# dafyomi

lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WHIFF OF A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If a man wrote a Get to divorce 
          his wife, then decided not to, she is forbidden to 
          Kohanim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, even if he gave her a Get on Tanai, and 
          the Tanai was not fulfilled, she is permitted to Kohanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Yosef brei d'Rav Menasheh):</font></b> If there are 
          rumors that a Kohen wrote a Get to divorce his wife, and 
          they are living together, what do we do?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> We do not force him to divorce her. The 
          matter needs investigation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What must be investigated?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We must check whether or not we silence 
               rumors.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Shmuel is from Neharde'a. There, they do 
               not silence rumors!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we must check whether people say that a 
          man 'wrote a Get' when he gave a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Even if they do, since they say this also when 
          he only wrote it, why should she be forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She is forbidden due to Safek. Perhaps they meant 
          that a Get was given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must he divorce her? Rav Ashi taught that 
          we are not concerned for rumors that begin after 
          marriage!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she married another Kohen, he would have to 
          divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This will make people think that her children 
          from the first husband are disqualified from Kehunah 
          (because she really was divorced)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Because we forced only the new husband to divorce 
          her, but did not force the first husband, people will 
          assume that he divorced her right before he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The decline in the generations is 
          awesome!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The early generations were stringent, like Beis 
               Shamai (who forbid a woman to Kehunah due to rumors 
               that a Get was written):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Later generations are lenient like R. Dosa.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Dosa):</font></b> A captured woman may eat 
                    Terumah. Just because the captor put his hands 
                    on her, should she be forbidden to Terumah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Also, early generations brought their produce into 
               the house through the gate, in order to obligate 
               tithing it. Later generations bring their produce 
               through the roof or yard in order to exempt it from 
               tithes.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yanai):</font></b> Produce need be tithed only once it 
                    sees (is brought in through) the opening of the 
                    house - 'I eradicated the Kodesh from the 
                    house.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even entering the yard 
                    obligates tithing it - 'they will eat in your 
                    gates and be satiated.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONCERN LEST A MAN REMARRIED HIS EX-WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If a man divorced his wife and 
          spent the night with her in an inn, he need not give her 
          another Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, he must give her another Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This is when she was divorced from Nisu'in. If she was 
          divorced from Eirusin, all agree that a second Get is not 
          needed because he is not so intimate with her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The 
          argument is when witnesses saw that they had Bi'ah;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE KOHEN GADOL'S CONDITIONAL DIVORCE OF HIS WIFE BEFORE YOM KIPPUR, ACCORDING TO BEIS SHAMAI</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah quotes Beis Shamai who states that if a man wrote a Get for his wife and then decided not to give it to her, she no longer may marry a Kohen. <b>RASHI</b> in the Gemara (DH Beis Shamai) explains that this prohibition is a stringency which Beis Shamai enacted in order to protect the Kedushah of the Kehunah (see also <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> to the Mishnah). 
</p><p>
Beis Hillel, in contrast, maintains that even if her husband actually gave her a Get but stipulated that the Get would be valid only under certain conditions which were not fulfilled, she is permitted to marry a Kohen (if her husband later dies).
</p><p>
In the Mishnah in the beginning of Yoma (2a), Rebbi Yehudah rules that a substitute wife was prepared for the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur in case his first wife dies on Yom Kippur, since the Kohen Gadol must be married in order to perform the Avodah of Yom Kippur, as the Torah says, 'And he shall gain atonement for himself and for his household (i.e. his wife)' (Vayikra 16:17). 
</p><p>
The Gemara in Yoma (13a) explains that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol must marry the second woman before Yom Kippur. However, if this is so, he does not fulfill the requirement of the verse, 'And he shall gain atonement... for his household,' because he now has <i>two</i> wives (two 'households'). The Gemara answers that the Kohen Gadol not only marries both women before Yom Kippur, but he divorces his wife conditionally by saying to her, 'This is your Get (from now, i.e. before Yom Kippur) on condition that you will die on Yom Kippur.' If she dies on Yom Kippur, the Get was valid before Yom Kippur and she was not his wife on Yom Kippur, but rather only the second woman was his wife, and thus he had only one wife on Yom Kippur. (The Gemara there challenges this answer and concludes that the Kohen Gadol gives both women conditional divorces, albeit with different conditions.)
</p><p>
The Mordechai (Gitin #432) writes that it is apparent from the Gemara in Yoma that if a Kohen divorced his wife conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, he is allowed to remain married to her. However, if there exists a concern of 'Rei'ach ha'Get,' as Beis Shamai maintains, then even if the condition was not fulfilled the Kohen Gadol should not be allowed to remain married to his wife, and the verse, 'And he shall gain atonement... for his household,' would not be fulfilled. (See <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> #5.) 
</p><p>
The Gemara in Yoma is consistent with Beis Hillel's opinion in the Mishnah here that even a Kohen who divorces his wife with a condition does not prohibit her from marrying another Kohen if the condition is not fulfilled. However, the Gemara does not seem to be consistent with the view of Beis Shamai, who maintains that the mere writing of a Get alone renders the woman prohibited from marrying another Kohen (and she certainly is prohibited from marrying another Kohen if he gives the conditional Get to her, even though the condition is not fulfilled). Is there any way to reconcile the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Yoma with the opinion of Beis Shamai in the Mishnah here?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>TORAS ABIRIM</b> suggests an answer based on the words of <b>CHOCHMEI CHASAM SOFER</b>. The Chochmei Chasam Sofer write that Beis Shamai's reasoning is not that the woman for whom a Get was written but not given is similar to a divorcee, but rather she is similar to a Zonah (a woman who had forbidden relations and therefore is prohibited to a Kohen; see Vayikra 21:7). Beis Shamai is consistent with his opinion later (90a) that a man should not divorce his wife unless he found her to be unfaithful. Accordingly, a man who writes a Get for his wife must have done so because of some doubt about her fidelity. Since this is the implication of the writing (and certainly the giving) of a Get, Beis Shamai decreed that the woman should be forbidden from marry a Kohen because of the Isur of Zonah (even though no actual allegations of promiscuity have been advanced or proven).
</p><p>
Accordingly, Beis Shamai will agree that the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur may divorce his wife conditionally even if he has no suspicions of promiscuous behavior. He clearly divorces her only to fulfill the requirement that the Kohen Gadol have one wife. The Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur, therefore, is an exception to Beis Shamai's rule that a man may not divorce his wife unless she was unfaithful. It follows that the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur is also an exception to Beis Shamai's rule that if he divorces her conditionally and the condition is not fulfilled, she is forbidden to marry another Kohen.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PORAS YOSEF</b> answers that Beis Shamai's rule -- that when a man writes a Get for his wife but does not give it to her, or gives it to her with a condition which goes unfulfilled, she is forbidden to marry a Kohen -- is merely a stringency of the Rabanan (as mentioned above). Beis Shamai agrees that the Rabanan did not enforce this stringency in the case of the Kohen Gadol before Yom Kippur, in order to ensure that the Kohen Gadol has a wife on Yom Kippur. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai hold that a man would have Bi'as Zenus 
               (outside of wedlock). Beis Hillel hold that he would 
               not (surely, he was Mekadesh her).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If witnesses did not see Bi'ah, no one requires a 
               second Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was divorced from Eirusin, all 
          agree that a second Get is not needed because he is not 
          so intimate with her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If witnesses saw Bi'ah, what difference does it make 
               if the divorce was from Nisu'in or Eirusin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the Mishnah is when witnesses did not see 
          Bi'ah. R. Yochanan holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> If witnesses did 
               not see Bi'ah, no one requires a second Get. They 
               argue about when witnesses saw Bi'ah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Beis Shamai hold that a man would have Bi'as 
                    Zenus. Beis Hillel say that he would not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In the Mishnah, witnesses did not see Bi'ah. 
          What do Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There are witnesses that they were secluded, but 
          not that they had Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai hold that witnesses of seclusion are not 
               considered witnesses of Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, (surely he had Bi'ah with her, so) 
               they are like witnesses of Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If she was divorced from Eirusin, all agree that a 
               second Get is not needed because he is not so 
               intimate with her. Witnesses of seclusion are not 
               like witnesses of Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can Yochanan hold like R. Shimon ben 
          Elazar? R. Yochanan said that the Halachah always follows 
          a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan did not say both of these teachings. 
          Amora'im argue which one he said.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A BALD GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman remarried after receiving a bald 
          Get (it has too few witnesses), all the fines of the 
          previous Mishnah apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Ben Nanas says, anyone may sign on a bald Get to complete 
          the required number of witnesses;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, the only Pasul witnesses allowed are 
          relatives who are valid witnesses in other cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A bald Get is one in which there are more folds than 
               witnesses. (A Mekushar Get is one in which we fold 
               the paper onto itself and sew it, and the witnesses 
               sign on the back.).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is a bald Get Pasul?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a decree due to when the husband says 
          'all of you sign this Get' (the Get is Pasul unless all 
          sign).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Ben Nanas):</font></b> Anyone may sign to complete the 
          required number of witnesses...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't R. Akiva allow a slave to sign?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We are concerned lest people come to believe 
          that the slave is a proper witness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, he should not allow relatives, lest 
          people think that relatives can testify!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, we are concerned lest people think 
          that the slave has proper lineage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, a robber (who has proper lineage) 
          should be able to sign, but R. Akiva permits only 
          relatives, who are valid witnesses in other cases!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Rather, people will think that the slave was 
          freed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Likewise, a robber may not sign, lest people think 
               that he repented.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> There is no concern regarding relatives. All know 
               that they are relatives!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> They argue about a Get with at 
          least four folds. If the Get has only three, all require 
          the third witness to be (Kosher for other testimonies, 
          e.g.) a relative.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> A Mekushar Get needs three witnesses 
          just like a standard Get needs two. Why is a relative 
          acceptable for the third witness?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> We are more lenient about 
          the third witness on a Mekushar Get, since it is only 
          mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - Ben Nanas):</font></b> If a Mekushar Get had 
          seven folds and six (valid) witnesses, or six folds and 
          five witnesses, or five folds and four witnesses, or four 
          folds and three witnesses; and a slave signed to complete 
          it, if she remarried, the children are not Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, the children are Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If there are three folds, all agree that only a 
               relative can sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> (R. Zeira taught that) if there 
          are three folds, all agree that only a valid witness can 
          sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If there are three folds, all agree 
          that only a relative can sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rav Yosef's text of the Beraisa says 
          'only a valid witness can sign.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Only one relative may sign, not two, lest 
          the Get be Mekuyam through two relatives and one valid 
          witness.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rav Ashi):</font></b> In every case, the above Beraisa 
               allowed only one Pasul witness.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A MAN WHO STAYS WITH HIS EX-WIFE OVERNIGHT </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah (81a) discusses a case in which a man divorced his wife and afterwards stayed with her overnight in a hotel. Beis Shamai rules that she does not need a second Get from him, while Beis Hillel rules that she does. In the Gemara, Rabah bar bar Chanah says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel involves a case in which there were witnesses that the man and woman had relations. Beis Shamai maintains that a man does not refrain from having 'Be'ilas Z'nus,' promiscuous relations, and thus he did not intend to remarry her when he had relations with her (unless he explicitly stated otherwise before the act). (See <b>RASHI</b> to 81a, DH b'she'Ra'uha). Beis Hillel argues that a man does not willingly have 'Be'ilas Z'nus,' and therefore it is assumed that he intended to remarry his divorcee when he had relations with her. Consequently, Beis Hillel rules that she must obtain a second Get from her first husband if she wants to marry someone else.
</p><p>
Beis Hillel's reasoning seems to contradict the Gemara in Nidah (66a). The Gemara states that after a woman agrees to marry, she must wait seven days without bleeding, because of the concern that her excited anticipation of the forthcoming marriage will cause her to experience bleeding and she will be forbidden to the groom. The Mishnah here does not specify that the man and woman waited seven days after the divorce. Rather, it implies that these events could have taken place a mere day or two after the divorce. Therefore, how can Beis Hillel rely on the assumption that such a person is careful about not being promiscuous? He has already transgressed the Halachah that one must wait seven days after proposing marriage before consummating the marriage!
</p><p>
(It does not seem logical to differentiate between an ordinary marriage and a remarriage, because the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 192:5) explicitly rules that a woman must wait seven days even when she remarries her former husband.)
</p><p>
There are two other cases in which the Rishonim apply this logic (that once a man is found to be a sinner, he is not assumed to avoid promiscuity). 
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> (in the seventh Perek) discusses a case in which a man divorced his wife, who subsequently married another man who then died. Witnesses then observe her staying overnight with her first husband. The Shiltei Giborim writes that we do not suspect that her first husband was Mekadesh her, because if the first husband had intended to marry her by having relations, he would have transgressed the prohibition against remarrying one's divorcee after she was married to someone else (Devarim 24:4; this is known as the prohibition of 'Machzir Gerushaso'). 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 10:18) cites the <b>RADVAZ</b> who rules that if there are witnesses that a man had relations with his divorcee after their divorce when she was known to be a Nidah, there is no concern that their act of relations represents Kidushin. Since he transgressed the prohibition of Nidah, it is assumed that he also does not care about the violation of Z'nus, and thus he is not suspected of having any intention to marry her with this act of relations.
</p><p>
Why does Beis Hillel not apply similar reasoning in the case of the Mishnah here?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> answers that there is a difference between the case of the Shiltei Giborim and the case of the Mishnah. In the case of the Shiltei Giborim, the man is sinning regardless of whether or not he has intention to perform Kidushin (he is either committing Z'nus or transgressing the prohibition of 'Machzir Gerushaso'). In opposition to the normal assumption that a man does not engage in promiscuity is the contradictory assumption that he would not transgress the prohibition of 'Machzir Gerushaso.' Consequently, we must assume that he did not mind engaging in promiscuity. In contrast, a person who did not wait seven days before he consummated a marriage transgresses this prohibition regardless of whether he was engaged in an act of promiscuity or in an act of Kidushin. Since there are two equal possibilities, we assume he intended to perform an act of Kidushin.
</p><p>
(b) Rebbi Akiva Eiger also explains why the case of the Radvaz differs from the case of the Mishnah. The Isur of Nidah is a serious Torah prohibition (punishable with Kares), while the requirement to wait seven days after proposing marriage before one has relations is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, if a man is known to have transgressed the serious prohibition of Nidah, it no longer can be assumed that he will avoid having promiscuous relations. In contrast, a man who transgresses the Rabbinic requirement to wait seven days is not yet suspected of transgressing the more serious prohibition of promiscuity. Therefore, his act of relations is still assumed to have been an act of Kidushin. This is why Beis Hillel requires a second Get. (See also <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> to 81a). (D.Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PASUL WITNESS MAY SIGN ANYWHERE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We learn that the relative may sign at the 
          beginning, middle or end, since the Mishnah did not 
          specify where he must sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> A Mekushar Get may be Mekuyam from any three 
          signatures, even if they are not consecutive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If not, we would have fixed a place for relatives to 
               sign, and even more would be allowed to sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Ami would tell people (with a bald Get lacking one 
          witness) to ask a slave from the market to complete it.
<b>PEREK HA'MEGARESH</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>PARTIAL DIVORCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a man divorced his wife, and 
          said 'you are permitted to any man, Ela (but not) to 
          Ploni', she is permitted to all other men;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, she is (not divorced, and is) forbidden to 
          all men.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He must take the Get and give it again, and say 'you 
               are permitted to all men.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he wrote (the Tanai) in the Get, even if it was 
               later erased, the Get is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> How did he forbid her to Ploni? Did he 
          say 'you are permitted to any man except Ploni', or 'you 
          are permitted to any man, on condition that you do not 
          marry Ploni'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'except', in that case, Chachamim argue 
               with R. Eliezer, because the Get does not fully 
               divorce her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Had he said 'on condition', all would agree 
                    that this is valid, like any conditional Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'on condition...', in this case, R. 
               Eliezer argues, but had he said 'except...', all 
               would agree that the Get is Pasul, because it does 
               not fully divorce her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> All houses can get (Tum'as) 
          Tzara'as, Ela (but not) those of Nochrim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand if this means 'except';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rhetorical question:</font></b> If it means 'on condition 
               that', can we say that houses of Yisrael can get 
               Tzara'as on condition that that Nochri houses 
               cannot?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #1:</font></b> This would imply that if Nochri houses 
               could become Tamei, houses of Yisrael could not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection #2:</font></b> Nochri houses cannot become Tamei. 
               Tzara'as affects only 'a house of your inheritance!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah):</font></b> R. Eliezer and 
               Chachamim agree that if he said 'you are permitted 
               to all men except Ploni', she is not divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They argue only when he said 'you are permitted to 
               all men on condition that you do not marry Ploni.' 
               R. Eliezer permits her to any man except for Ploni. 
               Chachamim forbid her to marry.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS A SPECIAL ADDITION REQUIRED FOR A SECOND ATTEMPT TO GIVE A GET </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah discusses a case in which a man gives his wife a Get and says to her, 'You are permitted to marry everyone except for a certain man.' Rebbi Eliezer maintains that she is divorced and may marry any man except the specified individual. The Chachamim argue and maintain that she is not divorced at all. The Mishnah explains that according to the Chachamim, if he gives her such a Get he must take it back and give it to her again and say, 'You are permitted to marry everyone.'
</p><p>
The Mishnah earlier (78a) teaches that when a man gives a Get, all he needs to say is, 'Ha Giteich' -- 'Here is your Get.' Why does the Mishnah here require that he add, 'You are permitted to marry everyone'?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> writes in the name of his Rebbi that the Chachamim's requirement that the man say, 'You are permitted to everyone,' when he gives the Get the second time is an essential part of the divorce. Since he originally gave the Get with the condition, 'You are permitted to marry everyone except for a certain man,' it does not suffice to say, 'Ha Giteich,' at the second giving of the Get because he must nullify his original condition. The nullification of that condition can be done only by saying, 'You are permitted to everyone.'
</p><p>
This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>RIF</b>. The <b>RAN</b> infers from the fact that the Rif cites the complete Mishnah that he follows the reasoning of Rabeinu Kreskas. 
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>TOSFOS RID</b> writes that when the Mishnah says that the husband must say, 'You are permitted to everyone,' it does not mean that he must say this instead of 'Ha Giteich.' The Mishnah states that he should say, 'You are permitted to everyone,' simply because, in the first case, he said, 'You are permitted to marry everyone except for a certain man.' The Mishnah notes that he must exclude the statement of 'except for a certain man.' However, if he says only 'Ha Giteich' the Get is also valid.
</p><p>
The Tosfos Rid writes that although the Mishnah (85a) states, 'This is the body of the Get: You are permitted to everyone,' it does not mean that a husband must say this when he gives a Get. The Mishnah there refers only to the way the Get must be written. 
