# dafyomi

lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET FROM ABROAD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who brings a Get (document of divorce) 
          from abroad (Chutz la'Aretz) must say 'it was written and 
          signed in front of me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel obligates even one who brings from Rekem or 
          Cheger;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer obligates even one who brings from a village 
          near Lud to Lud;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, the only one who must say 'it was written 
          and signed in front of me' is one who brings a Get from 
          abroad, one who takes a Get abroad (from Eretz Yisrael), 
          or one who brings a Get from one province to another in 
          Chutz La'aretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel obligates even one who brings from 
          one county (of a governor) to another.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah obligates one who brings from Rekem or 
          eastwards. Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz. 
          From Ashkelon or further south is like Chutz La'aretz. 
          From Ako or further north is like Chutz La'aretz;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  One who brings a Get within Eretz Yisrael need not say 
          'it was written and signed in front of me.' If the Get is 
          contested, it will be verified through its signatures.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE REASON FOR THE ENACTMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why was this enactment made?
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DEFINITION OF 'MEDINAS HA'YAM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that a Shali'ach who delivers a Get from 'Medinas ha'Yam' must testify, 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' -- 'In front of me it was written and in front of me it was signed.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'all of Chutz la'Aretz' is called 'Medinas ha'Yam' except for Bavel (as the Gemara says later on 6a).
</p><p>
Why does Rashi write that <i>all</i> of Chutz la'Aretz is considered Medinas ha'Yam? It is clear from the continuation of the Mishnah that the Tana Kama refers only to places which are <i>distant</i> from Eretz Yisrael. The Tana Kama disagrees with Raban Gamliel who rules that a Shali'ach who comes from a place <i>near</i> Eretz Yisrael must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav....' (The Tana Kama certainly disagrees with Rebbi Eliezer who rules that a Shali'ach must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he comes from places in Chutz la'Aretz that are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael and surrounded on three sides by the borders of Eretz Yisrael.) Why does Rashi assume that according to the Tana Kama, a Shali'ach who comes from any part of Chutz la'Aretz must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'? (<b>RASHBA</b> and Rishonim.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> (printed with the Chidushei ha'Ritva) suggests that Rashi understands that the cities of Rekem and Cheger, and the cities that are 'Muvla'os,' were actually included in the conquest of Yehoshua and became part of Eretz Yisrael at that time. However, when the Jews returned from the Galus in Bavel they did not resettle those cities. Since they were not resettled, they are not considered part of Eretz Yisrael with regard to the Halachah of 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Nevertheless, Rashi does not include those cities in his term 'Chutz la'Aretz' since they <i>were</i> part of the original conquest of Yehoshua. Hence, he justifiably writes that 'all of Chutz la'Aretz' -- which excludes these cities -- is considered Medinas ha'Yam.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Kreskas himself does not accept this explanation.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests that according to Rashi, the Tana Kama maintains that even when a Shali'ach delivers a Get from a city near Eretz Yisrael, he must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' The Tana Kama excludes only cities that are 'Muvla' within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. He does not call those cities 'Chutz la'Aretz' since an imaginary line drawn from the farther points of the two outer borders would leave those cities within Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, when Rashi uses the words, 'all of Chutz la'Aretz,' he excludes those cities.
</p><p>
Raban Gamliel, who argues and says that one who brings a Get from Rekem must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' means that although Rekem is 'Muvla' one nevertheless must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he brings a Get from there since it is far from the main populated areas. Rebbi Eliezer adds that even if it is 'Muvla' and near the main populated areas, one still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
(Rashi later (4a, DH v'Amar Abaye), however, does not seem to follow this approach.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH mi'Medinas ha'Yam) asks why the Mishnah discusses bringing a Get 'from Medinas ha'Yam' and not 'from Chutz la'Aretz.' He answers that the term 'Medinas ha'Yam' implies countries that are distant from Eretz Yisrael and excludes cities that are 'Muvla'os' and 'Semuchos.' However, as the <b>RASHBA</b> points out, the Gemara later (4a) seems to include even 'Muvla'os' and 'Semuchos' in the category of 'Medinas ha'Yam.' (See Rashi there, DH v'Asa.)
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> answers that 'Medinas ha'Yam' does not mean 'distant places' but places that literally are across the sea (countries in the direction of the sea). Since the sea is the western boundary of Eretz Yisrael, there are no cities that are 'Muvla' (engulfed on three sides) or 'Samuch' (adjacent) to Eretz Yisrael on that side. The Tana uses the words 'Medinas ha'Yam' as a reference to countries to the west of Eretz Yisrael in order to exclude 'Muvla'os' and 'Semuchos.' However, the same Halachah applies to cities in other directions from Eretz Yisrael which are not 'Muvla'os' or 'Semuchos.'
</p><p>
The Ran explains that this is how Rashi translates 'Medinas ha'Yam.' When Rashi says that all of Chutz la'Aretz is called 'Medinas ha'Yam,' he does not mean <i>all</i> cities, regardless of how far away they are. Rather, he means the cities on all sides and not just the west side (even though 'Yam' refers to the west). (See <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>.)
</p><p>
This explains the end of Rashi's comments in which he writes that all of Chutz la'Aretz is considered Medinas ha'Yam except for Bavel, as the Gemara says later. Why does Rashi need to discuss the status of Bavel here? Moreover, the Gemara later cites a dispute about whether Bavel is like the rest of Chutz la'Aretz or not. According to this explanation, these questions are answered. Rashi proves that Medinas ha'Yam is not limited to the west of Eretz Yisrael, since the Amora'im discuss whether Bavel is included. Bavel is not to the west of Eretz Yisrael, and thus it certainly would not be included if 'Medinas ha'Yam' would refer only to the west. It must be that 'Medinas ha'Yam' includes <i>all</i> of Chutz la'Aretz, even the parts immediately adjacent to the four sides of Eretz Yisrael. Although Rashi does not address whether cities near Eretz Yisrael are called 'Medinas ha'Yam,' it is obvious from the context of the Mishnah that those cities are <i>not</i> called 'Medinas ha'Yam.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SUMMARY: THE BOUNDARIES OF ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara discusses the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The identification of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael involves various historical and geographical issues. The following is a synopsis of the historical aspect of the identification of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael based on the Gemara, the Book of Maccabees, and Josephus, as prepared by Rabbi Yehudah Landy. (This discussion is not intended for use for practical Halachic purposes.)
</p><p>
I. <b>THE MISHNAH'S CONTEXT</b>: <b>THE FIRST CONQUEST <b><b>OR</b></b> SECOND CONQUEST <b><b>OF</b></b> ERETZ YISRAEL</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (2a) quotes Rebbi Yehudah who states that the borders of Eretz Yisrael are 'from Rekem to the east, and Rekem is part of the east; from Ashkelon to the south, and Ashkelon is part of the south; and from Ako to the north, and Ako is part of the north.'
</p><p>
Eretz Yisrael was sanctified twice, first by the Olei Mitzrayim, the Jews who entered the land after Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, led by Yehoshua, and a second time by the Olei Bavel, the Jews who ascended to Eretz Yisrael at the end of the Galus of Bavel. When Rebbi Yehudah describes the borders of Eretz Yisrael, to which of these two sanctifications does he refer?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Ashkelon) points out that Ashkelon was taken by the tribe of Yehudah (as mentioned in the beginning of Sefer Shoftim). When the Mishnah states that Ashkelon is considered Chutz la'Aretz, it is because the Olei Bavel did not capture it. According to Tosfos, the Mishnah describes the borders of Eretz Yisrael as sanctified by the Olei Bavel.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> here cites support for this understanding from the Sifri which lists 'Techumei Eretz Yisrael Ad Makom she'Hecheziku Olei Bavel...' -- 'The following are the borders of Eretz Yisrael as far as the Olei Bavel controlled....' The first and last places in the Sifri's list indeed are on the outskirts of Ashkelon ('Parashas Asheklon').
</p><p>
It is clear from various sources that the original conquest of Eretz Yisrael was initiated by Yehoshua, and it continued throughout the period of the Shoftim and beyond, until as late as David ha'Melech, who captured Syria (Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova). The Gemara implies that Syria would have been considered part of Eretz Yisrael had it not been a 'Kivush Yachid' (a conquest at the initiative of a single person -- in this case, David ha'Melech; see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Gitin 8a, DH Kivush).
</p><p>
The duration of the period from the beginning of the Olei Bavel until the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash was approximately 440 years (see Megilah 11b). Throughout those years the borders of Eretz Yisrael were changing constantly due to conquests or treaties. Which conquests are considered the conquests of Olei Bavel with regard to the sanctification of the land (Kedushas ha'Aretz)? Does 'the conquest of Olei Bavel' refer to the situation during the time of Ezra, or many years later during the reign of the Chashmona'im, or even later during the reign of King Herod (Hurdus), who ruled some 100 years before the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The answer to this question requires a review of the historical background of the time of the second conquest. When the Jews first returned to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, they controlled a very small part of the land. The prophet relates that the Jews lived in the territories from Yerushalayim to Be'er Sheva (Nechemyah 11). The tribe of Binyamin lived in its portion, just north of Yerushalayim. It remains unclear whether or not there was any Jewish population at all in the Galil (the northern section of the country) at the time of Ezra.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Bava Metzia (28a) teaches that the land that was re-sanctified by Ezra included the land of Jews from all tribes, who resettled in their original locations. The Mishnah in Erchin (32a, and Gemara there) mentions that parts of Tzipori, Yodfat, and Gush Chalav were identified and sanctified by Olei Bavel. 
</p><p>
The book of Maccabees relates that after the events of Chanukah, the Jewish population in Transjordan and <i>in the Galil</i> suffered from their hostile neighbors. In the year 3597 (163 BCE, or 230 years before the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash), Yehudah ben Matisyahu ha'Chashmona'i went to Transjordan to defend his brethren, while he sent his brother Shimon to rescue the Jews in the Galil. This account is the first historical record of Jews living in the Galil during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
During the period from Ezra until the events of Chanukah, the province of Judea included only the inner, hilly region of the country. The entire coastal plain was populated by non-Jewish cities. It was only in the year 3619 (141 BCE, or about 210 years before the Churban), that Shimon captured the cities of Gezer and Yafo, thereby giving Judea the vital outlet to the Mediterranean Sea. His son, Yochanan Hurkenos, continued with conquests in the center of the country and along the coast. It is most probable that he was the king who connected Judea with the Galil. (His coins were found in the excavations of Yodfat. However, since he was the first Jewish king to mint coins, it is impossible to use this method to determine how far back in time Jews were living there.)  
</p><p>
His son Yanai (who ruled from 103 to 76 BCE, about 170 years before the Churban) extended the boundaries even more. He captured the northern coast but failed to capture Ako. In the southern coastal plain he captured Azah (Gaza) and a place named Rinkorurah, which is identified as Al Arish. However, for political reasons he did not capture Ashkelon. Ashkelon remained a non-Jewish enclave and was never captured by Jews during the era of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. The Tosefta in Ohalos (ch. 18) mentions Ashkelon among the towns that are 'Muvla' in Eretz Yisrael. In other words, it is surrounded by Eretz Yisrael but it is not a part of Eretz Yisrael. In the north, archeological evidence shows that Yanai captured the central section of what is commonly known as the Golan Heights, but he did not capture the northern section adjacent to Har Chermon.
</p><p>
In the year 3697 (63 BCE, 132 years before the Churban), the Romans captured Eretz Yisrael and wrested away from Jewish control most of the territories which were added by the Chashmona'i kings.
</p><p>
King Herod ruled during 3723-3756 (37 to 4 BCE, from 106 to 73 years before the Churban). Eventually, the Romans placed under his control all of the territories that were originally in Chashmona'i hands. They even added the northern Golan and the Bashan, Trachon and Churan regions, which are situated east of the Golan Heights. He did not control Ashkelon or Ako.
</p><p>
As the Ramban (mentioned above) points out, the three locations mentioned in the Mishnah here are among those mentioned in the 'Beraisa d'Techumin' of the Sifri (Parshas Ekev) cited above, which lists the borders of Eretz Yisrael during the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. This 'Beraisa d'Techumin' is also recorded in the Yerushalmi (Shevi'is 6:1). Approximately 25 years ago, a mosaic floor of an ancient synagogue was discovered near Beit Shean with an inscription recording this Beraisa, among others. Although there are a few discrepancies between the various sources, it is important to remember that this mosaic dates back further than any other manuscript in existence. Moreover, it was written near those locations mentioned in it and should therefore be considered most accurate. 
</p><p>
The list, which begins from near <i>Ashkelon</i>, continues north along the coast until <i>Ako</i> and then heads inland. It mentions the city of Banyas, which is just south of the Chermon (under the name 'Caeseria') and then mentions '<i>Rekem</i> Trachon Zimra d'Mitcham l'Botzrah' among others. In other words, the Beraisa clearly indicates that all territories under King Herod's control were considered conquests of Olei Bavel.
</p><p>
(The <b>TEVU'OS HA'ARETZ</b> disagrees and maintains that the Kedushah of Olei Bavel applies only to areas sanctified by Ezra. The <b>KESEF MISHNAH</b> and <b>RAV YAKOV EMDEN</b> (Chulin 7a) maintain that territories added later are also included. While the Kesef Mishneh refers to Yanai's conquests mentioned in Kidushin (66a), he does not refer to any Herodian conquests. Rav Yakov Emden does not refer to any specific conquests.)
</p><p>
II. <b>THE MISHNAH'S OMISSION <b><b>OF</b></b> ALL BUT THREE BORDER TOWNS</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> Why does the Mishnah mention only the border towns of Ashkelon, Ako, and Rekem, and not any other borders of the country? Why does Rebbi Yehudah not quote the entire list as recorded in the Sifri?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) One possibility is that the Mishnah means that all of the area within these three cities is Eretz Yisrael. Although the northern boundary clearly continues past Ako, perhaps the Mishnah means that all areas within these three cities are <i>certainly</i> part of Eretz Yisrael, while some areas outside of these cities may or may not be part of Eretz Yisrael.
</p><p>
Although this explanation is plausible, Rav Zalman Koren points out that in those days there were no maps. It would have been impossible for people to know if their current location was north of Ako or south of Ashkelon.
</p><p>
(b) According to Rav Koren, the Mishnah's structure is addressed to a traveler delivering a Get. The cities mentioned in the Mishnah are along the main roads which lead to and from Eretz Yisrael. The Mishnah means that one who brings a get from Ashkelon or from south of Ashkelon, from Ako or from north of Ako, or from Rekem or from east of Rekem, must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' The Mishnah does not need to mention the other boundaries, because they are not situated along the main roads. 
</p><p>
There is clear evidence that main roads to Eretz Yisrael led through Ako and Ashkelon (see Kesuvos 112a, 'Kipi d'Ako'; Gitin 76b, 'b'Ako Havu Mifteri'). Is there evidence that a main road led through Rekem? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to identify the place which the Mishnah calls 'Rekem.' (There were several cities named 'Rekem.' Indeed, the name 'Rekem' appears twice in the Beraisa.)
</p><p>
Many scholars identify Rekem with the famous city of Petra, currently in southern Jordan. Rav Koren points out that this suggestion is very problematic. Petra was the capital of the Nabeteans, and at no time was it populated with Jews.
</p><p>
As mentioned above, the list of the boundaries in the Beraisa includes Rekem in the Trachon region. Interestingly, according to Josephus, King Herod chose to settle a group of people in the Trachon in order to protect the Olei Regalim who traveled from Bavel to Yerushalayim at the time of the festivals. In other words, the road eastward from Eretz Yisrael runs through the Trachon, and it is most probable that the city of Rekem mentioned in the Mishnah is the city of Rekem in the Trachon region mentioned in the Beraisa.
</p><p>
In summary, the Mishnah's depiction of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael matches the description of the boundaries of Olei Bavel which reflects the Herodian conquests. The Mishnah lists the cities along the main roads that lead to and from Eretz Yisrael from the south, north, and east. Rekem is situated in the Trachon region in the northeastern section of Eretz Yisrael. Identifying Rekem as Petra is very problematic.
</p><p>
The passages which follow are a translation of the writings of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter 2), who writes about a Jew named Zimri who lived near the Trachon. It is very possible that this area could be identified with the city in the Beraisa d'Techumin called 'Rekem Trachon <i>Zimra</i> d'Mitcham <i>l'Botzrah</i> (Bathyra?).'
</p><p>
    '<b>CONCERNING ZAMARIS</b>, <b>THE BABYLONIAN JEW</b>...
<br>    1. <b>AND</b> now it was that Herod, being desirous of securing himself on the side of the Trachonites, resolved to build a village as large as a city for the Jews, in the middle of that country, which might make his own country difficult to be assaulted, and whence he might be at hand to make sallies upon them, and do them a mischief. Accordingly, when he understood that there was a man that was a Jew come out of Babylon, with five hundred horsemen, all of whom could shoot their arrows as they rode on horse-back, and, with a hundred of his relations, had passed over Euphrates, and now abode at Antioch by Daphne of Syria, where Saturninus, who was then president, had given them a place for habitation, called Valatha, he sent for this man, with the multitude that followed him, and promised to give him land in the toparchy called Batanea, which country is bounded with Trachonitis, as desirous to make that his habitation a guard to himself. He also engaged to let him hold the country free from tribute, and that they should dwell entirely without paying such customs as used to be paid, and gave it to him tax-free. 
