלק⁷ – And when שמואל said נייר חלק, it does not mean that when the גט was given people saw that it is a נייר חלק – דאם כן אפילו היה ודאי כתוב במי מילין אינו גט⁸ כיון דבשעת נתינה כבר נבלעו האותיות – For if indeed this is the meaning of נייר חלק, then even if it was certainly written with מי מילין, it would not be a valid גט, since at the time of נתינה the letters were already absorbed into the נייר and are not visible – כדאמר בסמוך⁹ כי פליט מאי הוי¹⁰ השתא הוא דפליט¹¹ – As the גמרא shortly states, ‘so what of it that the letters came forth; they only came forth now’, but not when the גט was handed to her – אלא שעה אחת אחר נתינה כשיעור שהאותיות יכולות להבלע ראו שהיה נייר חלק¹² – But rather the meaning of נייר חלק is that a certain amount of time after the giving of the גט, the amount of time required for the letters (of מי מילין) to be absorbed in the נייר, then the people saw that it is a נייר חלק. תוספות offers a final resolution to נייר חלק: ועוד יש לומר דבשעת נתינה ראו מרחוק ודומה להם נייר חלק – And one can also say; that at the time of נתינת הגט people saw from afar and it appeared to them as a נייר חלק – ושמא אם היו מעיינין היו האותיות ניכרים:¹³ But perhaps if they would have looked closely the letters would have been apparent.

SUMMARY The גמרא assumed that שמואל maintains that it is a גט even if later he said it was just a נייר חלק. In the הו"א the גמרא assumed that she is מגורשת ודאי (by נייר חלק) either because the בעל is always נאמן (for הואיל ובידו לגרשה), or because it was actually read before they gave it to her, or because they viewed the גט from afar.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the first אוקימתא of תוספות (that the בעל is נאמן since it is בידו לגרשה),¹⁴ does שמואל agree with the ruling of רב דימי, that צריכי למקרייה or not?¹⁵
2. According to the last אוקימתא of תוספות (that the people saw the גט from afar),¹⁶ why does שמואל say חיישינן במי מילין כתבו, when he should have said, ‘if they were closer they would have seen the כתב’?!¹⁷
3. Of the three אוקימתא in תוספות (נייר חלק, קריוהו בי תרי and ראו מרחוק) which is the most lenient (in allowing the גט to be כשר) and which is the strictest?

footnotes: ¹ תוספות distinguishes between the case of שטר פסים where a כתב is necessary in order for it to be deemed a גט and the case of שמואל where no writing is necessary in order for it to be a גט (because חיישינן שמא במי מילין כתבו). In the case of שטר פסים it is necessary that there is writing because later he contradicts himself and states that it is not a גט but rather a שטר פסים, in such a case it is a גט only if there is a כתב but not where there is no כתב, and similarly by the case of נייר חלק if he would later say it is only a נייר חלק, she would also not be מגורשת (just as by שטר פסים), however in the case of שמואל he never retracted his original statement that it is a גט, there שמאול maintains it is a גט even if there is no כתב, since חיישינן שמא במי מילין כתבו. ² The reason being, since he said הרי זה גיטך, we assume that he is serious and it was certainly written במי מילין. See later in this תוספות. ³ Even though it appears to be a נייר חלק but we assume with certainty that it is not a נייר חלק (for she is ודאי מגורשת), but rather that it is written במי מילין (so there is a כתב here as well). ⁴ The sגמרא' question is how can שמואל maintain that even if he would say it is a נייר חלק, she would still be מגורשת, but from the ברייתא of שטר פסים it is evident that we disregard his later statement only if there is a כתב, but not when there is no כתב. The גמרא is challenging the basic assumption of שמואל that even without a כתב it is a valid גט. ⁵ Therefore we say he has no reason to lie, for if he wants he can divorce her right now, similarly when he said הרי זה גיטך we know that he is serious and the גט was written במי מילין. [This was just the הו"א.] See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ The גמרא shortly states that the case of שטר פסים is in such a situation. ⁷ If שמואל meant that it was a נייר חלק when it was given to the woman, then we could not easily say that before the נתינה there were עדים who read the גט, for it is unlikely that in this short duration the גט would become a נייר חלק. ⁸ The difficulty in assuming that he actually gave her a נייר חלק is independent whether the עדים read it beforehand or not; in any event we cannot assume that שמואל meant it was a נייר חלק בשעת נתינה. ⁹ The גמרא there explains we assume that it was written במי מילין, since the letters appeared after we checked it with מיא דנרא. The גמרא continues to ask that even this is insufficient to render this a proper גט. ¹⁰ Therefore in any event we cannot say that when the גט was given to her it was a נייר חלק, for then it would be an invalid גט. ¹¹ This applies even according to תוספות previous answer (that it was actually a נייר חלק), for it will still be necessary to say that even though no one read the גט prior to the נתינה, however it was not noticed that it was a נייר חלק until a שעה אחרי הנתינה, for otherwise we have the same difficulty כי פלט מאי הוי השתא הוא דפליט. See מהר"ם. ¹² In the הו"א we assumed in such a case she is ודאי מגורשת, since the עדים read it immediately before it was given, and we are not חושש for דלמא חלפי. However according to the מסקנא that we check it with מיא דנרא and it was פליט, it may not be necessary to assume that it was read before the נתינה (see נח"מ בד"ה והנה), but rather it was indeed a נייר חלק. In which case (according to the מסקנא) we check it with מיא דנרא and if the letters appear, only then are we חיישינן לגירושין, because perhaps the letters were visible בשעת נתינת הגט. ¹³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁴ See footnote # 4. ¹⁵ See מהרש"א and נח"מ. ¹⁶ See footnote # 13. ¹⁷ See נח"מ בד"ה ועוד י"ל.