</p><p>
This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 8:17). The Rambam writes that if the husband originally says, 'You are permitted to marry everyone except for a certain man,' and then he gives the Get to her a second time and says, 'You are permitted to everyone,' or 'This is your Get,' the Get is valid. The Rambam clearly agrees with the Tosfos Rid that 'Ha Giteich' is sufficient.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> writes that although the Rambam rules leniently, in practice the Halachah follows the more stringent opinion of the Ran, Rif, and Rabeinu Kreskas, who understand that the Mishnah means that the husband must say, 'You are permitted to everyone.' The Yam Shel Shlomo writes that he is inclined to rule stringently and invalidate the Get altogether, even b'Di'eved, if the man fails to say 'You are permitted to everyone.'
</p><p>
The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 137:1) writes that the man should say the second time, 'You are permitted to everyone.' The fact that the Shulchan Aruch omits the possibility of saying 'Ha Giteich' implies that he rules (at least l'Chatchilah) like the Ran. The <b>ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN</b> (EH 137:1) writes that this also seems to be the view of the <b>TUR</b>.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer holds that this is like any other 
                    Tanai;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Chachamim hold that this Tanai is different, 
                    for it leaves a remnant of marriage that the 
                    Get does not sever.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer says that the Get is 
          valid when he says 'except'. What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yanai):</font></b> 'She will leave his house and marry 
          another man' - even if she becomes permitted only to one 
          man, this is considered divorce.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the verse teaches that she must 
               become permitted to every man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'Kohanim will not marry a woman 
          divorced from her husband' - even if she was divorced 
          only from her husband (and was not permitted to anyone), 
          she is (divorced and) forbidden to a Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, that is a stringency of Kehunah. She 
               is not really divorced.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>KIDUSHIN WITH AN EXCLUSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba):</font></b> If Reuven was Mekadesh Leah except for 
          Ploni (i.e. regarding Ploni, she is single), what is the 
          law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can ask according to R. Eliezer and Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer learned from a verse that partial divorce 
               is valid. No verse validates partial Kidushin, so he 
               must fully Mekadesh her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or, perhaps 'v'Yotzah v'Haysah' equates divorce 
                    and Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim disqualified partial divorce because the 
               Torah specified 'Sefer Krisus (cutting)',  but even 
               a partial Kidushin works;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or, perhaps 'v'Yotzah v'Haysah' equates divorce 
                    and Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Aba):</font></b> All learn from 'v'Yotzah v'Haysah.' The 
          Tana'im argue about Kidushin like they do about divorce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If R. Aba is correct (and R. Eliezer validates 
          partial Kidushin), if Reuven was Mekadesh Leah except for 
          his brother Shimon, and Shimon was Mekadesh her except 
          for Reuven, and both died, Leah may do Yibum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Leah is not considered 'the wife of two dead 
               brothers (who may not do Yibum)'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because Shimon's Kidushin had no effect (she 
               was already forbidden to all other men, and he did 
               not forbid her to Reuven).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Had Shimon been Mekadesh her normally, also his 
               Kidushin would have taken effect (to forbid her to 
               Reuven). If both men died, she would be the wife of 
               two dead brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Abaye):</font></b> If one told his wife 'you are 
          permitted to all men except Reuven and Shimon', and then 
          said 'to Reuven and Shimon', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we say, he permitted (her to marry even) the one 
               s he initially forbade her to?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, did he retract to say that she should be 
               permitted only to Reuven and Shimon?
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TOSFOS' SOURCE THAT REBBI ELIEZER DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE IS REALLY DIVORCED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah (82a), Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim disagree about a case in which a man gives a Get to his wife and stipulates that she is permitted to marry anyone except for one man. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the Get is valid, while the Chachamim argue that it is invalid. In the Gemara, Rebbi Yanai explains that Rebbi Eliezer derives his view from the verse, 'And she will leave his house and she will be a wife to another man' (Devarim 24:2). This verse teaches that even if the Get permits her to marry one other man, it is still valid. The Chachamim, however, derive from the words 'another man' that the Get must permit her to marry <i>all</i> other men. 
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan gives another explanation for the dispute. He explains that Rebbi Eliezer derives his view from the verse that states that a Kohen may not marry 'a woman who was divorced from her husband' (Vayikra 21:7). This verse teaches that even if she was only divorced from her husband (but is still forbidden to marry certain men), she nevertheless is considered a divorcee and may not marry a Kohen. The Chachamim do not accept this argument because they maintain that this type of Get is considered a Get only to make her forbidden to a Kohen (even if her husband later dies before he gives her another Get), but not for the purpose of allowing her to remarry. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Afilu) questions the reason which Rebbi Yochanan gives for Rebbi Eliezer's opinion. It should be clear that 'Isur Kehunah Sha'ani' -- that the issue of her prohibition to marry a Kohen is different. It is obvious that even according to Rebbi Eliezer a Get that would divorce her from her husband but would not permit her to marry anyone else would <i>not</i> be considered a Get at all. If her husband died after giving her such a Get, she would certainly be permitted to perform Yibum with her husband's brother. How does Rebbi Eliezer learn from here that a Get which does not permit her to marry certain men is valid?
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> and <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> ask that the basis for Tosfos' question is unclear. Why is it obvious to Tosfos that according to Rebbi Eliezer the woman would be permitted to perform Yibum after receiving such a Get? In fact, <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela) implies that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Get is a valid Get which happens to contain a condition that she may not marry certain men. Rashi writes that if the Get states, 'You are divorced from me, but you are not permitted to marry anyone else,' the Get has a 'Rei'ach ha'Get' which forbids her to a Kohen. Rashi explains that Rebbi Eliezer's proof is that since the Get forbids her to a Kohen, the Get must be a valid Get. Why does Tosfos write that it is obvious that even according to Rebbi Eliezer the Get is not valid at all except for its ability to forbid her to a Kohen?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Although the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> does not address this question directly, he writes that the simple reading of the Gemara implies the understanding of Tosfos. The Gemara says that 'even if she is only divorced from her husband' that suffices to render her unfit to marry a Kohen. If the Gemara means that she is similarly forbidden to her Yavam because she has been divorced from her husband, it should say that 'even if she was only divorced and not permitted [to marry]' that suffices to render her unfit to a Kohen. This would imply that the emphasis is that she was not free to marry any man she wants. Since the Gemara says only that she is 'divorced from her husband' without the additional phrase, 'and not permitted [to marry],' it implies that she is divorced from her husband but still requires Yibum or Chalitzah from her Yavam if her husband dies. (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RETRACTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> If you will say that he permitted (even) the 
          ones he initially forbade, if he retracted and said only 
          'to Reuven', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does he permit her to Reuven, and also to Shimon? 
               (For conciseness, he said only the first one.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he permits her only to Reuven, but not 
               to Shimon?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> If he permits her only to Reuven, if he 
          retracted and said only 'to Shimon' what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does he permit her to Shimon, and also to Reuven? 
               (For conciseness, he said only the last one he 
               mentioned.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he permits her only to Shimon, but not 
               to Reuven?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If he said 'even to Shimon', what is 
          the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does he mean 'not only to Reuven, rather, even to 
               Shimon?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does he mean 'not only to all other men (to whom 
               he permitted her the first time), rather, even to 
               Shimon'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  These questions are unresolved.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>QUESTIONS AGAINST R. ELIEZER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> After R. Eliezer died, four Tana'im challenged 
          his position.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (R. Tarfon):</font></b> If Leah was divorced on 
          condition that she not marry Levi, and she married Levi's 
          brother Reuven, if Reuven dies without children, Yibum is 
          uprooted! (If she would do Yibum, this would uproot the 
          marriage to Reuven, and hence the Yibum is also 
          uprooted.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that such a divorce is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (R. Yosi ha'Glili):</font></b> We never find that what 
          is permitted to some is forbidden to others. What is 
          permitted is permitted to all, and what is forbidden is 
          forbidden to all!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that such a divorce is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3 (R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> 'Krisus' is 
          something that is Kores (severs) between them. This 
          divorce is not Krisus!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #4 (R. Akiva):</font></b> If Leah was divorced on condition 
          that she not marry Levi, and she married David, had 
          children from him, and then married Levi after David died 
          or divorced her, this would uproot her marriage to David, 
          and her children from David are Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that (the first) divorce is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #5 (R. Akiva):</font></b> Also, if Reuven divorced Leah 
          except for Pinchas (a Kohen), and then Reuven died, she 
          is a divorcee regarding all other men, but only a widow 
          regarding Pinchas. (Nevertheless she is forbidden to him. 
          We expounded above that even if she was permitted to only 
          one man, or divorced only from her husband, she is 
          forbidden to Kohanim!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Isur of a divorcee to a Kohen is light (only a 
               Lav), still she is forbidden to Pinchas because she 
               is a divorcee regarding other men;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> All the more so, regarding the severe Isur of Eshes 
               Ish (a married woman), she should be considered an 
               Eshes Ish to all men (until Reuven dies) because she 
               is an Eshes Ish regarding Pinchas!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This shows that such a divorce is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua):</font></b> You cannot refute the lion (R. Eliezer) 
          after his death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One can dispel all the questions, except for R. 
          Elazar ben Azaryah's question.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa - R. Yosi):</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah 
               asked the best question.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Tarfon):</font></b> If David divorced Leah without 
          permitting her to Levi, and she married Levi's brother 
          Reuven, if Reuven would die without children, David 
          uprooted a matter (Yibum) from the Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> David did not uproot anything!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he stipulated to uproot a matter from the 
          Torah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> He did not stipulate that she must marry 
          Levi's brother!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he caused it to be uprooted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, one (Moshe) should not be able to marry 
          his brother's daughter, lest Moshe die without children, 
          and Yibum will be uprooted (since the Yavam is the 
          widow's father)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This dispels R. Tarfon's question.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did R. Tarfon understand that R. Eliezer 
          discusses 'except' or 'on condition that'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He discusses 'except'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Eliezer says that in such a case, she 
               is permitted to Levi after Reuven dies!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Eliezer agrees that if one 
                    divorced his wife and said 'you are permitted 
                    to all men except Levi', and then she married 
                    another man and was widowed or divorced, she is 
                    permitted to Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer discusses 
          'on condition that.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OTHER QUESTIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</font></b> We never find that what is 
          permitted to some is forbidden to others. Rather, what is 
          permitted, is permitted to all, and what is forbidden, is 
          forbidden to all!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Terumah is forbidden (only) to non-Kohanim. 
          Kodshim are forbidden to Tamei people!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi ha'Glili refers to Isurim of a woman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The incestuous relationships only apply to 
          relatives, they are permitted to others!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He refers to Isurim that come through Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> A married woman is permitted to her husband 
          and forbidden to all others!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This dispels R. Yosi ha'Glili's question.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did R. Yosi ha'Glili understand that R. Eliezer 
          discusses 'except' or 'on condition that'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He discusses 'on condition that.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, she is indeed permitted to all 
               (there was no stipulation about Bi'as Zenus with 
               Levi, only marriage)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer discusses 
          'except'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> If Leah was divorced on condition 
          that she not marry Levi, and she married David, had 
          children from him, and then married Levi after David died 
          or divorced her, this would uproot her marriage to David, 
          and her children from David would be Mamzerim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The same applies to any Get given on condition. 
          She should not remarry, lest she not fulfill the Tanai, 
          and this will uproot the Get and her second marriage, and 
          the children will be Mamzerim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This dispels R. Akiva's question.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did R. Akiva understand that R. Eliezer 
          discusses 'except' or 'on condition that'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He discusses 'except'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> In such a case, R. Eliezer permits her to 
               Levi after Reuven dies!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Eliezer admits that if one 
                    divorced his wife and said 'you are permitted 
                    to all men except Levi', and then she married 
                    another man and was widowed or divorced, she is 
                    permitted to Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he understood that R. Eliezer discusses 
          'on condition that.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Akiva):</font></b> Also, if Reuven divorced Leah 
          except for Pinchas, and then Reuven died, she is a 
          divorcee regarding all other men, but only a widow 
          regarding Pinchas. (Nevertheless she is forbidden to him. 
          We expounded above that even if she was permitted to only 
          one man, or divorced only from her husband, she is 
          forbidden to Kohanim!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Isur of a divorcee to a Kohen is light, yet she 
               is forbidden to Pinchas because she is a divorcee 
               regarding other men. All the more so, regarding the 
               severe Isur of Eshes Ish, she is an Eshes Ish to all 
               men because she is an Eshes Ish regarding Pinchas!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does this assume that R. Eliezer discusses 
          'except' or 'on condition that'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He discusses 'on condition that.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, regarding Bi'as Zenus she is 
               indeed divorced with respect to Levi (so there is no 
               Kal va'Chomer)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HUSBAND CANNOT MAKE A CONDITION IN THE GET WHICH UPROOTS A MITZVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (82a) quotes Rebbi Eliezer who ruled that if a man gives a Get to his wife and says that she is permitted to marry anyone except for a certain man, the divorce is valid. The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that after the death of Rebbi Eliezer, four elders -- Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, Rebbi Tarfon, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, and Rebbi Akiva -- questioned this Halachah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Tarfon asked that if a woman who receives such a Get would marry the brother of the man whom the Get prohibited her from marrying and her husband would die childless, the Get would uproot a Mitzvah from the Torah. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Oker) explains that the Get would uproot the Mitzvah of Yibum because the woman is forbidden to marry the brother of the second husband. Therefore, this Get does not provide the necessary condition of 'Kerisus' (severance) which the Torah requires (Devarim 24:1); the Torah would not allow a 'Kerisus' which uproots another Mitzvah in the Torah.
</p><p>
The Gemara later challenges Rebbi Tarfon's question. When the original husband gave the Get to his wife, he did not actually uproot the Mitzvah of Yibum. The Mitzvah becomes uprooted later merely as an indirect result of the giving of the Get. The Gemara suggests that the problem is that the husband made a condition to uproot the Mitzvah. The Gemara asks that this also is insufficient reason to disqualify the Get, because the woman did not have to marry the brother of the man who was forbidden to her.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question -- that the husband did <i>not</i> make a condition to uproot a Mitzvah because the woman did not have to marry the brother of the forbidden man -- implies that if he <i>did</i> make such a condition, the Get certainly would be invalid. If the husband would have said, 'This is your Get on condition that you marry Reuven and you not marry his brother Shimon,' the Gemara would have agreed with Rebbi Tarfon's opposition to Rebbi Eliezer's opinion.
</p><p>
However, why would such a statement even be considered a case of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv b'Torah' (making a condition against what is written in the Torah)? The Gemara later (84b) teaches that if a man says to his wife, 'This is your Get on condition that you should eat the meat of a Chazir,' the Get takes effect if she eats the meat of a Chazir, and it does not take effect if she does not eat the meat. As Ravina explains there, that case is not considered a case of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv b'Torah' because the man's condition is not certainly going to uproot a Mitzvah. Only when his condition certainly will uproot a Mitzvah (such as when a man marries a woman on condition that he will not be bound to provide her with food, clothing, and marital relations, all of which are obligations required by the Torah) does his condition not take effect. In contrast, when a man divorces his wife on condition that she should eat Chazir, he does not specify that she <i>must</i> eat it; she does not have to eat it if she does not want to. She may choose not to eat it, and she simply will not be divorced. The case of the Gemara here is identical to that case, and thus it should not be considered a case of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv b'Torah.' When the man says, 'This is your Get on condition that you marry Reuven and you not marry his brother Shimon,' she may choose not to marry Reuven. Why is the husband's statement considered an uprooting of the Mitzvah of Yibum?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that there is a difference between the case of a husband who uproots a Mitzvah through a condition he makes for the divorce and the case of a woman who fulfills a condition which involves a forbidden act. The Rashba quotes the Gemara in Chulin (140a) which says that there is no Mitzvah to send away a mother bird who is sitting on her eggs in an Ir ha'Nidachas, a city whose residents served Avodah Zarah, which must be destroyed together with all of its contents. One should not send the mother bird away because the Torah does not command one to 'send the birds away to cause a stumbling block' ('Shalach l'Takalah'); since it is forbidden to benefit from the bird of an Ir ha'Nidachas, the Torah does not give a Mitzvah to send such a bird away, lest someone find it and benefit from it, unaware that it is forbidden.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Rashba explains that if the husband makes a condition in the Get that will lead to a violation of a Torah law later, the Get is not considered to be a valid form of 'Kerisus.' The Torah would not mandate a form of 'Kerisus' that will later lead to a stumbling block. However, this is true only when the husband uproots the Mitzvah through the Get, since it is his Mitzvah to give the Get. However, when it is the wife who actively uproots the Mitzvah, his Get is deemed a fulfillment of 'Kerisus' even though she uproots the Mitzvah in order to fulfill the condition to render the Get valid.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the giving of the Get on condition that she eat Chazir constitutes 'Kerisus' because the husband did not uproot the Mitzvah himself. When a husband gives a Get on condition that she marry Reuven and not marry his brother Shimon, the woman's marriage to Reuven does not uproot any Mitzvah. Later, when she is unable to do Yibum with Shimon, she is not actively uprooting the Mitzvah. Rather, she is unable to do Yibum with Shimon because she is forbidden to him as a result of her first husband's original condition. Therefore, it is he who is considered the one who uproots a Mitzvah in the Torah. Moreover, if she were to do Yibum with Shimon her original Get would be rendered invalid, and thus retroactively she would be considered a married woman who re-married without a Get from her first husband, and any children from her other husbands would be deemed Mamzerim. Therefore, it is the husband who uproots the Mitzvah and is considered 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv b'Torah.' (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, R. Eliezer discusses 'except'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Akiva contradicts himself! If he holds that 
          R. Eliezer discusses 'except', he should ask only about 
          that! If he holds that R. Eliezer discusses 'on condition 
          that', he should ask about that!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Akiva heard different opinions about in which 
          case R. Eliezer said his law. He asked a question 
          according to each version.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can his second question be dispelled?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the Isur of a divorcee to a 
               Kohen is different than other Isurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Eliezer learns from a Kohen's Isur to 
               a divorcee. He must hold that it is no different!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rava (who said that one can dispel all questions 
          except for R. Elazar ben Azaryah's) holds like R. Yanai 
          (that R. Eliezer learns from 'and she will be 
          (Mekudeshes) to a man').
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> You cannot refute R. Eliezer 
          after his death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that R. Yehoshua holds like R. 