<br> 
<br>    2. The Babylonian was seduced by these offers to come hither; so he took possession of the land, and built in it fortresses and a village, and named it Bathyra. Whereby this man became a safeguard to the inhabitants against the Trachonites, and preserved those Jews who came out of Babylon, to offer their sacrifices at Jerusalem, from being hurt by the Trachonite robbers; so that a great number came to him from all those parts where the ancient Jewish laws were observed, and the country became full of people, by reason of their universal freedom from taxes. This continued during the life of Herod; but when Philip, who was [tetrarch] after him, took the government, he made them pay some small taxes, and that for a little while only; and Agrippa the Great, and his son of the same name, although they harassed them greatly, yet would they not take their liberty away. 
</p><p>
    3. After a long time passed, Zamaris the Babylonian, to whom Herod had given that country for a possession, died, having lived virtuously, and left children of a good character behind him.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> It was because people in Chutz 
          La'aretz do not know that a Get must be written Lishmah 
          (with intent to divorce that woman).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It was lest the Get be contested, and 
          witnesses will not be readily available to be Mekayem it 
          (verify the signatures).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In what case(s) does it matter which is the 
          reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Two Sheluchim (messengers) brought the Get. 
          (They themselves could verify the signatures, but there 
          is concern for Lishmah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Get was brought from one province to 
          another within Eretz Yisrael. (It is surely Lishmah, but 
          witnesses are not available for Kiyum.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> The Get is brought within one province in 
          Chutz La'aretz. (Witnesses are available for Kiyum, but 
          we are concerned for Lishmah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah says that people in Chutz la'Aretz are 
          ignorant about Lishmah. Why is the Shali'ach believed to 
          say that he saw it written? We should require two 
          witnesses, like all testimony!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One witness is believed about Isurim (what is 
          forbidden. Monetary cases require two witnesses.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We say so only in cases such as a piece of 
          meat that might be Chelev (forbidden lard) or Shuman 
          (permitted lard), since the piece was never established 
          to be forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, the Get will permit a woman whom we know was 
               married (and forbidden to all other men)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also, a Get permits (what was) Ervah (forbidden 
               Bi'ah, i.e. another man's wife). Two witnesses are 
               required for such testimony!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (Even in Chutz la'Aretz,) most people know about 
          Lishmah. (Mid'Oraisa, we may rely on this. No testimony 
          is needed at all);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even R. Meir, who normally is concerned for the 
               minority, is not concerned here, since scribes write 
               (almost all) Gitin, and they all know the law of 
               Lishmah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim were stringent to require the Shali'ach to 
               testify about it. They were not so strict to require 
               two witnesses, lest this cause Igun (she would be 
               unable to marry if no one else here knew that the 
               Get was Lishmah.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) TWO 'SHELUCHIM' WHO BRING A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rabah and Rava disagree about the reason why a Shali'ach who brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam needs to say, 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.' Rabah explains that in Medinas ha'Yam, the scribes are not learned in the requirement of writing a Get Lishmah, and therefore the Shali'ach needs to testify that it was written Lishmah. Rava explains that when the Get is sent from Medinas ha'Yam, there are no witnesses available to validate (Mekayem) the Get's authenticity (since the witnesses of the Get are in Medinas ha'Yam).
</p><p>
The Gemara says that one practical difference between the two opinions exists in a case in which two Sheluchim bring the Get from Medinas ha'Yam together. According to Rava, they do not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' because they serve as the two witnesses who validate the Get's authenticity.
</p><p>
The Gemara is difficult to understand. Even if the two Sheluchim are able to validate the Get themselves since they constitute two witnesses, nevertheless if they do not say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' they have <i>not</i> validated the Get. At some later time, after they leave the town, they will not be available to validate it when the need arises, and therefore they should be required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when they deliver it, even according to Rava. (<b>TOSFOS</b>, DH d'Asyuhah)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara later (16a-17a) explains that the only situation in which two people who bring a Get do not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is when they are both Sheluchim who were appointed by the husband to bring the Get. If only one of them was appointed as the Shali'ach to bring the Get and the other, who accompanies the Shali'ach, just happens to recognize the signatures on the Get, the Shali'ach still needs to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' According to Rava, why do both people have to be appointed as Sheluchim in order to be exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav'? Even if <i>neither</i> one was appointed as a Shali'ach, the two people nevertheless are valid witnesses who are able to be Mekayem the Get, and therefore they should not need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> and most Rishonim explain that whenever two witnesses bring a Get and claim that they were sent by the husband, Beis Din does not suspect that the Get is forged, and Kiyum (validation) of the Get is not necessary. Since two witnesses have testified that the husband sent them with the Get and that it was not forged by the woman, the Torah believes their word.
</p><p>
Why, though, are they believed as witnesses? Their testimony should be invalid because they are testifying about a fact concerning themselves (they are 'Noge'a b'Davar')!
</p><p>
The Gemara later (5a, as explained by the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> here) explains that the two emissaries are believed because they have a 'Migu.' Had they wanted to lie, they could have said that the husband divorced his wife in front of them (in which case they would not be testifying about themselves and would not be 'Noge'a b'Davar'). Such testimony would have been accepted, since two witnesses are believed to say that the husband gave a Get to his wife. Now that they say instead that they are Sheluchim of the husband to deliver the Get, they are believed because of a 'Migu.'
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> cites the <b>TESHUVOS HA'RE'EM</b> who asserts that this must be Rashi's intention as well. The witnesses are not merely <i>available</i> to be Mekayem the Get, but they actually <i>are</i> Mekayem the Get when they say that the husband sent it with them (as the Gemara says on 5a).
</p><p>
When two people who did not bring the Get are available to be Mekayem the Get, the Shali'ach still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' since the two people might leave the city and will not be available later to be Mekayem the Get in the event that the husband challenges it. For this reason, the Gemara says that only when the two people are Sheluchim who deliver the Get is there no need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'; the very fact that they delivered the Get to the woman is an implicit testimony that the husband sent them and that the Get is not forged.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> later (16a, DH Aval) writes that if a single Shali'ach brings a Get but he is accompanied by another person who testifies at the moment the Shali'ach hands over the Get that the husband sent him as well, it is not necessary to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Apparently, this case is included in the case of 'd'Asyuhah Bei Trei,' since two people are testifying to the Shelichus at the time the Get is delivered.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> here (2b, DH Mai) adds that if two people testify about the validity of the signatures in the Get and thereby validate the Get at any time before the Get is handed over, their testimony also exempts the Shali'ach from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' (according to Rava). This case is also included in the case of 'd'Asyuhah Bei Trei,' since there is testimony about the validity of the Get at the time the Get is delivered.
</p><p>
(b) The wording of Rashi (DH Asyuhah, and 16b, DH Kasher), however, implies that it is not necessary for the Sheluchim to provide any testimony concerning the Get at the time they deliver it. Rather, since they are available to be Mekayem the Get if the husband challenges it, they do not need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' How, then, does Rashi answer the questions posed earlier?
</p><p>
Moreover, according to Rashi, if the testimony of the two witnesses is that they recognize the signatures, how does Rashi understand the Gemara later (5a) which says clearly that the reason why two witnesses are believed is that they have a 'Migu' that they could have said that the husband divorced his wife in their presence? The Gemara there implies that they testify that the husband gave the Get to them and not that they recognize the signatures. (They would not need a 'Migu' to be believed that they recognize the signatures.)
</p><p>
Also, the <b>RASHBA</b> asks that, according to Rashi, the exemption from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' should apply only when witnesses recognize the handwriting of the signatures on the Get. Why does the Gemara make no mention of this? Moreover, how do the judges of the Beis Din know to exempt the Sheluchim from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even before they ask the Sheluchim if they recognize the signatures? If the Sheluchim must first testify that they recognize the signatures in order to be exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' effectively they <i>do</i> need to testify at the time they deliver the Get!
</p><p>
The intention of Rashi cannot be that the two Sheluchim may deliver the Get to the woman in private and that they do not need to provide testimony at any time. If they deliver the Get in private, how will the woman be able to prove later that she received the Get from two agents of her husband, and thus that the testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' was not required, without bringing the Sheluchim themselves to testify?
</p><p>
Rather, Rashi may mean that it is not necessary for the two Sheluchim to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' or any other testimony at the time they deliver the Get (that is, they may deliver it in private). Before they leave the town, however, the woman must have them testify in Beis Din that they are Sheluchim who were appointed by her former husband to deliver the Get to her. (Their testimony in this regard is believed because of the 'Migu' that they could have said that the husband divorced his wife in their presence, as mentioned above.)
</p><p>
The Chachamim instituted that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said at the time the Get is handed over only when there is a single Shali'ach (5b, and Tosfos there, DH Yitleno). (The reason for this may be that the Shali'ach is more careful about his testimony ('Meidak Dayik') when he testifies at the time he delivers the Get. Alternatively, the woman might not realize that the testimony of a single witness will help her cause, and therefore the Chachamim instituted -- for her benefit -- that the Shali'ach must testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the moment he hands over the Get. Otherwise, the woman would not consider utilizing the Takanah that a single witness is valid for Kiyum of a Get.) In contrast, the Chachamim had no need to institute that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said -- for the woman's benefit -- when two witnesses are available to be Mekayem the Get, there is no necessity to institute, because the woman knows to assume the responsibility to be Mekayem the Get and prevent the husband from claiming that it is forged.
</p><p>
Why must both people be Sheluchim in order to be exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav'? A single Shali'ach should be exempt as long as there are two people in the city who recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the Get, since the woman now assumes responsibility for the Kiyum of the Get! Rashi later (16b, DH Kasher) explains that the Chachamim enacted their decree to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' as a 'Lo Plug' and required a Shali'ach who delivers a Get to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in all situations, because people who see a Shali'ach delivering a Get without saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' will not realize why the Chachamim exempted him. However, when two people bring a Get and together they hand the Get to the woman (see Rashi, end of 16a), it is clear to everyone why the Chachamim exempted them from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' (that is, because they are two Sheluchim). Since it unusual for two people to deliver a Get, the Chachamim did not apply their enactment of 'Lo Plug' in such a case (5a).
</p><p>
For the same reason, if the Shali'ach brings a Get which has already been validated, perhaps he still is required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' lest onlookers not realize why the Get was accepted as valid without the Shali'ach saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not explain like Tosfos, that when two Sheluchim deliver the Get and say in front of witnesses that they were appointed by the husband, their words serve in place of 'b'Fanai Nichtav'? Rashi was bothered by the fact that the Gemara apparently does not require two Sheluchim to deliver the Get in front of witnesses altogether; they may deliver it in private if they want. Only a single Shali'ach must deliver the Get in front of witnesses (3a, 5b), as the <b>TORAS GITIN</b> (EH 142:18) and <b>CHEMDAS SHLOMO</b> point out.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TORAS GITIN</b> (ibid.) and <b>CHEMDAS SHLOMO</b> suggest that even if the Sheluchim are no longer available, the husband who sent the Get does not know that. He will be afraid to come and challenge the Get, because he is under the impression that the two Sheluchim he sent are still in the city and will come and refute his claim and prove him wrong by testifying that he sent them. Since he will not challenge the Get, it is not necessary to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
If the two witnesses who recognize the signatures on the Get were not sent by the husband, however, the husband will not be afraid that there are witnesses in the city who can refute his claim, and he will challenge the validity of the Get. Therefore, in such a case it is still necessary for the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
(See the <b>RA'AVAD</b> on the Rif who suggests another explanation for why two Sheluchim do not need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.')
</p><p>
 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MANY WITNESSES ARE NEEDED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Being lenient (requiring only one witness) 
          will lead to problems!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If two witnesses were required, the husband could 
               not come later and claim that the Get was not 
               Lishmah. Since only one witness testifies, the 
               husband can come and disqualify the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Get must be given in front of others, 
          the Shali'ach will be disgraced if it is found to be 
          Pasul (invalid, so he will be very careful to see it 
          written Lishmah. Therefore, the husband will not come to 
          disqualify it (and even if he does, he will not be 
          believed).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued about whether it 
               is given in front of two or three men.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava says that the concern is that witnesses 
          are not available to be Mekayem the signatures. Why is 
          the Shali'ach believed to be Mekayem the Get? We should 
          require two witnesses, like Kiyum of any document!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One witness is believed about Isurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We say so only in cases like a piece of meat 
          that may be Chelev or Shumen, since the piece was never 
          established to be forbidden;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, the Get will permit a woman whom we know was 
               married!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also, a Get permits (what was) Ervah. Two witnesses 
               are required for such testimony!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Letter of the law, there is no need for Kiyum at 
          all.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If a document is signed, it is as if 
               the witnesses testified, and Beis Din accepted their 
               testimony.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim were stringent to require Kiyum. They were 
               not so strict to require two witnesses, lest this 
               cause Igun (she would be unable to marry if no one 
               else here recognized the signatures).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Being lenient will lead to problems!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If we required two witnesses, the husband could not 
               come later and claim that the signatures were 
               forged. Since only one witness testifies, the 
               husband can come and disqualify the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since the Get must be given in front of others, 
          the Shali'ach will be disgraced if it is found to be 
          Pasul, so he will be very careful to see that it is 
          signed properly. Therefore, the husband will not come to 
          disqualify it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued about whether it 
               is given in front of two or three men.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY RAVA AND RABAH ARGUE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't Rava learn like Rabah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and a question against Rabah):</font></b> If the concern 
          were Lishmah, the Shali'ach should be required to say 'it 
          was written Lishmah in front of me and signed Lishmah in 
          front of me,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for Rabah):</font></b> Letter of the law, we should require 
          him to say this. However, if so, perhaps he will come to 
          omit some of these words (and the Get would be Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This concern applies also to the text he must 
          say!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The ideal text (in Hebrew, Befanai Nichtav 
          Lishmah, Befanai Nechtam Lishmah) has two clauses of 
          three words each. A Shali'ach might omit one of three 
          words. In the actual text (Befanai Nichtav u'Befanai 
          Nechtam), each clause has two words. One does not omit 
          one of two words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why doesn't Rabah learn like Rava?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and a question against Rava):</font></b> If the concern were 
          Kiyum, the Shali'ach should only need to say 'it was 
          signed in front of me.' Why must he also say 'it was 
          written in front of me'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (for Rava):</font></b> Letter of the law, it should suffice 
          to testify about the signatures. However, if so, people 
          might come to think that in general, one witness suffices 
          for Kiyum. Therefore, we require him to testify also 
          about the writing, to show that this is not regular 
          Kiyum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (on behalf of Rabah):</font></b> Even without testifying 
          about the writing, it is clear that this is not regular 
          Kiyum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In regular Kiyum, the witnesses say 'we recognize 
               (the signatures).' Here, he says '(it was signed) in 
               front of me'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A woman cannot be a witness for regular Kiyum. Here, 
               she can!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> An involved party cannot be a witness for regular 
               Kiyum. Here, an involved party can! (A woman can 
               bring her Get and say Befanai Nichtav u'Befanai 
               Nechtam.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava, to the first point):</font></b> Also here, Sheluchim 
          can be Mekayem the Get by saying 'we recognize (the 
          signatures)', so there is concern lest people think that 
          one witness suffices for regular Kiyum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah says that the concern is that people are 
          ignorant of the law of Lishmah. The Shali'ach must 
          testify about the writing and signing of the Get. Which 
          Tana requires both of these to be Lishmah?
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY A SINGLE WITNESS IS BELIEVED TO TESTIFY ABOUT A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a single witness is believed to testify that the Get was written Lishmah and that it is not forged because of a leniency the Chachamim instituted in order to prevent situations of Agunah from arising. The Gemara asks that accepting the testimony of a single witness in this case is a <i>Chumra</i> and not a Kula, because if the husband challenges the Get he will be believed and he will invalidate the Get!
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that since the Shali'ach must hand over the Get in front of a Beis Din, he is very careful to research the matter ('Meidak Dayik') and he will not let his reputation become ruined.
</p><p>
The simple understanding of the Gemara is that since the Shali'ach is so careful not to let his reputation become ruined, his words are very reliable and therefore his word is believed against the word of the husband. This indeed is how Rashi here explains the Gemara (end of DH me'Ikara). However, Rashi prefaces his explanation by saying that since a Shali'ach does not want to ruin his reputation, he will make sure that the husband indeed wants to divorce the woman and that the husband will never consider coming to challenge the validity of the Get.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi add those comments? If, as Rashi writes, the Shali'ach's word is believed against the word of the husband even when the husband comes and challenges the Get, why is it necessary for the Shali'ach to make sure that the husband will not come in the first place?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> A number of points in the Gemara are unclear and need explanation:
</p><p>
First, why does the Gemara ask that it is a Chumra to believe one witness in this case, because if two witnesses would be required, then 'the husband <i>would not come</i> and invalidate the Get'? The Gemara should say instead that it is a Chumra because if two witnesses would be required, then '<i>even if the husband would come</i>, he would not be able to invalidate the Get' (while if a single witness is believed, the husband <i>would</i> be able to invalidate the Get).
</p><p>
Second, the Gemara asks the same question according to the view of Rava, that accepting the testimony of a single witness is a Chumra and not a Kula since, if the husband comes and challenges the Get, he will invalidate it. The Gemara's assertion -- that if the husband comes and challenges the Get he will invalidate it -- is difficult to understand. The very purpose of saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' according to Rava is in order to override the husband's challenge to the Get, and thus it is obvious that the Chachamim instituted that the single witness is believed more than the husband. Why, then, would one think that if the husband challenges the Get, the Get will be invalidated because of his word?
