- If orphans whose property was divided by Beis Din can later protest
On the previous Daf, Rav Nachman ruled that if one violated Rabban Gamliel’s decree to void a get only in the presence of the wife or shaliach, the get is nonetheless void. This indicates that Rav Nachman is unconcerned with upholding the power of Beis Din and seems to contradict another ruling of his. Shmuel said: יתומין שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהן – Orphans who are minors who come to divide their father’s estate, בית דין מעמידין להן אפוטרופוס ובוררים להן חלק יפה – Beis Din appoints an agent for each of them, who choose a favorable portion for them. Shmuel concluded: הגדילו יכולין למחות – When they become adults, they can protest the original settlement and demand a new division. Rav Nachman says they cannot, דאם כן מה כח בית דין יפה – for if they can, what good is the power of Beis Din? Clearly, Rav Nachman is concerned with protecting the power of Beis Din!? The Gemara answers: התם ממונא הכא איסורא – There, in the case of orphans, it is a monetary matter, where Beis Din’s power is absolute (because הפקר ב"ד הפקר), but here, regarding voiding a get in the absence of his wife, it is a matter of prohibition, and unless they would take the drastic step to uproot the original marriage, the get is voided.
- גילוי דעתא בגיטא
The Gemara relates that Gidul bar Re’ilai sent a get to his wife with a shaliach. His wife told the shaliach to come back the next day, and when the shaliach reported this to Gidul, he exclaimed, " ברוך הטוב והמטיב" – Blessed is He Who is good and does good!” Abaye said that although he demonstrated his relief that the get was not delivered, the get is not void and the shaliach may give the get. Rava said the get is void. The Gemara explains that Abaye holds: גלוי דעתא בגיטא לאו מלתא היא – a show of intent is not significant enough to void a get, and Rava holds it is. Among other proofs proposed, Abaye quoted an incident of a get given on condition that he does not return within thirty days. He became unable to cross the river, and called out, חזו דאתאי – “See that I have come!” Shmuel ruled the get effective, since he did not come. Even though he clearly indicated he did not want the divorce, the get was ruled valid, and the show of intent was insufficient to void the get!? Rava can respond that the husband never actually indicated a wish to void the get itself; he attempted to fulfill his condition of returning, which he did not.
- Writing all established names in a get
The next Mishnah states: בראשונה היה משנה שמו ושמה – Originally, one would “change” [the husband’s] name and [the wife’s] name (meaning that for people who were called by different names in different places, their get would be written only with the name used in the place of writing), שם עירו ושם עירה – or change his city’s name or her city’s name (meaning, in addition to writing the name of the city where the get was written, they would write the name of the city where they lived, and if it had multiple names, they wrote the name by which is it known in the place where the get was written). התקין ר"ג הזקן שיהא כותב איש פלוני וכל שום שיש לו – Rabban Gamliel Hazaken decreed that one must write, “Ploni and every name that he has,” and do the same for his wife, as well as their cities. This decree was מפני תיקון העולם – for societal benefit, because people who know one of the parties by a different name will think she is not divorced, and that her subsequent children are mamzerim. Rav Ashi added: והוא דאתחזק בתרי שמי – This requirement is only if it is established that he has two names. A Baraisa is brought in his support.
