לע"נ סבתי מרת אלטע חנה בת ר' מאיר זאב
Going back to the Rashi in the previous post.
Why does he need to quote the pasuk of ונתן בידה to prove his point that the שליחות is invalid and the divorce is off? Is there not a rule in כל התורה כולה that when the שליחות is canceled, the entire act is nullified?
Maybe it is because he wanted to bring an explicit pasuk to that effect. But we already have a different pasuk - the same pasuk that teaches us שליחות can also teach us this rule. Since the שליח has been canceled, there is no more שליחות and hence no גירושין???
Based on what we wrote in the previous post, learning from the pasuk teaching us שליחות would not be an option because the לימוד of שליחות from the pasuk is not explicit so that would be called דברי סופרים according to Rashi and the gemara asks that חזרה is דאורייתא. So Rashi HAD to bring the explicit pasuk.
But we can traverse a different path to explain Rashi, based on the writings of the great Rosh Yeshiva of Be'er Yaakov, Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro z"l. [Rav Shmuel Rozovsky ztz"l said, if I recall correctly, that the ONLY Rosh Yeshiva whom he is מקנא in learning is Rav Moshe Shmuel].
What is ונתן בידה teaching us? On the surface, if there is no ונתן בידה then we run into the problem of טלי גיטך מעל גבי הקרקע, a husband places the גט on the ground and instructs his wife to take it, which is no good.
But in fact, it is more than that. The act of divorce is different than other קנינים. Normally, one performs an act and as a result, makes the קנין. He gives a woman money and as a result, she is married. He fences in a field and as a result, acquires it.
But גירושין is different. The very act of handing her the גט IS the גירושין. Not that he hands her the גט and now something else happens - they are divorced, but that handing her the גט IS the divorce. It is not just a מעשה קנין but the very divorce itself. The Rambam begins Hilchos Geirushin with the words אין האשה מתגרשת אלא בכתב שיגיע לה וכתב זה הוא הנקרא גט. Then he goes on to tell us the ten conditions that are absolutely critical in order for the divorce to be valid. Meaning, first he defines what גירושין is - הכתב שיגיע לה, he hands her the גט. Then he tells us the laws of this גט. [See קובץ ביאורים סימן ע' אות ג where this is fleshed out nicely].
What IS גירושין at the CORE? Handing over to her the get which separates between them. [But not that there are 2 stages. 1] He hands her the גט, a מעשה הקנאה. and 2] They are now divorced.]
Now we can understand why ביטול שליחות בכל התורה כולה wasn't enough for Rashi and he had to quote the pasuk ונתן בידה. He is telling us that normally when there is a מעשה קנין we understand on our own that if the מעשה קנין is done not by the person or his proxy it is invalid. But גט may be different than standard מעשי קנין because all that matters is that the גט is given. So who cares who gives it. The נתינת הגט is מגרש!!! That is why Rashi quotes the pasuk ונתן בידה and explains that he [or his שליח] must do the giving. [The pasuk that teaches us that there is שליחות for a גט would also not have sufficed because maybe שליחות works for a גט even after being canceled as long as the גט was handed over to her by anybody. ונתן בידה teaches that it must be her husband or his proxy].
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!:-)!
