In this daf, we continue our learning of the sugya regarding the power of the Beis Din to uphold its decrees, specifically contrasting monetary matters with the strict prohibitions of marriage and divorce. We delve into the halachos of an apotropos (steward) appointed for orphans, and whether the orphans can protest their division of property once they grow up. This leads us into a deep discussion on the power of the court's authority versus the severe nature of a married woman's status.
We then move into a fascinating discussion regarding a husband's disclosure of intent (giluy da'as) to cancel a get without explicitly doing so. Through the story of Giddul bar Re'ilai, who rejoiced when his get was not delivered, the Gemara explores the machlokes between Abaye and Rava. We analyze whether such a demonstration of joy or other non-explicit actions are enough to render a get void, bringing proofs from various cases where Chazal had to compel a husband to write a get.
יְתוֹמִין שֶׁבָּאוּ לַחֲלוֹק בְּנִכְסֵי אֲבִיהֶן, בֵּית דִּין מַעֲמִידִין לָהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, וּבוֹרְרִים לָהֶן חֵלֶק יָפֶה.
In the case of orphans who came to divide the property of their father, the court appoints a steward for them, and they select for them a fine portion.
הִגְדִּילוּ – יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת.
When they have grown up, they can protest the division and demand a redistribution.
וְרַב נַחְמָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: הִגְדִּילוּ – אֵין יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת; דְּאִם כֵּן, מָה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה?
And Rav Nachman himself said: When they have grown up, they cannot protest; for if so, what advantage does the court have?
הָתָם מָמוֹנָא, הָכָא אִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the orphans, it is a matter of monetary law, where the court has the power to expropriate, but here, in the case of a get, it is a matter of prohibition, and we cannot permit a married woman to marry based on court authority.
גִּידּוּל בַּר רְעִילַאי שַׁדַּר לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ; אֲזַל שְׁלִיחָא, אַשְׁכְּחַהּ דַּהֲוָה יָתְבָה וְנָוְולָה, אֲמַר לַהּ: הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: זִיל הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא, וְתָא לִמְחַר. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ. פְּתַח וַאֲמַר: ״בָּרוּךְ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״.
The Gemara relates: Giddul bar Re'ilai sent a get to his wife; the agent went, and found her when she was sitting and weaving. He said to her: Here is your get. She said to him: Go away for now at least, and come tomorrow. He went to Giddul and told him what happened. Giddul opened his mouth and said: "Blessed is He Who is good and does good", because he was happy the get was not delivered.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: ״בָּרוּךְ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״, וְלָא בָּטֵל גִּיטָּא.
Abaye said: He said "Blessed is He Who is good and does good," but the get is not voided by this statement.
רָבָא אָמַר: ״בָּרוּךְ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״, וּבָטֵל גִּיטָּא.
Rava said: He said "Blessed is He Who is good and does good," and the get is voided.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בְּגִלּוּי דַעְתָּא בְּגִיטָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּאַבָּיֵי סָבַר: גִּלּוּי דַעְתָּא בְּגִיטָּא לָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא, וְרָבָא סָבַר: גִּלּוּי דַעְתָּא בְּגִיטָּא מִילְּתָא הִיא.
In what do they differ? In the disclosure of intent in a get they differ – as Abaye holds: Disclosure of intent in a get is not a significant matter to void it, and Rava holds: Disclosure of intent in a get is a significant matter and does void it.
אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אַשְׁקְלֵיהּ גִּיטָּא לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי: הָכִי אָמַר לְכוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת – לְבַטֵּל גִּיטָּא. וְאַצְרְכֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת גִּיטָּא אַחֲרִינָא.
Rava said: From where do I say this? As Rav Sheshet extracted a get from a certain man against his will, and the man said to the witnesses: This is what Rav Sheshet said to you – to void the get. And Rav Sheshet required him to write another get, because his disclosure of intent voided the first one.
וְאַבָּיֵי – אַטּוּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מְבַטֵּל גִּיטָּא דְּאִינָשֵׁי הֲוָה?! אִיהוּ בַּטְּלַהּ; וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם דָּפְנוֹיֵ[י].
And Abaye would respond: Is that to say Rav Sheshet voids the gets of other people?! Rather, he, the husband, explicitly voided it; and this that he said to them thus, attributing the cancellation to Rav Sheshet, was because of the lashes he feared he would receive from the court officers if he openly defied Rav Sheshet.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אַשְׁקְלֵיהּ גִּיטָּא לְחַתְנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בִּירָאָה, וּבַטְּלֵיהּ; תְּנָא אַשְׁקְלֵיהּ, וּבַטְּלֵיהּ; הֲדַר תְּנָא וְאַשְׁקְלֵיהּ עַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי: אוֹתִיבוּ קָרֵי בְּאוּנַּיְכוּ וּכְתוּבוּ לֵיהּ.
And Abaye said: From where do I say this? As Rav Yehuda extracted a get from the son-in-law of Rabbi Yirmeya Bira'ah, and he voided it; he again extracted it, and he voided it; he returned again and extracted it against his will, and said to the witnesses: Place pieces of gourd in your ears and write it for him so you do not hear him void it.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ גִּלּוּי דַעְתָּא בְּגִיטָּא מִילְּתָא הִיא, הָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ דְּקָא רָהֵיט בָּתְרַיְיהוּ!
