Another Chiddush from a Yeshiva Visit, Kerisus in a Get in the Husband's Own Handwriting

As I mentioned in my previous post, one of my jobs entails going from top level yeshiva to top level yeshiva faherring groups of talmidim, talking to them in learning. As noted, it is a supremely "fun" job, and I am grateful to have it, BH.

This week I was at another of these top-level yeshivos, and we were talking about this Ritva:

ריטב"א על יבמות דף ל/ב

כיצד ספק גירושין כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים וכו'. פי' ג' גיטין הללו כשרים מן התורה ופסולין מדרבנן כדתנן ג' גיטין פסולים ואם נשאת הולד כשר וכבר פירשתיה במקומה במסכת גיטין, והא דכשר מדאורייתא כתב בכתב ידו פר"י התם דהא אתיא אפילו לר' מאיר דבעי עדי חתימה דהא מדסיפא ר' אלעזר רישא רבי מאיר וטעמא דמילתא משום דכיון דכתיב וכתב לה הרי חתם ידו כעדים גמורים וכדפרש"י ז"ל התם הילכך כתב ידו נמי עביד כריתות, אבל ליכא לאכשורי מטעמא דכתב ז"ל בכאן דתנן הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו גובה מנכסים בני חורין, דלא דמו כלל דהתם ראייה בלחוד בעינן והא איכא דהודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, אבל גבי גט כריתות בעינן

You see, Rashi there is Yevamos asserts that a get written by the husband himself but that has no witnesses signed on it, is kosher even according to Rabbi Meir who holds that the witnesses who sign the get validate it (edei chasimah kartei), because this get is no different than a document written by a person himself that pertains to monetary law, such as an IOU.

The Ritva rejects this linkage, because the documents are of altogether different kinds, and his own handwriting without eidim may suffice for a document that serves as a proof, but not for document that must effect a transaction. But the last line, in which he asserts the difference, is highly cryptic, "in the case of a get we require kerisus."

 So we were discussing how they wanted to explain the line. I raised the point that normally a shortcoming in kerisus is along the lines of get b'yada u'meshicha b'yado - that he is somehow somehow holding on to strings attached to the get (either literally or figuratively) so the severance is incomplete.

I suggested a "Poilishe" pshat, that since the get is in his handwriting, she must rely on him, in the form of his handwriting, for her divorce to be valid even after the delivery of the get.

A flaw in that is that the pashut pshat of V'Kasa Lah is that he himself can be the one writing the get.

When rethinking the issue later, I thought of a variation on this, which is that normally the validity of the get is accomplished by the witnesses, but here it is accomplished by his handwriting, as any kiyum  of the get will entail verifying his handwriting.

But still later I searched out other Ritvas on the topic and thought it through again, and I realized that it was far simpler, and that I had missed an important point through all these many years and many learnings of Gittin - viz., that when we say edei mesirah or chasimah kartei, it does not mean just that they validate the get, but that they effect the kerisus. They are the ones who make this document an effective bill of severance (in their roles of eidei kiyum). The machlokes between R' Meir an R' Eliezer is which eidim make this a bill of severance. The Ritva is therefore very appropriately asking on Rashi: In the case of a regular document there is no need for kerisus - for eidim  to create a bill of severance, or more generally, a bill that is transactional, as opposed to evidentiary - so hodo'as ba'al din suffices for the necessary evidence and validation. But that would not suffice for a get. We need the gezeiras ha'kasuv  of V'Kasav Lah to teach us that the husband himself can create a transactional document that embodies kerisus.

I think this is the true pshat in the Ritva. And after almost 60 years of life I finally have a true understanding of kartei!