</p><p>
It is because of these difficulties that Rashi explains that the Gemara's question is not that the husband will be <i>believed in court</i> if he challenges the Get, but rather that if the husband challenges the Get he might create a <i>rumor</i> that the Get is invalid and people will not want to marry the woman, thinking that she is still an Eshes Ish. The answer of the Gemara, that the Shali'ach is 'Meidak Dayik,' does not mean that the Shali'ach is believed more than the husband. First, his word already is believed in court more than the husband's. Second, if the testimony of a single witness is not strong enough to counter the husband's challenge, the logic of 'Meidak Dayik' cannot strengthen the testimony of the witness since the very fact of his Shelichus is under suspicion. Although he testifies in front of Beis Din that he is a Shali'ach and he says 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' he is not more concerned about his reputation than the husband is concerned about his, who testifies in court that the Get is a forgery! Rather, the Gemara means that the Shali'ach is 'Meidak Dayik' to ascertain beyond a doubt that the husband divorced his wife willingly and will not be interested in challenging the Get in the first place. This is the way Rashi explains the Gemara.
</p><p>
This approach explains why the Gemara says that if two witnesses would be required, 'the husband would not come and challenge the Get and invalidate it,' but if a single witness is required 'the husband will come and challenge the Get and invalidate it.' The Gemara does not mean that the husband will actually disqualify the Get when he contradicts the single witness whom the Chachamim required. As explained above, the Gemara understands (according to Rava) that the Chachamim trusted the single witness to repudiate the claim of the husband. The Gemara's question is that if a single witness is required, the husband will not be afraid to challenge the word of that witness and to <i>spread a rumor</i> that the Get is invalid. Although the Beis Din will not accept the word of the husband, nevertheless the very spreading of a rumor that the Get is not valid will harm the wife. 
</p><p>
If this is true, however, why does the Gemara add the words 'and invalidate it'? The only concern is that the husband will challenge the validity of the Get and spread a rumor; there is no concern that he will invalidate it! (See <b>TOSFOS</b>, DH Chad Asi, who is bothered by this question and concludes that the term 'invalidate it' is not meant in the literal sense.) Moreover, why does Rashi find it necessary to add that since the Shali'ach is 'Meidak Dayik,' even if the husband <i>does</i> challenge the validity of the Get <i>the Shali'ach is believed</i> and his testimony overrides the testimony of the husband?
</p><p>
The answer is that the approach which Rashi takes here applies only according to the view of Rava. Rabah, in contrast, requires the testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' not because the husband might [falsely] challenge the Get and say that it is forged, but because <i>Beis Din</i> is genuinely concerned that the Get truly was not written Lishmah. (It is true that <b>TOSFOS</b> to 2b, DH l'Fi (2), suggests that even according to Rabah the Chachamim were concerned only that the husband would <i>falsely</i> claim that the Get was not written Lishmah; they were not actually concerned that the Get was actually not written Lishmah. Rashi (2b, DH v'Rabanan), though, takes the approach that the Chachamim were afraid that the Get was truly not written Lishmah.) The enactment of our Mishnah was that the Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is trusted to allay our concerns. However, this only allows us to trust the Shali'ach as long as nobody else challenges his words. The Chachamim did not give his words the power to contradict the husband if he comes and claims that the Get was actually not written Lishmah. Therefore, according to Rabah, the Gemara's question was not just that when a single witness testimony that the Get is Lishmah, the husband will come and <i>spread a rumor</i>. The question was that if the husband comes and says that the Get was not written Lishmah (or forged), he will be <i>believed</i> in court to contradict the single witness, as Rashi explains (DH d'Iy Matzrechas)! That is why the Gemara says that the husband will '<i>invalidate</i> the Get.'
</p><p>
Rashi therefore explains that the Gemara, when it explains the opinion of Rabah, answers that when the witness testifies that the Get was written Lishmah, Beis Din trusts his testimony <i>more</i> than it trusts that of the husband because the Shali'ach is 'Meidak Dayik.' Although the husband claims that the Get was not written Lishmah, he admits that the Shali'ach <i>was</i> a valid Shali'ach, and thus the Shali'ach has a Chazakah that he is 'Meidak Dayik' and his word that the Get was written Lishmah is accepted.
</p><p>
When the Gemara explains the opinion of Rava, however, it cannot suggest that the husband's word would be believed over that of the Shali'ach (since the very purpose of the enactment in the Mishnah is to trust the Shali'ach against the word of the husband). Therefore, the Gemara's question must be that the husband will <i>spread a rumor</i> against the word of a single witness, and the Gemara's answer is that the Shali'ach will take pains to ascertain that the husband is not interested in spreading rumors about the Get, as Rashi explains. The reason why the Gemara uses the term 'the husband will come and <i>invalidate</i> the Get' when it discusses Rava's opinion is for consistency ('Agav'); it used the identical term when it discussed Rabah's opinion earlier on the Amud.
</p><p>
Tosfos here, on the other hand, does not explain this way because he follows his own opinion expressed earlier, that even according to Rabah the only concern is that the husband will spread a false rumor; there is no doubt about the actual validity of the Get. Hence, even when the Gemara explains the view of Rabah, it knows that the Shali'ach's word is believed over the husband's, since that was the very purpose of the enactment of the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is not R. Meir. He requires only signing Lishmah, 
               but not writing Lishmah!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Get may not be written on 
                    something attached to the ground. If it was 
                    written on something attached, was detached and 
                    signed, it is valid. (This shows that only the 
                    signatures must be done properly!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar. He requires only 
               writing Lishmah, but not signing Lishmah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Elazar. 
               Mid'Oraisa, he does not require signing Lishmah, but 
               mid'Rabanan, he does!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A Mishnah shows that he says that an 
               unsigned Get is valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> There are three Gitin that should not be 
               given. If one was given (and she married someone 
               else), her children are Kosher.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Her husband wrote the Get himself, and no 
                    witnesses signed it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Witnesses signed the Get, but there is no date 
                    on it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  It has a date, but only one witness signed 
                    it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says, even if it no witnesses signed, but 
               he gave it to her in front of witnesses, it is 
               valid. Such a document may be used to collect (her 
               Kesuvah; some explain, a loan) from land that (the 
               husband or borrower) sold;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Elazar holds that witnesses sign on a 
                    document only due to an enactment, lest the 
                    witnesses who saw it given will not be around 
                    to testify.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Really, the Mishnah is like R. Meir. He does 
          not require the Get to be written Lishmah mid'Oraisa, but 
          requires this mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Nachman said that R. Meir holds that if a 
          man finds a Get in the trash (and the names match his and 
          his wife's names), he may tell witnesses to sign it, and 
          then give it to his wife!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE IDENTITY OF THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rabah requires that a Shali'ach who brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam must say both 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and 'b'Fanai Nechtam' in order to testify that the Get was both written and signed Lishmah. The Gemara asks who the Tana of the Mishnah is who requires that both the writing (Kesivah) and the signing (Chasimah) of a Get must be Lishmah. Rebbi Meir requires only that the Kesivah be Lishmah, while Rebbi Elazar requires only that the Chasimah be Lishmah.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that perhaps the Tana of the Mishnah is Rebbi Elazar, and he requires that the Chasimah be Lishmah <i>mid'Rabanan</i>. The Gemara rejects this answer based on the Mishnah later (86a). The Tana Kama of the Mishnah there teaches that there are three types of Gitin which are invalid but if the woman remarries with one of them and bears a child, the child is not a Mamzer. (The Amora'im (86a) disagree whether the woman may remain married based on such a Get or whether she must get divorced from her second husband. According to everyone, however, the child born from that marriage is not a Mamzer.) Two of those cases are a Get on which no witnesses signed but the Get is handwritten by the husband, and a Get on which only one witness is signed (where the scribe who wrote the Get counts as the second witness). Rebbi Elazar disagrees with the Tana Kama and states that even though no witnesses signed the Get, if the Get was given in front of witnesses the Get is valid. The Gemara infers from there that Rebbi Elazar does not require that the Chasimah be Lishmah even mid'Rabanan (as he does not even require that witnesses sign at all). 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> is bothered by the Gemara's proof that Rebbi Elazar accepts l'Chatchilah a Get which has no witnesses signed on it? Perhaps when Rebbi Elazar there says that the Get is 'valid,' he means that the Get is valid only mid'Oraisa, but mid'Rabanan it must have witnesses signed on it.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH Lo Ba'i, and DH v'Im Nises) explains that Rebbi Elazar must accept l'Chatchilah -- even mid'Rabanan -- a Get without signatures of witnesses, since the Tana Kama agrees that the Get is valid mid'Oraisa, and it is invalid only mid'Rabanan. When Rebbi Elazar argues and says that it is valid, he must mean that it is valid even mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas and in Derush v'Chidush) challenges Rashi's proof. Rashi seems to prove that Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get more readily than the Tana Kama does, because otherwise there is no argument between the two Tana'im. Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks that there is another point of dispute between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Elazar. The Tana Kama accepts (b'Di'eved) only a Get written with the husband's own handwriting, or one with at least one signature of a witness, while Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get even with no witnesses signed on it and when the husband did not write the Get himself! Perhaps Rebbi Elazar agrees with the Tana Kama that a Get without signatures is <i>not</i> valid l'Chatchilah, and their argument is whether a Get with no witnesses is valid b'Di'eved. There is no indication from Rebbi Elazar's words that argues with the Tana Kama in a second regard and accepts a Get with one or no witnesses signed on it even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva Eiger asserts, therefore, that this second argument is inferred from Rebbi Elazar's choice of words. He does not say that in the case of a Get without witnesses 'the child is Kasher,' which are the words the Tana Kama uses, but rather he says only 'Kasher,' implying that not only is the child Kasher, but that the Get is Kasher as well and may be used l'Chatchilah. This is the only way to prove that Rebbi Elazar argues with the Tana Kama and permits the use of a Get without witnesses l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
Why, then, does Rashi write that the proof that Rebbi Elazar accepts l'Chatchilah a Get without signatures is that this is his only point of dispute with the Tana Kama? Rashi should prove Rebbi Elazar's view from the fact that Rebbi Elazar uses the word 'Kasher,' which shows that he argues with the Tana Kama and permits l'Chatchilah the use of a Get with the signature of only one witness. (See <b>RASHASH</b> and Acharonim.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> To understand Rashi's intention, it is necessary to examine what prompts Rashi to emphasize that the fact that Rebbi Elazar argues with the Tana Kama shows that he accepts the Get l'Chatchilah, when it is obvious from the Beraisa that Rebbi Elazar maintains that a woman is permitted to remarry based on a Get with no signatures of witnesses. Rebbi Akiva Eiger apparently understands that the Beraisa itself provides no clear proof because, when Rebbi Elazar says that 'a Get without witnesses is Kasher,' he might mean that only the child is Kasher. Rashi proves that Rebbi Elazar must mean that the Get is Kasher as well because otherwise he would be in agreement with the Tana Kama. Rebbi Akiva Eiger questions Rashi's proof from the fact that Rebbi Elazar argues with a second point of the Tana Kama and says that no witnesses need to be signed on the Get.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi understands that the proof from the Beraisa is unclear for another reason. The Gemara later (86a) asks why the Mishnah does not include a case of 'Get Yashan' in its list of Gitin that are valid only b'Di'eved. The Gemara answers that there are different levels of 'b'Di'eved' validity. The three Gitin mentioned in the Mishnah quoted here are valid only when the woman has already remarried based on the Get. If she has not yet remarried, she must receive a new Get from her former husband. A Get Yashan, however, is Kasher b'Di'eved as soon as it is given to the woman, and once she has received the Get Yashan she may remarry based on that Get.
</p><p>
What, then, is the proof from this Mishnah that Rebbi Elazar, who argues with the Tana Kama, allows a Get without the signatures of witnesses to be given to a woman l'Chatchilah? Although he says 'Kasher' and implies that the Get is Kasher and not just the child, perhaps he means that only once the Get is delivered to the woman may she rely on it, but l'Chatchilah, before it is given, he requires that witnesses sign it! That is why the Shali'ach must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' when he delivers the Get to the woman. 
</p><p>
This explains why Rashi does not mention Rebbi Elazar's usage of the word 'Kasher' as proof that Rebbi Elazar accepts such a Get l'Chatchilah. What, then, is the Gemara's proof that Rebbi Elazar maintains that a Get without the signatures of witnesses may be given to the woman l'Chatchilah?
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the words of the Tana Kama teach that when anything is wrong with the signatures in the Get, even mid'Rabanan (for example, the Get is written by the husband, or the scribe's handwriting is considered a second witness), the woman may not remarry on the basis of such a Get. She must receive a new Get before she may remarry (in contrast to a Get Yashan, where there is nothing wrong with the signatures). There is no reason to assume that Rebbi Elazar disagrees with the Tana Kama on this point. He argues only that a Get does not need signatures of witnesses altogether. Since Rebbi Elazar allows the woman to get married l'Chatchilah on the basis of a Get without signatures (he says that such a Get is 'Kasher,' referring to the Get itself and not just to the child), presumably he does not invalidate the Get even l'Chatchilah. If a Get is written without witnesses, it may be given to the woman even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Akiva Eiger not understand Rashi in this manner? Perhaps Rebbi Akiva Eiger bases his comments on the words of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Tenan) who asserts that if the signatures are required only to make the Get valid l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved once the Get is given the woman may remarry, then the Shali'ach would not be required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' (The requirement to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' was not enacted in order to prevent a Pesul l'Chatchilah, a factor which invalidates the Get only l'Chatchilah. It was enacted in order to prevent a Pesul b'Di'eved, a factor which invalidates the Get even b'Di'eved.) Tosfos proves this from the Gemara which says that according to Rebbi Meir, although l'Chatchilah a Get may not be written on an object which is attached to the ground (a law which shows that l'Chatchilah the laws of the signatures (Chasimah) apply to the writing (Kesivah) of the Get as well), nevertheless Rebbi Meir would not require the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' to testify that the Kesivah was done Lishmah. Accordingly, it would not be necessary for Rashi to prove that Rebbi Elazar accepts a Get without signatures of witnesses even l'Chatchilah. Even if such a Get is not Kasher l'Chatchilah, Rebbi Elazar still would not require the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' since the Get would be valid as soon as it is handed over.
</p><p>
However, Rashi does not necessarily agree with Tosfos on this point. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ein Kosvin) seems to give a different explanation for why Rebbi Meir does not require, l'Chatchilah, that a Get be written Lishmah, even though he does require, l'Chatchilah, that the Get not be Mechubar (attached to the ground) when it is written. If the Get is written on an object which is Mechubar, the witnesses might forget to cut it off before they sign it. However, if the scribe writes the Get she'Lo Lishmah, that is no reason to fear that the witnesses will forget and sign it she'Lo Lishmah! (See Tosfos to 4b, end of DH v'Chasmu.) Therefore, Rashi finds it necessary to prove that Rebbi Elazar permits giving a Get to a woman, l'Chatchilah, when it has no signatures. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH (cont.)?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps R. Meir said only that if he told 
          witnesses to sign it and gave it to his wife, mid'Oraisa 
          it is valid (but mid'Rabanan it is not).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> If so, R. Meir should have said 'mid'Oraisa it 
          is valid.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, the Mishnah is like R. Elazar. He 
          holds that a Get without signatures is Kosher, but if it 
          has signatures, they must be Lishmah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> R. Elazar agrees that an intrinsic forgery 
               (a signed document in which it appears that we may 
               rely on the witnesses' signatures, but in truth they 
               are invalid) is Pasul (even if witnesses saw the 
               document handed over).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yehudah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The Get is Pasul unless it 
               was both written and signed when detached.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't we establish the Mishnah like R. 
          Yehudah from the beginning?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We sought to establish it like R. Meir, for we 
          assume that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir. We sought to 
          establish it is like R. Elazar, for the Halachah follows 
          R. Elazar regarding Gitin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OUTSKIRTS OF ERETZ YISRAEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel):</font></b> He must say this even if he 
          brings it from Rekem or Cheger. R. Eliezer obligates even 
          if he brings it from the village near Lud to Lud;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> The Tana'im argue about cities that are close to 
          Eretz Yisrael and enveloped (surrounded on three sides by 
          Eretz Yisrael);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> These cities are as far from 
               Eretz Yisrael as from Bei Kuvi to Pumbadisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The first Tana does not require a Shali'ach from such 
          cities to make the declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The first Tana holds like Rabah. The nearby 
          cities also know the law of Lishmah, so no declaration is 
          needed. The latter Tana'im hold like Rava. Since 
          witnesses are not available for Kiyum, they require a 
          declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im 
          hold like him, and Rava can do similarly;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (On behalf of Rabah):</font></b> The first Tana holds that 
               nearby cities know the law of Lishmah. R. Gamliel 
               says, only enveloped cities know. R. Eliezer says, 
               even though enveloped cities know, also they must 
               say the declaration, to make the law uniform in 
               Chutz La'aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> The first Tana holds that witnesses are 
               available to be Mekayem signatures from nearby 
               cities. R. Gamliel holds that witnesses are 
               available only from enveloped cities. R. Eliezer 
               obligates even from enveloped cities, to make the 
               law uniform in Chutz La'aretz.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE TANA'IM IN THE MISHNAH REQUIRE THE DECLARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Chachamim):</font></b> One who brings a Get from abroad, 
          or takes a Get abroad, must say...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The first Tana exempts one who takes a Get 
          abroad from the declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The first Tana holds like Rabah. Since the 
          Get was written in Eretz Yisrael, where people know about 
          Lishmah, no declaration is needed. The latter Chachamim 
          hold like Rava. Since witnesses are not available to be 
          Mekayem the signatures, a declaration is required.