          Eliezer. R. Yehoshua also asked a question!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even though also he had a question, he exhorted 
          them not to think that R. Eliezer is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua):</font></b> The Torah equates a woman's 
          situation before her first marriage to her situation 
          before her second marriage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like before her first marriage, she is not tied 
               to anyone, also before her second marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Eliezer admits that if a man divorces his 
          wife and says 'you are permitted to all men except Levi', 
          and then she married another man and was widowed or 
          divorced, she is permitted to Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> We never find that one 
          can permit an Isur that someone else made!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We do find this! A Yavam can do Chalitzah, 
               permitting the Isur of the dead brother!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There, the Isur (for a Yevamah to marry a 
               stranger) is due to the Yavam himself. The Isur due 
               to the dead brother was permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A Chacham can permit someone else's vow!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that a Chacham permits 
               only through the regret of the one who vowed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A man can annul his wife's vows!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Pinchas taught that a woman vows only on 
               condition that her husband wants the vow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> 'Krisus' is something 
          that severs between them. If she is like Moshe's wife 
          regarding Levi, this is not Krisus!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The other Tana'im did not ask this. What do 
          they learn from 'Krisus'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on 
          condition that you never drink wine', or 'that you will 
          never go to your father's house', the Get is Pasul, since 
          this is not Krisus;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Tanai was for 30 days, this is Krisus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah learns also this. Since it 
               says 'Krisus', not 'Kares', two laws may be learned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The other Tana'im hold that the plural form warrants 
               learning another law.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH TANAYIM ARE KERISUS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on condition that 
          you do not drink wine for the rest of my life', this is 
          not Krisus. If he said 'the rest of Ploni's life', this 
          is Krisus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'the rest of Ploni's life', it is Krisus, 
               for Ploni may die, and the Tanai will be over. The 
               same applies to 'the rest of my life'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rava):</font></b> Rather, 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you do not drink wine for the rest of your life' is 
          not Krisus. 'The rest of my life or Ploni's life' is 
          Krisus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> (If one gave a Get, and said) 'today you 
          are not my wife. Tomorrow you are my wife', what is the 
          law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can ask according to R. Eliezer, and according to 
               Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer said that partial divorce works only when 
               she is permanently divorced to some, and permanently 
               permitted to everyone else;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  (Here, this is not true.) Perhaps this Get is 
                    Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim said that divorce does not work only when 
               she was never totally severed from her husband, even 
               for a moment;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Here, once she is severed, perhaps she is 
                    forever divorced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, once she is severed, she is 
          forever severed, according to all.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) IS A TEMPORARY DIVORCE PERMANENT? </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rava asked Rav Nachman a question: If a man gives a Get to his wife and says, 'Today you are not my wife, but tomorrow you will be my wife,' is the Get valid? <b>RASHI</b> (DH ha'Yom) explains that the husband specifies that the divorce will apply only today and not tomorrow; he made a 'Shi'ur' in the Get -- he left something out of the divorce.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the question applies both according to Rebbi Eliezer and according to the Chachamim in the Mishnah (82a). In the case of the Mishnah, a man gives his wife a Get and says that he permits her to marry anyone except a certain man. Although Rebbi Eliezer maintains that this type of Get with a Shi'ur is valid, perhaps he validates it only when the husband permitted her <i>permanently</i> to the other men. Rava's question involves a case in which she was not permitted permanently to anyone. Moreover, even according to the Chachamim, the Shi'ur which Rava discusses may be valid because for the day on which she is divorced, she is divorced entirely and permitted to every other man with no restrictions. Once their relationship is severed for one day, she is divorced from him forever. Rashi (DH Paskah) explains that she will not be his wife again until he performs a new act of Kidushin with her. Therefore, the condition of temporary divorce which the husband attempted to make is meaningless, and the woman is divorced permanently.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that it is logical both according to Rebbi Eliezer and according to the Chachamim that she is divorced permanently from her husband with this Get.
</p><p>
However, this conclusion is difficult to reconcile with the Gemara later (85b-86a). The Gemara there states that one of the things that Rava (or, according to the Girsa of many Rishonim, Rav) instituted to write in a Get is that the husband divorces his wife 'from today, forever.' The Gemara (86a) explicitly states that Rava's requirement to write the word 'forever' excludes his question to Rav Nachman in the Gemara here. The Gemara there clearly implies that a divorce that is not permanent is not valid.
</p><p>
How are these two Gemaras to be reconciled, and what is the Gemara's conclusion with regard to the question of Rava here?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 8:9) writes, 'If he made a condition and said, 'Today you are not my wife, and tomorrow you will be my wife,' she is not divorced even though the Get severs their relationship today. Therefore, one must write in a Get 'from today, forever.''
</p><p>
The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> writes that the Rambam understands that the Halachah follows the ruling of the Gemara later (86a). The answer given by the Gemara here (that she is divorced permanently even though he said that the divorce will be valid for only one day) is not the Halachah. 
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (86a, DH la'Afukei) interprets the Gemara here differently. He explains that the Halachah follows the conclusion of the Gemara here (83b) that once she is divorced for one day, she is divorced permanently. Nevertheless, Rava himself decreed (85b) that one should write 'forever' in a Get so that no La'az (bad reputation) should be spread against the Get by people who do not know of Rava's law that she is divorced permanently whenever the Get takes effect for even one day. 
</p><p>
<b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> (end of 83b) agrees with Rashi. Moreover, he applies the logic of this Gemara to cases of monetary law. For example, if a person gives a field (both the land and the rights to the produce) as a gift to his friend for one day, the land becomes the permanent property of the recipient. Even though it was intended to be a temporary gift, once the original owner has relinquished his ownership for one day the field remains in the possession of the recipient until a new Kinyan is made, consistent with the logic of the Gemara here. (See <b>AVNEI MILU'IM</b> (28:53) who explains the comparison between the case of divorce and the case of the gift of the field.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> (44a of the pages of the Rif) quotes both opinions and concludes that the woman is at least possibly divorced. The Magid Mishneh quotes an opinion that the woman is only possibly divorced (out of doubt), and adds that it is appropriate to be strict in any matter of forbidden relationships. This is also the ruling of the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 137:5). (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CONCERN THAT SHE WILL NOT FULFILL THE TANAI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven said 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you will marry Ploni', she may not remarry. If she 
          did, she may stay married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we understand this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> She should not marry Ploni, lest 
          people say that Reuven gave his wife to Ploni like a 
          gift. If she married someone else, she remains married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Do we make a decree (to discourage such Gitin) 
          that permits a married woman to live with another man?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Rather, she should not marry 
          Ploni, lest people say that Reuven gave his wife to Ploni 
          like a gift. If she married Ploni, she remains married. 
          We do not force her to leave due to our decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Is she forbidden only to marry Ploni? 
          She may not marry anyone until she fulfills the Tanai!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> You (Rav Nachman) permit her to marry 
               someone else now, get divorced later and then 
               fulfill the Tanai, similar to your argument with Rav 
               Yehudah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one vowed that he will not 
                    sleep today if he sleeps tomorrow, he may not 
                    sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He may sleep today. We are not 
                    concerned lest he sleep tomorrow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This comparison is faulty! There, one can 
               stop himself from sleeping. He can prick himself 
               with thorns. Here, a woman cannot divorce herself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, she may not marry Ploni, nor 
          anyone else.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She may not marry Ploni, lest people say that Reuven 
               gave his wife to Ploni for a gift;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She may not marry anyone else, lest she not fulfill 
               the Tanai.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she married Ploni, she remains married. We 
                    do not force her to leave due to our decree;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If she married someone else, she must leave. 
                    We are concerned lest she not fulfill the 
                    Tanai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> She may not marry Ploni, nor anyone 
          else;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she married Ploni, she remains married. If she 
               married someone else, she must leave.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TANAYIM THAT CANNOT BE FULFILLED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one divorced his wife on condition that she 
          will ascend to Heaven, or descend to the depths, or 
          swallow a reed of four Amos, or bring to him a reed of 
          100 Amos, or cross the sea on foot, the Get is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Teima says, such a Get is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The rule is, if one made a Tanai that cannot be 
               fulfilled, he merely taunts her with words. The 
               Tanai is void, and the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah (ben 
          Teima).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A Mishnah is like R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one makes a Tanai that can be 
               fulfilled, the Tanai is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If the Tanai cannot be fulfilled, it is 
               invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on condition that 
          you eat pork', what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Also this is a Tanai that cannot be 
          fulfilled. (The above Tana'im argue about it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Tanai can be fulfilled, just (it is 
          forbidden and) she would be lashed for fulfilling it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye explains that R. Yehudah's rule (any Tanai 
               that cannot be fulfilled is void) includes a Tanai 
               to eat pork.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava explains that 'such a Get is valid' excludes 
               the case of eating pork (the Get is valid only if 
               she fulfills the Tanai).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is 
          your Get on condition that you have Bi'ah with Ploni', 
          the Get is only valid if the Tanai is fulfilled;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'on condition that you do not have Bi'ah 
               with my father or your father', we are not concerned 
               that she will (she may remarry).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa does not teach 'on condition that you 
               have Bi'ah with my father or your father' (because 
               it is forbidden, it is not a valid Tanai)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> I said that a Tanai to eat pork is valid, 
          because she can do this (just she will be lashed for it). 
          A Tanai to have Bi'ah with Ploni is valid, for she can 
          bribe him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But even if she is willing to sin, she cannot get 
               her father or father-in-law to sin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rava explains R. Yehudah's rule (any Tanai that cannot be 
          fulfilled) to include a Tanai to have Bi'ah with her 
          father or father-in-law;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Such a Get is valid' excludes the case of eating 
               pork.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HUSBAND WHO RETURNED HOME BY UTTERING 'THE NAME' </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that if a man says to his wife, 'This is your Get on condition that you go up to the sky,' the Get is invalid. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Al Menas) writes that the text of the Beraisa in Bava Metzia (94a) is that if the condition is fulfilled the Get is <i>valid</i>. Tosfos asks how it is possible for the woman to fulfill the condition (before the era of aviation) to go up to the sky. Tosfos answers that it is possible to go up to the sky by uttering the 'Shem,' the Divine Name of Hash-m.
</p><p>
What is the source that wonders performed by uttering Hashem's Name have binding validity in Halachah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara later (89a) cites a Beraisa which states 'Mamzeres Ein Chosheshin Lah.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mamzeres) explains that if a rumor goes out that a woman is illegitimate, no significance is given to the rumor and the woman remains of kosher lineage.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> (Kidushin 4:7) cites the <b>BA'AL HA'HALACHOS</b> who explains that even in a scenario where the husband went overseas and his wife had a baby which it would seem logically could not have been fathered by the husband, nevertheless the baby is kosher, because we say that the husband came home secretly by reciting the Shem and thereby arriving immediately from a great distance, and the baby was born from the husband and therefore is not a Mamzer. 
<br> 
<br>The Rosh also cites the Yerushalmi (also quoted by Tosfos to Kidushin 73a, DH Mai) which relates that Shmuel in fact was born in such a way; his father (Avuha d'Shmuel) went overseas and came home by reciting the Shem, Shmuel's mother conceived as a result.
</p><p>
This possibility is also mentioned by the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 4:14). The Shulchan Aruch rules that if a woman's husband went overseas and remained there for more than twelve months and she gave birth after twelve months, the law is that the baby is a Mamzer because it is not possible that a pregnancy could last for more than twelve months. The Shulchan Aruch adds that there is an opinion that the baby is <i>not</i> a Mamzer, and he concludes that since there is a dispute the baby has the status of a Safek Mamzer.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> (#16) writes that the second opinion cited by the Shulchan Aruch is that of the Ba'al ha'Halachos. The Beis Shmuel writes that this does not contradict the Halachah (see Shulchan Aruch EH 143:12) that if a husband gives his wife a Get on condition that she flies up into the sky, the condition is not valid and the Get takes effect. In that case, the possibility of flying up to the sky by saying the Shem is not considered a serious possibility, and therefore the Get is considered to be unconditional and takes effect immediately. In contrast, to prevent a child from being classified as a Mamzer, the possibility that the husband came home through the use of the Shem is taken into consideration. Wherever possible, a way is always sought to prevent a child from having the status of a Mamzer.
</p><p>
The <b>CHELKAS MECHOKEK</b> (EH 4:8) writes that even according to the first opinion in the Shulchan Aruch, if the woman claims that the husband came home during the twelve months (as opposed to arguing that her pregnancy lasted more than twelve months) and the husband agrees, there is no doubt that the baby is legitimate (as in the case of Shmuel).
</p><p>
The Chelkas Mechokek adds that even if the husband is not present and the woman argues that he came home through the use of the Shem, it is possible that she is believed, as long as the husband does not contradict her, because of her Chazakah that she did not commit a transgression. However, the Chelkas Mechokek also writes that it is possible that the wife is not believed on her own to make such an unusual claim and say that the husband arrived home through the use of the Shem. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Abaye explains that the rule includes a Tanai to eat 
          pork;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Such a Get is valid' excludes a Tanai that she will 
               have Bi'ah with Ploni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is 
          your Get on condition that you eat pork, eat Terumah (if 
          she is not a Kohenes) or drink wine (if she is a 
          Nezirah)', the Get is valid only if the Tanai is 
          fulfilled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa is like Chachamim who argue 
          with R. Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Tanai should be Pasul because it is 
          contrary to the Torah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Ika):</font></b> That rule applies 
          only in a case such as Kidushin on condition that the 
          husband has no obligation to supply his wife's needs for 
          food, clothing and Onah (Bi'ah at the proper frequency), 
          for he uproots (his Torah obligation to supply these);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, she transgresses to fulfill the Tanai!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Ravina):</font></b> She transgresses only to fulfill his 
          Tanai. He caused the Mitzvah to be uprooted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> The rule that a Tanai contrary to the 
          Torah is Pasul applies only in a case such as Kidushin 
          without obligation to supply food, clothing and Onah, for 
          he definitely uproots the Mitzvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, the Mitzvah need not be uprooted. She need not 
               eat, and the Get will not take effect!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A TANAI NOT TO MARRY PLONI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He takes the Get back...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Like whom is our Tana?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Chizkiyah):</font></b> He holds like R. Shimon ben 
          Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> (If one told his 
               wife 'take this loan document' and gave a Get to 
               her,) it is valid only if he takes it back and gives 
               it again, and says 'this is your Get.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Our Mishnah is even like Rebbi 
          (there, who does not require taking it back and giving it 
          again);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The reason is like Rav Kahana taught. Here, the Get 
               (partially) took effect to disqualify her to 
               Kohanim, so she already acquired it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he wrote in the Get (that she is not 
          permitted to Ploni, even if this was later erased, the 
          Get is Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Safra):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when he 
          wrote the Tanai in the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious! The Mishnah explicitly says 
          so!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the Mishnah applies 
          only when the Tanai was written after the Toref (the 
          primary part of the Get), but if the Tanai preceded the 
          Toref, even if the Tanai was not written in the Get, the 
          Get is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Safra teaches that this is not so. (Rather, even 
               a Tanai before the Toref does not disqualify the Get 
               if it is not written in the Get. The Toref is 'you 
               are permitted to every man' (Tur), or, if this in 
               not in the Get (Beis Yosef Sof 126 DH v'Harei), 
               similar expressions of Kerisus. A Tanai after the 
               Toref is like a Tanai after the Ma'aseh. We hold 
               like R. Meir, that normally, such a Tanai is 
               invalid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah is only when he wrote the 
          Tanai after the Toref. If the Tanai precedes the Toref, 
          even if it was not written in the Get, the Get is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For this reason, Rava would silence the husband 
               until the Toref was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> Any Tanai disqualifies a Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, only a Tanai that disqualifies a Get 
          orally, disqualifies it when it is written in it:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Except for marrying Ploni', disqualifies orally, 
               and it disqualifies also if it is written;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'On condition that you don't marry Ploni' does not 
               disqualify orally, so it does not disqualify if it 
               is written.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CONDITIONS BEFORE AND AFTER THE CRUCIAL PART OF THE GET</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (82a) states that according to the Chachamim, one who gives a Get to his wife and says to her, 'You are permitted to marry everyone except a certain man,' the Get is invalid. The Mishnah concludes that even if he erases this condition from the Get afterwards, the Get remains invalid.
</p><p>
The Gemara (84b) quotes Rava who explains that although the Mishnah invalidates a Get only when the disqualifying condition is written in the Get but not when the husband merely spoke the condition orally, the Mishnah's ruling applies only to conditions which were said after the Toref was written. (See, however, Rashi DH Kasvu, who implies that even with such conditions, the husband must say at the time he hands over the Get, 'You are permitted to everyone.') (Rashi there (DH Kasvu) explains the Sugya according to Rav Safra who says that the Get is valid. One nevertheless may infer from Rashi's words the reasoning of Rava who disagrees with Rav Safra and invalidates the Get.) 
</p><p>
(See also Rashi to 21b, DH Toref, who writes that the Toref is the 'Giluy' of the Get, the part which 'exposes' its main purpose -- the mention of the name of the husband, the wife, and the date. See also <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> (EH 123:6) in the name of the <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> who explains why the date is considered so important even though the requirement to write the date is only mid'Rabanan.)
</p><p>
However, a condition which is stated before the Toref is written invalidates the Get even though it is not written in the Get. This is because the Toref is the crucial part of the Get, and since the crucial part of the Get is written with the invalid condition, the Get is invalid. (See <b>RASHI</b> DH Afilu.)
</p><p>
The Gemara says that Rava's opinion is consistent with his own practice. Rava used to tell people who wrote Gitin, 'Make sure that the husband keeps quiet until you write the Toref of the Get.'
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shetuki) explains that Rava told the people to admonish the husband not to mention any conditions in the Get. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shetuki) also writes that Rava refers to all conditions (of 'Al Menas') written in a Get before the Toref and not only to the condition mentioned in the Mishnah ('Chutz'). Tosfos adds that Rava is consistent with his opinion later in the Sugya where he maintains that any condition of 'Al Menas' before the Toref may not be made, lest the husband write the condition of 'Chutz' before the Toref, which is invalid according to the strict letter of the law.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 8:4) also writes that even if the husband speaks a condition of 'Al Menas' orally before the Toref is written, the Get is invalid.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that according to Rebbi, all conditions render a Get invalid, while according to the Chachamim only conditions which invalidate a Get when spoken orally invalidate it when written. Therefore, 'Chutz' is invalid both orally and in writing, while 'Al Menas' is invalid neither orally nor in writing.
</p><p>
Rava later (85a) states that the dispute between Rebbi and the Chachamim applies only to conditions made after the Toref, while everyone agrees that any condition made before the Toref is invalid. Rava states that when the Mishnah refers to written conditions (which the Gemara (82a) explains is a reference to the Tenai of 'Chutz' but not conditions of 'Al Menas'), it refers to conditions made after the Toref.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (85a, DH Aval) writes that the reason why even a condition of 'Al Menas' written before the Toref is invalid is due to a Gezeirah that one not make a condition of 'Al Menas' even orally, lest one make a condition of 'Chutz' which is completely invalid (and not only because of a Gezeirah) even when made orally (because, according to Rava, a condition of 'Chutz' made even orally ruins the necessary 'Kerisus,' severance, element of the Get).