מיא דנרא—

OVERVIEW The גמרא says that we need to examine the נייר with מיא דנרא to verify whether it was written במי מילין or not. רש"י explains that נרא is a dye called פוייל"י¹ and we spread the מי נרא over the נייר. Our תוספות cites a different view.²

The ר"ח explained that מיא דנרא is the extract of the bark of a pomegranate tree,⁴ and similarly in the ערוך it is also explained in this manner.

SUMMARY נרא is קליפת רמון.

THINKING IT OVER If we were בודק with the מיא דנרא (according to רש"י) and no writing appeared, what will be the ruling according to the ר"ח (if his מיא דנרא is not available) or vice versa?⁵

footnotes: ¹ Some say that פוייל"י is a lemon See אוצר הלעזים. ² Others maintain that מי נרא is violet colored liquid (נרא meaning the violet [flower/color]). See פי' הערוך in the following footnote # 3. ³ In our ערוך in the ערך נר it states מי צבע של תכלת שצובעין בו צמר ובגדים (it is the liquid dye of royal blue which is used in dying wool and clothes). It then adds that the ר"ח refers to נרא as מי קליפת רמון. ⁴ Or it may mean from the peel of the pomegranate fruit. ⁵ [See (also) following תוספות ד"ה ושמואל.]

ושמואל נמי חיישינן קאמר—And שמואל also said, we are concerned

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that when שמואל ruled that a woman is מגורשת even with a נייר חלק, he meant that we are concerned that perhaps she is מגורשת. Our תוספות clarifies the ruling of שמואל according to the מסקנא.

השתא לא צריכי לאוקמי דבדקיניה דכי לא בדקיניה נמי איכא למיחש¹ – Now ( that we understand that שמואל is only חושש for גירושין, but not that she is מגורשת ודאי) it is not necessary to establish the ruling of שמואל, regarding a נייר חלק, in a case where we examined the נייר חלק with מיא דנרא, for even if we did not examine the נייר, we can still be concerned that she may be מגורשת – ומיהו ודאי אי בדקיניה ולא פליט לאו כלום הוא²: However, it is certain that if we examined the נייר חלק with מיא דנרא and nothing came up, the גט is meaningless; there is not even a חשש גירושין**.**