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE NECESSITY FOR THE SIGNATURES OF WITNESSES ON A GET TO BE 'LISHMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that the reason why the Tana of the Mishnah requires that both the Kesivah (writing) and the Chasimah (signing) of the Get be done Lishmah, according to Rabah, is that he follows the view of Rebbi Elazar. Although Rebbi Elazar says that Edei Chasimah (witnesses signed on the Get) are not required altogether, nevertheless if witnesses <i>do</i> sign he Get, those witnesses must sign Lishmah, and if they do not sign Lishmah the Get is invalid. (Rebbi Elazar issues a similar ruling in the case of a invalid witness (such as a relative) who signed a Get. Although he maintains that witnesses do not have to sign a Get, invalid witnesses signed on a Get are worse than no witnesses signed on a Get, and the Get is invalid.)
</p><p>
What is the logic behind this ruling? When witnesses sign the Get she'Lo Lishmah, why is the Get invalid? It is understandable that when an invalid witness signs the Get, there is justification for the Chachamim to invalidate the Get lest people mistakenly infer from the fact that this person signed the Get that he is a valid witness (and use him as a witness for other matters). However, when a Get is signed she'Lo Lishmah, what possible mishap could result for which the Chachamim should invalidate the Get? (The witness himself is a valid witness for all other matters, and he signed in attestation of what actually occurred; he merely did not sign Lishmah.) Certainly, mid'Oraisa there is no reason for the Get to be invalid since the Torah does not require Edei Chasimah in the first place.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Modeh) explains that the Rabanan invalidated a Get that is not signed Lishmah because people might mistakenly assume that the Kesivah also does not need to be Lishmah. Although this Get was written already, the next time they write a Get they will assume that they do not need to write it Lishmah. (They will not realize that the Edei Chasimah are entirely extraneous to the validity of the Get.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> suggests that there is a case in which the Get is invalid mid'Oraisa because the Edei Chasimah did not sign Lishmah. In a case in which the Get was handed over in front of Edei Mesirah (witnesses who see the giving of the Get) but those witnesses are no longer available (they died or left the country), the onus of validation falls on the Edei Chasimah, the witnesses signed on the Get. Rebbi Elazar says (3b) that the Get may be validated through the Edei Chasimah in such a case. How do the Edei Chasimah prove that the Get was delivered in front of witnesses (Edei Mesirah)? Since their signatures testify that the Get was not forged, it is assumed that everything about the Get was done in the proper manner.
</p><p>
The Rashba writes that when the Get is validated through the Edei Chasimah, their signatures and testimony become an integral part of the Get since Beis Din authenticates the Get based on their signatures. Therefore, just as every other important part of the Get must be written Lishmah, the signatures -- through which the Get is authenticated -- must also be written Lishmah. In such a case the signatures are considered part of the Kesivah. 
</p><p>
This is why Rebbi Elazar says that when witnesses sign the Get she'Lo Lishmah, the Get is invalid mid'Rabanan. The Chachamim were concerned that at a later time Beis Din would rely on the Edei Chasimah to validate the Get, and if the witnesses did not sign Lishmah, the Get cannot be validated on the basis of their signatures.
</p><p>
(c) The Rashba points out that according to the <b>RIF</b>, signatures that are no Lishmah might invalidate the Get <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. The Rif maintains that according to Rebbi Elazar, although the Edei Mesirah empower the Get to be effective ('Edei Mesirah Karti'), Edei Chasimah also give the Get validity without Edei Mesirah. (See <b>TOSFOS</b>, DH d'Kaima Lan.)
</p><p>
The Rashba suggests that according to the Rif, Rebbi Elazar requires that both the Edei Mesirah and Edei Chasimah be Lishmah, since they are of equal importance. (The Rashba concludes that he does not favor this approach. If Edei Chasimah are included in the words 'v'Kasav Lah,' then every Get should require Edei Chasimah, and yet Rebbi Elazar permits a Get to be written without Edei Chasimah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im 
          learn like he does, and so can Rava:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (On behalf of Rabah):</font></b> All hold that there is no 
               concern about the Get. The latter Chachamim decree 
               to require a declaration lest a Shali'ach with a Get 
               from abroad not say it. The first Tana does not 
               decree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (On behalf of Rava):</font></b> There is no argument. The 
               latter Chachamim explain that the first Tana also 
               requires a declaration for a Get sent abroad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who brings a Get from one province to 
          another in Chutz La'aretz must say 'it was written...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Inference:</font></b> Within the same province in Chutz 
          La'aretz, no declaration is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rava, who says that the concern is 
          Kiyum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rabah, we should be concerned that it 
               was not Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we infer that no declaration is needed 
          from province to province in Eretz Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Reisha explicitly taught this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If we learned only from the Reisha, one might 
          have thought that b'Di'eved, the Get is Kosher, but 
          l'Chatchilah, a declaration must be made. The repetition 
          teaches that even l'Chatchilah, no declaration is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Inference:</font></b> From province to province in 
          Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rabah, who says that the concern 
          is Lishmah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rava, we should be concerned that 
               witnesses are not available to be Mekayem the 
               signatures!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, we infer that within the same province 
          in Chutz La'aretz, no declaration is needed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If a declaration is needed (even in Eretz 
          Yisrael) from province to province, the Mishnah should 
          simply say so (without mentioning Chutz la'Aretz)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, from province to province in Eretz 
          Yisrael, no declaration is needed. Since all ascend to 
          Yerushalayim on the festivals, witnesses can be found to 
          be Mekayem the signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This applies only when the Mikdash stands. How 
          can we answer for after the Churban?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since Batei Dinin are fixed, people regularly 
          travel from province to province, and witnesses are 
          available for Kiyum.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>RABAH AGREES WITH RAVA'S REASON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> Even from one county 
          to another (he must say...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Asasiyos was a city in Eretz Yisrael. It 
          had two districts, each ruled by a different governor. 
          They would not let people travel between the districts, 
          so a declaration was required for a Get sent from one 
          district to the other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rava, but it is unlike Rabah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah agrees that we are concerned for Kiyum. He 
          says that we are also concerned for Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, (Rabah and Rava do not argue in all the 
          cases listed above (2b);) in which cases do Rabah and 
          Rava argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about two Sheluchim who bring a Get, 
          and a Get brought within one province in Chutz La'aretz. 
          (Only Rabah requires a declaration.)
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO CANNOT MAKE THE DECLARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one brought a Get from Chutz La'aretz and 
          cannot say 'it was written and signed in front of me', if 
          it has witnesses, we are Mekayem it through the 
          signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does it mean 'he cannot say 'it was 
          written and signed in front of me'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Shali'ach is a deaf-mute.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A deaf-mute cannot bring a Get!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone can bring a Get, except for a 
                    deaf-mute, lunatic or minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Shali'ach gave the Get when he 
          was healthy. Before he said 'it was written...' he became 
          deaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  This is like Rava. Since he cannot make the declaration, 
          we are Mekayem the Get through the signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rabah, even with Kiyum, we should 
          be concerned lest it is not Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is after people in Chutz La'aretz 
          learned the law of Lishmah (so this is no longer a 
          concern).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even if the Shali'ach can make the 
          declaration, why must he?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We decreed that Sheluchim still say it, lest 
          people in Chutz La'aretz forget the law again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does Kiyum suffice when the 
          Shali'ach was healthy and became deaf?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is an unusual case. Chachamim did not decree 
          in unusual cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It is unusual for a wife to be a Shali'ach for 
          her own Get, yet a decree was made!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman can bring her own Get, but she 
               must say 'it was written and signed in front of me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We require her to say it, to make the law of 
          Sheluchim uniform.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, a husband should also need to say it, 
          but we learned that he need not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If the husband brings the Get, he need 
               not say 'it was written and signed in front of me,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The whole reason for the declaration is due to 
          concern lest the husband claim that the Get is Pasul. 
          Since he brought it himself, he will not say that it is 
          Pasul!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>GITIN THAT ARE VALID WITHOUT A DECLARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Shmuel):</font></b> If two Sheluchim bring a Get from 
          abroad, must they make the declaration?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> No. If they would say that they saw 
          the divorce, they would be believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rava. The husband cannot claim 
          that the Get is a forgery (i.e. he did not authorize it), 
          since both Sheluchim will contradict him, so there is no 
          concern.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rabah, we should be concerned lest it 
               is not Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is after people in Chutz La'aretz learned 
          the law of Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even one Shali'ach should not need to 
          make a declaration!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We decreed that a Shali'ach should make the 
          declaration, lest people in Chutz La'aretz forget the law 
          again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, even two Sheluchim should need to say 
          it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is an unusual case. Chachamim did not decree 
          in unusual cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It is unusual for a wife to be a Shali'ach for 
          her own Get, and a decree was made!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman can bring her own Get, but she 
               must say...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We require her to say it, to make the law of 
          Sheluchim uniform.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, a husband should also need to say it, 
          but we learned that he need not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If the husband brings the Get, he need 
               not say 'it was written and signed in front of me,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The whole reason for the declaration is due to 
          concern lest the husband claim that the Get is Pasul. 
          Since he brought it himself, he will not say that it is 
          Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man brought a Get from abroad and did not 
          say 'it was written...,' if it was Mekuyam, the Get is 
          valid. If not, it is not;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The enactment was made to be lenient on the wife, 
               not stringent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like Rava. Once the Get is Mekuyam, 
          there is no other concern.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rabah, we should be concerned lest it 
               is not Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is after people in Chutz La'aretz 
          learned the law of Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We said that we decreed that a Shali'ach still 
          say it, lest people in Chutz La'aretz forget the law 
          again!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, she already remarried.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Beraisa say that the 
          enactment was made to be lenient on the wife, not 
          stringent? The reason we do not disqualify the Get is 
          because she already remarried!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa dispels the following suggestion:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should be stringent and say that she 
               must leave her husband!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The enactment was made to be lenient on 
               the wife, not stringent;
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE REQUIREMENT TO SAY 'B'FANAI NICHTAV' WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A GET MUST BE WRITTEN 'LISHMAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara concludes that according to Rava, the requirement that the Shali'ach who delivers a Get must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' was instituted simply in order to be Mekayem the Get (so that the husband cannot claim that it is forged). According to Rabah, it was instituted in order to be Mekayem the Get <i>and</i> to ensure that it was written Lishmah, since the Chachamim were concerned for the possibility that the Get was not written Lishmah.
</p><p>
The Gemara challenges Rabah's opinion from the Mishnah later (9a) which teaches that if a Shali'ach delivers a Get and loses the ability to speak before he can say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' witnesses must be brought to authenticate the signatures in the Get in place of the Shali'ach saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' This implies that saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' serves only to be Mekayem the Get and not to ensure that it was written Lishmah.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that according to Rabah, that Mishnah was written after the people in Chutz la'Aretz learned that a Get must be written Lishmah, and thus there is no longer any need to prove that the Get was written Lishmah. Since it is no longer necessary to prove that the Get was written Lishmah, Rabah's opinion for why 'b'Fanai Nichtav' must be said should be identical to Rava's. The Gemara asks, however, that if Rabah maintains that the Mishnah (9a) was written after the people in Chutz la'Aretz learned that a Get must be written Lishmah, then even when a Shali'ach is <i>able</i> to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' he should not be required to say it; it should be enough to be Mekayem the Get with witnesses. That is the Gemara's question on Rabah.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara ask this question on Rabah and not on Rava? The same question applies equally to Rava's opinion: A Shali'ach -- even if he can talk -- should never need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam, and it should suffice to have witnesses be Mekayem it.
</p><p>
The answer is that the Gemara does not ask this question on Rava's opinion for one of two reasons. The first possible reason is that Rava indeed does not require a Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' if witnesses are available to be Mekayem the Get. (On the contrary, 'b'Fanai Nichtav' was instituted only to make it easier to be Mekayem the Get by enabling a single person to testify to its authenticity.) This is the approach of <b>TOSFOS</b> (2b, DH Mai Beinaihu). The second possible reason is that the Chachamim required the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even when the Get has already been authenticated (Mekuyam) because of 'Lo Plug' (that is, they applied their enactment in all situations, even where the reason does not exist, in order to ensure that it is upheld in a situation where the reason does exist). However, in the case of a Shali'ach who suddenly became unable to speak, the enactment does not apply because such a case is a very unusual situation (a 'Milsa d'Lo Shechicha'), in which case the Chachamim did not apply the 'Lo Plug,' as the Gemara concludes. This is the approach of Rashi who disagrees with Tosfos (2b; see Insights there).
</p><p>
However, if these are the reasons why the Gemara does not ask its question on Rava, then the Gemara should give the same answers when it asks this question on Rabah's opinion. The Gemara should answer that Rabah indeed does not require the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' after the people learned the laws of writing a Get Lishmah, when witnesses are available to be Mekayem it (Tosfos). Alternatively, the Gemara should answer that the Shali'ach still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because of the 'Lo Plug' (Rashi) even when there are witnesses available to be Mekayem the Get.
</p><p>
What, then, is the Gemara's question on Rabah's opinion?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS: TOSFOS</b> (DH Iy Hachi) lists a number of possible approaches to the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
(a) Tosfos and other Rishonim write that <b>RASHI</b> in his original manuscript wrote that this Sugya follows the Havah Amina, the initial assumption of the Gemara, according to which Rabah is concerned only for Lishmah and not for Kiyum of the Get. Accordingly, after the people in Chutz la'Aretz became familiar with the laws of writing a Get Lishmah, 'b'Fanai Nichtav' should no longer have been necessary altogether, even for Kiyum. The Gemara answers that the Chachamim instituted that the Shali'ach say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because the people of Chutz la'Aretz might again forget about the laws of Lishmah.
</p><p>
This answer seems problematic. Why should the Gemara attempt to defend the initial assumption if it has already proven that Rabah agrees with the reason of Rava? Moreover, the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> asks that if Rabah does not require the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in order to be Mekayem the Get, why does the Mishnah say that when a Cheresh delivers a Get, the Get needs witnesses to be Mekayem it? Since Rabah does not require a Shali'ach to be Mekayem the Get when he delivers it to the woman, why does the Mishnah say that when a Cheresh delivers a Get, there is no concern that the Get is not Lishmah, but witnesses are needed to be Mekayem it? It should not be necessary to be Mekayem it altogether!
</p><p>
(Rashi apparently understands that the Mishnah (9a) means that only if the husband challenges the validity of the Get must witnesses be brought to be Mekayem it. This interpretation implies that Rashi maintains that when a Shali'ach <i>does</i> say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' -- even though he says it only to prove that the Get was written Lishmah (according to Rabah in the Havah Amina) -- nevertheless his testimony also serves to be Mekayem the Get. Therefore, the Mishnah must say that in the case of a Cheresh, where the Shali'ach did not say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' it becomes necessary to be Mekayem the Get with witnesses when the husband challenges the Get. Perhaps Rashi retracted this explanation because he changed his mind about this point and now maintains that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' cannot help to be Mekayem the Get according to Rabah in the Havah Amina. The Shali'ach is believed, as a single witness, to testify about the Get only when there is no challenge to the validity of the Get. Alternatively, Rashi means that when a Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' the husband is not believed if he later claims that the Get was not written Lishmah (Rashi 3a, DH me'Ikara). In contrast, in the case of a Cheresh who does not say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' the husband would be believed (even after the people became learned in the laws of Lishmah) to say that the Get was not written Lishmah but that it was written for someone else with the same name who gave it to him. Although usually there is no concern that a Get was written she'Lo Lishmah after the laws of Lishmah became well known, the husband would be believed with a 'Migu' that he could have said that the Get is completely forged. Therefore, the Mishnah says that witnesses must be Mekayem the Get in order to remove the husband's Migu, so that he will not be believed if he claims that the Get was not written Lishmah.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> explains that according to Rava, the requirement to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' was instituted as a leniency, in order to avoid the necessity to be Mekayem the Get. Accordingly, every Mishnah which discusses the laws of a Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' refers to cases in which there is no Kiyum and one seeks to avoid having to do Kiyum. In such cases the Shali'ach should say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' However, according to Rabah, the Chachamim required that a Shali'ach say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' as a <i>stringency</i>, because they suspected that the Get might not have been written Lishmah. Therefore, the first Mishnah of the Perek -- which refers to the time <i>before</i> people learned the laws of Lishmah -- means that even when the Get is already Mekuyam the Shali'ach still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because of the stringency which the Chachamim instituted. Accordingly, the Mishnah later (9a), which discusses a Cheresh who delivers a Get, refers to the law of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in the same context, and it is saying that even when there are witnesses to be Mekayem the Get, the Shali'ach still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' That is why the Gemara asks specifically according to Rabah that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' should not be necessary for a Get that is Mekuyam, after the people learned the laws of Lishmah!
</p><p>
This approach is valid only according to the opinion of Tosfos, who maintains that Rava indeed is lenient and does not require that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said in the case of a Get that is Mekuyam. However, according to Rashi (see Rashi 16b, DH Kasher, and Insights to 2b), Rava is stringent and requires that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said even in the case of a Get Mekuyam, because of 'Lo Plug.' Hence, according to Rabah as well, the requirement to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is a stringency both before and after the people learned the laws of Lishmah, since Kiyum will not suffice because of the 'Lo Plug.'
</p><p>
(c) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> suggests that the Gemara's question is based on the assumption that Rabah and Rava have a practical argument and not just a theoretical argument. They are not arguing merely over when 'b'Fanai Nichtav' <i>used</i> to be said, but they are arguing about when 'b'Fanai Nichtav' must be said even today. When the Gemara asks 'Mai Beinaihu' -- what is the practical difference between Rabah and Rava -- it is asking what the practical difference is between them <i>even today</i>, after people have learned the laws of writing a Get Lishmah.