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> and <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> question the view of Rashi and Tosfos. They ask that if a condition of 'Chutz' before the Toref invalidates a Get mid'Oraisa even when it is made orally, why did the Chachamim not enact a Gezeirah for a condition of 'Chutz' made orally <i>after</i> the Toref, lest one orally make a condition of 'Chutz' before the Toref (similar to the Gezeirah enacted for one who writes a condition after the Toref, lest he write a condition before the Toref)?
</p><p>
(c) A number of Rishonim (<b>RAMBAN</b> in Chidushim and Milchamos, <b>RAN</b>, <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b>, and others) learn the Sugya differently from Rashi and Tosfos. They understand that even a condition of 'Chutz' -- which invalidates a Get when made orally before the Toref -- invalidates the Get only because of a Gezeirah lest one <i>write</i> the condition in the get before the Toref. Accordingly, a condition of 'Al Menas' is valid when stated orally even before the Toref, because the Chachamim did not make a Gezeirah for a Gezeirah. The reason why Rava commanded to keep the husband quiet was so that he not mention a condition of 'Chutz.'
</p><p>
(e) The <b>RITVA</b> (manuscript, printed by Mosad ha'Rav Kook) explains that a condition <i>written</i> in the Get constitutes a strong, binding act. The <b>TORAS ABIRIM</b> explains that a Gezeirah was enacted for a written condition <i>after</i> the Toref so that one not come to make a written condition before the Toref. Orally-made conditions, in contrast, are weaker, and thus the Chachamim enacted no Gezeirah for an oral condition made after the Toref because of a condition made before the Toref; those two conditions will not become confused. (See also <b>MAHARSHA</b> to <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Shetuki.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DO TANAYIM DISQUALIFY A GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> Rebbi and Chachamim argue about a 
          Tanai before the Toref. Rebbi decrees to disqualify 'on 
          condition that' due to 'except'. Chachamim do not decree;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  All agree that Tanayim after the Toref do not disqualify 
          the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  (The Seifa of) our Mishnah says that only written Tanayim 
          disqualify. We established the Mishnah to be when he said 
          'except';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah can discuss before the Toref, and it is 
               like Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, it can discuss after the Toref, and all agree to 
               it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rebbi and Chachamim argue when the 
          Tanai is after the Toref. Rebbi decrees to disqualify it 
          due to a Tanai before the Toref. Chachamim do not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  All agree that Tanayim before the Toref disqualify a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah says that only written Tanayim disqualify, 
          and only when he said 'except', but not if he said 'on 
          condition that';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah discusses after the Toref. It is like 
               Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avin's father - Beraisa):</font></b> All agree that if a Get was 
          written on Tanai, it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> They argue in this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (R. Zeira):</font></b> The proper text of the Beraisa 
          must say that all agree that it is valid, when the Tanai 
          was after the Toref.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rather than changing the text of the Beraisa, 
          R. Zeira should have said that it is like Rebbi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is reasonable that R. Avin's father mixed up 
          'valid' and 'Pasul', but he would not confuse 'all agree' 
          with 'this is (Rebbi's opinion).'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEN TO WHOM SHE IS FORBIDDEN ANYWAY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'you are permitted to every man 
          except for my father', or he excluded his brother, her 
          father or brother, a slave or Nochri, or anyone to whom 
          she cannot be Mekudeshes, the Get is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he excluded a Kohen Gadol (even if she is a widow), or 
          a regular Kohen (and she was divorced or a Chalutzah), or 
          a Yisrael (and she is a Mamzeres or Nesinah), or a Mamzer 
          or Nasin (and she is a Bas Yisrael), or anyone to whom 
          she can be Mekudeshes (even if it is forbidden), the Get 
          is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does the rule of the Reisha (or 
          anyone to whom she cannot be Mekudeshes) come to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It includes other relatives punishable by Kares.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does the rule of the Seifa (or 
          anyone to whom she can be Mekudeshes) include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It includes other men forbidden by a Lav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If he said 'except for Reuven (and he is 
          a minor)', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we consider him like one who cannot be Mekadesh 
               her (i.e. now)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, is he like one who can be Mekadesh her (i.e. 
               later)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> A minor can be divorced 
          even from a mid'Oraisa marriage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> 'Yotzah v'Haysah' equates divorce and 
               Kidushin. A girl who cannot be Mekudeshes (e.g. a 
               minor not in her father's Reshus, e.g. after 
               Nisu'in) cannot be divorced!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A minor is like one who can be Mekudeshes, 
               because she can be Mekudeshes when she matures. 
               (Note: the Gemara did not even challenge Rav Nachman 
               from a Mishnah (55a) that says that a Chereshes 
               (deaf woman) can be divorced (even if she was 
               married mid'Oraisa through her father), even though 
               she can never be Mekudeshes again! Perhaps it is 
               understood that any minor can be divorced, even if 
               she is Goses or Tereifah, and barring an unlikely or 
               miraculous cure, she will never live to adulthood 
               and the possibility of Kidushin. Similarly, a 
               Chereshes can be divorced, even though she will have 
               Da'as and potential for Kidushin only if she gets an 
               unexpected cure.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Here also, a minor is considered one to whom she can 
               be Mekudeshes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If one said 'except for men who will be 
          born', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since they are not around yet, the Get is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since they will be born, the Get is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> If he said '(except for) 
          a slave or Nochri', even though they may convert (or be 
          freed), the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> That is different, for we do not expect them 
          to convert. Men are destined to be born!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If he said 'except for your sister's 
          husband', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Now, she cannot be Mekudeshes to him, so the Get is 
               valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since she will be permitted to him if her sister 
               dies, the Get is Pasul?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> If he said '(except for) 
          a slave or Nochri', even though they may convert (or be 
          freed), the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> That is different, for conversion is uncommon, 
          but death is common.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If he said 'you are divorced except 
          regarding Bi'as Zenus', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding marriage, he permitted her to everyone (so 
               the Get is valid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since he did not permit (all) Bi'ah, it is 
               Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'except for my 
          father or your father'...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Regarding what did he not permit them?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We cannot say that it is regarding marriage. 
                    She cannot be married to them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, it is regarding Bi'as Zenus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Only regarding her father or father-in-
               law, such a Get is valid. If he did not permit Bi'as 
               Zenus with other men, the Get would be Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Really, it refers to marriage, if she should 
          transgress and 'marry' either of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'except for Bi'ah Lo k'Darkah (in 
          the anus)', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normal Bi'ah is fully permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since the Torah equates normal Bi'ah and Lo 
               k'Darkah, a Get must permit both!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER REMNANTS OF MARRIAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'except for vows (I can annul your 
          vows even after I divorce you)', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He permits her to marry anyone;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, 'her husband will affirm her vows, and her 
               husband will annul her vows' shows that he is still 
               called her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If (Tosfos - he is a Kohen, and) he said 
          'except for Terumah (you may still eat Terumah after I 
          divorce you)', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He permits her to marry anyone;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, 'the acquisition of his money (may eat Terumah)' 
               shows that she is still called his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'except for my privilege to inherit 
          you if you die', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He permits her to marry anyone;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, 'he will inherit her, his close kin' shows that 
               he is still considered her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'except for Kidushin through a 
          document', what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She can be Mekudeshes through money or Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since all methods of Kidushin are equated, a Get 
               must permit all of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  These questions are unresolved.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ESSENTIAL PART OF A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The essential part of a Get is 'you are 
          permitted to every man';
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HUSBAND'S RIGHT TO INHERIT HIS WIFE'S PROPERTY IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE MARRIAGE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah enumerates various conditions in a Get which the husband may make, which permit the woman to marry everyone else apart from specific men. The Gemara asks several questions concerning the law of a 'Shi'ur' (a remnant in the bond between the man and wife, which compromises the element of 'Kerisus' necessary for a Get to take effect). One of the questions is whether the Get is valid when the man gives her a divorce 'apart from your inheritance.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Chutz mi'Yerushaseich) explains that the husband attempted to make a condition that if she would die after the divorce, he would still inherit her. What is the law in such a case? Does the divorce take effect since he did not omit any element of severance in the Nisu'in (marriage) by his condition, or does the divorce not take effect since a husband inherits his wife's property only when she is married to him (see Bava Basra 109b, based on Bamidbar 27:11), and thus his condition that he still inherits her means that she is still married to him and the Get is not valid? (See Rashi DH mi'Mishpachto.)
</p><p>
Why, by retaining the right to inherit his wife's property, should the man's condition invalidate the Get? A Get permits the woman to marry anyone she wants; its purpose is merely to determine which men she may or may not marry. In contrast, inheritance is an entirely different issue, a financial matter which involves who is entitled to her estate after her death. There should be no connection whatsoever between the Get (a matter of Dinei Isur) and the inheritance (a matter of Dinei Mamonos).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK</b> (on the Rambam, Hilchos Mechirah 13:3, DH v'Hinei Omnam) answers that the Gemara here is proof that the law that a man inherits his wife's property is a marital law (a law of Ishus) and not a financial one (a law of Mamonos). Part of the rights that are created at marriage is the right of the husband to inherit his wife; it an inherent part of their marital bond.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (EH 56:22) first suggests that the Gemara here -- which entertains the possibility that the Get is invalid when the husband stipulates that he retains the right to her inheritance -- maintains that mid'Oraisa the husband inherits his wife. However, the Chazon Ish points out that the <b>RAMBAM</b> evidently does not understand the Gemara this way, because he rules (in Hilchos Nachalos 1:8) that it a husband inherits his wife only mid'Rabanan (this is the opinion of Rav in Kesuvos 84a), and yet in Hilchos Gerushin (8:6) the Rambam rules that if the husband divorces his wife on condition that if she dies he will inherit her, the Get creates a Safek Gerushin. The Rambam clearly understands that the Gemara's question applies even though the husband's right to inherit his wife is only mid'Rabanan.)
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish instead suggests that the Chachamim enacted a decree to consider the marriage a bond not only with regard to Ishus, but also with regard to inheritance. That is, when a man and woman marry, their marriage creates a bond with regard to inheritance as well as the bond of the man-wife relationship. The Chazon Ish adds that it is possible that if the right of inheritance is retained at the time the man gives a Get, this is considered a Shi'ur mid'Oraisa, a failure to fully severe the relationship, since the Get has not effected an absolute 'Kerisus,' as the wife is still connected to the husband with regard to her inheritance.
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish also suggests that although the Rambam rules that the husband inherits his wife only mid'Rabanan, nevertheless perhaps the Rambam is in doubt whether his right to inherit her is mid'Oraisa. Therefore, if a man gives a Get and attempts to retain his right to her inheritance, one may not be lenient to consider it a valid Get. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is 'and this will be for you, from 
          me, a Sefer of cutting, a letter of abandonment, a Get of 
          exemption that permits you to marry any man you want.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The essential part of a Get of freedom is 'you are a free 
          woman', or 'you are to yourself.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> Obviously, if a Get of divorce says 'you are a 
          free woman', or a Get of freedom says 'you are permitted 
          to every man', it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a Get of divorce says 'you are to yourself', 
          what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Does he mean 'you are entirely to yourself'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, does he refer only to work?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> The essential part of a Get of 
          freedom is 'you are a free woman', or 'you are to 
          yourself,'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A master owns his slave's body, still 'you are to 
               yourself' suffices for the slave to acquire himself;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A husband does not own his wife's body. All the more 
               so, this expression suffices!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> If a Get of freedom says 'I have no 
          involvement in you', what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chanin - Beraisa):</font></b> If one sold his slave to a 
          Nochri, the slave goes free, and needs a Get of freedom 
          from his original owner;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he wrote his Ono, 
               this serves like his Get of freedom.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is an Ono?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It says 'when you flee from 
               him (your new master) I have no involvement in you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is 'and this will be for you, 
          from me, a Sefer of cutting, a letter of abandonment, a 
          Get of exemption that permits you to marry any man you 
          want.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim hold that a Yad (an abbreviated 
          expression) that is not clear (how to complete it) is a 
          valid Yad (it is as if he said the full expression);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though he did not write 'and this...', it is 
               clear that he divorces her through the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah holds that an ambiguous Yad is not a Yad;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he does not write 'and this...', perhaps he 
               divorces her verbally, and the Get is just for a 
               proof.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WORDS THAT COULD BE MISCONSTRUED IN A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> One should not write in a Get 'v'Dein' (and this 
          is) with a 'Yud', lest this be read 'v'Din' (the law 
          obligates me to divorce you). Rather, it should be 
          written without a 'Yud'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One should not write 'Igeres (a letter)' with a 'Yud', 
          lest this be understood like Igra (a roof). Rather, it 
          should be written without a 'Yud'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  One should not write 'Limehach (it will be) with a 'Yud', 
          lest this be read 'Li Mihach' (the Get will be to me). 
          One should beware lest (the Hei look like a Ches, and) 
          the word look like 'Limchach' (for a joke).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  'D'Yisyehaviyein' and 'D'Yisyatzviyein' should each be 
          written with three 'Yud'im' (to connote 'that you will 
          marry' and 'that you will want').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  One should elongate the Vov in 'Tiruchin (cutting)' and 
          'Shevukin (abandonment). If the Vov would be mistaken for 
          a 'Yud', this would refer to Gitin in general (not 
          specifically for his wife).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  One should elongate the Vov in 'd'Chado (that when).' If 
          it would look like a 'Yud', this would imply that he 
          divorces her 'Kedi' (without anything, i.e. without a 
          Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  One should not write 'Le'isnasva' lest it be read 'Lo 
          Yisnasva' (not to marry), rather, 'Lehisnasva'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Must one write 'and this...'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rava enacted that a Get should say 'Ploni... cuts 
          off Plonis... from this day and forever.' He did not 
          mention 'and this...'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> He did not mention other things that must be 
          in the Get. Likewise, he did not mention 'and this...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Rava enacted that the Get should say 'from this day.' 
          This is unlike R. Yosi, who says that the date on a 
          document itself proves that it takes effect that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  He enacted 'forever', lest people think that the divorce 
          was only temporary.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHEN ONE MAY AND MAY NOT BE STRINGENT WITH GITIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (end of 85b) states that Rava enacted that one write in a Get, 'How so and so, the son of so and so, dismissed and divorced his wife so and so, who was his wife until now.' (See <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> EH 126:8, who writes that one should write this text in the first person, 'I, so and so, now divorce my wife.') He must also write that he divorces his wife, 'from today, forever.'
</p><p>
The <b>CHELKAS MECHOKEK</b> (#26) writes in the name of the <b>ROSH</b> (in the end of the Rosh's commentary to Gitin, in his 'Seder Kesivas ha'Get') that the reason for Rava's enactment is that the Get must record the way the husband divorced his wife. (The Gemara earlier (21b) derives from the word 'Sefer' in Devarim 24:3 that the Get must tell how the husband divorced his wife.)
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the reason he must write 'from today' is to negate Rebbi Yosi's opinion that the 'date on the document is its proof.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH Min Yoma) explains that according to Rebbi Yosi, when a Get is written for a Shechiv Mera (a dying man), the words 'from today' do not need to be written because the date in the Get proves that it takes effect from the day it was written, and no one will mistakenly think that the Get took effect after the Shechiv Mera died and is not valid. To repudiate Rebbi Yosi's opinion, Rava instituted that scribes should write in all Gitin the words 'from today.' Rashi adds that although the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yosi, we should avoid any issue of dispute issue when writing a Get so that the divorce will be unanimously accepted and the pure lineage of the families of Yisrael will be subject to no suspicion.
</p><p>
This reasoning, that we should be more stringent with regard to Gitin than the letter of the law requires, apparently contradicts the Gemara earlier (end of 5b). The Gemara there relates that Rebbi Achi, who was appointed responsible for Gitin, said that one who delivers a Get from overseas is required to have stood at the writing of the Get and witnessed the writing of every letter (to ensure that every letter was written Lishmah). Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi disagreed and said that witnessing the writing of every letter is not necessary. They added that one should not argue that it is proper to act stringently in the matter, because if one acts stringently he will cause people to speak disparagingly about earlier Gitin which were not written with this stringent practice.
</p><p>
(See <b>MORDECHAI</b> (#316) who rules, based on the Gemara there, that a scribe who writes a Get should not write Tagin (or Ziyunim) on the letters in a Get. Tagin are the decorative lines written on the tops of the Shin, Ayin, Tes, Nun, Zayin, Gimel, and Tzadi, in a Sefer Torah. This is because one who changes the former custom not to write Tagin will cause people to speak disparagingly about earlier Gitin which were not written in this way.)
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara here state that one <i>should</i> act stringently when writing a Get, while the Gemara earlier (5b) teaches that one should <i>not</i> act stringently when writing a Get, lest he harm the reputation of earlier Gitin?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (1:232, DH v'Al) answers that there is a distinction between whether people will think that the former Gitin are entirely invalid or whether they will think that the former Gitin are merely questionable and doubtful. If the complete writing of the Get brought from overseas was not witnessed by the one who delivers it, people will think that earlier Gitin -- the writing of which was not witnessed in its entirety by the one who delivered it -- are entirely invalid. It appears as though the witness lied when he said, 'It was written in front of me,' since not every letter was written in his presence. Similarly, although there are grounds to require Tagin on the letters in a Get, if we would be stringent and require Tagin people will assume that letters without Tagin are not valid letters at all and they will consider all Gitin without Tagin as entirely valid.
</p><p>
In contrast, adherence to the stringency of the Gemara here to write 'from today' will not cause people to think that earlier Gitin, in which these words were not written, are entirely invalid. They will realize that the earlier Gitin were valid according to Rebbi Yosi, because the date written in the Get indicates that the Get took effect from that day, Rather, they merely will spread rumors that the Get was not written in strict accordance with all opinions. In such a case, when people will not err to say that the Get is entirely invalid, it is preferable to ensure that future Gitin are written in accordance with all opinions than to be concerned about the reputation of earlier Gitin. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> to 26a, DH v'Tzarich, and <b>TESHUVAS MAHARIL</b> #105 and others (cited in the new edition of the Terumas ha'Deshen) who discuss the guidelines for when one may be stringent with the laws of the writing of a Get.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOCUMENTS TO SELL SLAVES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The essential part of a Get of freedom is 'you 
          are a free woman' or 'you are to yourself.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah enacted to write in documents of sale of 
          slaves 'this slave is free from any claims of freedom, 
          partnership, sentence to serve the king, or other owners. 
