In this daf, we are zocheh to delve deeper into the essential halachos of writing a get lishmah—specifically for the sake of the husband and wife. We begin by exploring whether a katan, a cheresh, or an imbecile can write a get if a halakhically competent adult is standing over them to supervise and direct their intent. This leads the Gemara into a beautiful, deep discussion regarding whether a non-Jew can write a get under similar supervision, and how we understand the difference between their respective levels of da'as.
We then move into a major yesod in Hilchos Gittin: the classic machlokes between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar. We learn how this dispute affects our understanding of the Torah's requirement of "ve-chasav lah"—whether the writing itself must be done lishmah, or if the primary requirement of lishmah rests upon the signatures of the witnesses who sign the get.
וְהוּא שֶׁהָיָה גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו.
And that is the case only when there was an adult standing over him to supervise the writing.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גּוֹי – וְיִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכָשֵׁר?!
Rav Nachman said to him: If that is so, then in the case of a gentile, and a Jew stands over him and instructs him to write it for her sake, is it also indeed valid?!
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל!
And if you would say that it is indeed so, but isn't it taught in a braisa: A gentile is disqualified from writing a get under any circumstances?
גּוֹי, לְדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ עָבֵד.
The Gemara answers: A gentile acts based on his own mind and will, and we cannot assume he follows the supervisor's instructions; whereas a minor or deaf-mute has no legal mind of his own and will follow the adult's direction.
הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; דְּמִדְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוֹי לְעִנְיַן הֲבָאָה, מִכְּלָל דִּלְעִנְיַן כְּתִיבָה – כָּשֵׁר.
Rav Nachman later said: That which I said is not a correct matter; for since the Mishnah later disqualifies a gentile regarding the bringing of a get, it is by implication that regarding the writing of a get, he is fit.
וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוֹי פָּסוּל!
The Gemara asks: But isn't it taught in a braisa: A gentile is disqualified from writing a get?
הַהִיא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי, וּבָעֵינַן כְּתִיבָה לִשְׁמָהּ; וְהָא וַדַּאי גּוֹי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָעָבֵיד.
The Gemara answers: That braisa is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, and we require the writing of the get to be for her sake; and this gentile certainly acts based on his own mind and cannot write it for her sake.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אֲפִילּוּ מְצָאוֹ בְּאַשְׁפָּה, חֲתָמוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ – כָּשֵׁר.
Rav Nachman said: Rabbi Meir would say: Even if he found a get in a garbage dump, and he had it signed by witnesses for her sake, and gave it to her, it is valid, because Rabbi Meir holds that the essential requirement of lishmah is in the signing.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ״ – לִשְׁמָהּ; מַאי, לָאו כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט?!
Rava challenged Rav Nachman: The Torah says, "And he shall write for her"—which means for her sake; what, is it not referring to the writing of the get itself?
לֹא, חֲתִימַת עֵדִים.
Rav Nachman answered: No, it refers to the signing of the witnesses.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא: כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל!
Rava challenged him from a Mishnah: Any get that was written not for the sake of the woman is invalid!
אֵימָא: שֶׁנֶּחְתַּם שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה – פָּסוּל.
Rav Nachman replied: Say and emend the text to read: Any get that was signed not for the sake of the woman is invalid.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ.
Rava challenged him from a braisa: When he writes it, it is as if he writes it for her sake.
מַאי, לָאו כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתְבוֹ לַתּוֹרֶף לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לַטּוֹפֶס לִשְׁמָהּ?!
What, is it not teaching that when he writes the essential part of the get for her sake, it is as if he wrote the standard part for her sake? This proves that the writing must be lishmah!
לֹא; כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹתְמוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּאִילּוּ כּוֹתְבוֹ לִשְׁמָהּ.
Rav Nachman answered: No; it means that when he signs it for her sake, it is as if he wrote it for her sake.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי.
And if you want, say: Whose opinion are these braisos that you challenged me with? It is Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of delivery effect the divorce, and therefore the writing itself must be lishmah.
וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף.
And Rav Yehudah said that Shmuel said: And that is the case that a minor may write it, only when he left over the space of the essential part of the get to be written by an adult.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חַגָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁשִּׁיֵּיר מְקוֹם הַתּוֹרֶף, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.
And so Rabbi Chagga said in the name of Ulla: And that is the case only when he left over the space of the essential part, and it is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.
וְרַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה.
And Rabbi Zerika said that Rabbi Yochanan said: It is not Torah.
מַאי ״אֵינָהּ תּוֹרָה״?
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of "It is not Torah"?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁאֵין כֹּחַ לִשְׁמָהּ; וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדֵי חֲתִימָה כָּרְתִי.
Rabbi Abba said: Here he informs you that there is no force to the requirement of lishmah in the writing of the get; and it is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says: The signing witnesses effect the divorce.
וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא!
The Gemara asks: But didn't Rabba bar bar Chana say that Rabbi Yochanan said: It is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar?
אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara answers: They are Amoraim who argue according to the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, וְסוֹמֵא, וְגוֹי.
MISHNAH: All are fit to bring a get, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, and a blind person, and a gentile.
קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל; חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ; סוֹמֵא וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ; שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה; גּוֹי וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּסוּל.
If a minor received the get as an agent and became an adult; or a deaf-mute and became able to hear; or a blind person and became able to see; or an imbecile and became sane; or a gentile and converted—he is unfit to deliver it.
אֲבָל פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ; פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ; שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – כָּשֵׁר.
But if he was sane and became a deaf-mute and returned and became sane; or seeing and became blind and returned and became seeing; or sane and became insane and returned and became sane—he is fit.
זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת – כָּשֵׁר.
This is the general rule: Anyone whose beginning and end of agency were with a sound mind is fit.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – דְּלָאו בְּנֵי דֵּיעָה נִינְהוּ;
GEMARA: It is understandable regarding a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, for they are not of sound mind and cannot act as agents;
גּוֹי נָמֵי – דְּלָאו בַּר הֶיתֵּירָא הוּא;
a gentile also is understandable, for he is not subject to the laws of Jewish marriage and divorce, and cannot act as an agent in them;
אֶלָּא סוֹמֵא, אַמַּאי לָא?
but a blind person, why not?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִמִּי נוֹטְלוֹ וּלְמִי נוֹתְנוֹ.
Rav Sheshes said: Because he does not know from whom he takes it and to whom he gives it.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הֵיאַךְ סוֹמֵא מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ? הֵיאַךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם מוּתָּרִים בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם בַּלַּיְלָה?
Rav Yosef challenged this: How is a blind man permitted to his wife? How are people permitted to their wives at night without seeing them?
אֶלָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא!
Rather, it is by voice recognition; here too, let him identify them by voice recognition!
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עָסְקִינַן; דְּבָעֵי לְמֵימַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, וְלָא מָצֵי לְמֵימַר.
Rather, Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing with outside the Land of Israel, where he needs to say: "In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed," and he is unable to say this because he cannot see the writing.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא, דְּמָצֵי אָמַר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכָשֵׁר?!
Abaye said to him: If that is so, then in the case of one who was seeing and became blind, who can say the declaration because he saw the writing before going blind, is he indeed fit?!
וְהָא קָתָנֵי: פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, כָּשֵׁר – חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, אִין; לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, לֹא!
But doesn't the Mishnah teach: Seeing and became blind and returned and became seeing is fit? This implies that if he returned and became seeing, yes, he is fit; but if he did not return and become seeing, no, he is not fit!
הוּא הַדִּין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא חָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ;
The Gemara answers: The same law applies that even though he did not return and become seeing, he is fit;
וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – טַעְמָא דְּחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה, הָא לֹא חָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – לָא; תְּנָא נָמֵי פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ.
and since it teaches in the parallel clause: Sane and became insane and returned and became sane—where the reason is that he returned and became sane, but if he did not return and become sane, no, he is unfit; it also taught for symmetry: Seeing and became blind and returned and became seeing.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת – כָּשֵׁר;
Rav Ashi said: It is also precise from the wording, as it teaches in the general rule: Anyone whose beginning and end of agency were with a sound mind is fit;
וְלָא קָתָנֵי: כׇּל שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּכַשְׁרוּת – כָּשֵׁר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
and it does not teach: Anyone whose beginning and end were in fitness is fit. Learn from this that a blind person who was seeing at the beginning and end is indeed fit.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: עֶבֶד, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גֵּט אִשָּׁה מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ?
They asked of Rabbi Ami: A slave, what is the law as to whether he may be made an agent to receive a woman's get from the hand of her husband?
אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִדְּקָא פָּסֵיל לֵיהּ לְגוֹי,
He said to them: Since the Mishnah disqualifies a gentile,
The sugya begins by clarifying that while a katan or cheresh may write a get under the close supervision of an adult who directs them to write it lishmah, a non-Jew is disqualified because he acts on his own independent will and cannot be directed. The Gemara then analyzes the positions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar regarding what actually effects the divorce—the signing witnesses (eidei chasimah) or the delivery witnesses (eidei mesirah). According to Rav Nachman's understanding of Rabbi Meir, even a get found in the garbage can be kosher if it is signed lishmah, whereas Rabbi Elazar requires the actual writing of the get (or at least its essential parts, the toref) to be done lishmah. Finally, the Gemara cites Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan, showing how their rulings on whether a katan can write a get depend on these fundamental views of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar.
The Gemara teaches us a profound principle about human nature: "A gentile acts based on his own will." Unlike a child or someone who lacks halachic competence, who can be guided by an adult standing over them, a person with their own independent mind and will cannot simply be directed to have the proper intent. They will naturally act on their own thoughts, desires, and motivations.
This is a powerful mirror for our own avodah. How often do we go through our day, performing mitzvos or helping others, while our minds are completely somewhere else? We might be physically doing the right thing, but our inner "will"—our da'as—is wandering, pulled by the yetzer hara or mundane distractions. To truly serve the Aibershter, we cannot just be passive participants. We must actively direct our own minds and wills to the holy task at hand.
Today, before you perform a mitzvah or daven, pause for just five seconds to consciously bring your mind and heart into what you are doing, ensuring that your actions are done with true, focused intention for the sake of Hashem.