</p><p>
Tosfos proves this assertion by reasoning that if the Mishnah (9a) which discusses a Cheresh refers to <i>after</i> people have learned the laws of Lishmah ('l'Achar she'Lamdu'), presumably all of the other Mishnayos in the Perek refer to 'l'Achar she'Lamdu' as well, and yet Rabah and Rava still argue about the reason of the Mishnah for why 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is said! The Gemara's question, then, is why does Rabah require 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even within a single country in Medinas ha'Yam, after they learned the laws of Lishmah? Since they became expert in the laws of Lishmah, and Kiyum is not necessary because they are in the same country, Rava should have agreed with Rabah that in the same country in Medinas ha'Yam it is not necessary to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'! The Gemara answers that the Chachamim instituted a Gezeirah that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said lest the situation return to the original state of ignorance ('Gezeirah Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo'). (The words 'Hacha b'Mai Askinan,' though, imply that only <i>that</i> Mishnah (on 9a) refers to the time of 'l'Achar she'Lamdu.')
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> suggests a simple approach to the Gemara, which he subsequently rejects. He suggests that the Gemara is not asking why 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' is necessary and Kiyum does not suffice. Kiyum <i>would</i> suffice (or, according to Rashi, Kiyum would not suffice even according to Rava). Rather, the Gemara is asking why 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' is necessary. According to Rava, 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' is necessary in order to prevent people from thinking that a single witness may serve to be Mekayem an ordinary Shtar other than a Get (as the Gemara says on 3a). According to Rabah, on the other hand, people know that this Kiyum is different from the Kiyum of an ordinary Shtar, because they see that saying 'Yadanu' does not work for the Kiyum of the Get; the Shali'ach (or Sheluchim, according to Tosfos 3a, DH Hacha; see Maharsha there) must say only the text of 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam,' while for the Kiyum of an ordinary Shtar the witnesses may say 'Yadanu.' Therefore, the Gemara is asking that according to Rabah, when it is no longer necessary to say 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' because of the concern for Lishmah, it should not be necessary to say it even for the concern of preventing confusion with other Shtaros! The Gemara answers that Rabah requires 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' only because of the Gezeirah Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo. Accordingly, the Gemara's question is straightforward.
</p><p>
Tosfos rejects this explanation because he proves from the Gemara later (16b) that even after people learned the laws of Lishmah, Rabah still requires the Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' not only because of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo, but even because of the fear that people will confuse this Kiyum with the Kiyum of ordinary Shtaros. (Although the Chachamim would not have instituted 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' because of that fear alone, once they instituted it for the concern of Lishmah, they intended that it also be said in order to prevent confusion with other Shtaros.)
</p><p>
Tosfos' proof is from the Gemara later (16b) which records a Machlokes Amora'im with regard to whether two people who bring a Get need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Tosfos asserts that the Machlokes there applies only according to Rabah's opinion (and l'Achar she'Lamdu). According to Rava, who maintains that the purpose for saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is to be Mekayem the Get, everyone agrees that two people who bring a Get do not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' since they are Mekayem it merely by saying that they are Sheluchim (see Insights to 2b). Rebbi Yochanan (16b) says that when two Sheluchim bring a Get together and one says 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' and the other says 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>,' the Get is valid. The Gemara proves from Rebbi Yochanan's statement that he maintains that two people who bring a Get do not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.'
</p><p>
How does the Gemara prove from Rebbi Yochanan's statement that he maintains that two Sheluchim do not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam'? Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan says that the Get is valid only because 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' <i>was</i> said -- one Shali'ach said 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' and the other Shali'ach said 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>'! Why does the Gemara assume that the Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>' must be the same one who says 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' if 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' is required when two Sheluchim bring a Get? If the only reason for saying 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' (l'Achar she'Lamdu) is the concern for Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo, then it should suffice for the second Shali'ach to say 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' and attest that the Kesivah was done Lishmah!
</p><p>
Tosfos (16b, DH Alma) points out that the Gemara there teaches that after people learned the laws of Lishmah, Rabah requires 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' in order to prevent confusion with the Kiyum of other Shtaros. Therefore, the same Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>' must also say 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>,' so that people not confuse his Kiyum with the Kiyum of an ordinary Shtar.
</p><p>
Although Tosfos rejects this explanation, perhaps Rashi <i>does</i> explain the Gemara this way. Rashi learns the Gemara later (16b) differently from Tosfos, in such a way that Tosfos' proof from there is not valid. Rashi explains that the Gemara -- which discusses whether two Sheluchim who bring a Get must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' -- follows the opinion of <i>Rava</i>, who is always concerned that people will confuse the Kiyum of a Get with the Kiyum of other Shtaros. That is why the Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>' is also required to say 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>.' Accordingly, the Gemara here -- which is discussing the opinion of <i>Rabah</i> who is not concerned that people will confuse this Kiyum with the Kiyum of other Shtaros (because 'Yadanu' does not work for a Get) -- is justified in saying that 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' is necessary l'Achar she'Lamdu only because of the Gezeirah of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo.
</p><p>
How, though, does Rashi explain the Gemara there (16b) according to Rava? Why should two Sheluchim need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' according to Rava? Since the entire purpose for saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' is for Kiyum, it should be clear that when two Sheluchim bring a Get no further Kiyum is necessary (as the Gemara says on 2b).
</p><p>
Rashi (16b, DH Kasher) answers this question by suggesting that according to the opinion that Rava requires two Sheluchim to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam,' the reason is 'Lo Plug.'
</p><p>
This view of Rashi -- that Rava requires that 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' be said even when the Get is already Mekuyam because of 'Lo Plug' -- answers the question of Tosfos earlier (4b, DH Rabah). Tosfos asks why Rabah requires 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' when a Shali'ach brings a Get from one township to another within Eretz Yisrael; there should be no concern for Lishmah and no concern for confusing the Kiyum with other Shtaros (since Rabah maintains that there is no concern for this, as the Gemara says on 3a). (Tosfos' answer there is consistent with his opinion here.) Rashi might answer that Rabah requires 'b'Fanai <i>Nichtav</i>' when one brings a Get from township to township because of 'Lo Plug.'
</p><p>
This also explains why Rashi rejects the explanation of Tosfos earlier (3a). The Gemara there says that according to Rava, two Sheluchim who bring a Get may say 'Yadanu' in place of 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.' Tosfos explains that the Gemara refers to a <i>pair</i> of Sheluchim who bring a Get together (Tosfos 3a, DH Hacha and DH Atu; 5a, DH Bei Trei). That is why the Gemara writes 'Yad'inan' (in the plural form) and not 'Yadana' (or 'Yadati,' in the singular form). Rashi, however, explains that the Gemara does not intend to limit the Halachah to two Sheluchim, but even a single Shali'ach who brings a Get (according to Rava) may say 'Yadati' in place of 'b'Fanai <i>Nechtam</i>.' Why does Rashi not explain the Gemara literally? Moreover, as Tosfos points out, according to Rashi's explanation all of the Mishnayos which discuss a Shali'ach who says 'b'Fanai Nechtam' are Lav Davka, because if he wants he could say 'Yadati' instead! The answer is that Rashi is consistent with his own view, that according to one opinion (on 16b) whatever wording is required of a single Shali'ach is required of two Sheluchim as well because of 'Lo Plug.' Therefore, if a single Shali'ach may not say 'Yadati,' two Sheluchim also may not say 'Yadanu' because of 'Lo Plug.' It must be that Rava maintains that even a single Shali'ach may say 'Yadati.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The enactment was made due to concern lest the 
               husband claim that the Get is Pasul. If he does not 
               contest the Get, should we contest it?! (Tosfos - 
               this is Rejection #2. Rashi - it is the culmination 
               of the rejection.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>RELATED ARGUMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  One of R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds like 
          Rabah, and the other holds like Rava.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi must hold like Rabah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon bar Aba brought a Get, and asked R. 
               Yehoshua ben Levi whether or not he must make a 
               declaration.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua ben Levi:</font></b> You need not. Only previous 
               generations, which were not proficient in Lishmah, 
               needed to make a declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> We concluded that Rabah is also concerned 
          lest witnesses not be available for Kiyum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> We concluded that Rabah holds that there is 
          a decree to make the declaration even today, lest people 
          forget the law again!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer to both questions:</font></b> There was another Shali'ach 
          with R. Shimon. Out of honor for R. Shimon, the other 
          Shali'ach was not mentioned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In front of how many witnesses must the Get be 
          given?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan or R. Chanina):</font></b> It must be given 
          in front of two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (the other of R. Yochanan and R. Chanina):</font></b> It 
          must be given in front of three.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  We can prove that R. Yochanan holds that it may be given 
          in front of two.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ravin bar Rav Chisda brought a Get (from abroad) in 
               front of R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan told him to give 
               it in front of two witnesses and to make the 
               declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The opinion that allows in front of two is 
          concerned for Lishmah. The opinion that requires three is 
          concerned for Kiyum. (The declaration is Mekayem the Get, 
          so a Beis Din is required.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi is concerned for 
          Lishmah, so R. Yochanan must be concerned for Kiyum, and 
          he allows giving in front of two!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> Rabah agrees to Rava. (All are concerned 
          for Kiyum!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argue about whether 
          or not a Shali'ach can become a witness, and the witness 
          can become a judge:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The opinion that allows in front of two holds that a 
               Shali'ach can become a witness, and the witness can 
               become a judge. (The Shali'ach helps to comprise a 
               Beis Din of three judges.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The opinion that requires three holds that a 
               Shali'ach can become a witness, but a witness cannot 
               become a judge.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We hold that for mid'Rabanan laws, a witness 
          can become a judge!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the opinion that requires three holds 
          that since a woman may be a Shali'ach, we are concerned 
          lest they rely on her to be one of the three judges for 
          the Beis Din;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The other opinion says that people know that a woman 
               cannot be a judge, so we are not concerned for such 
               a mistake.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If a 
          Shali'ach brought a Get from abroad and gave it, but did 
          not say 'it was written and signed in front of me', and 
          she remarried, she must leave her husband. If she had 
          children, they are Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the children are not Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Shali'ach should take back the Get, give it 
               again in front of two, and make the declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Meir really hold that because the 
          Shali'ach did not say this, she must leave her husband, 
          and her children are Mamzerim?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! This is like another teaching of R. Meir:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> R. Meir holds that if a Get is unlike 
               the rules that Chachamim fixed for Gitin, (if she 
               remarried) she must leave her husband, and her 
               children are Mamzerim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH OF THE WRITING MUST THE SHALI'ACH SEE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Bar Hedya wanted to bring a Get. He came in front of R. 
          Achai, who was appointed over Gitin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Achai:</font></b> You must see every letter written (so you 
               will be able to say 'it was written and signed in 
               front of me').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He came in front of R. Ami and R. Asi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ami and R. Asi:</font></b> This is unnecessary. Further, you 
               should not do so, lest people doubt the validity of 
               previous Gitin, for which this was not done.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar bar Chanah brought a Get; only half of it was 
          written in front of him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Even if (you saw) only the first line 
          written Lishmah, that is enough.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It suffices to hear the pen scratching on the 
          paper.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY FROM THE MOUTH OF OTHER WITNESSES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Machlokes Amora'im with regard to whether the Shali'ach must hand over the Get to the woman in front of two people or three people. The Gemara first suggests that the Machlokes revolves around the reason for why the Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nichtav': if he says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in order to be Mekayem the Get (like Rava), then he must say it in front of <i>three</i> people who qualify as a Beis Din, since the testimony of Kiyum must be done in front of a Beis Din. If the reason for saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is in order to ensure that the Get was written Lishmah (like Rabah), then it suffices to say it in front of two witnesses and it is not necessary to say it in front of a Beis Din. It suffices to have two witnesses who hear the Shali'ach say that the Get was written Lishmah.
</p><p>
Why should it suffice to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in front of two witnesses, even if the reason for saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is to prove that the Get was written Lishmah? There is a rule that any testimony must be presented directly in front of a Beis Din. If it is presented in front of another pair of witnesses, the second pair of witnesses may not testify in front of a Beis Din what they heard from the first pair of witnesses, because 'Ed mi'Pi Ed' is not a valid form of testimony! The Shali'ach should have to hand over the Get in front of a Beis Din of three people, even if the reason for saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is to testify that the Get was written Lishmah, so that the Beis Din will hear the testimony directly from him! (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The Rishonim discuss this question and suggest two different approaches.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> explains that the rule that 'Ed mi'Pi Ed' is not a valid form of testimony applies only where the testimony of two valid witnesses is required, such as in cases of Dinei Mamonos (monetary matters) and Davar sheb'Ervah. However, when the testimony of a single witness is sufficient (such as in cases of Isurim), where even a woman is able to testify, even 'Ed mi'Pi Ed' is accepted (Bechoros 36a). Although the testimony concerning the validity of the Get is actually considered a Davar sheb'Ervah and should require two witnesses, the Chachamim were lenient with regard to the testimony of Lishmah, which is required in the first place only mid'Rabanan, and they ruled that the testimony of the single Shali'ach suffices. This means that the Chachamim gave the testimony of Lishmah a status of testimony for Isurim, and not a status of Davar sheb'Ervah. Therefore, 'Ed mi'Pi Ed' would also be valid testimony for Lishmah, and the Shali'ach may hand over the Get in front of any two witnesses. (The reason the Shali'ach is required to be 'Meidak Dayik' (3a) is only to prevent the husband from challenging the Get later, and it is not in order to validate the testimony of the Shali'ach.) The Pnei Yehoshua gives the same answer.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ME'IRI</b> cites the 'Chochmei ha'Har' who answer that when witnesses tell the court that they saw the Shali'ach say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' it is not considered 'Ed mi'Pi Ed.' Rather, it is considered an original testimony. When the Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' he is not doing so as a witness giving testimony. Rather, he is considered a Ba'al Davar, a participant in the procedure of the divorce, whose actions can prove that the Get was written Lishmah. Thus, when the two witnesses testify that they saw him say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' they are testifying to part of the procedure of the divorce, and they are not testifying about what another witness said.
</p><p>
(It appears, according to the Chochmei ha'Har, that the Shali'ach is believed only because he is 'Meidak Dayek,' since, otherwise, a single witness would not be believed in a case of divorce. The proof that it was written Lishmah, therefore, is not from the words of the Shali'ach alone, but rather from the circumstances that surround his delivery of the Get. There is an 'Umdena' that the Shali'ach is 'Meidak Dayek' and would not falsify such testimony. That is why what he says is not considered testimony, or 'Edus.')
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT MUST THE SHALI'ACH SEE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Ashi - Beraisa):</font></b> If Get brought from 
          abroad is Kosher even if the Shali'ach was in the house, 
          and the scribe was in the second story, or vice-versa, 
          and even if he went in and out all day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If he was in the house and the scribe was 
               in the second story, he did not see it written!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We must say that he heard the scratching of 
               the quill on the parchment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says 'even if he went in and out 
          all day.' To whom does this refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It refers to the Shali'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> It is Kosher even if he was in the house 
               and the scribe was in the second story, and he did 
               not see the writing. All the more so, it is Kosher 
               if he went in and out!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it refers to the scribe.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious! Should the Get be Pasul 
          because the scribe left the house?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he went to the market. One might 
          have thought that we should be concerned lest another man 
          asked the scribe to write the Get for him (and the scribe 
          had this in mind). The Beraisa teaches that we are not 
          concerned for this.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE STATUS OF BAVEL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The law of Bavel is like Eretz Yisrael regarding 
          Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Bavel is like Chutz La'aretz regarding Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Rav holds that the declaration is because we 
          are concerned lest it was not Lishmah, and people in 
          Bavel are learned. Shmuel holds that the declaration is 
          for Kiyum, and witnesses from Bavel are not common.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Even Rabah, who is concerned for Lishmah, is 
          also concerned for Kiyum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, both agree that we are concerned for 
          Kiyum;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav holds that since there are Yeshivos in Bavel 
               (and people often travel between them), witnesses 
               are commonly found. Shmuel holds that Talmidim 
               learning in Yeshivah are too busy to become familiar 
               with signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> After Rav came to Bavel (and established a 
          Yeshiva), Bavel became like Eretz Yisrael regarding 
          Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehudah obligates a 
          Get brought from Rekem or eastwards. Rekem itself is 
          considered Chutz La'aretz. From Ashkelon or further south 
          is like Chutz La'aretz. From Ako or further north is like 
          Chutz La'aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Bavel is north of Ako - 'the evil will sprout from 
               the north'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, Ako is like Eretz Yisrael regarding 
               Gitin.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Summation of question:</font></b> Even R. Meir says so 
                    only about Ako, since it is near, but not about 
                    Bavel, since it is far!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The Mishnah means, all places north 
          of Ako (are like Chutz la'Aretz), except for Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What are the boundaries of Bavel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Papa):</font></b> (People of Bavel are established to 
          have good lineage. Amora'im (Kidushin 71b) argue about 
          what is considered Bavel regarding lineage.) Just like 
          they argue about lineage, they argue about Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> They argue only about lineage. 
          Regarding Gitin, all agree that Bavel extends until the 
          second willow tree by the bridge.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda required a declaration for Gitin sent from 
          Aktisfon to Bei Ardeshir, but not in the other direction.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He holds that the reason for the 
               declaration is Lishmah. People in Bei Ardeshir know 
               the law, but those in Aktisfon do not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Even Rabah is concerned for Kiyum!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, the concern is Kiyum. People of Bei Ardeshir 
               go to the market in Aktisfon, so the people of 
               Aktisfon recognize signatures of people of Bei 
               Ardeshir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why don't the people of Bei Ardeshir 
               recognize signatures of people of Aktisfon?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They are busy in the market (and have no 
               time to look at documents).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar Avuha required a declaration for Gitin sent 
          from one row of houses to the row on the other side of 
          the public road;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes required a declaration for Gitin sent from a 
          group of (three or more) houses to another group;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Rava required a declaration for Gitin sent within the 
          same group of houses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava holds that the only concern is Kiyum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The people of Mechuza (Rava's city) are very 
          transient, and do not recognize their neighbors' 
          signatures.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SAYING THE DECLARATION WHEN IT IS NOT REQUIRED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanin):</font></b> A Get was brought, either from Sura to 
          Neharde'a, or vice-versa, and Rav said 'no declaration is 
          required. If you say it, it helps.'