          He is free of any blemish or boils (that will come) on 
          his face for two years, new or old.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If boils come, what is the cure?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A feather is used to anoint him with 
               ginger...
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>GITIN THAT WORK B'DI'EVED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Three kinds of Gitin are Pasul, but if she 
          remarried, the children are Kosher (not Mamzerim):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is written in Kesav Yado (his, i.e. the 
               husband's, own handwriting), but witnesses did not 
               sign it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Witnesses signed it, but there is no date on it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It has a date, and only one witness signed it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she remarried relying on any of these three 
                    Gitin, the children are not Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar says, even if no witnesses signed on it, but it 
          was given in front of witnesses, it is valid, and this 
          suffices to collect from Meshubadim (land that was sold).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Witnesses sign a Get only due to an enactment for 
               Tikun ha'Olam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Are there no other such Gitin?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #1:</font></b> Also an old Get (they were secluded 
               after it was written) is Pasul (but if she 
               remarried, the children are Kosher)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There, she need not leave her new husband. 
               Here (if one remarried with a Get of our Mishnah), 
               she must leave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Some hold that also here, she need not 
               leave. How can they answer the question?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Here, she may not remarry l'Chatchilah. One 
               who received an old Get may remarry l'Chatchilah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #2:</font></b> A bald Get (it has more folds than 
               witnesses) is Pasul!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There, if she married, the children are 
               Mamzerim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> That is only according to R. Meir (who 
               says that if one remarries based on a Get that 
               deviates from Chachamim's guidelines, the children 
               are Mamzerim);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  According to Chachamim, the children are not 
                    Mamzerim. How can they answer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One who received a bald Get must leave her 
               new husband. Here, she need not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Some hold that here, she must leave. How 
               can they answer?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses regular (untied) 
               Gitin.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> A Get dated according to the wrong 
               kingdom is Pasul!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, she must leave. Here, she may stay 
               married.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Some hold that here, she must leave. How 
               can they answer the question?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They establish our Mishnah like R. Meir. 
               There, the children are Mamzerim. Here, they are 
               not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says twice that there are three 
          such Gitin. What does this come to exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The first time, it excludes the Gitin listed 
          above. The second time, it excludes the following case:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a Shali'ach brought a Get 
               from Chutz La'aretz, and gave it without saying 'it 
               was written and signed in front of me', if she 
               remarried, she must be divorced. The children are 
               Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the children are not Mamzerim;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Shali'ach should take the Get back and give 
                    it again, and make the declaration.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO WROTE THE GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Get is in Kesav Yado, and witnesses did 
          not sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a Get in Kesav Yado.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To which of the three Gitin does Rav refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot teach about the first. The Mishnah 
               explicitly says that it is in Kesav Yado!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He teaches about the second.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Two witnesses signed it. Why would we 
               require that the husband wrote it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He refers to the last Get. It has a date and one 
          witness signed;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET WITHOUT A DATE IS VALID B'DI'EVED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that there are three types of Gitin which are deemed invalid, but if a woman who was divorced with such a Get remarried and had a child, the child from the second marriage is not a Mamzer (because the Get is valid b'Di'eved). One of these three Gitin is a Get with witnesses signed on it but with no date.
</p><p>
How can a Get with no date be valid even b'Di'eved? The date is an essential part of the Get! Moreover, such a Get violates the 'Matbe'a' (standard text) which the Chachamim established for Gitin. The Gemara (80a) states that the Chachamim instituted that one must write the year of the local, reigning king in the Get because of Shalom Malchus (the requirement to maintain peaceful relations with the authorities). The Gemara there mentions that one who alters the text of a Get as established by the Chachamim causes the children from the subsequent marriage to be Mamzerim. How, then, can a Get without a date be valid b'Di'eved to prevent the children from being Mamzerim?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that the requirement to write the date in a Get is only l'Chatchilah. The Gemara itself (17b) states that failure to fulfill this requirement prevents a woman with this type of Get from remarrying. This implies, however, that it does <i>not</i> have the power to make a child from a subsequent marriage a Mamzer.
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that the reason why the Chachamim instituted that the name of the reigning king be written in the Get is for the sake of Shalom Malchus. A transgression of this requirement would be the writing of the name of a different king, for this would offend the local king and harm the Jews' relationship with him. If, however, one mentions <i>no</i> king or year at all in the Get, the king presumably will not care. Therefore, this is not a reason to invalidate the Get entirely. 
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> writes the same answer as the Rashba for why omitting the year of the king does not invalidate the Get. However, he asserts that since the Get is not valid l'Chatchilah, omitting the year of the king should be considered an alteration of the 'Matbe'a' of the Chachamim and the child should be a Mamzer.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Kreskas gives a different answer to this question based on the Gemara earlier (17b). The Gemara states that when one writes as the date of the Get the current Shemitah cycle but does not write the actual year, the Get is valid. Similarly, if one writes only the year but not the month, or the month but not the week, or the week but not the day on which the Get is written, the Get is valid. This clearly shows that the requirement to write the date in a Get is not absolute. Writing the number of the Shemitah cycle does not provide an accurate date, and yet the Get is valid. Accordingly, even if no date is written the Get is valid b'Di'eved, and this is not considered a change in the 'Matbe'a' established by the Chachamim for Gitin.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (79b) notes that <b>RASHI</b> there would not agree entirely with the answer of the Rashba. The Mishnah there states that a Get which contains only the number of years the Beis ha'Mikdash has been standing, or the number of years it has been destroyed, is invalid. Rashi (DH O she'Kasvah) explains that the Get is invalid because it was not written based on the year of the king. The Pnei Yehoshua writes that in such a case, the reigning king will not be jealous of the fact that the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash is mentioned in the Get, since such a date does not challenge his authority in any way and is merely an expression of the Jews' sorrow that the Beis ha'Mikdash is no longer standing. The fact that Rashi says that the Get is invalid because the year of the king is not mentioned implies that Rashi maintains that the decree to mention the name of the king in a Get was in order to actively honor the king and not merely to refrain from insulting him by mentioning another king (as the Rashba explains).
</p><p>
This is also implied by Rashi later (80a, DH Mishum). Rashi explains that the reason for writing the name of the king in a Get is that the royalty should feel distinguished in the eyes of the Jews who mention the kings' names in their documents. However, the Pnei Yehoshua suggests that even Rashi will agree that if no date is written at all in the Get, the Get is valid. When the year for the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash is written, although it is not considered an insult to the king, it <i>is</i> a lack of honor since a different dating system was mentioned. In contrast, when no date at all is written, Rashi will agree that there is no display of disrespect to the king. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We must say that the husband wrote it. Had a scribe 
               written it, the children would be Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses even when a scribe wrote 
          it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a scribe wrote a Get and one witness 
               signed, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav):</font></b> That Mishnah permits her to marry 
          l'Chatchilah. Our Mishnah does not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> That Mishnah discusses a scribe whose 
          writing is known. In our Mishnah, the scribe's writing is 
          not known.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a Get in the 
          husband's handwriting.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Witnesses signed it! (Why do we 
          require the husband's Kesav Yad?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> I refer to the last Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Sometimes Rav would say that she must leave her new 
          husband. Sometimes, he would say that she may stay;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she has children from him, she may stay. If not, 
               she must leave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mar Zutra bar Tuvya - Mishnah):</font></b> Any case in 
          which a close relative of the Yavam was Safek or divorced 
          to the deceased, the co-wife does Chalitzah, not Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The case of Safek Kidushin is when he threw money to 
               be Mekadesh her, and we do not know if it landed 
               closer to him or her. This is the case of doubtful 
               Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The case of Safek divorce is when he wrote a Get in 
               his Kesav Yado and no witnesses signed; or, 
               witnesses signed it, but there is no date on it; or, 
               it has a date, but only one witness signed it. These 
               are the cases of Safek divorce.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Summation of question):</font></b> If she may stay married, 
               people will think that it is a valid Get, and the 
               co-wife will do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is no problem. Mid'Oraisa, the Get is valid, 
          and she may do Yibum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Get is Pasul mid'Rabanan (so l'Chatchilah, she 
               should do Chalitzah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Levi, R. Yochanan, and R. Chalafta):</font></b> Even if she has no 
          children, she need not leave her new husband.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A FLY THAT DRANK MEI CHATAS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan citing R. Chalafta):</font></b> If a Kratzis in a stack 
          of produce drank Mei Chatas (water on which ashes of the 
          red heifer were put), it does not disqualify the water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is a Kratzis?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It is a big fly similar to a locust, that 
          resides in stacks.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina - Mishnah):</font></b> Any bird 
          that drinks Mei Chatas disqualifies it, except for a 
          dove, for it sucks the water (and does not spit it back 
          out).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It did not say that also a Kratzis does not 
               disqualify it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is because the law varies. A small Kratzis 
          disqualifies, but a large one does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Until what size is considered small?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is until the size of an olive.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH WITNESSES EMPOWER A GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> Even though witnesses did not 
          sign...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar regarding Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar also regarding 
          monetary documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does Rav hold unlike R. Elazar regarding 
          monetary documents?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah says that with such a document, one may 
               collect from Meshubadim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Elazar holds that also for monetary documents, 
          Edei Mesirah (the witnesses who saw it given) Karsei 
          (empower it). Rav holds like R. Elazar only regarding 
          Gitei Nashim and freedom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yakov bar Idi, R. Yosi bar Chanina... ):</font></b> The Halachah 
          follows R. Elazar regarding Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yanai, R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Get does not even disqualify 
          her from Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Do they hold that the Halachah does not follow 
          R. Elazar?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. They meant that according to Chachamim, it 
          does not even disqualify her from Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If two men sent identical Gitin (all names are 
          the same), and they got mixed up, each Shali'ach should 
          give both Gitin to the wife he was sent to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if one Get was lost, the other is void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  If five men wrote a joint Get, i.e. Reuven divorces Leah, 
          Shimon divorces Rachel... and witnesses signed below, all 
          are valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Get is given to each wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  If a Tofes (the standard text of a Get without the names 
          and date) was written for each couple, only the Get right 
          before the signatures is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> It is not like R. Elazar;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says that Edei Mesirah Karsei. (Witnesses 
               need not sign. Rather, 'v'Chosav... v'Nosan' must be 
               Lishmah.) Here, the Edei Mesirah do not know which 
               Get divorces each woman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah can even be like R. 
          Elazar. He requires only that the Get be written Lishmah, 
          but it need not be given Lishmah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>A JOINT GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If five men wrote a joint Get...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is considered joint Gitin, and what is 
          considered (a) Tofes (for each)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If there is one date for all of 
          them, this is a joint Get. If there is a date for each, 
          this is Tofes.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE GET MUST BE SIGNED 'LISHMAH' OR GIVEN TO THE WOMAN 'LISHMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if two men sent two Gitin with identical names of husbands and wives and they become mixed up, both Gitin should be given to both women. The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yirmeyah who says that the Mishnah cannot follow the view of Rebbi Elazar who rules that 'Edei Mesirah Kartei' (the witnesses who observe the handing over of the Get effect the divorce). Since it is not known which Get was written for which woman, the Edei Mesirah do not know which Get effects each divorce. 
</p><p>
This Gemara seems to contradict a principle stated by the <b>RIF</b> (47b of the pages of the Rif). The Rif asserts that even Rebbi Elazar, who rules that 'Edei Mesirah Kartei,' agrees that 'Edei Chasimah Kartei.' This means that Rebbi Elazar understands that when there are no witnesses who see the giving of the Get, the witnesses signed on the Get effect the divorce.
</p><p>
(<b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> (DH u'Shmuel) proves the Rif's principle from the fact that Shmuel rules that if the scribe wrote a Get and one witness signed, the Get is valid. Shmuel must be referring to a case in which there are no Edei Mesirah, because if there would be Edei Mesirah it would be irrelevant whether or not the scribe and the witness signed. It is logical that Shmuel rules like Rebbi Elazar that 'Edei Mesirah Kartei,' as the Gemara here rules like Rebbi Elazar. Accordingly, even when there are no Edei Mesirah, Rebbi Elazar agrees that the Get is valid because of the Edei Chasimah.)
</p><p>
According to the Rif, why does Rebbi Yirmeyah say that the Mishnah cannot follow Rebbi Elazar? Rebbi Elazar agrees that when there are no witnesses who see the giving of the Get, the Get is valid because witnesses signed the Get!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> answers in the name of the <b>RAMBAN</b> that Rebbi Yirmeyah understands, at this stage of the Gemara, that just as Rebbi Meir maintains that the witnesses must sign the Get Lishmah because they (the Edei Chasimah) effect the divorce, Rebbi Elazar maintains that the witnesses must witness the giving of the Get Lishmah. 
</p><p>
The Ramban explains that when the Torah states, 'He shall write for her (Lah) a Sefer Kerisus and give it into her hand,' the word 'Lah' -- from which the requirement of Lishmah is derived -- refers not only to 'he shall write' but also to 'and give.' According to Rebbi Elazar, the 'Kerisus' of the Get is accomplished not only from its writing but also from its delivery. Since Edei Mesirah alone are capable of effecting the divorce according to Rebbi Elazar, it follows that the Get must always be given Lishmah. Therefore, since Rebbi Elazar requires Nesinah Lishmah, Rebbi Yirmeyah maintains that the Mishnah cannot be consistent with the view of Rebbi Elazar, because when the two Gitin are given to the two women the witnesses do not know which Get is given for which woman.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> suggests a different reason for why one Nesinah Lishmah is necessary according to Rebbi Elazar. Rebbi Elazar requires that the Get be given Lishmah according to Torah law when one divorces his wife based on the testimony of Edei Mesirah. It follows that when the divorce is accomplished by the Edei Chasimah who sign the Get Lishmah, the Chachamim instituted that the Nesinah should also be Lishmah, lest people rely on the giving of a Get that is not Lishmah even when no Edei Chasimah sign the Get. This is similar to the reasoning of the Gemara earlier (4a) that Rebbi Elazar agrees that if a Get is Mezuyaf mi'Tocho, it is invalid. This means that when there are no witnesses at all signed on the Get it still can be valid, provided that it was handed over in front of witnesses, Edei Mesirah. However, when the witnesses signed on the Get are invalid or did not sign Lishmah, the Get is invalid; it is worse than a Get with no signatures at all. This is because people may rely on such a Get even when there are no Edei Mesirah. Similarly, the Get in the case of the Mishnah here is invalid even when there are Edei Chasimah, lest people rely on the giving of a Get that is not done Lishmah when there are no Edei Chasimah. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A JOINT GET (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Even if there is one date for 
          all, this can also be Tofes;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, in a joint Get they write 'we, Reuven and 
               Shimon, divorce our wives Leah and Rachel...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba):</font></b> R. Yochanan said that if there is one 
          date for all, this is a joint Get. Perhaps the witnesses 
          signed only intending for the last Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses signed underneath a greeting 
               written underneath a Get, it is Pasul. Perhaps the 
               witnesses did not sign for the Get, rather, for the 
               greeting.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Avahu taught that if it says 'Sha'alu (greet)' 
          under the Get, the Get is Pasul. If it says 'v'Sha'alu 
          (and greet)', the Get is valid (the witnesses signed for 
          the Get and for the greeting);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here also, it says 'Reuven and Shimon and...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba):</font></b> R. Yochanan said that if one date is 
          written for all, this is a joint Get and only the last 
          one is valid. Even if it were not a joint Get, the first 
          one s would be Pasul, for they were not signed on the day 
          they were written!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda):</font></b> The case is, all 
          were written on the same day and signed that day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Reish Lakish says, even if one date is 
          written for all, it is Tofes, and a joint Get is when 
          they write 'we, Reuven and Shimon divorce our wives Leah 
          and Rachel...' If so, two women are divorced with one 
          document!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says 'he will write for her', not for her and her 
               companion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi)::</font></b> Later, the Get says 'Reuven divorced 
          Leah, Shimon divorced Rachel...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why is this needed? It is not needed 
          in a Get of freedom!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one wrote a document giving all his 
               property to his two slaves, they acquire themselves 
               and free each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We established that Beraisa to be when 
          he wrote two documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  One Beraisa supports R. Yochanan, and one supports Reish 
          Lakish:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> If five men wrote in 
          a Get 'Reuven divorced Leah, Shimon divorced Rachel... 
          and there is one date, and the witnesses signed below, 
          all are valid. It must be given to each woman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If each Get has its own date, and the witnesses 
               signed below, only the Get that the witnesses signed 
               under is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if there are spaces between 
          the Gitin, the others (except for the last) are Pasul. If 
          not, all are valid, the separate dates do not separate 
          the Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa):</font></b> If five men wrote a 
          joint Get 'we, Reuven and Shimon... divorced our wives 
          Leah and Rachel... Reuven divorced Leah, Shimon divorced 
          Rachel... and there is one date, and the witnesses signed 
          below, all are valid. It must be given to each woman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If each Get has its own date, and there is space 
               between each Get, the Get that the witnesses signed 
               underneath is valid, the others are not;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, even if there are no spaces between the 
          Gitin, the others are Pasul, because the separate dates 
          separate them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Reish Lakish, why must there be a 
          separate date for each? He said that even this is Tofes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is only when the Gitin are not written 
          together at the beginning. Here, they are written 
          together at the beginning, so if there are separate 
          dates, they are Tofes. If not, they are a joint Get.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ON WHICH GET DID WITNESSES SIGN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If two Gitin were written side by side, and 
          two witnesses signed in Hebrew under them, from under the 
          right Get to under the left Get, and two witnesses signed 
          underneath in Yevanis, from under the left Get to under 
          the right Get:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Get on the side that the first signatures begin 
               (i.e. Hebrew writing goes from right to left) is 
               valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one witness signed underneath in Hebrew, and under him 
          a witness signed in Yevanis, then a Hebrew witness, then 
          a Yevanis, both Gitin are Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Suggestion:</font></b> Both Gitin should be valid due to 
          the first two witnesses!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Each witness signed under both Gitin, e.g. under the 
               right Get it says 'Reuven' (his own name), and under 
               the left Get, 'ben Yakov' (his father's name).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a witness signed 'Ben Ploni, witness', 
               the signature is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> The case is, 'Reuven ben' is written under the 
          right Get, and 'Yakov witness' is under the left Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Still, 'Yakov witness' is a valid signature. 
          The left Get should also be valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a witness signed 'Ploni, witness', the 
               signature is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> The case is, he signed 'Reuven ben Yakov', 
          and did not write 'witness' at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> He wrote 'witness', but we know that 'Yakov 
          witness' is unlike Yakov's signature (so we cannot accept 
          is for a signature).
