לזכות ש"ב היקר הרב ישראל יעקב בן ר' אשר זיליג
ר' אברהם יצחק בן אסתר
ר' יוסף עזרא בן אסתר
גילה שושנה בת נעכא גיטל לזש"ק
וכל בני ביתם
Says the gemara in Gittin [9a-b]:
אחד גיטי נשים ואחד שיחרורי עבדים: תנו רבנן בשלשה דרכים שוו גיטי נשים לשיחרורי עבדים שוו למוליך ולמביא וכל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים וכל השטרות העולים בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשירין חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים וכדברי ר"מ בארבעה האומר תן גט זה לאשתי ושטר שחרור זה לעבדי רצה לחזור בשניהם יחזור דברי ר"מ.
The mishna teaches that both bills of divorce and bills of emancipation are the same in that the agent who brings them is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Sages taught: In three ways the halachot of bills of divorce are equal to the halachot of bills of emancipation: They are equal with regard to one who delivers and one who brings, i.e., if one takes a bill of divorce or a bill of emancipation to a country overseas from Eretz Yisrael, or if he brings it from there, he is required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And any document that has a Kuti witness signed on it is invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of emancipation, as Kusi witnesses are permitted to serve as witnesses for these documents. And with regard to all documents that are produced in gentile courts [arkaot], even though their signatories are gentiles, they are valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of emancipation. These documents are not valid when prepared by gentiles. And according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, bills of divorce and manumission are equal in four ways, the three aforementioned halakhot and also with regard to a man who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of emancipation to my slave. They are equal in that if he desires to retract his instruction with regard to both of these documents, before they have reached the woman or slave, he can retract. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
The gemara says further that the braisa only listed דינים דרבנן and not דינים דאורייתא. Then the gemara questions this premise by asking
והא חזרה דאורייתא וקתני
But the halakha of retraction applies by Torah law, as according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the husband can retract his instruction to give the bill of divorce and the master can retract his instruction to give the bill of emancipation by Torah law, thereby canceling the agency. And yet the baraita teaches it among the ways in which bills of divorce are equal to bills of emancipation. This indicates that the tanna does not distinguish between a case that applies by Torah law and one that applies by rabbinic law.
Says Rashi:
חזרה - רצה לחזור בשניהם לר"מ פסולה דאורייתא הוא, דהא כיון דבטיל משלח לשליחותיה דשליח, נמצא שאינו שלוחו ואין כאן גירושין כלל והיינו דאורייתא דרחמנא אמר ונתן בידה וזה לא נתן לא הוא ולא שלוחו:
Rashi says that since the husband nullified the שליחות the שליח is no longer his שליח and there is no divorce. This is דאורייתא as we see from the pasuk requiring ונתן בידה - and here he didn't hand it to her nor did his שליח.
Rashi, the Master of Brevity, seems to more verbose than he has to be. It is PASHUT that since he is מבטל the שליחות that he is no longer his שליח. Why does Rashi find it necessary to marshal proof from psukim to bolster his point?
Rav Mann ztz"l suggests as follows: The Rambam lists 14 שורשים in his Sefer Hamitzvos. These are principals related to the mitzvos, their count etc. It is כדאי מאאאאאד to learn:-). Anyway, the Rambam writes in the שורש השני that whatever is derived from the י"ג מידות and הלכה למשה מסיני is called "דברי סופרים" except where the Gemara says explicitly that it is דאורייתא.
Does Rashi subscribe to this notion as well? We see that he apparently does. He defines שחיטה as דברי סופרים in [ד"ה כל מצוה] even though it is clear that שחיטה is מדאורייתא.
Now we can understand what Rashi was driving at [although he could not have had a drivers license because he lived centuries before the invention of automobiles]. The gemara here says that חזרה is דאורייתא. Rashi is telling us that we should not think that this halacha is merely derived from the י"ג מידות or הלכה למשה מסיני. If that would be the case it would be defined as מדברי סופרים. In fact, it is learned from EXPLICIT psukim, so the gemara's assertion that it is דאורייתא is absolutely true.
והדברים הם כפתור ופרח!