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES ONE SAY 'B'FANAI NICHTAV' WHEN HE DELIVERS A GET IN BAVEL?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the status of Bavel with regard to the delivery  of a Get. Rav maintains that Bavel is like Eretz Yisrael, and one is not required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he delivers a Get from one part of Bavel to another. Shmuel disagrees and maintains that Bavel is like Chutz la'Aretz, and one is required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' there.
</p><p>
The Gemara initially proposes that the reason why Rav exempts the people of Bavel from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is that they are 'Beki'in Lishmah' -- they know that a Get must be written Lishmah. However, the Gemara rejects this suggestion because even Rabah agrees that there is a second reason to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' -- in order to be Mekayem the Get when the witnesses are not available.
</p><p>
The Gemara therefore explains that according to Rav, since there are Yeshivos throughout Bavel, there is a constant flow of people who are able to be Mekayem the Get. Shmuel counters that the flow of people consists of Talmidim of the Yeshivos who are so involved with their learning that they do not recognize the signatures of their neighbors and thus are unable to serve as witnesses to be Mekayem a Get.
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and brings further proof ('Itmar Nami') from the statement of Rav Huna who said, 'We, in Bavel, conducted ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin from the time that Rav came to Bavel.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara here brings further proof to the fact that Rav's reasoning is that the Talmidim of the Yeshivos are able to attest to the signatures in the Get and be Mekayem it, and not that the people of Bavel are Beki'in Lishmah. The proof is that since Bavel became like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin only from the time that Rav founded the second Yeshiva in Bavel, if Rav exempts a Shali'ach in Bavel from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because the people are Beki'in Lishmah, the people of Bavel should have been exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even <i>before</i> the time of Rav, because the people of Bavel were Torah scholars from when they came to Bavel at the time of the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> presents a strong challenge to Rashi's explanation of the Gemara from the Gemara's next question. Rebbi Yirmeyah asks Rav, why is a Shali'ach in Bavel exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav'? The Mishnah (2a) clearly states that from Ako and northward one must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' and Bavel is to the north of Eretz Yisrael! According to Rashi, however, this question is no question at all; Rav exempted a Shali'ach in Bavel from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' only <i>after</i> he came to Bavel, which was long after the Mishnah was written.
</p><p>
Because of this question, Tosfos asserts that the Gemara is not attempting to prove from Rav Huna that Rav exempted Bavel from 'b'Fanai Nichtav' only because he founded a second Yeshiva there. Rather, the Gemara intends to prove only that Rav maintains that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' (but Rav indeed maintains that in Bavel one was always exempt, even before the time Rav came to Bavel).
</p><p>
It is easy to understand why Rashi rejects the explanation of Tosfos. According to Tosfos, the Gemara is not justified in saying 'Itmar Nami' ('we have further proof'). Further proof is necessary when there is a conjecture or a statement that does not have a strong basis. According to Tosfos, however, the Gemara quotes Rav himself as saying that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' No further proof is necessary to show that this is Rav's opinion. (<b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>) 
</p><p>
How, though, does Rashi answer the strong objection of Tosfos to his approach?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b> suggests that the Gemara's proof from the Mishnah is not from the fact that a Shali'ach in every place north of Bavel was required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the time of the Mishnah. Rather, the Gemara attempts to prove that even when there are caravans that travel between two places in Medinas ha'Yam, a Shali'ach still is required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because of 'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam' -- the Chachamim did not want to differentiate between places in Medinas ha'Yam and give them different Halachos. The Gemara's proof is from the Mishnah which says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the outer half of Ako is considered Chutz la'Aretz even though the inner half of Ako is considered Eretz Yisrael (see Tosfos 2a, DH v'Ashkelon). Obviously, there were caravans that frequently traveled between the two parts of Ako, but, nevertheless, since the outer half of Ako was part of Chutz la'Aretz (and was not near ('Samuch') the main populated area of Eretz Yisrael, 6b), the Chachamim required that one must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when bringing a Get from there to Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, in Bavel one should always be required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' The Gemara answers that Bavel is different, because no one would confuse Bavel with the rest of Chutz la'Aretz since it is well known that they have Yeshivos and that they are Beki'in.
</p><p>
(The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> points out that according to this explanation, there is no reason for the Gemara to point out that Bavel is north of Eretz Yisrael. The proof has nothing to do with the direction or location in which Bavel is situated.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> and <b>TORAS GITIN</b> answer that according to Rabah, when the Mishnah says that one who brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' it refers not only to one who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, but even to one who brings a Get in Chutz la'Aretz from one city to another in the same Medinah. Accordingly, it may be inferred from the Mishnah that in the times of the Mishnah, the people in Bavel were not Beki'in in the laws of Lishmah, and, therefore, like every other area north of Eretz Yisrael, they had to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when bringing a Get to the same Medinah. The Gemara therefore asks that according to Rav, why are the people of Bavel exempt from saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' nowadays because there is frequent travel between the Yeshivos? The frequent travel removes only the problem of Kiyum. 'B'Fanai Nichtav' should still be required because originally they were not Beki'in Lishmah! Even if, at the time of Rav, they had already become Beki'in Lishmah (like the rest of Chutz la'Aretz), they should be required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' according to Rabah because of the Gezeirah of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo -- they might become ignorant again (5a)!
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that in Bavel they were <i>always</i> Beki'in (because of the Jewish community that was there from the time of the Churban), and, therefore, within a single Medinah in Bavel they never had to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Consequently, in the time of Rav there was no concern of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo because there never was a situation in Bavel of ignorance regarding the laws of Lishmah.
</p><p>
Tosfos probably rejects this approach because he maintains that it is a bit forced to explain that Rebbi Yirmeyah's question is based on the opinion of Rabah, since Tosfos and most Rishonim rule, l'Halachah, like Rava, and according to Rava no question can be asked on Rav from the Mishnah.
</p><p>
Rashi, on the other hand, may follow his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (9a, DH Yiskayem; see also Yevamos 25a, Kidushin 72a, Shabbos 36b, Sukah 34b, Bava Metzia 55b), where he implies that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rava.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does it help?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If the husband will contest the Get, he will be 
          ignored.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> A man brought a Get from Kefar Sisai 
          in front of R. Yishmael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yishmael:</font></b> You must make the declaration, so the 
               woman will not need witnesses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ilai:</font></b> Why is this needed? Kefar Sisai is 
               enveloped within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and 
               is closer to Tzipori than Ako!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> Ako is part of Eretz 
                    Yisrael regarding Gitin.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Even Chachamim argue with R. Meir only about 
                    Ako, for it is far. They would agree about 
                    Kefar Sisai!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yishmael:</font></b> Hush! It is good that the Get be given 
               in a permitted way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did R. Ilai object? R. Yishmael said that 
          the declaration was only to avoid the need for witnesses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Ilai only heard R. Yishmael tell him to make 
          the declaration. He did not hear the reason.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE RULING OF R. EVYASAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Evyasar):</font></b> No declaration is needed for Gitin sent 
          from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He holds that the concern is Lishmah, 
               and the people of Bavel know the law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rabah is also concerned for Kiyum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rather, the concern is Kiyum. Since many 
          people come to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, witnesses are 
          easily found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Is R. Evyasar reliable, so that we can rely on 
          his teaching?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He wrote a verse and sent it to Rav Yehudah, without 
               Sirtut (scratching a line to write straight). This 
               is forbidden!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Evyasar):</font></b> 'They made the boy work for food, 
                    and sold the girl for wine' refers to people of 
                    Bavel who come to Eretz Yisrael (to learn, and 
                    leave their families in Bavel).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> One may write two words of a verse 
               without Sirtut, but not three.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One may write three words of a verse 
               without Sirtut, but not four.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Just because he doesn't know R. 
          Yitzchak's law does not show that he is not a great 
          Chacham?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, an error in reasoning would show that he is 
               not a great Chacham.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yitzchak's law is a tradition. R. Evyasar never 
               heard it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Also, we find that Hash-m agreed 
          with R. Evyasar (as follows)!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CONCUBINE OF GIV'AH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Evyasar):</font></b> 'Va'Tizneh Alav Pilagsho (his concubine 
          misbehaved)' - he found a fly (this will be explained);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yonason):</font></b> He found a hair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Evyasar saw Eliyahu, and asked him what Hash-m was 
          doing.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Eliyahu:</font></b> He is engaged in the account of the 
               concubine in Givah. This is what My son Evyasar 
               says, this is what My son Yonason says.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Evyasar:</font></b> Hash-m has no doubts!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Eliyahu:</font></b> Both opinions come from Hash-m (are true)! 
               Her husband found a fly and was not upset. He found 
               a hair, and this upset him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The fly was in the food she 
          prepared for him. The hair was in the place of Bi'ah. 
          (Va'Tizneh alludes to MaZoN or ZeNus.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The fly is merely disgusting. The hair poses a 
               danger (it can cut the Ever. Therefore, this upset 
               him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2:</font></b> Both were in the food;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A fly in the food is not due to negligence. A hair 
               in the food is due to negligence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> One should never instill excessive fear in 
          his house. (The husband of) the concubine of Givah did 
          so, and this caused many tens of thousands of Yisrael to 
          die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Anyone who instills excessive fear in his 
          house will eventually come to three sins: incest, 
          bloodshed, and desecration of Shabbos (some texts - of 
          Hashem's name. All of these resulted from the concubine 
          in Givah.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TALKING SOFTLY IN ONE'S HOME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a) which states that a man should say three things to his wife on Erev Shabbos before sundown: 'Did you separate Ma'aser,' 'Did you make an Eruv,' and, 'Light the Shabbos candles.' <b>RASHI</b> here explains that the Eruv to which the Mishnah there refers is <i>Eruvei Chatzeros</i>.
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Shabbos there continues and says that during Bein ha'Shemashos, a person still may make an Eruv. This prompts the Gemara there to ask, why must a person ask his wife to make an Eruv <i>before</i> sunset, if one is permitted to make an Eruv even after sunset, during Bein ha'Shemashos? The Gemara answers that one part of the Mishnah refers to Eruvei Techumin, and the other part refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, and there is a difference between the two types of Eruv; one type may be made only before Bein ha'Shemashos, and the other may be made even during Bein ha'Shemashos.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> there explains that <i>Eruvei Techumin</i> is the one which must be made before Bein ha'Shemashos, for its laws are more strict. This is the simple understanding of the Gemara there, as indeed the concept of Eruvei Techumin is always considered more strict than the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros. (One opinion in Sotah 30b maintains that the Isur of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, and even if it is not mid'Oraisa, it has an Asmachta in the Torah, while the Halachah of Eruvei Chatzeros was merely a Takanah of Shlomo ha'Melech, as mentioned in Eruvin 21b.) This is how <b>TOSFOS</b> and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> explain the Gemara there. Although <b>RABEINU TAM</b> cited by Tosfos there initially seeks to explain that the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros is more strict, he changes his mind and agrees that the concept of Eruvei Techumin is more strict.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the Eruv that a person must warn his wife about before Shabbos is an Eruv Techumin, because an Eruv Chatzeros may be made during Bein ha'Shemashos. Why, then, does Rashi here write that the Eruv which a man warns his wife about before Shabbos is an <i>Eruv Chatzeros</i>? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, DH Eravtem)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV YAAKOV</b> D. HOMNICK (presently of North Miami Beach, Florida) proposes an approach which explains that Rashi's words here in fact contradict neither what he writes in Shabbos nor the Gemara in Shabbos.
</p><p>
Rav Homnick points out that the words of Rashi in the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a, DH Eravtem) seem to compound the contradiction. Rashi comments that when the Mishnah there states that a person must ask his wife before Shabbos, 'Eravtem,' it refers to <i>both</i> Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros! Why does Rashi comment that the Mishnah refers to both forms of Eruv? Rashi should write either that the Mishnah refers to Eruvei Chatzeros (as he writes here in Gitin) or that it refers to Eruvei Techumin (as the Gemara there concludes), <i>or</i> that the Gemara will explain which Eruv the Mishnah is discussing, as Rashi himself writes there with regard to the Eruv mentioned in the end of the Mishnah (which the Mishnah permits one to make during Bein ha'Shemashos)! Why does Rashi write that a man must ask his wife to make both an Eruv Techumin and an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos?
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> in Shabbos also seems to contradict himself in this matter. Although he explains that the concept of Eruvei <i>Techumin</i> is more strict and the Eruv must be made before Bein ha'Shemashos, nevertheless he explains that one of the things which a man must warn his wife about on Erev Shabbos is to make an <i>Eruv Chatzeros</i>! 
</p><p>
The answer is that Rashi and the Rosh were bothered by an obvious question on the Gemara. The reason the Mishnah lists only three things that one must remind his wife about before Shabbos is that these are activities commonly done in every household, prior to every Shabbos. Why would the Mishnah refer to Eruvei Techumin, which is done only on rare occasions?
</p><p>
The Mishnah, therefore, must refer to Eruvei Chatzeros. If, however, it refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, why does one need to tell his wife to prepare it before Bein ha'Shemashos? An Eruv Chatzeros may be made <i>during</i> Bein ha'Shemashos!
</p><p>
The answer is that once he needs to remind his wife to make an Eruv Chatzeros, since the term 'Eruvin' also includes Eruvei Techumin he makes sure to mention it to his wife at a time when his wife still is able to make an Eruv Techumin, if necessary. This is why Rashi on the Mishnah in Shabbos explains that the Mishnah refers to both Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros, and why the Rosh says that a person must remind his wife to make an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos. This also explains why Rashi here in Gitin writes that this statement refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, since that is the main point of mentioning a reminder for one's family. The Gemara says that the statement includes Eruvei Techumin only in order to explain why it must be said before Bein ha'Shemashos and not during Bein ha'Shemashos. Since the Gemara here does not record that part of the Mishnah (about making an Eruv during Bein ha'Shemashos), Rashi here does not mention Eruvei Techumin.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXCESS FEAR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Chachamim say, a man must say 
          three things in his house on Erev Shabbos, close to dark: 
          Have you separated Ma'aseros? Have you made Eruvin? Light 
          the Shabbos lights!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> These must be said gently, 
               so the household will comply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even before I heard Rabah's teaching, I 
          (reasoned that they should be said gently, and) did so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Avahu):</font></b> One should never instill excessive fear in 
          his house. A great man, R. Chanina ben Gamliel, instilled 
          excessive fear, and they fed him an awesomely forbidden 
          food!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This cannot be! Hash-m does not allow a 
          pitfall (eating Isur) to come through animals of 
          Tzadikim, all the more so, not to Tzadikim themselves!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, they were about to feed him an 
          awesome thing: a limb from a living animal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW TO DEAL WITH TORMENTORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mar Ukva:</font></b> There are people that annoy me. I could inform 
          on them to the king. Should I?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar scratched a Sirtut line and replied 'I will 
          guard my ways from sinning with my tongue; I will muzzle 
          my mouth while the evil one is in front of me' - even 
          while the evil one is in front of me, I will muzzle my 
          mouth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mar Ukva:</font></b> They are bothering me excessively. I cannot 
          bear them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Elazar:</font></b> 'Be silent to Hash-m and Hischolel (hope) to 
          Him' - wait for Hash-m, and He will make your enemies 
          fall Chalalim Chalalim (piles of corpses).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rise early to the Beis Medrash and stay late, and 
               your enemies will perish by themselves.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Just after R. Elazar said this, Geneiva (who was 
               bothering Mar Ukva) was put in chains to be 
               executed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SIGNS OF SADNESS IN EXILE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source that song is forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Mar Ukva):</font></b> 'Do not rejoice Yisrael, do not 
          rejoice like the nations.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he answer 'they will not drink wine 
          amidst song; strong drink is bitter to those who drink 
          it'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> From that verse, one might have thought that song 
          with instruments is forbidden, but vocal song is 
          permitted. Mar Ukva teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Huna bar Noson):</font></b> What do we learn from 
          'Kinah and Dimonah and Ad'adah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The verse lists cities of Eretz 
          Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Noson citing Rav Gaviha):</font></b> If one 
          has justified anger (Kin'ah) against his friend, but he 
          is silent (Domem), the One who dwells forever (Adei Ad) 
          will judge his case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, how will you expound 'Tziklag 
          and Madmanah and Sansanah'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Huna:</font></b> If Rav Gaviha were here, he would!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Acha):</font></b> If one has a Tza'akas Legimah against 
          his friend (the latter diminished his livelihood) and is 
          Domem (silent), the One who dwells in the (burning) Sneh 
          (bush) will judge his case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (the exilarch):</font></b> What is the source that crowns 
          of Chasanim are forbidden?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> This is a Rabbinic decree;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> During Aspanyanus' siege of Yerushalayim, 
               Chachamim decreed against crowns of Chasanim and 
               drums.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Chisda, after Rav Huna left):</font></b> We learn 
          from 'remove the Mitznefes (turban) and lift off the 
          crown' - people may wear crowns only when the Kohen Gadol 
          wears his Mitznefes (i.e. when the Mikdash stands).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Huna:</font></b> You expound nicely, but the law is only a 
          Rabbinic decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Mar bar Rav Ashi was making a crown for his daughter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ravina:</font></b> Don't you agree that 'remove the turban and 
               lift off the crown' forbids this?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar bar Rav Ashi:</font></b> We learn from the Kohen Gadol, and 
               we forbid only those similar to the Kohen Gadol, 
               i.e. men.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do we learn from the end of the verse, 
          'this, not this'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Avira):</font></b> When Hash-m told Yisrael 'remove the 
          turban and lift off the crown', the angels asked 'is this 
          fitting for Yisrael, who said 'Na'aseh (we will do)' 
          before 'Nishma (we will hear)' on Har Sinai?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hash-m answered, this is fitting for Yisrael, who 
               lowered the high and raised the lowly, and set up an 
               idol in the Heichal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>TZEDAKAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Avira):</font></b> 'If they are complete, or many, even so they 
          will be cut' - if one sees that his income is scarce, he 
          should give Tzedakah from it, and all the more so, if his 
          income is large!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do we learn from the end of the verse, 
          'even so they will be cut, and pass'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> If one trims his 
          possessions and gives Tzedakah, he is saved from 
          punishment in Gehinom;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is a parable to two sheep passing through 
               water, and only one of them is shorn. Only the shorn 
               sheep can pass.