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET SIGNED IN GREEK</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses a case in which two Gitin were written on the same scroll, side by side. Two Hebrew witnesses signed the document, their signatures starting under the Get on the right side and concluding under the Get on the left. (<b>RASHI</b> (DH Shenayim) explains that the name of the first witness was under the right Get and his father's name was under the left Get, as was the name of the second witness and his father's name). Two Jews from Greece also signed the Get.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the difference between Hebrew and Greek signatories is the way they sign their names. When a Greek signs 'Yosef ben Shimon,' this means that his name is Shimon and he is the son of Yosef (or Shimon ben Yosef); 'Yosef ben Shimon' means that the 'ben' of Yosef is Shimon. Therefore, when a Jew signed the Get in Greek, his name is under the left Get and his father's name is under the right Get.
</p><p>
The Gemara (87b) explains that the reason why the second Get is invalid in the case of the Mishnah is the concern that the witnesses signed 'Gundalis,' in an unusual way (i.e. the Greek witnesses signed their names in the method of Hebrew signatures, writing their names on the right and their fathers' names on the left. (The <b>ME'IRI</b> writes that 'Gundalis' refers to one who imitates the actions of others.) Consequently, three witnesses may have signed on one Get, and there may be only one witness on the second Get.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains the differences between Hebrew and Greek signatures differently. Unlike Hebrew and Arabic, all of Greek writing is from left to right. The <b>BARTENURA</b> adds that the reason why only one Get is valid is that the second set of witnesses may have changed their way of writing to conform with the first set. The Greeks might have written their signatures from right to left like their Hebrew counterparts, in which case all four witnesses are signed on just one Get.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS YOM TOV</b> questions the Rambam's explanation. He asks that if the foreign language to which the Mishnah refers is similar in nature to any of the languages in the Tosfos Yom Tov's region ('such as German, French, Spanish, and Italian'), there is no reason to suspect that the witnesses would change the order in which they normally write. The Tosfos Yom Tov accepts Rashi's explanation because it is more likely that the Greek witness simply changed the order of his name, writing his given name before his father's name to conform with the style of signing in Hebrew.
</p><p>
The question of the Tosfos Yom Tov on the Rambam's explanation is a very strong question. How might the Rambam answer this question?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that when the Rambam explains the concern of the Gemara that the later witnesses changed the order of their writing, he does not mean that they changed the order in which they write the letters of a word. They would not have written the name 'Yakov' as 'Vokay,' for example. Rather, they changed the order in which they normally write <i>words</i>. When the Tosfos Yom Tov asserts that it is highly unlikely that the Greek witnesses wrote in reverse, he refers to changing the order of the letters within the word itself. The possibility that they changed the orders of words is more realistic. (According to the Me'iri's explanation of 'Gundalis' as one who imitates others, this possibility is easier to understand.)
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests a logical reason for why the Greek witnesses might have changed the order of the letters when they signed. When they see that the Hebrew witness who signed before him started his signature under the Get on the right side, he also wishes to do this because the main part of a signature is the beginning of the signature and not necessarily where the person's given name is located. The Pnei Yehoshua adds that although this is not the opinion of Rashi, it may be a valid explanation for the words of the Rambam. (See also <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>.) (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We should assume that Reuven signed his 
          father's name (and this is a valid signature)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> One would not sign his father's name in place 
          of his own name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Reuven regularly signs his father's 
          name, like a symbol in lieu of his own name!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav would draw a fish in lieu of signing his 
               name...Rav Chisda would write a 'Samech'...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> One is not so brazen to use his father's name 
          for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The right Get should be Kosher due to the 
          Hebrew witnesses, and the left Get due to the Yevanis 
          witnesses!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Get was written in Hebrew and the 
               witnesses signed in Yevanis, or vice-versa, it is 
               Kosher.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the left Get is not Kosher 
               because two lines (occupied by the Hebrew 
               signatures) separate the Yevanis signatures from the 
               Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Chizkiyah taught that if relatives (who 
               are Pasul witnesses) signed empty lines between a 
               Get and the Kosher witnesses, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Ze'iri taught a Beraisa that says that 
          both Gitin are Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Tana is concerned lest the Yevanim also signed 
               right to left (to be consistent with the Hebrew 
               witnesses. If so, they also testify about the right 
               Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one witness signed underneath in Hebrew, 
          and under him a witness signed in Yevanis, then a Hebrew 
          witness, then a Yevanis, both Gitin are Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rashi) Suggestion:</font></b> The right Get should be 
          Kosher with a Hebrew and a Yevani witness, and also the 
          left Get! (The case is, the middle two witnesses started 
          signing on one line and finished on the next. If we 
          assume that each signed normally in his language, each 
          Get has one Hebrew and one Yevani witness.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Ze'iri taught a Beraisa that says that 
          both Gitin are Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Tana is unsure on which Get the bottom three 
               signatures signed. Perhaps (any or all of them) 
               deviated from the way of his language, in order to 
               sign like the witness above him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Tosfos) Suggestion:</font></b> The (right) Get should be 
          Kosher with a Hebrew witness and a Yevani witness (even 
          if we were concerned that the bottom witnesses signed 
          backwards! If we were not concerned, it would be Kosher 
          with the two Hebrew witnesses, and the left Get would be 
          Kosher through the Yevani witnesses!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Ze'iri taught a Beraisa that says that 
          both Gitin are Kosher!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Tana is concerned, perhaps the three bottom 
               signatures all signed left to right (the Yevanim - 
               as is normal in Yevanis; the second Hebrew witness 
               mimicked the Yevani witness above him), therefore, 
               we cannot declare the Get valid.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>GITIN WRITTEN IN DIFFERENT WAYS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If part of the Get was written in a different 
          column and the witnesses signed below, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If witnesses signed at the top of the page, or on the 
          side, or on the other side of a normal Get, it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If two Gitin are written on one page, and the witnesses 
          signed in between, and each Get begins at the signatures 
          (and goes outwards), both are Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If both Gitin end at the signatures, the Get that is 
               above the signatures when the Get is positioned so 
               that we can read the signatures (right-side up) is 
               Kosher. The other is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one of the Gitin ends at the signatures, it is 
               Kosher, and the other is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If a Get was written in Hebrew and the signatures 
               are in Yevanis, or vice-versa, or one witness signed 
               in Hebrew and the other in Yevanis, it is Kosher;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If the Get is in a scribe's handwriting and one witness 
          signed, it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The following are valid signatures - 'Ploni (is a) 
          witness', 'the son of Ploni is a witness', 'Ploni the son 
          of Almoni' (even though he did not write 'witness').
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> People of Yerushalayim who spoke concisely would 
               sign Gitin this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If family names of the husband and wife were used, it is 
          Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> When the Get finishes in a second 
          column, we should be concerned lest two Gitin were 
          written, one in each column, and the bottom of the Get in 
          the first column was cut off, and also the top of the Get 
          in the second column!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Aba):</font></b> The case is, the writing in the first 
          column has blank parchment underneath.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Still, we should be concerned lest the first 
          Get was never finished, and the second column is the end 
          of a different Get (the top was cut off)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We can answer like R. Aba answered above. The 
          case is, the writing in the second column has blank 
          parchment above it.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A GET WRITTEN ON TWO COLUMNS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that if one was unable to finish the writing of a Get on one page and completed it on a second page, the Get is valid as long as the witnesses sign below the text. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Daf) explains that the second page was next to the first in the width of the scroll.
</p><p>
(a) The Mishnah appears to contradict the Gemara earlier (20b) which derives from the word 'Sefer' (Devarim 24:2) that a Get must be comprised of a single document and not two or three.
</p><p>
(b) A similar Gemara in Sotah (18a) derives from the word 'ba'Sefer' (Bamidbar 5:23) that when the Kohen writes the Megilas Sotah he must write it on one page; if he writes it on two or three the Megilah is invalid. Why would the word 'Sefer' imply only one page in the case of Sotah, but more than one page in the case of Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> earlier (20b, DH Sefer) answers in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that when the Gemara in Sotah teaches that a Megilas Sotah written on two pages is invalid, it refers to one Megilah written on two separate, unconnected pages. In contrast, the Mishnah here refers to a Get written on the same parchment but in two columns.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Menachos (33a, DH Kasvah) points out that with regard to Get the Torah writes the word 'Sefer' ('a scroll'), but with regard to Sotah it writes 'ba'Sefer' ('in the scroll'). This means that the Megilas Sotah should be written in a specific Sefer, which implies that if it is written on two pages it is invalid, even if those pages are on the same piece of parchment.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> notes that the Tosefta in Gitin (7:10) states that a Get that was torn is invalid. The fact that the Tosefta makes no mention of any distinction between a torn Get that was not sewn together and one that was implies that if a Get was torn into two pieces it is invalid even if the pieces were sewn back together.
<br> 
<br>In contrast, a Sefer Torah (which is also called a 'Sefer') is considered to be one Sefer when the sections of parchments are sewn together, because this is the way the Sefer Torah was given to Moshe Rabeinu. The Chasam Sofer comments that this is true according to the opinion earlier (60a) that 'Torah -- Megilah Megilah Nitnah' -- 'the Torah was given in sections.' <b>RASHI</b> there (DH Megilah) explains that this means that Moshe Rabeinu transcribed every Parshah as it was said to him, and at the end of forty years he sewed all of the sections together.
</p><p>
Tosfos (DH Torah) points out that even according to the opinion there that 'Torah Chasumah Nitnah' -- 'the Torah was given sealed,' some Parshiyos were written beforehand (as evident from Shemos 24:7). 'Torah Chasumah Nitnah' means merely that certain Parshiyos that were said to Moshe Rabeinu were not given over to be written down when there were other Pesukim that had not yet been given that needed to be written before those Parshiyos. (This means that in some of the cases where 'Ein Mukdam u'Me'uchar ba'Torah' applies, the chronologically earlier Parshah was not written until <i>after</i> the Parshah it would follow was given.) (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET IN TWO COLUMNS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The fact that the Get finishes in another 
          column suggests that it was not written at once;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the first column ends with 'behold you are' and 
               the second column begins with 'permitted', perhaps 
               after writing the first column, the husband canceled 
               the Get, and later resumed writing in the second 
               column!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are not concerned for such far-fetched 
          possibilities.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (3:g, 87b) - Rav Ashi):</font></b> The case 
          is, we can see from the parchment that the scribe 
          intended to write the Get in two columns.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT ARE VALID SIGNATURES?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the witnesses signed at the top (or side, 
          it is Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav used to sign at the side!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The top of Rav's signature faced the Get. The 
          Mishnah disqualifies when the top faces away from the 
          Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If two Gitin are written on one 
               page, and the witnesses signed in between, if each 
               Get begins at the signatures (and goes outwards), 
               both are Pasul;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Get above the top of the signatures should 
                    be valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, the signatures are sideways. 
               Their top faces the side of the page.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Seifa):</font></b> If one of the Gitin ends at the 
               signatures, it is Kosher. The other is Pasul.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the signatures are sideways, they are not 
                    read with either Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, Rav used to sign his name at the side 
          on letters to summon parties to Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Get is in Kesav Sofer (the scribe's 
          handwriting) and one witness signed, it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The text of the Mishnah says 'if a Get has 
          Chasam Sofer (the scribe signed it) and one other witness 
          signed, it is Kosher.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yosi (who says 
               that a Shali'ach cannot appoint other Sheluchim. The 
               Chachamim who argue would disqualify Chasam Sofer, 
               lest the husband told Sheluchim to ask other 
               witnesses to sign, and they asked the scribe to sign 
               lest he be insulted that he was not asked.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  A Kesuvah came in front of R. Avahu. Witnesses recognized 
          the handwriting of the document and one of the witnesses. 
          R. Avahu was about to be Mekayem (validate) the document 
          based on this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yirmeyah:</font></b> The text of the Mishnah is Chasam Sofer. 
          (Kesav Sofer and one witness do not suffice.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS CONSIDERED GETTING OLD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If family names of the husband and wife were 
          used, it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A family name may be used in a Get, until 10 
          generations;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, it may be used only until 
          three generations.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chanina):</font></b> A family name may be used in a Get until 
          three generations.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chanina holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar learns from 'when you 
          will bear children and grandchildren, and grow old in the 
          land.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> Eretz Yisrael was made desolate 
          (the 10 tribes were exiled) only after seven families of 
          kings (of the 10 tribes) served idolatry - Yarav'am, 
          Basha... and Hoshe'a ben Elah, like it says 'the widow 
          bore seven...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ami):</font></b> He learns from 'when you will bear children and 
          grandchildren and grow old.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi):</font></b> '(Hoshe'a ben Elah) 
          was wicked, but not as bad like the kings of Yisrael who 
          preceded him.' If so, why 'Shalmaneser (Sancheriv) will 
          come upon him'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> Yarav'am had set up guards to prevent 
          Yisrael from alighting to Yerushalayim on the festivals. 
          Hoshe'a abolished the guards, but Yisrael still did not 
          come;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m decreed that Yisrael would be exiled 
               corresponding to the years they did not alight.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Hash-m was diligent to bring the 
          evil upon us, for He is a Tzadik.' Why is this a reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Hash-m did Tzedakah (a great 
          benefit) for us by exiling (1000 Chachamim with) 
          Yechanyah (to Bavel) before the exile of (most of Yisrael 
          with) Tzidkiyahu (so Yisrael would have teachers) - 
          'ha'Cheresh veha'Masger Elef)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Cheresh' are Chachamim who make others like deaf-
               mutes (unable to challenge what was said). 'Masger' 
               are great Chachamim, that when they finish, no one 
               opens (questions their conclusion).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ula):</font></b> Hash-m benefited us by not allowing us 
          to stay in the land for 852 years (the numerical value of 
          'v'Noshantem (you will become antiquated),' lest we be 
          subject to the accompanying curse 'you will perish.' 
          Rather, He exiled us two years before this.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WRITING, STOPPING, AND RESTARTING A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (87b) states that if one was unable to finish the writing of a Get on one page and completed it on a second page, the Get is valid as long as the witnesses sign below the text. The Gemara asks why there is no concern that the Get was originally two separate Gitin. The husband might have forged this Get by cutting out the date from the second Get and the signatures of the witnesses from the first Get (and he put together the first Get, which he cut at the bottom, and the second Get, which he cut at the top, to give the appearance of a single Get).
</p><p>
The Gemara suspects that the husband would do such a thing because perhaps there was a condition written in the first Get which the husband did not want to include. He therefore used the witnesses on the second Get to make it appear as though the Get was written without the condition.
</p><p>
Rebbi Aba in the name of Rav answers that the Get in the case of the Mishnah is valid where there is a blank space below the first page of the Get. The blank space proves that there is no reason to suspect that the first page was originally a separate Get which contained an unwanted condition.
</p><p>
The Gemara (88a) asks further why there is no concern that in the middle of writing the first page of the Get, the husband changed his mind and decided not to divorce his wife. <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Dilma) explains that the Gemara's question is that if, after writing the first page, he decided not to divorce her, and then some time passed and he changed his mind again and decided to divorce her and he resumed the writing of the Get, the first page of the Get is nullified.
</p><p>
Rashi's assertion -- that the first page of the Get is nullified if the husband decided in the middle of writing the Get not to divorce her -- seems to contradict the Gemara earlier (32b). The Gemara asks what the Halachah is in the case of a husband who nullifies a Get and then decides that he still wants to use that Get. Rav Nachman answers that he indeed may use the Get, and the Gemara states that the Halachah follows Rav Nachman.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi here state that if the husband decides in the middle of writing a Get that he does not want to give it that he cannot later change his mind and complete the Get, if Rav Nachman rules that he <i>may</i> use such a Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Dilma) answers in the name of <b>RABEINU EZRA HA'NAVI</b> that a distinction must be made between whether he had finished writing the Get or not. When Rav Nachman says that the Get is valid even after the man changed his mind, he refers to a Get which was completed. In contrast, the Gemara here discusses a Get that was nullified by the husband's retraction <i>before</i> it was completed. Rav Nachman agrees that in this case, the first part of the Get is nullified, since the husband changed his mind before it became a valid Get.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> (48b of the pages of the Rif) answers in the name of the <b>RAMBAN</b> that the husband originally appoint a scribe to write a Get for his wife, and after the scribe had written half of the Get the husband retracted and ordered the scribe not to complete it. Since the husband nullified the <i>Shelichus</i>, the scribe is no longer the husband's agent to write the Get. When the husband afterwards told the scribe that he changed his mind again and that the scribe should complete the writing of the Get, he appointed him as a Shali'ach to write only <i>half</i> of the Get. Such a Shali'ach is not able to effect a divorce. (The <b>RAN</b> questions the answer of the Ramban. See the <b><b><b>OR</b></b> GADOL</b> (9:1, also cited in footnote #473 to <b>CHIDUSHEI RASHBA</b>) who explains the Ramban's position.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> himself asserts that there is no problem in appointing a Shali'ach to write only half a Get. He explains that the Gemara's question is that there should be a concern that when the husband originally retracted his decision to divorce his wife, he nullified the Shelichus of the scribe, and, afterwards, when the husband decided again to divorce her, the scribe did not take notice to any new appointment as Shali'ach. Rather, the scribe simply completed the writing of the Get on the basis of his original appointment, which in fact was cancelled. Therefore, the Get should be invalid. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> We may derive that 852 years 
               is considered 'quickly' according to Hashem's 
               standards ('you will quickly perish').