SUMMARY If one gives his wife a נייר חלק and says הרי זה גיטך there is a חשש גירושין, even if we did not examine it במיא דנרא. If however it was examined and no letters showed up, there is no חשש of גירושין.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why was it necessary for תוספות to teach us that if it was examined and לא פליט there is no חשש.³ Seemingly this is obvious, the גמרא states so clearly (ואי לא פליט לאו כלום הוא), why mention it?!
2. From the גמרא it appeared that the ruling of שמואל is only if בדקינן ליה במיא דנרא. However, according to תוספות that when the גמרא concluded שמואל נמי חיישינן קאמר, the ruling of שמואל is even without בדקינן, the גמרא should have said 'אלא', etc. to indicate that there is new understanding of שמואל! ⁴

footnotes: ¹ He told her הרי"ז גיטך and as תוספות previously taught us (בד"ה טעמא), that the בעל is נאמן even with a דבר מועט, so the חשש can certainly remain that perhaps במי מילין כתבו. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ ³ See footnote # 2. ⁴ See חי' הרשב"א.

צריכי למיקרייה—They are required to read it

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ruling in the name of רב דימי that the עדי מסירה must read the גט. Our תוספות discusses when the גט should be read.

קודם נתינה איירי מדמשני בסמוך¹ לא צריכא דלבתר דקריוה עייליה כולי² – We are discussing before the giving of the גט (that is when it needs to be read according to רב דימי), since the גמרא shortly answers, ‘it was only necessary in a case where after they read it they placed it in the folds of his garment**, etc. ואי לא קרייה נראה דלא הוי גט³ מדלא משני הכא במאי עסקינן דלא קרייה⁴ –** However, if they did not read the גט before it was given to the wife, it is the view of תוספות that it is not a valid גט, since the גמרא did not answer, ‘we are discussing here a case where they did not read it’ – משמע דאי לא קרייה אינה מגורשת – This indicates that if they did not read it she is not divorced. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דתנן לקמן בהזורק (דף פ,א) כתב גט לאיש ושובר לאשה וטעה ונתן כולי – And if you will say; for we learnt in a משנה later in פרק הזורק, ‘the סופר wrote a גט for the husband (to give it to the wife) and a receipt for the woman (to give it to her husband when he pays the כתובה), and the סופר erred and he gave etc. (the גט to the woman and the שובר to the husband) – ולאחר זמן גט יוצא מתחת ידי האיש ושובר מיד האשה⁵ תצא מזה ומזה – And after a while they realized that the man is in possession of the גט and the woman is in possession of the שובר, the rule is that the woman must leave both her new husband and old husband. ⁶ This concludes that משנה – ודייק עלה בהאשה רבה⁷ (יבמות דף צא,ב) מאי הוה לה למעבד – And the גמרא in פרק האשה רבה infers from the previously mentioned משנה of יבמות, where it is a case of ‘what could she have done’ so why is it תצא מזה ומזה; seemingly proving that we do not say מאי הוה לה למיעבד – ומשני איבעי לה לאקרויי גיטא – And the גמרא there answered she should have read the גט before she remarried; therefore it is not a case of מאי הוה לה למעבד. This concludes the גמרא. Now תוספות continues with his question – והשתא אי לא קרייה אפילו לא הוחלפה להם אינה מגורשת⁸ – But now that we say that the גט must be read for it to be valid, so if they did not read the גט (as is evidenced by the answer איבעי לה לאקרויי גיטא), then even if the גט and the שובר were not mixed up (but rather she received the גט from her husband), nevertheless she is not מגורשת since the גט was not read!⁹ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנהי דאסורה לינשא בדלא קרייה מכל מקום אם נשאת לא תצא – And one can say; granted that she is initially forbidden to remarry if the גט was not read by the ע"מ, nevertheless if she remarried (without the גט being read), she is not required to leave her new husband (provided it is a valid גט) – תוספות offers an alternate solution:¹⁰ אי נמי התם בעייליה לבי ידיה וקנסינן לה דאיבעי למיהדר מיד לאקרויי או לאחר נתינה – Or you may also say; there (by the גט ושובר) we are discussing a case where after the עדים read it,¹¹ the סופר put the גט ושובר in their (opposite) respective hands, so we punish her that תצא מזה ומזה, for she should have read it again immediately (to make sure that the proper document was given to each party, or she should have read it at least after it was given to her (since there were two documents). That is why we punish her that תצא מזה ומזה – מאחר שבאה לידי קלקול¹² – Since it resulted in a calamity. ומיהו אינה אסורה לינשא אי לא קראה שנית כדאמר הכא לאו כל הימנו לאוסרה¹³ – However, she is not forbidden to remarry if she did not read it a second time, as the גמרא states here (regarding the שטר פסים), ‘he does not have the authority to prohibit her from remarrying – אף על גב דעל כרחיך לא קראה בתר הכי¹⁴ – Even though that perforce she did not read it again afterwards. והיה רגיל רבינו יצחק לקרות קודם הנתינה ולאחר הנתינה – And the ר"י was accustomed to read the גט before it was given and after it was given – ומיהו פשיטא דאי לא קראה קודם הנתינה וקראה לאחר הנתינה¹⁵ דבר פשוט הוא דמגורשת: Nevertheless, it is obvious that if the גט was not read before it was given, but it was read after it was given; it is a simple matter that she is divorced.