And if it enters your mind that disclosure of intent in a get is a significant matter, surely they see him running after them, which clearly discloses his intent to stop them!
וְרָבָא – הַאי דְּקָא רָהֵיט בָּתְרַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר לְהוּ: אַשּׁוּר הַבוּ לַהּ הַיָּיא, כִּי הֵיכָא דְּמִשְׁלַם צַעֲרָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא.
And Rava would respond: This that he was running after them is not a clear disclosure of intent to void it, for perhaps he was running to say to them: Make haste, give it to her quickly, so that the pain of that man, meaning my own pain of being in this stressful situation, will end.
וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. אֲתָא, וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא; אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי, חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי״; וַאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא.
And Abaye said: From where do I say this? As there was a certain man who said to them: If I do not arrive within thirty days, let this be a get. He arrived, but the ferry stopped him on the other side of the river; he said to them: "See that I have arrived, see that I have arrived!" And Shmuel said: It is not called an arrival, and the get is valid, despite his clear disclosure of intent that he wanted to prevent the divorce.
וְרָבָא – אַטּוּ הָתָם לְבַטּוֹלֵי גִּיטָּא בָּעֵי?! הָתָם לְקַיּוֹמֵי תְּנָאֵיהּ קָא בָעֵי, וְהָא לָא אִיקַּיַּים תְּנָאֵיהּ.
And Rava would respond: Is that to say there he wants to void the get? There, he wants to fulfill his condition of arriving, and his condition was not fulfilled. Therefore, the get takes effect by default, not because we ignore his intent.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא נָסֵיבְנָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. כִּי מְטוֹ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא טָרַחְנָא.
There was a certain man who said to them: If I do not marry her within thirty days, let this be a get. When thirty days arrived, he said to them: Behold, I have exerted myself to marry her but was prevented by circumstances beyond my control.
לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אוּנְסָא – אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין. אִי מִשּׁוּם גַּלּוֹיֵי דַּעְתָּא בְּגִיטָּא – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא הוּא.
The Gemara asks: For what must we be concerned for it? If because of unavoidable accident, there is no claim of unavoidable accident in gets. If because of disclosure of intent in a get, it is the dispute of Abaye and Rava.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי לָא נָסֵיבְנָא לְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא דַּאֲדָר, לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. כִּי מְטָא רֵישׁ יַרְחָא דַּאֲדָר, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא לְרֵישׁ יַרְחָא דְנִיסָן אֲמַרִי.
There was a certain man who said to them: If I do not marry her by the New Moon of Adar, let this be a get. When the New Moon of Adar arrived, he said to them: I meant the New Moon of Nissan.
לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? אִי מִשּׁוּם אוֹנֶס – אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין. אִי מִשּׁוּם גַּלּוֹיֵי דַּעְתָּא – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא.
For what must we be concerned for it? If because of unavoidable accident, there is no claim of unavoidable accident in gets. If because of disclosure of intent, it is the dispute of Abaye and Rava.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּנַחְמָן; וְהִלְכְתָא כְּנַחְמָן;
And the halachah is like Nachman; and the halachah is like Nachman.
The daf establishes that while Beis Din has the power to finalize property divisions for orphans to maintain the court's authority in monetary matters, we do not apply this same leniency to validate a questionable get, as we must be extremely stringent with the prohibitions of a married woman. The Gemara then focuses on the machlokes between Abaye and Rava regarding giluy da'as (disclosure of intent) in canceling a get. Abaye holds that a husband's indirect actions or expressions of relief do not void the get, bringing proofs from cases where husbands were prevented from speaking or where an unavoidable delay (oness) kept a husband from arriving on time. Rava argues that such clear demonstrations of intent do indeed void the get, explaining each of Abaye's proofs in a way that preserves his own halachic view.
My dear talmid, look at the beautiful and deep machlokes between Abaye and Rava on our daf. A husband sends a get to his wife, but when he hears there is a delay and she did not receive it yet, he bursts out with a heartfelt bracha: "Baruch HaTov VeHaMeitiv!" He is overjoyed that the divorce did not go through. Rava says this "gilluy da'as", this clear disclosure of his inner will, is so powerful that it completely voids the divorce, even though he never explicitly said the words "I cancel it." Abaye, however, holds that unless he says the formal words of cancellation, his feelings do not change the halachic reality.
This machlokes touches on a profound truth about our own avodah. How often do we find ourselves going through the motions of life, doing what we think we have to do, while our hearts are actually pulling in the opposite direction? We might be heading down a certain path, but deep down, we are praying for a delay, hoping for an obstacle, wishing that Hashem would stop us. Rava is teaching us that your true, inner desire, your "gilluy da'as", carries immense weight. Hashem looks at what your neshama actually wants, even when your external actions are still moving forward.
If you find yourself in a situation where you are about to make a mistake, or you are stuck in a habit that you feel powerless to stop, do not despair. Even if you feel you cannot halt your actions right now, let your heart cry out. Let your inner will be clear to Hashem. That silent, honest whisper of "I wish I wasn't doing this" is not meaningless. It is a powerful disclosure of your true self, and in the eyes of Heaven, that inner truth has the power to change your entire reality.
Today, take one minute before you do a mitzvah or when you find yourself facing a nisayon, and explicitly reveal your inner will to Hashem. Say quietly: "Ribono shel Olam, I truly want to do Your will and be close to You."