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A COERCED GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If (a Beis Din of) Yisre'elim forced a man to 
          divorce his wife, it is valid. If Nochrim forced him, it 
          is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The case is, the Nochrim beat him, telling him to do 
               like Chachmei Yisrael say.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Nachman):</font></b> A Get coerced legally (i.e. when 
          he is obligated to divorce) by Yisre'elim is valid. If it 
          was illegally coerced, it is Pasul and is Posel 
          (disqualifies her from Kehunah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If it was coerced legally by Nochrim, it is Pasul and is 
          Posel. If it was coerced illegally by Nochrim, it is not 
          even Posel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Nochrim have the power to force us to 
          divorce, a legally coerced Get should be valid. If they 
          have no such power, it should not be Posel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, a Get legally 
          coerced by Nochrim is valid. Chachamim decreed that it is 
          Pasul, lest women who want to be divorced get Nochrim to 
          coerce their husbands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, a Get coerced illegally should be 
          Posel, just like a Get coerced illegally by Yisre'elim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Mesharshiya's answer is wrong.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, a Get legally coerced by Nochrim 
          is Pasul. Chachamim decreed that it is Posel, lest it be 
          confused with a Get coerced legally by Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Get coerced illegally by Nochrim will not be 
               confused with a Get coerced legally by Yisrael, so 
               there is no need to decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef was forcing a man to give a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> We (Chachamim of Bavel) are like 
          commoners. We cannot coerce to divorce!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> 'These are the judgments that 
               you will put before them' - one may not go for 
               judgment in front of Nochrim, even if their law (in 
               the case) is the same as Torah law;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also, we expound 'before them (expert judges)', and 
               not before commoners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We are Sheluchim (to coerce Gitin) on 
          behalf of the expert judges in Eretz Yisrael, just like 
          we are their Sheluchim to judge cases of admissions (of 
          debt) and loans.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, we should be Sheluchim also to judge 
          thefts and injuries!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are Sheluchim to judge only admissions and 
          loans, for these are frequent.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>RUMORS OF KIDUSHIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If there are rumors in the city that Leah was 
          Mekudeshes, we consider her to be Mekudeshes;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If there are rumors in the city that she was divorced, we 
          consider her to be divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only if there is no excuse (a way to 
               discredit the rumors).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Examples of excuses are if Leah was divorced on 
               condition, or Kidushin money was thrown to her, and 
               we were in doubt if it landed closer to her or to 
               him. These are excuses (why there are rumors. In 
               truth, perhaps the divorce or Kidushin was found to 
               be invalid!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> (If there are rumors that a Kohen 
          divorced his wife,) do we really forbid her to him?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are not concerned for any rumors that 
               started after Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means that if there are rumors in the 
          city that Leah was Mekudeshes, we consider her to be 
          Mekudeshes. If there are rumors that she was Mekudeshes 
          and divorced, we consider her to be Mekudeshes and 
          divorced. (I.e. the rumors came at the time of Kidushin, 
          before Nisu'in).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can we rely on rumors (that she was 
          divorced) to permit her?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> These rumors break the rumors that she was 
          Mekudeshes.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A RUMOR IS NOT BELIEVED TO CHANGE A WOMAN'S STATUS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a rumor ('Kol') goes out in the town that a certain woman is married, she is given the status of a married woman. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Yatza) explains that the Mishnah refers to a rumor that a certain unmarried woman is getting married to a certain man, and there is some evidence that suggests that the rumor is true (as discussed later in the Gemara). Rashi (DH Harei) writes that if she wants to marry someone else, she must first obtain a Get from her first, 'rumored' husband.
</p><p>
The Mishnah continues and states that if a rumor goes out in the town that a certain woman is a divorcee, she is given the status of a divorcee. Rashi (DH Megureshes) explains that the Mishnah, at this stage, is understood to refer to a rumor about the wife of a Kohen who was divorced today. She is forbidden to stay with her husband since a Kohen is forbidden to live with a divorcee. Rashi explains that the Mishnah cannot refer to a rumor that <i>any</i> married woman was divorced and that this rumor should allow her to marry someone else, because a woman who is known to be married clearly cannot become permitted to marry someone else on the basis of a mere rumor.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions the second part of the Mishnah. Rav Ashi ruled that we give no credence to rumors that go out after one's marriage. Why, then, is the wife of the Kohen required to leave her husband because of the rumor that she is divorced? Rashi (DH Lo) explains that a woman is forced to leave her husband only when there is undisputed testimony that she is forbidden to him. A rumor alone is insufficient.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara understand that the Mishnah refers specifically to a woman who was married to a Kohen? The Mishnah may also refer to a woman who, until now, was assumed to be a widow, and the rumor makes her forbidden to marry a Kohen! In such a case, the rumor would not have been one that goes out after the woman's marriage. Consequently, even Rav Ashi would agree in that case that the rumor has the power to prevent her from marrying a Kohen later. Why does the Gemara not suggest that this is the case of the Mishnah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that the second part of the Mishnah, which discusses the case of a rumor about a divorce, cannot refer to an unmarried woman about whom it is rumored that she was divorced. This would not add anything that was not known from the first part of the Mishnah, that a rumor that a woman was married is sufficient to prevent her from marrying someone else. It must be that the second part of the Mishnah means something different -- that a rumor can even make her forbidden to her present husband.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> gives a different answer. The rumor which says that the woman, who until now was assumed to a widow, is a divorcee, is not valid -- even though it is a rumor which spread before marriage. The reason it is not valid even though it spread before marriage is that it comes to remove the woman from her Chazakah, the status she had until now. A rumor does not have the power to remove a person from her status.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Kreskas explains this idea further. The primary factor in determining whether or not a rumor is valid is whether or not the rumor challenges the accuracy of the present status-quo, or whether it merely adds new information. For example, the Gemara (89a) writes that if a rumor says that a certain woman was married today, the rumor is believed. That rumor does not challenge or refute her status until now, but rather it says merely that today her status has changed. However, if the rumor contradicts the woman's previously-known status, such as a rumor that says that a woman who was known to be single was married a few weeks ago, the rumor has no credence. 
</p><p>
Rabeinu Kreskas adds that this is the reasoning behind another law cited by the Gemara here (89a). The Gemara says that a rumor which says that a woman is a Be'ulah is disregarded. This is because the rumor would remove the woman from the Chazakah that she possessed until now. Rabeinu Kreskas maintains that even if there was a strong rumor that she was a Be'ulah (for example, one witness heard that she was a Be'ulah from two witnesses who went overseas) it is still not believed.
</p><p>
(Rabeinu Kreskas points out that there are other factors which may invalidate even a rumor which adds information. For example, when the Gemara says that if a rumor says that a woman is not a Besulah, it is not given credence even if the rumor says that she became a Be'ulah <i>today</i> (and does not contradict any previous knowledge of her status). It is possible that the rumor started because the girl was seen doing improper things with a man. However, this does not mean that she is actually not a Besulah. See Rabeinu Kreskas at length for other examples.) (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOR WHICH RUMORS ARE WE CONCERNED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If there are rumors that she had Bi'as Zenus, we 
          are not concerned for this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because we assume that the rumors started 
               due to mere lewdness, not Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue about this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a woman ate, walked 
               haughtily, or nursed a baby in the market, her 
               husband must divorce her (lest she had or will have 
               Bi'as Zenus);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, he need not divorce her until she 
               becomes the subject of gossiping women.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan ben Nuri:</font></b> If so, anyone who hates a 
               woman can break up her marriage by starting rumors. 
               The Torah said that one must divorce only due to 
               Ervas Davar (infidelity)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We learn a Gezeirah Shavah between 'Ervas 
                    Davar' and 'according to two or three witnesses 
                    a Davar (matter) will be established.' In both 
                    cases, solid evidence is required.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We are not concerned for the following rumors:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Leah is not a virgin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She was fully married or Mekudeshes (a while ago);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> She was Mekudeshes today in another city, or even 
               here, but the rumor omits the name of the husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> She is a Mamzeres or slave
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> She was Mekudeshes today in another city;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Reuven made his property Hekdesh or Hefker.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> We are not concerned for mere hearsay (that Leah 
          was Mekudeshes), unless there were lamps burning, spread 
          beds, and people were going in and out saying 'Leah will 
          be Mekudeshes today.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should we be concerned? They said she will 
          be Mekudeshes. Perhaps she did not become Mekudeshes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, they said she became Mekudeshes 
          today.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Levi - Beraisa):</font></b> We are concerned only if there were 
          spread beds and women happily weaving by burning lamps 
          and saying 'Leah will be Mekudeshes today.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should we be concerned? Perhaps she did not 
          become Mekudeshes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, they said that she became 
          Mekudeshes today.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> We are concerned only if lamps 
          were burning, beds were spread and people were going in 
          and out;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If they said something, we are concerned. If not, 
               this is an excuse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If they didn't say anything, this is not an 
          excuse. There is no concern!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This clause teaches unlike Rabah bar Rav Huna, 
          who says that an excuse can come even 10 days later;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rabah bar bar Chanah holds that if there was talk 
               about Kidushin, an excuse will not help later.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> We are not concerned for mere hearsay, unless 
          two bearers of the rumor say from whom they heard, and 
          also their sources, and we can trace the rumors until we 
          reach clarity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If we reach clarity, that is testimony (not 
          mere rumors)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Aba):</font></b> The 
          bearers of the rumor must name their sources, who are now 
          overseas.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SILENCING RUMORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Does Beis Din silence unsubstantiated 
          rumors?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Chisda said that the bearers must 
          name sources who are valid witnesses. Since we are 
          concerned only for solid rumors, it follows that we 
          silence unsubstantiated rumors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> Just the opposite! Rav Sheshes said 
          that we are concerned even for rumors from women - it 
          follows, we do not silence rumors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Different places conduct differently. 
          In Sura, they silence rumors. In Neharde'a, they do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  There was a rumor that Leah became Mekudeshes to a 
          Talmid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Chama:</font></b> What happened?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Her father:</font></b> She was Mekudeshes on condition that he 
               will not go to Bei Chuzai, and he went!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Chama:</font></b> Since this excuse was not heard when the 
               rumor started, you are not believed (to quell the 
               rumor).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  There was a rumor that Leah received remnants of dates 
          left on pits (which are fitting for animals) for Kidushin 
          money, near a spring.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Idi bar Avin):</font></b> What is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> All agree that we silence such a 
               rumor. People will assume that it was found that the 
               date remnants were not worth a Perutah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rumors came out that Leah became Mekudeshes to one of 
          Reuven's sons.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CONCERN FOR A RUMOR THAT A WOMAN BECAME MARRIED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that one is not concerned about a rumor that a girl is a Be'ulah and not a Besulah (as she was previously known to be). <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ein) explains that she still may marry a Kohen Gadol who is commanded to marry only a Besulah.
</p><p>
(The Rishonim have difficulty understanding why Rashi addresses only the issue of marrying a Kohen Gadol, when there are other, more practical, applications. See <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Be'ulah) and the <b>RASHBA</b>.)
</p><p>
The Beraisa continues and says that a rumor of 'she'Lo l'Ploni' ('not to him') is not given credence. Rashi (DH she'Lo) explains that the rumor says that a certain woman was married today, but the rumor does not include the name of the groom. The Beraisa also says that a rumor of 'b'Ir Acheres' ('in a different city') has no credence. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Ir) explains that we pay no attention to a rumor that a woman was married today in another town.
</p><p>
The <b>AVNEI MILU'IM</b> (46:1, DH v'Lachen) cites commentaries who explain that these rumors lack critical information and are thus rendered cryptic and ambiguous reports, and not explicit and accurate rumors which would more likely be believed.
</p><p>
However, Rashi (DH Ein Chosheshin) explains that the reason why no credence is given to a rumor that a woman is a Be'ulah is that it may be that the witnesses merely saw her acting indecently with a man but did not actually see her have relations with him. Why does Rashi give this reason? Even if the witnesses saw her have relations, as long as they do not mention the identity of the man with whom she had relations and where it happened, their report is considered an unspecific rumor and should have no credence.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> 
<br>(a) The <b>AVNEI MILU'IM</b> prefaces his answer by explaining that in cases where a rumor is given credence, the rumor has credence only to prohibit the woman from remarrying l'Chatchilah until she receives a Get from the man whom the rumor reports she married. However, b'Di'eved she is not prohibited from staying with the 'second' man she married even though there is a rumor that she was married to someone else first. Accordingly, if a rumor says that she married a certain man, she is not allowed to remarry l'Chatchilah until she receives a Get from that man. Since his identity is known, she must receive a Get from him. However, when the rumor says that she married a man but his identity is not known, the case is considered to be b'Di'eved (and she may marry someone else) because it is impossible for her to request a Get (because the identity of her rumored husband is unknown).
</p><p>
The Avnei Milu'im adds that this is also the reason why a rumor that she was married in a different town has no credence. Although the rumor says that she was married to a certain man, the rumor does not say where that man lives. Consequently, since it is not possible for her to seek that man and ask him for a Get (as the rumor does not say where he lives), this situation is also classified as b'Di'eved, and thus she is permitted to remarry. However, if the rumor says that she was married to Reuven <i>and</i> it says in which city he resides, she would be required to obtain a Get on the basis of this rumor, since it is possible for her to do so.
</p><p>
Applying these principles, the Avnei Milu'im explains why Rashi writes specifically that the rumor that a woman is a Be'ulah has no credence because witnesses may seen only improper conduct and not actual relations. Although the rumor does not specify with whom she had relations or where the act occurred, the rumor would have been given credence if not for the possibility hat the witnesses observed only improper activity. Consequently, since she would have been permitted to marry a man other than the Kohen Gadol, l'Chatchilah she is not permitted to marry the Kohen Gadol. The only reason to allow her to marry the Kohen Gadol l'Chatchilah is that the information contained in the rumor may not be accurate.
</p><p>
There is a difficulty in the Avnei Milu'im's explanation of Rashi. Rashi (DH b'Ir) writes that the rumor <i>does</i> state the town in which she married. Accordingly, she should be required to go to that town and obtain a Get from her rumored husband. Nevertheless, Rashi apparently understands that the rumor does not specify the identity of the man, and thus the logic of the Avnei Milu'im's answer is still valid: since it is not possible for her to obtain a Get from her rumored husband, the situation is deemed b'Di'eved.
</p><p>
The <b>NODA B'YEHUDAH</b> (EH 1:61) supports the approach of the Avnei Milu'im, that where there is no possibility for the woman to obtain a Get the rumor is not given credence. The Noda b'Yehudah explains that this is the reason why the Gemara states that a rumor that a woman is a Mamzeres or Shifchah is given no credence. Since such a rumor would prevent her from marrying any kosher Jew with no recourse whatsoever, it is deemed a b'Di'eved situation.
</p><p>
(b) It is possible that we can suggest another explanation for Rashi. A marriage is usually a publicized event where everyone's identity is known. The couple have no reason to hide their identities, as they will be living together. When the groom's name cannot be ascertained, this is indeed critical information that questions the authenticity of the rumor. However, when witnesses would see a girl engaged in improper activity with a man, generally the two parties are trying to keep their relationship a secret. The man would probably not disclose his name to just anyone who asked him 'at the scene of the crime.' Accordingly, the lack of knowing who made the girl into a Be'ulah is not necessarily information that takes away the credibility of the rumor. This may be why Rashi suggested a more likely problem with the rumor, that the witnesses may not have clearly seen that she became a Be'ulah. (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> All agree that we silence such a rumor. 
               People will say that it was found that a minor was 
               Mekadesh her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rumors came out that Leah became Mekudeshes to Shimon, 
          who was a minor as tall as an adult.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> (All agree that we silence such a 
               rumor). People realize that he is immature, and they 
               will say that it was found that he is a minor.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXCUSES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> An excuse can come even 10 days 
          later.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Zvid):</font></b> Even the possibility of an excuse is like an 
          excuse.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa - Mishnah):</font></b> As long as there is not an 
          excuse...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Zvid):</font></b> It means 'as long as there is not the 
          possibility of an excuse.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Zvid - Rav Kahana - Mishnah):</font></b> If (Leah's 
          husband Reuven went overseas and one witness told her 
          that Reuven died, and) Levi was Mekadesh her, and Reuven 
          returned, she is permitted to Reuven.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Even though people will assume that 
               Reuven divorced her, we are not concerned, for they 
               will assume that Levi's Kidushin was on condition!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> There is different, for Reuven 
          returned. (They will suspect that she was not divorced, 
          rather she thought that Reuven died.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, she should be permitted even if she 
          married Levi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she remarried, she transgressed, so she is 
          fined. If she only became Mekudeshes, she did not 
          transgress, so she is not fined.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are not concerned for a rumor that was not 
          affirmed by Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We are not concerned for a rumor that started 
          after Leah was married.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> We are concerned for rumors that started 
               after Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chaviva):</font></b> We are not concerned for rumors that 
          started after Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah is, we are not concerned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN APPARENT SECOND MARRIAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Bei Rav):</font></b> If there were rumors that Reuven was 
          Mekadesh Leah, and then Shimon was Mekadesh her with 
          witnesses, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> She must leave Shimon. You should 
          clarify the matter and inform me.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What did Shmuel intend to do when he hears?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If he hears that the rumors were 
               unsubstantiated, he will silence the rumors.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Shmuel is from Neharde'a. In Neharde'a 
               they do not silence rumors!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If the rumors are found to be true, she does not 
          need a Get from Shimon. He argues with Rav Huna:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If Sarah was (assumed to be) married to 
               Levi, and she accepted Kidushin money from Yehudah, 
               she is Mekudeshes to Yehudah, due to Rav Hamnuna's 
               law.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If a woman said to her husband 
                    'you divorced me' she is believed, for a woman 
                    lacks the audacity to say such a lie to her 
                    husband.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel holds that Rav Hamnuna's law applies only 
               when she says this in front of her husband, but she 
               is able to lie when not in front of him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do we do if the rumors are found to be 
          unsubstantiated?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> Reuven divorces her, and she 
          marries Shimon. We do not allow that Shimon divorce her 
          and she will marry Reuven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> People will say that the rumors were true, Reuven 
          divorced her, and now he is Machazir Gerushaso (remarries 
          his ex-wife) after she became Mekudeshes to another man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Shinena brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> We even allow 
          that Shimon divorces her and she marries Reuven.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> People will say that Chachamim investigated and 
               found that Shimon's Kidushin was Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If there are rumors that Sarah became 
          Mekudeshes to Levi, and later rumors that she became 
          Mekudeshes to Yehudah, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Also in this case, Levi divorces 
          her, and she marries Yehudah (but not vice-versa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ameimar):</font></b> She can marry either one (after 
          receiving a Get from the other).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Ameimar.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHICH OF THE TWO MARRIAGES WAS A MISTAKE?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The students of Rav's academy sent a question to Shmuel: 'If there was a Kol (rumor) that a woman was married to one man, and then a second man came and performed a Torah marriage with her, what is the law?' Shmuel replied that she must leave both men until her true status is clarified. 
</p><p>
The Gemara later asks what the law is in a case in which there is no way to confirm the validity of the original rumor. Rav Huna says that the first husband must divorce her and the second one may marry her. It is forbidden for the second man to divorce her and the first man to marry her. The reason is that people will think that she was legally married to the first man who then divorced her, and she subsequently married the second, and when he divorces her and she returns to the first, they will say that the first husband is transgressing the Isur d'Oraisa of 'Machzir Gerushaso.'
</p><p>
Rav Shinena the son of Rav Idi disagrees with Rav Huna and maintains that the second man is permitted to divorce her, and she may marry the first man. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Eini) explains that Rav Shinena reasons that people will conclude that the Chachamim investigated the second marriage and found that it was in fact not valid. Although the second man is required to give her a Get, most people will not know about the Get and will conclude, when she returns to the first man, that the second marriage was simply invalid.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain that people will think that the Chachamim investigated the second marriage and found that it was invalid? It seems more logical to explain that the Chachamim investigated the <i>first</i> marriage (which was only a rumor) and found that <i>it</i> was not valid. This is more logical than to say that the second marriage, which took place in front of witnesses, was a mistake. 