SUMMARY The גט should be read by the ע"מ before the נתינה (and preferably after the נתינה), otherwise she may not remarry (unless it is read after the נתינה). [If the גט was not read at all there is a dispute whether אם נשאת תצא or not.]

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks if the גט is not valid without קריאה then in the case of גט ושובר it should be invalid even if they were not mixed up.¹⁶ However, if they were not mixed up, then it is not פסול, for we can read it now as תוספות concludes¹⁷ shortly!¹⁸ 2. Is it preferable to read the גט before the נתינה or after the נתינה?¹⁹

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא shortly challenges the ruling of רב דימי from the ברייתא of שטר פסים הוא. If ר"ד is correct that the עדים are required to read the גט (before it is given), how can the husband claim afterwards that it was a שטר פסים, since the עדי מסירה had already read a proper גט. See following footnote # 2. ² The גמרא answered (see previous footnote # 1) that indeed רב דימי is correct, and the ברייתא is discussing a case where after the ע"מ read the גט they placed it by the husband and afterwards he gave it to his wife, etc. This indicates that the גמרא assumes that ר"ד requires that the reading take place before the giving of the גט, because if there is a requirement that it be read after the נתינה, then there can be no issue of עייליה לביה ידיה and חלופי חלפיה, etc. ³ This means she is not permitted to remarry (until the גט is read). ⁴ תוספות maintains that the ruling of ר"ד is even בדיעבד it is not a גט. For if it is a גט בדיעבד (if the ע"מ did not read it), the גמרא could have answered that the ברייתא of שטר פסים is in a case where somehow they did not read it (and therefore he can claim שטר פסים הוא). Since the גמרא did not offer this answer, this proves that it must be read. ⁵ The man who (mistakenly) was given the שובר gave it to the אשה (thinking that it was a גט), and the woman who (mistakenly) received the גט gave it to her husband (thinking that it is a שובר). In reality however the woman never received a גט from her husband (he only gave her a שובר, which is meaningless). She is still considered married to her original husband. ⁶ If she married someone else after receiving her meaningless שובר, she cannot continue to be with her new ‘husband’ or with her initial husband, since she was מזנה (albeit בשוגג) while she was an אשת איש, which makes her אסורה לבעל ולבועל. ⁷ The גמרא there discusses whether under certain circumstances we are lenient with the woman and let her return to her original husband, if she was not at all at fault, for we say מאי הוה לה למיעבד; what could she have done! ⁸ This seemingly proves that even if the גט is not read it is a valid גירושין (as long as she received a valid גט). ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁰ It seems that this alternate answer of תוספות (disagrees with the previous answer and) maintains that if the גט was never read then even if she remarried the rule is תצא (מזה ומזה). ¹¹ Therefore (as far as the ruling of ר"ד is concerned) it is a valid גט. ¹² She remarried while she was still an אשת איש. ¹³ It is preferable that she read it a second time (if after it was read it was given to the husband) for this will preclude her from תצא מזה ומזה (in case no גט was given to her), nevertheless if she did not read it again (especially if it was lost or destroyed), she may remarry, as long as it was read once (before the נתינה). ¹⁴ If it was read after the נתינה he cannot claim שטר פסים הוא. ¹⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 & 2 (and נח"מ). ¹⁶ See footnote # 9. ¹⁷ See footnote # 15. ¹⁸ See מהר"ם שי"ף. ¹⁹ See בל"י אות תנט.