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'SHIRTUT,' MUSIC, BORDER TOWNS, CROWNS, AND TZEDAKAH </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara (6b) discusses Rebbi Evyasar's reliability as a Halachic authority with regard to three areas (bringing a Get from Bavel, Shirtut, and the misdeed of Pilegesh b'Giv'ah). The Gemara then digresses into a list of a number of seemingly unrelated discussions:
</p><p>
1. Mar Ukva's plea to Rebbi Elazar to allow him to speak up to the authorities against those who were causing him harm
</p><p>
2. The question of why listening to music is not permitted (see Insights to Sotah 48a)
</p><p>
3. Derashos regarding the names of border towns in Eretz Yisrael
</p><p>
4. The source for the prohibition of Kelila (a bridal tiara)
</p><p>
5. The Derashah of Rav Avira regarding giving Tzedakah regardless of whether one is rich or poor, and how doing so will save the giver from Gehinom.
</p><p>
What is the connection between these different teachings?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> writes that the connection between the teachings is only external in nature:
</p><p>
1. The Gemara discusses the story of Mar Ukva's plea to save himself from his oppressors because of Rebbi Elazar's reply to him that he should write a verse with Shirtut. This is related to the laws of Shirtut which Rebbi Evyasar discussed earlier.
</p><p>
2. For the same reason, the Gemara records the discussion of the source for the prohibition against listening to music. When Mar Ukva provided the source, he wrote the verse with Shirtut.
</p><p>
3. The discussion of the names of the border towns is cited here because it emphasizes the importance of remaining silent in the face of oppressors, and provides support for Rebbi Elazar's original answer to Mar Ukva (in statement #1), that when a person is subject to the taunts and abuse of oppressors, he should remain silent.
</p><p>
4. The discussion of the prohibition of Kelila is mentioned because of its similarity to the prohibition of music. Both were instituted because of Zecher l'Churban.
</p><p>
5. The discussion of giving Tzedakah is mentioned here simply because Rav Avira taught that Derashah, at times citing it in the name of Rebbi Ami and at times citing it in the name of Rav Asi, just as Rav Avira made the previous Derashah in the name of Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi regarding the verse, 'Haser ha'Mitznefes' (the source for the prohibition of Kelila). Although Rav Avira does not cite that verse as the source for the prohibition of Kelila, after the Gemara brings that verse as the source it cites Rav Avira who uses that verse for a different Derashah, and then it continues with another Derashah which Rav Avira taught.
</p><p>
As the Maharatz Chayos points out, this approach is not entirely satisfactory, because the Gemara does not cite every statement of an Amora every time one of his statements is quoted. Rav Avira made many statements in the name of Rebbi Asi throughout Shas. See also the <b>TUREI EVEN</b> in Megilah (end of 2b) who shows that when the Chachamim provide a list of statements from a certain Amora, it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. (It is also evident from Rashi in various places that the connection between statements which the Gemara quotes is not just technical, related to the name of the person who said the statements, but the connection is thematic as well. That is, there is an additional factor besides the technical element which connects them.) Accordingly, what more can be added to explain this Gemara?
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps the connection between these different statements of the Gemara may be understood as follows.
</p><p>
1. Geniva, who was oppressing Mar Ukva, was a member of the family of the Reish Galusa. We find elsewhere that the Reish Galusa and his confidants often used their power to attempt to force others to fulfill their whims. The Gemara records the incident with Mar Ukva and Geniva as an example of the effects of being 'Matil Eimah Yeseirah,' of placing undue fear in one's home. Not only can such conduct cause one to transgress the laws of the Torah, but it can also cause a person to meet an untimely death, as was the case with Geniva.
</p><p>
2. The next Gemara discusses Mar Ukva's reply to those who asked him for the source that music is prohibited. The Yerushalmi, cited by Tosfos (6b, DH Amar Rebbi Yitzchak), expounds on that story and explains that Mar Ukva's reply was sent to the house of the <i>Reish Galusa</i>, the members of which were accustomed to arising and going to sleep to the sound of music. (In the Yerushalmi's version, Mar Ukva reversed the words of the verse in order to circumvent the necessity to write it with Shirtut.) Hence, the connection between this incident and the previous one recorded in the Gemara might be that this message of Mar Ukva was the source of strife between him and the Reish Galusa's household which led to the conviction of Geniva at the hands of the king. The Reish Galusa's household did not want to accept Mar Ukva's ruling, which is why Mar Ukva needed to provide them with an indisputable source. 
</p><p>
3. The discussion of the names of the border towns is related to Rebbi Elazar's original advice to Mar Ukva to stand silent in the face of oppression, as the Maharatz Chayos explains (see also next Insight).
</p><p>
4. The next Gemara relates that the Reish Galusa asked Rav Huna for the source that Kelila is prohibited. Once again, it was the Reish Galusa -- who was accustomed to extravagance -- who wanted to make a Kelila for his daughter's marriage, and the Chachamim prohibited it because of Zecher l'Churban. Rav Chisda was afraid that the Reish Galusa would not listen to the words of the Chachamim, so he attempted to find a source for the prohibition in the words of the Nevi'im. Rav Huna, however, insisted that the prohibition was only mid'Rabanan and that the verse was an Asmachta. He did not want the Reish Galusa to treat the words of the Chachamim lightly. He wanted to teach the Reish Galusa that even a rabbinic requirement obligates him, just like a verse.
</p><p>
5. The next Gemara -- which discusses giving Tzedakah -- cites a verse that teaches that even if a person is poor, and certainly if he is rich, he should give Tzedakah. Why is it necessary to point out that 'certainly if he is rich' he should give Tzedakah? Why would one think that a poor person has a greater obligation to give Tzedakah than a wealthy person? The Gemara says that the verse teaches that a person who is rich should not consider the wealth to be his own earnings and a result of his own luck and thus spend it on extravagant items which people are not normally accustomed to buying, as the Reish Galusa did. Rather, one should realize that all of his money is a gift from Hash-m, and if one receives more money, the purpose of it is to give more Tzedakah. Instead of spending it on a Kelila for a wedding, he should spend the extra money to provide Simchah at the weddings of poor people. The verse is emphasizing that the fact that a person is wealthy does not entitle him to spend more money on luxuries for himself than is necessary. Rather, it obligates him to give more to Tzedakah than other people give.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE MESSAGES INHERENT IN THE NAMES OF TOWNS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara presents two exegetical interpretations of verses which list the names of towns on the southern border of the region of Shevet Yehudah. The verse, 'Kinah, v'Dimonah, v'Ad'adah' (Yehoshua 15:22), teaches that when a person is suffering from the antagonism of someone else and yet he remains silent, 'Shochen Adei Ad' -- the One who dwells eternally -- will take up his case. 'Tziklag, u'Madmanah, v'Sansanah' (Yehoshua 15:31) teaches that when a person has a complaint against his fellow man for taking away his livelihood and yet he remains silent, 'Shochen ba'Sneh' -- the One who dwells in the [burning] bush -- will take up his case.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Gemara address only these sets of towns from all of the different sets of towns listed in Sefer Yehoshua?
</p><p>
(b) Why does the first verse allude to Hash-m by the appellation of 'Shochen Adei Ad,' while the second verse alludes to Hash-m as 'Shochen ba'Sneh'? (See <b>IYUN YAKOV</b>.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARIM SHIF</b> explains that these lists contain names of towns with somewhat odd pronunciations. They are the only names that have repetitive syllables ('Ad'adah,' 'Sansanah'). The names of the cities might have been only 'Adah' and 'Sanah,' and the syllables were doubled in order to teach these Derashos. 
</p><p>
(b) The first verse teaches that if a person is being oppressed by someone, he should remain silent, because he is not the only one who is being angered by others and remains silent. Hash-m Himself constantly tolerates sinners who willfully transgress His word and 'anger' Him, and He remains silent and is 'Erech Apayim,' slow to anger, as the name 'Shochen Adei Ad' implies -- Hash-m remains patient, forever waiting for the sinner to repent. (The Gemara in Megilah (31a) mentions the verse which uses this phrase to describe Hash-m, 'Shochen Ad v'Kadosh Shemo, Marom v'Kadosh Eshkon, v'Es Daka u'Shefal Ru'ach...' (Yeshayah 57:15). The verse teaches that Hash-m lowers Himself, as it were, to take care of the downtrodden, and as great as Hash-m is, He acts in a way which teaches humility to mankind.)
</p><p>
The verse says that just as Hash-m eventually brings justice to the Resha'im who anger Him, a person may rest assured that the people who oppress him will have to face justice at some point, even if he remains silent.
</p><p>
The next Derashah discusses a person whose livelihood is taken away by someone else and yet he remains silent. The verse says that he is not the only one who suffers a loss because of what others perpetrate against him. Hash-m appeared to Moshe Rabeinu in a burning bush in order to teach him that 'Imo Anochi b'Tzarah' -- 'I am with him in his suffering' (Tehilim 91:15); when the Jewish people suffers, Hash-m, as it were, experiences the suffering with them. When Pharaoh subjected the Jewish people to forced labor, there was a 'Tzimtzum' -- Hashem's Divine abode was restricted. The oppressor of His nation takes away from Hashem's peace, as it were. Hash-m ultimately does justice to sinners who cause 'Tzimtzum' to the Divine presence by distracting His people from serving Him, the same way the person whose livelihood is being infringed upon may rest assured that even if he remains silent, Hash-m will eventually take up his case and see to it that justice is carried out.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar Zutra):</font></b> 'And I afflicted you' - even a poor person 
          supported by Tzedakah should give Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'I will not afflict you any more' - he will 
          not experience any more signs of poverty.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE NORTHERN BORDER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehudah says, from Rekem and eastwards (is 
          like Chutz la'Aretz, and from Ako or further north...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that Ako is the northernmost part 
          of Eretz Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one walks from Ako to Cheziv, 
          on his right, to the east of the path, is Tamei, like 
          Chutz La'aretz. What grows is assumed to be exempt from 
          Ma'aser and Shemitah, unless one knows that it is 
          obligated;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> On his left, to the west of the path, is Tahor, like 
               Eretz Yisrael. What grows is assumed to be obligated 
               in Ma'aser and Shemitah, unless one knows that it is 
               exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This applies until Cheziv;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi says, it is until Lavlevo.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Only a small strip of land extends north 
          of Ako.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Tana say 'to the east of the 
          path'? A path is not so important to be a reference 
          point!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A verse shows that it is!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'In Shilo... to the east of the path from Beis Kel 
               to Shechem.'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET BROUGHT IN A BOAT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Bringing a Get in a boat is like bringing a 
          Get in Eretz Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> Bringing a Get in a boat is 
          like bringing a Get in Chutz La'aretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> Beraisa #1 is like Chachamim, 
          and Beraisa #2 is like R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If soil of Chutz La'aretz is in a boat in 
               Eretz Yisrael, Ma'aser and Shemitah apply to what 
               grows in it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, this is only if the boat scrapes 
               the bottom of the river. If it floats (at least 10 
               Tefachim), it is exempt from Ma'aser and Shemitah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Both Beraisos are like R. Yehudah. In 
          Beraisa #1, the boat scrapes the bottom. In Beraisa #2, 
          it floats.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Yehudah and Chachamim also argue about an 
          elevated flowerpot (e.g. on a tripod).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1 (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps all hold that Ma'aser and 
          Shemitah apply!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah exempts only soil in a floating boat, 
               since it moves. He would not exempt a flowerpot, 
               which is stationary!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2 (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps all would exempt!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim obligated soil in a boat, because there is 
               no gap between it and the ground. Water is like a 
               continuation of the river floor;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A suspended flowerpot is separated from the ground, 
               so it is exempt!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE STATUS OF RIVERS IN ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the Halachah of a Shali'ach who delivers a Get from a boat traveling on a river in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara suggests that the Halachah depends on the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim, who argue about whether the plants that grow in soil in a boat traveling on a river in Eretz Yisrael is obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros. The Gemara says that if such soil is obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, it must be considered part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore one who brings a Get from the boat would not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara suggest that the Halachah of Gitin is connected to the obligation of Terumos and Ma'aseros? The reason why the Chachamim instituted that a Shali'ach must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' was the concern that the Get was not written Lishmah, or the concern that there will be no witnesses available to validate the Get. People in a boat traveling in the middle of Eretz Yisrael are certainly available to validate the Get if necessary, and if they live in Eretz Yisrael they are assumed to be knowledgeable in the laws of Lishmah. The Halachah of one who brings a Get from a boat should depend on whether the witnesses are available to validate it, and whether they are knowledgeable in the laws of Lishmah; it should <i>not</i> depend on whether or nor plants that grow on a boat are obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Atzitz Nakuv, and 8a, DH Rebbi Yehudah Omer) explains that the people who write the Get certainly are considered to be available to validate it (Metzuyin l'Kaimo) and they know that it must be written Lishmah (Beki'in Lishmah). Nevertheless, if the boat is not considered to be in Eretz Yisrael, they would be required to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' due to a Gezeirah of 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam,' to avoid differentiating between areas outside of Eretz Yisrael; all of Medinas ha'Yam is given the same Halachah.
</p><p>
The Gemara proposes this logic earlier (4a) with regard to cities that are 'Muvla'os' when it explains why Rebbi Eliezer requires a Shali'ach who comes from such cities to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even though they are Metzuyin l'Kaimo and they are Beki'in Lishmah. The reason why a Shali'ach from those cities must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam.' Although the Chachamim argue with regard to 'Muvla'os' and maintain that the Gezeirah applies only to areas that are distant from Eretz Yisrael and not to areas that border Eretz Yisrael, they agree that when a Shali'ach brings a Get within a country that is distant from Eretz Yisrael -- but which happens to have frequent internal travel ('Shayaros Metzuyos') and the people there happen to be Beki'in Lishmah -- he still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because of 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam.' 
</p><p>
(Bavel, according to Rav on 6a, is an exception to this rule. Since there was a large Jewish population there and it was known to have 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and to be Beki'in Lishmah, there was no fear that it would be confused with the rest of Medinas ha'Yam. See <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>, cited in Insights to 6a.)
</p><p>
A river in Eretz Yisrael is not considered to be like 'Muvla'os' because people do not normally write Gitin there, and therefore the Chachamim did not exclude it from being considered like Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
However, it is problematic to suggest that the Chachamim considered all of Chutz la'Aretz to have the requirement of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' according to Rava. According to Rava, the enactment to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is not related to Chutz la'Aretz per se; rather, 'b'Fanai Nichtav' must be said whenever one travels from one Medinah to another Medinah, and it is <i>not</i> said whenever one travels within a single Medinah where 'Shayaros Metzuyos.' What difference does it make if the river is called 'Medinas ha'Yam' or not? The fact that it is called 'Medinas ha'Yam' should not automatically require that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' be said if there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos.'
</p><p>
The same question may be asked on the Gemara earlier (4a), which says 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam' even according to Rava.
</p><p>
The answer is that according to Rava, the decree was to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when one travels from one Medinah to another. If a river in Eretz Yisrael is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael, it is considered a different Medinah, a Medinah in its own right. Although there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos,' a Shali'ach still must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' since he is bringing the Get across a border from one Medinah to another. The same applies to two neighboring cities on opposite sides of the border between two Medinos. The requirement to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' applies because of 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinah l'Medinah,' according to Rebbi Eliezer, even if one city is 'Muvla' within the border of the other Medinah. The Tana Kama of the Mishnah will exempt any cities in different Medinos which are either 'Muvla' or 'Samuch' to the other Medinah.
</p><p>
However, if the decree was to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' even when there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' in certain places because of 'she'Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam,' then why should 'b'Fanai Nichtav' <i>not</i> be necessary after the people became Beki'in Lishmah in Bavel, or after transportation between places in Bavel became frequent (according to Rashi on 6a, m'Chi Asa)? There is a rule that any Gezeirah made by the Chachamim 'b'Minyan' needs another Minyan of Chachamim to remove it. When did the Chachamim remove the Gezeirah to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'?