</p><p>
Indeed, <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Amar) does not explain the Gemara like Rashi. Tosfos writes that if the Chachamim were unable to determine whether the first rumor was true, 'There is only a Kol for the first marriage.' The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that this implies that people will assume that since there was only a rumor about the first marriage, it is likely that the Chachamim investigated it and found it to be erroneous. The Maharsha says that this is also implied by a similar comment made by Tosfos later (90a, DH v'Hilchesa). 
</p><p>
Why does Rashi write that the Chachamim investigated the <i>second</i> marriage and found it to be invalid, when it is more logical to say that they investigated the <i>first</i> marriage and found it to be a mistake?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Rashi maintains that it is more logical to explain that people assume that the second marriage was found to be a mistake rather than the first. Since there was a rumor that she was married to the first man, it is more likely that she indeed was married to him.
</p><p>
The Maharsha cites a strong proof for Rashi's position from the Gemara that immediately follows. The Gemara discusses what the Halachah would be in a case in which no witnesses saw the marriage to the second man, but it is known only through a rumor, in the same way that there is only a rumor about the marriage to the first man (see Rashi DH Yatza). Ameimar says that in such a case the woman is allowed to marry whichever man she wants, as long as she receives a Get from the other. The Gemara (90a) rules according to Ameimar. 
</p><p>
The Gemara strongly implies that even Rav Huna (who maintains that when the second marriage was observed by witnesses, only the second man is allowed to marry her) agrees that in this case the second man may divorce her and the first one may marry her. This is stated explicitly by Rashi (DH Muteres). Moreover, Tosfos himself (DH Af ba'Zeh) says that Rav Huna would agree to this ruling.
</p><p>
Combining the logic of these two cases, the Maharsha analyzes the explanations of Rashi and Tosfos. According to Tosfos' approach in the first case of the Gemara in which Rav Shinena maintains that people will say that the mistake was with the first marriage, it follows that Rav Huna who argues maintains that people will not say there was a mistake with the first marriage. This is despite the fact that there was only a rumor that she was married to the first man.
</p><p>
This logic applies to the second case of the Gemara in the following way. In the second case of the Gemara, there was only a rumor about the second marriage as well. It follows that we cannot assume that people will say that there was a mistake in the first marriage. Therefore, the woman should be forbidden to the first man. This creates a difficulty for Tosfos who maintains that everyone agrees that she is permitted to the first man.
</p><p>
However, according to Rashi's approach that in the first case Rav Shinena maintains that people will say that the mistake was with the second marriage, it is logical that in the first case of the Gemara, Rav Huna does not permit her to marry the first man. Since the second marriage was done according to Torah law, people will not say that there was a mistake in it. In contrast, when there was only a rumor that she was married to the second man, people will assume that there was a mistake with the second marriage. This is why Rav Huna permits her to marry the first man in the second case of the Gemara; in that case, people will say that the second marriage was a mistake. If the second marriage was never valid she may marry the first man, because Rav Huna agrees that people will not know that the second man was required to give her a Get (see also <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>). This is why Rashi explains that people will assume that the problem is with the second marriage. (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One may divorce his wife only if 
          'he found in her Ervah (immorality)';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, even if she burned the food, he may 
          divorce her - 'he found in her Ervas (or) Davar (a 
          matter)';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva permits even if he found a prettier woman - 'if 
          she does not find grace in his eyes.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa - Beis Hillel):</font></b> It says 'matter' (it is 
          permitted even if he did not find Ervah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Shamai:</font></b> It says 'Ervah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Hillel:</font></b> Had it said only 'Ervah', we would agree. 
          Had it said only 'Davar', one might have thought that one 
          divorced due to a Davar (e.g. burning the food) may 
          remarry; but one divorced due to Ervah may never remarry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Therefore, the Torah needed to say both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do Beis Shamai learn from 'Davar'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They learn a Gezeirah Shavah 'Davar-Davar.' Just 
          like we need two witnesses for monetary or bodily 
          punishment, also to forbid a woman to her husband due to 
          adultery.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Hillel:</font></b> If so, it should say 'Ervah b'Davar'!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Shamai:</font></b> The way you learn, it should say 'Ervah 
               or a Davar'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Hillel:</font></b> The construct form 'Ervas Davar' 
               suggests that we learn both.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Akiva):</font></b> Even if he found a prettier 
          woman...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  They argue about Reish Lakish's teaching.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The word 'Ki' has four meanings: 
               'if', 'perhaps', 'rather', and 'because';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai explain 'she will not find grace in his 
               eyes because he found Ervah in her.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva explains 'whether she will not find grace 
               in his eyes, (or) if he found Ervah in her.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If he found neither Ervah nor a 
          Davar (such as burning the food) and divorced her, what 
          is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Regarding one who raped a woman, it says 
          'he may not divorce her his entire life.' (If he divorced 
          her,) for the rest of his life he is commanded to remarry 
          her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, it does not say that he must remarry her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW TO TREAT ONE'S WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> If a man cohabits with his 
          wife, intending to divorce her, will he be punished 
          (b'Yedei Shamayim)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Yes! 'Do not plan evil against your 
          companion who trusts you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> Just like people have different 
          natures regarding food, also regarding women;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some people spill out their wine if a fly fell in. 
               This corresponds to one who locks his wife in the 
               house, so she won't speak with other men;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This was the conduct of Papus ben Yehudah. (It 
                    caused enmity. His wife was Mezanah, and she 
                    gave birth to Yeshu.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Most people remove a fly that fell in the wine. 
               Correspondingly, a normal man allows his wife to 
               speak with her relatives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Some people suck the food off a fly that fell in 
               their food. This corresponds to an evil man who does 
               not protest when he sees his wife go out with 
               uncovered hair, weave in public with her elbows 
               exposed, or bathe with men.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PLACEMENT OF THE LAST MISHNAH OF GITIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The last Mishnah of the Masechta discusses the grounds for which a man may divorce his wife. This Mishnah seems to be out of place. It would seem more appropriate to place this Mishnah at the beginning of the Masechta, since it is so fundamental to the topic of Gitin. Moreover, the Mishnah which <i>does</i> appear at the beginning of the Masechta seems to be out of place; the first Mishnah discusses a somewhat uncommon, random case of a Shali'ach who delivers a Get from Medinas ha'Yam to Eretz Yisrael, who must state a specific formula when he hands over the Get. Why does the Masechta start with the laws of a specific, uncommon case, instead of discussing the fundamental reasons for which a man may divorce his wife -- a discussion which it leaves until the very last Mishnah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The last Mishnah cites the opinion of Beis Hillel who maintains that a man may divorce his wife even if she burns his food. Rebbi Akiva goes further and rules that a man may divorce his wife simply because he has found a 'more fitting woman.'
</p><p>
One might mistakenly conclude from such rulings that marriage is not a sacrosanct institution in Torah law, and that wives may be chosen and sent away at whim. The truth is that a closer look at the words of the Chachamim reveals that the opposite is true. In many places the Chachamim emphasize how terrible divorce is and how it should be avoided at all costs. (See, for example, the Gemara in Gitin 90b and Sanhedrin 22a.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi did not want to begin the Masechta with this Mishnah for this reason. If this had been the first Mishnah it would have set the tone of the entire Masechta and may have caused a loss of respect for marriage. Therefore, the redactor of the Mishnayos left this Mishnah until the very end of the Masechta, after all of the Mishnayos which discuss the detailed laws of a Get and how the writing of every letter in the Get, as well as its delivery, must be done with great care and caution. Once one has learned those Mishnayos and has become aware of how ominous is the giving of a Get, the Mishnah reveals that the Torah nevertheless allows divorce even in situations which do not <i>demand</i> it (according to Beis Hillel). (The Torah obviously must have good reasons for allowing divorce in such situations despite the fact that it is so discouraged.)
</p><p>
Support for this idea may be found in the words of the <b>MELECHES SHLOMO</b> at the beginning of Gitin. He quotes the <b>TOSFOS SHANTZ</b> who asks why the Mishnah says '<i>ha'Mevi</i> Get,' wording which implies that the delivery of a Get is b'Di'eved and not l'Chatchilah (see Chulin 3a, 13b). He answers that the Mishnah means that the giving of a Get is generally discouraged, as the Gemara at the end of the Masechta implies, and therefore the giving of a Get is never the preferred, l'Chatchilah course of action. According to the explanation offered above, the Tana follows a single theme when he avoids starting the Masechta with the subject of the last Mishnah, and when he uses the word 'ha'Mevi' in the first Mishnah of the Masechta. The Gemara expresses this theme when it concludes the Masechta with an emphasis on how discouraged is divorce.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A WIFE SHOULD WEAR JEWELRY FOR THE SAKE OF 'SHALOM BAYIS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The last Mishnah in Gitin states that Beis Shamai maintains that a man should not divorce his wife unless he found her to be involved in immoral activities. Beis Hillel maintains that a man may divorce his wife even if she merely burned his food. (See <b>TIFERES YISRAEL</b> #57 who writes that this means that she did so deliberately in order to anger him.) Rebbi Akiva maintains that a man may divorce his wife even if he found a more attractive woman to marry.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva apparently is consistent with his opinion in Shabbos (64b). The Gemara there cites a Beraisa which explains the verse, 'The Davah (bleeding woman) is in her Nidah' (Vayikra 15:33). According to the 'Zekenim Rishonim,' this verse means that a Nidah may not dye her eyes, apply rouge to her face, or wear colored clothing. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Nidosah) writes that the Zekenim Rishonim understand the word 'Nidah' to mean that a woman in this state should be distanced from her husband.
</p><p>
This was the accepted Halachah until Rebbi Akiva came and taught that if the woman who is a Nidah may not beautify herself, she will become repulsive to her husband, and eventually her husband will divorce her. Rebbi Akiva's ruling there is consistent with his opinion in the Mishnah here. Since Rebbi Akiva maintains that a man may divorce his wife if he has found a more attractive woman to marry, this would be a serious and common concern whenever his wife became a Nidah if she would not be allowed to beautify herself during that time.
</p><p>
Although Rebbi Akiva is consistent in his rulings, the Halachah in practice seems inconsistent. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 119:3) writes that 'a man should not divorce his first wife unless he has found some Ervas Davar (matter of promiscuity) in her. It is not fitting to rush to send away his first wife.' The Shulchan Aruch clearly does not rule in accordance with the view of Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah here.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> (#3) points out that the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch is problematic, because he seems to rule in accordance with the view of Beis Shamai. The Halachah, however, almost never follows the view of Beis Shamai (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Sukah 3a, DH d'Amar Lach). Moreover, his words, 'It is not fitting to rush to send away his first wife,' seem to have no source and are out of place. Therefore, the Beis Shmuel suggests that it is possible that the Shulchan Aruch actually rules in accordance with the view of Beis Hillel. When the Shulchan Aruch writes the words 'Ervas Davar,' he means either that 'Ervah' (immorality) or some other 'Davar' (another matter, like the burning of food) is sufficient grounds for divorce. (See <b>RASHI</b> on the Mishnah (DH Ervas) who writes that this is Beis Hillel's understanding of the verse 'Ervas Davar.') Although one is permitted to divorce because of some unfavorable thing his wife did (such as burning his food), nevertheless it is not fitting to rush to divorce her for such a thing (see 90b).
</p><p>
While the Halachah with regard to when a man may divorce his wife does not follow the view of Rebbi Akiva, but rather Beis Hillel, the Halachah <i>does</i> follow Rebbi Akiva's view in the laws of Nidah. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 195:9) writes, 'With difficulty the Chachamim permitted her to adorn herself during her days of Nidah only so that she should not become repulsive to her husband.'
</p><p>
How is this apparent contradiction in the Halachah to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MA'ADANEI YOM TOV</b> (#3) on the Rosh in Nidah (10:8) answers that this is not contradictory. Although the Halachah is that a person is forbidden to divorce his wife merely because he found a more attractive woman to marry, nevertheless there still is a concern that if she becomes repulsive to him he will find an excuse to divorce her.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TORAS HA'SHELAMIM</b> (YD 195:11) answers that although Rebbi Akiva states that the reason why a Nidah is allowed to adorn herself is so that her husband will not divorce her, there are other reasons to permit her adornment as well. Although the Halachah is that a man may not divorce his wife because he found a more attractive woman, a man's wife should not allow herself to become repulsive to her husband even if he will never divorce her, as it may affect their marital harmony. This is sufficient reason to permit her to adorn herself when she is a Nidah, even though her husband will not actually come to divorce her if she does not.
</p><p>
The <b>TORAS HA'SHELAMIM</b> cites proof for this reasoning from the Gemara in Nidah (31b). Rebbi Meir there asks why the Torah says that a Nidah must wait seven days until she is permitted to her husband. He answers that if there was no waiting period, a husband would become accustomed to his wife and would no longer be interested in her. The Torah declares that she is Tamei and forbidden for seven days so that the husband will be attracted to her in the same way he was when they were first married. The Toras ha'Shelamim argues that since the reason for the Mitzvah of Nidah is to promote Shalom Bayis, it is illogical that she should be forbidden to adorn herself when she is a Nidah, which would make her repulsive to him and have achieve the opposite objective of that which the Torah intended. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This cannot be! (No one would let 
                    his wife bathe with men! Alternatively, the 
                    lewdest woman would not do so! Alternatively, 
                    this shows that she was Mezanah, surely he must 
                    divorce her.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, she bathes where men 
                    bathe.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> It is a Mitzvah to divorce such a woman - 'he found 
               in her Ervah... he sent her from his house, and she 
               married a different man.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Torah calls her next husband 'different', 
                    for he is unlike the man who divorced her. The 
                    former expelled evil from his house, and the 
                    latter brings evil into his house.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  The next husband deserves to be punished for 
                    this. If he merits, also he will divorce her. 
                    If not, he will die in her lifetime - 'if the 
                    next husband...  will divorce her... or die.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'For he hates, he sends' - one who hates 
          his wife should divorce her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This teaches that one who divorces his 
          wife is hated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They do not argue. R. Yochanan discusses one's first 
               Zivug (destined spouse), and Rav Yehudah discusses 
               his second.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> The Mizbe'ach cries over one who 
               divorces his first wife - 'the Mizbe'ach cries... 
               because you betrayed your companion, the wife of 
               your covenant.'
<br>
<br><b>TAM V'NISHLAM</b>, <b>B'EZRAS HA'TZUR</b>
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) AGADAH: THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE: TO BEAR CHILDREN WHO SERVE HASH-M</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes the verse in Malachi (2:16), 'For hatred, send her away.' Rebbi Yehudah explains that this verse means that if a man hates his wife, he should divorce her. Rebbi Yochanan gives an apparently opposite explanation: 'Someone who sends his wife away is hated.' The Gemara reconciles the two opinions. Rebbi Yochanan refers to a man's first marriage, and Rebbi Yehudah refers to his second marriage.
</p><p>
(The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> points out that the distinction between a first and second marriage is apparent in the Torah. The Torah discusses a man who marries a wife who does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in her an 'Ervas Davar,' a 'matter of immorality,' and then he divorces her (Devarim 24). This implies that a man may divorce his first wife only if he finds an Ervas Davar. However, the next verse discusses a second man who marries the woman after her divorce, and he, too, hates her and divorces her. That verse makes no mention of an Ervas Davar, implying that a man who hates his second wife, even for no apparent reason, may divorce her.)
</p><p>
The Gemara cites proof for the distinction between a first and second marriage from Rebbi Elazar's statement about one who divorces his first wife. Rebbi Elazar said that when a man divorces his first wife, even the Mizbe'ach weeps. The verse in Malachi (2:11) relates that the prophet reproached the Jewish people at the beginning of the period of the second Beis ha'Mikdash for marrying Nochri women. In the following verses, the prophet reproached them for an even worse transgression: 'And this is the second sin that you do, for which the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m is covered with tears, crying and sighing, so that Hash-m will no longer turn to your offerings, to take your sacrifices willingly. And if you ask, why is Hash-m angry? It is because Hash-m testified between you and between the wife of your youth whom you have betrayed, even though she was your friend and the wife of your covenant.'
</p><p>
This later verse describes a graver sin. Previously, Malachi reproached the unmarried men who had married Nochriyos. Now he reproached men who were already married to Jewish women for taking second wives who were not Jewish.
</p><p>
What was the specific grievance of the Jewish wives about their husbands who took Nochri wives, if Hash-m already reproached the men for marrying Nochriyos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> quotes the prophet Malachi who said about men who married Nochriyos: 'Hash-m will cut him off, and he will not have Er or Oneh' (2:12). The Gemara in Shabbos (55b) explains that this means that he will not have an 'Er' among the Chachamim, meaning someone who is sharp ('awake') to understand and instruct the Torah scholars. He also will not possess a son who is 'Oneh,' one who 'answers' among the pupils. The righteous women complained that because their husbands married Nochriyos as well, they will not merit to have righteous children immersed in Torah study.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer explains that the righteous Jewish women were concerned that their children would be swayed away from the ways of Hash-m by the Nochri women. Even though women are not commanded to fulfill the Mitzvah to 'be fruitful and multiply' (see Yevamos 65b), they cried because they preferred to remain barren rather than to bear wicked children who turn away from Hash-m. Their claim may be understood in light of the Gemara in Berachos (17a) which teaches that women earn their share of Olam ha'Ba by sending their sons and husbands to learn Torah. 
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer suggests that this is what the women meant when they quoted the verse, 'For hatred, send her away,' meaning that they preferred to be divorced than to bear children in vain. The Chasam Sofer explains that this is the intent of the verse, 'And what does the one request? The seed of Hash-m' (Malachi 2:15). 'The one' refers to the verse in Bereishis (2:24) which states that a man shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh. (See <b>RASHI</b> to Bereishis 2:24, who explains that 'one flesh' refers to the child that is created by the man and woman together.) The purpose of marriage is to bring into the world 'the one,' which is 'the seed of Hash-m' which serves Him. There is no purpose in bringing into the world children who turn away from Hash-m.
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer explains further the deeper meaning of the verse, 'And they shall be one flesh.' The baby will have the spiritual qualities of both his father and mother, male and female. This means that he will have the female characteristic of 'receiving' from his teacher, and he will have the male characteristic of being able to 'give' and transmit those teachings to others and influence them. When those characteristics are combined in one person, a unique degree of unity is achieved, and Hashem's objective of 'He created them male and female' (Bereishis 1:27) is fulfilled.
</p><p>
This is the purpose of marriage. The husband and wife should merit to bear children who embody 'one flesh,' the unity that is the seed of Hash-m. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