</p><p>
The answer must be similar to the answer that <b>TOSFOS</b> gives to a parallel question in Avodah Zarah (35a and 57b). The Gezeirah was made only to apply to places which were not Beki'in Lishmah, or which did not have 'Shayaros Metzuyos' between them. Although in a country where the Gezeirah applied generally, it also applied to the few cities that were exceptions and <i>were</i> Beki'in Lishmah and Metzuyin l'Kaimo, nevertheless for an <i>entire</i> country that was Beki'in Lishmah and Metzuyin l'Kaimo the Gezeirah was never instituted. (See also Tosfos to Beitzah 6a, DH v'ha'Idna.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) SOIL OF 'CHUTZ LA'ARETZ' IN ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that plants which grow in soil of Chutz la'Aretz in a boat on a river in Eretz Yisrael are obligated in Ma'aser and Shevi'is. Rebbi Yehudah exempts such plants, except when the boat is 'Gosheshes' (it touches the riverbed). The Gemara suggests that the same Machlokes would apply in the case of an Atzitz Nakuv on top of stilts in Eretz Yisrael. 
</p><p>
With regard to an Atzitz Nakuv, the Gemara does not mention that it contains soil of Chutz la'Aretz. Presumably, the Halachah would apply regardless of the source of its soil. Why, then, does the Mishnah mention specifically that the plants in the boat grow in soil of '<i>Chutz la'Aretz</i>'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b> (Hilchos Bikurim 2:9, DH v'Da she'Rabeinu Ovadyah) writes that it is an obvious and simple fact that soil of Chutz la'Aretz and soil of Eretz Yisrael have the same Halachah: when it is in an Atzitz Nakuv resting on the ground it is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, and when it is separated from Eretz Yisrael it is considered part of Chutz la'Aretz and is exempt from Ma'aser and Shevi'is. He adds that this point is clear from the Gemara here as well (presumably because if plants that grow in soil of Eretz Yisrael are obligated in Ma'aser when the soil is on the boat, why should a Shali'ach who brings a Get from the boat be obligated to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' as though he brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz?). He explains that the reason why the Mishnah says that the soil is from Chutz la'Aretz is to teach that even soil from Chutz la'Aretz has the status of Eretz Yisrael when it arrives in a boat within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael (according to the Chachamim in every case, and according to Rebbi Yehudah only when the boat is 'Gosheshes').
</p><p>
(b) However, <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> and the <b>ME'IRI</b> explain that the Atzitz Nakuv resting on top of stilts -- which the Gemara compares to plants in a boat on a river in Eretz Yisrael -- also contains soil from Chutz la'Aretz. Their words imply that there is a difference between soil of Chutz la'Aretz and soil of Eretz Yisrael. If the soil would be from Eretz Yisrael, even Rebbi Yehudah would agree that the plants that grow in it are obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros.
</p><p>
This also seems evident from <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ha Rebbi Yehudah). Tosfos asks, why is a Shali'ach not obligated to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he brings a Get from an upper story (Aliyah) of a house in Eretz Yisrael? After all, it should be no different from a case of a plant in soil from Chutz la'Aretz that was brought to that Aliyah which is exempt from Ma'aser (because it is like a plants in an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv)! Tosfos' question implies that he maintains that plants that grow in soil from Eretz Yisrael are obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros even if they grow in an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv.
</p><p>
Tosfos must have learned this from the Mishnah which implies that plants in soil from Eretz Yisrael in a boat that is not 'Gosheshes' are obligated in Ma'aseros even according to Rebbi Yehudah. (When the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> asks this question, he omits the words '[soil] of <i>Chutz la'Aretz</i>,' which implies that he understands the Gemara like the Mishneh l'Melech.)
</p><p>
The <b>MIKDASH DAVID</b> (Zera'im 55a) cites proof to this from the Yerushalmi (Chalah 2:1) which says that if earth from the riverbank on the western side of the Jordan River washes away to the eastern side, the plants which grow there are obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros. This implies that the earth of Eretz Yisrael is <i>always</i> obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, regardless of where it is (unless it is placed on top of earth of Chutz la'Aretz, in which case it becomes Batel to Chutz la'Aretz). The Yerushalmi (Chalah 4:4:) explains that the reason why soil of Chutz la'Aretz in a boat becomes obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros is the Halachah that when land outside of Eretz Yisrael is conquered it becomes like land of Eretz Yisrael with regard to Ma'aseros. The soil in the boat (when the boat is not 'Gosheshes' according to the Chachamim, or when it is 'Gosheshes' according to Rebbi Yehudah) is obligated in Ma'aseros because it is transformed into soil of Eretz Yisrael by virtue of its location on a river which is inside Eretz Yisrael (it is as if it was conquered). (See also the explanation of <b>MAHARI BEN MALKITZEDEK</b> on the Mishnah there.) This implies that if the soil originally came from Eretz Yisrael it certainly would be obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros.
</p><p>
According to this opinion, why should a person who brings a Get from a boat in Eretz Yisrael be obligated to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' just because the soil of <i>Chutz la'Aretz</i> is exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros? If the boat would contain soil of Eretz Yisrael, it would be obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, and the only reason why the soil of Chutz la'Aretz is exempt is that it is not mixed together with the land of Eretz Yisrael (and therefore it is not considered as if it was conquered) and it is not Batel to the rest of the land of Eretz Yisrael! The boat itself, however, might be considered to be in Eretz Yisrael, but it cannot be Mevatel the soil of Chutz la'Aretz inside of it because the soil of Chutz la'Aretz still remains separate and distinct.
</p><p>
It must be that the soil of Chutz la'Aretz becomes Batel to Eretz Yisrael when it is brought to Eretz Yisrael <i>not</i> because it is no longer recognizable and distinct, but because everything underneath it is Eretz Yisrael, and the upper soil cannot have a different status than everything beneath it unless it is separated from the rest of the ground (in an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv). Therefore, if a boat floating on the river would be considered to be touching the ground of Eretz Yisrael, the soil inside of it would be like topsoil (since the boat is considered like an Atzitz Nakuv). Since Rebbi Yehudah maintains that plants that grow in the boat are not obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros, he does not consider the boat to be resting on the land of Eretz Yisrael (since the water is not considered like part of Eretz Yisrael). Consequently, a person standing on the boat is considered standing in Chutz la'Aretz.
</p><p>
(According to this opinion, whenever the Mishnah discusses the Halachah of Atzitz Nakuv, it refers to an Atzitz Nakuv filled with soil from Chutz la'Aretz.) 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET BROUGHT IN A BOAT (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> All agree that 
          rivers of Eretz Yisrael are like Eretz Yisrael regarding 
          Gitin. The Beraisos argue about the Mediterranean Sea. 
          (Beraisa #1 is like R. Yehudah in the following Beraisa, 
          and Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> South of the incline from Turei Amnon (to 
               the sea) is Eretz Yisrael. North of it is Chutz 
               La'aretz;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Islands in the Mediterranean Sea within the line 
               between Turei Amnon and Nachal Mitzrayim (Wadi Kelt) 
               are part of Eretz Yisrael. Those outside this line 
               are Chutz La'aretz;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says 'and the border of the sea' includes 
               islands next to (i.e. west of) Eretz Yisrael. They 
               are like part of Eretz Yisrael;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If we extend lines westward from Kapluriya and 
                    Nachal Mitzrayim (Wadi El Arish) until the 
                    Atlantic Ocean, all (islands and parts of 
                    islands) between these lines are part of Eretz 
                    Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from 'and the border of 
          the sea'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This includes islands within the line between 
          Turei Amnon and the River of Mitzrayim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah does not require a verse to include those 
               islands.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SURYA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Meir says, Ako is like Eretz Yisrael 
          regarding Gitin...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is selling one's (Kena'ani) slave to Surya like 
          selling to Chutz La'aretz? (If one sells a slave to Chutz 
          la'Aretz, he goes free. This is a fine to punish the 
          master.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba - Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> Ako is 
          like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> This is only for Gitin, but Ako is like 
               Chutz La'aretz regarding slaves.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> All the more so Surya, which is even further away, 
               is like Chutz La'aretz!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Surya is like Eretz Yisrael in three ways, and 
          like Chutz La'aretz in three ways:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Its soil is Tamei like that of Chutz La'aretz. 
               Selling a slave to Surya is like selling to Chutz 
               la'Aretz. Bringing a Get from Surya is like bringing 
               from Chutz la'Aretz.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Ma'aser and Shemitah apply to its produce, like 
               Eretz Yisrael. One may enter Surya and remain Tahor. 
               Buying a field in Surya is like buying in counties 
               of Yerushalayim.
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GROWING PLANTS IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF A HOUSE IN ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the laws of an Atzitz Nakuv, which is considered attached to the ground underneath it, and the laws of an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv (or an Atzitz Nakuv which is separated from the ground by a partition), which is not considered part of the ground and is exempt mid'Oraisa from Terumos and Ma'aseros. Mid'Rabanan, however, even an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv is considered attached to the ground (Mishnah, Shabbos 95a) and is obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros mid'Rabanan. 
</p><p>
What is the Halachah in the case of a person who fills the upper story of his house with soil and grows plants there? If a person takes an Atzitz Nakuv to the upper story of his house, what grows in the Atzitz Nakuv clearly is not obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros (<b>ROSH</b>, Gitin 2:22). Does the same Halachah apply when a person fills the upper story with soil and grows plants in that soil?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (Teshuvos 2:4) writes that only a portable pot of earth (like an Atzitz or a boat) is exempt mid'Oraisa from Terumos and Ma'aseros when it is not perforated (Nakuv), because it is not considered 'Tevu'as Zar'echa ha'Yotzei ha'Sadeh Shanah Shanah' (Devarim 14:22), the produce of the ground that is produced year to year, which grows the way that plants normally grow. In contrast, if a person plants inside a non-portable item (such as in the upper story of his home), he is considered as though he planted on the ground of Eretz Yisrael, because the house is considered attached to the ground regardless of the amount of space that separates the upper story from the ground floor, since the upper story is attached to the ground floor by the support beams that hold it up. Therefore, what grows in the upper story is obligated mid'Oraisa in Terumos and Ma'aseros. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Metzia 88a, DH Ba'al ha'Bayis, who also might be of this opinion.)
</p><p>
(b) However, the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (in the Shulchan Aruch) rejects the opinion of the Rosh and rules that whether or not the object is portable, if it is separated from the earth of Eretz Yisrael by a solid partition it is considered an Atzitz she'Eino Nakuv and, mid'Oraisa, it is not obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros. This also seems to be the opinion of <b>TOSFOS</b> (7b, DH Ha). Tosfos asks that if the plants which a person grows in soil in an upper story of a house in Eretz Yisrael are exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros, why does a Shali'ach not have to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he brings a Get from there?
</p><p>
If Tosfos follows the view of the Rosh, it is obvious why the upper story is considered part of Eretz Yisrael; plants which a person grows in soil in the upper story <i>are</i> obligated in Terumos and Ma'aseros. (It is interesting to note that the Rosh himself asks the question of Tosfos, despite what he writes in the Teshuvah.)
</p><p>
However, there is another reason to exempt what is planted in an upper story (or anywhere in a house for that matter) from Ma'aser. The Yerushalmi (Orlah 1:2, cited by the Mishneh l'Melech, beginning of Hilchos Shevi'is) states that a tree planted inside of a house is exempt from Ma'aser because the verse (Devarim 14:22) obligates only produce 'ha'Yotzei ha'Sadeh Shanah Shanah' -- which grows from a <i>field</i> -- in Ma'aser. A house is not considered a field.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> records this Halachah in Hilchos Terumos (1:10). However, he writes that what grows in a house is nevertheless obligated in Ma'aser <i>mid'Rabanan</i>, like fruits picked from a tree in the <i>yard</i> ('Chatzer,' which is not a field), which are obligated in Ma'aser (when one picks two or more fruits at a time).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> there argues that what grows in a house is exempt from Ma'aseros even mid'Rabanan. Accordingly, what grows in an upper story also should be exempt even mid'Rabanan, because it does not grow in a 'field' ('Sadeh').
</p><p>

The <b>CHAZON ISH</b> asks, according to the Rambam and Ra'avad, why does the Gemara here insist that what grows in a boat is obligated mid'Oraisa in Ma'aser? It grows in a boat and not in a field, and thus it should be exempt!
</p><p>
The Chazon Ish answers that only when it grows in a covered area is it not considered to grow in a field. If it grows in an open area, it is considered to grow in a field. The boat is uncovered and therefore the plants are obligated mid'Oraisa in Ma'aser.
</p><p>
According to the Chazon Ish, a tree which grows in a Chatzer is obligated in Ma'aser, mid'Oraisa, since it is exposed to the elements there and is considered to be in a field ('Sadeh'). When the Rambam writes that what grows in a house is no less obligated than what grows in a Chatzer, he means that what grows in a house is not exempt from Ma'aser because it did not <i>enter</i> the house, but it grew there, just as what grows in a Chatzer is not exempt from Ma'aser because it did not <i>enter</i> the Chatzer, but it grew there (Berachos 25b, Gitin 81a).
</p><p>
<b>RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY</b> shlit'a (in his footnotes to the Rambam) suggests that perhaps the Rambam does not distinguish between a covered house and an uncovered house; neither one is considered a field. Rather, the reason why what grows in the boat is obligated in Ma'aser, mid'Oraisa, is that the Mishnah is discussing a person who covered the floor of the boat with earth and plowed it, thereby transforming it into a field. (See Rambam, Hilchos Ma'aseros 4:14.) 
</p><p>
(Rav Chaim notes that the Rambam and Yerushalmi write that what grows in the house is exempt only from <i>Ma'aser</i>. Perhaps it is obligated in <i>Terumah</i> since the laws of the obligation of Terumah are not identical to the laws of Ma'aser. See Rambam, Hilchos Terumos 2:6).
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF ERETZ YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that the northern boundary of Eretz Yisrael is 'Turei Amnon' (the mountains of Amanah or Amanus). How is this Gemara to be reconciled with the Gemara on the previous page which implies that the northern-most part of Eretz Yisrael is the city Keziv?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> points out that according to Rashi (7b),who explains that Ako and Keziv are in the northeast corner of Eretz Yisrael, perhaps Turei Amnon is the <i>northwest</i> border.
</p><p>
However, as the Rishonim point out, this answer does not conform with the location of Ako as it is known today, and it does not conform with the Midrashim which describe Ako as situated on the coast. The <b>RAMBAN</b> (7b), in fact, suggests that Rashi writes that Ako is in the east only to explain the Gemara's initial understanding of the Beraisa about Ako. According to the Gemara's conclusion, though, even Rashi agrees that Ako and Keziv are in the northwest corner of Eretz Yisrael (on the same side as Turei Amnon).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (7b) explains that Keziv demarcates only the northernmost part along the <i>path</i> that leads northward from Ako. The border of Eretz Yisrael, however, is north of Keziv, at Turei Amnon. The area to the east of this path is definitely Chutz la'Aretz, as the Gemara says, but only until the path reaches Keziv. The reason why the area to the east of the path is no longer Chutz la'Aretz once the path passes Keziv is either because the path turns westward to the coast when it reaches Keziv, or because the strip of Eretz Yisrael which connects Ako to Turei Amnon widens at that point, at Keziv.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The Tana obligates Ma'aser and Shemitah like Eretz 
          Yisrael. He holds that Kivush Yachid (land conquered by 
          an individual) gets Kedushas Eretz Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Seifa says that one may enter Surya and 
          remain Tahor, but the Reisha says that its soil is Tamei!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If he enters in a box, he remains Tahor:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> One who enters Chutz La'aretz in 
               a box becomes Tamei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, he remains Tahor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Even Rebbi is Metamei only in Chutz La'aretz proper. 
               There, Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on the soil and the 
               air. In Surya, they decreed only on the soil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Buying a field in Surya is like buying in 
          counties of Yerushalayim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the significance of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> One may write the deed of sale on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That cannot be!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification (Rava):</font></b> One tells a non-Jew to write the 
          deed on Shabbos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even though mid'Rabanan, one may not ask a non-Jew 
               to perform labors on Shabbos, here it was permitted 
               for the sake of settling Eretz Yisrael.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DOCUMENT OF FREEDOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a slave brought his Get (document) of 
          freedom, and it says 'yourself and my property are 
          acquired to you', the slave goes free, but does not 
          acquire the property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If it says 'all my property is acquired to 
          you', what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Along with acquiring himself, he also 
          acquires the other property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Granted, he acquires himself, just like 
          a woman is believed to bring her own Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But he should not acquire the other property, unless 
               he is Mekayem the document, like the normal law of 
               monetary documents!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Since he does not acquire himself, he 
          does not acquire the other property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Granted, he does not acquire the other 
          property, unless he is Mekayem the document, like the 
          normal law of monetary documents;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But he should acquire himself, just like a woman is 
               believed to bring her own Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Whether it says 'yourself and my 
          property are acquired to you', or 'all my property is 
          acquired to you', the slave goes free, but does not 
          acquire the property.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SPLITTING ONE'S WORDS (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> You hold like R. 
          Shimon, who says that we split a person's words!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man wrote a document giving all his 
               property to his slave, the slave goes free;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the owner kept any property for himself, the 
               slave does not go free;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, in every case he goes free, unless 
               it says 'all my property is given to my slave, 
               except for one part in 10,000.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Culmination of question):</font></b> Rav Nachman said that 
               even though R. Yosi praised R. Shimon, the Halachah 
               follows R. Meir (Chachamim)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> When R. Yosi heard R. Shimon's 
                    words, he said 'lips should kiss one who 
                    answers correctly.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Rav Nachman said that if a Shechiv Mera (one 
          who fears lest he die from his illness) wrote a document 
          giving all his possessions to his slave, and later 
          retracted, he can retract giving the property, but not 
          the freedom. (He contradicts his above ruling like R. 
          Meir, who does not split one's words!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He can retract giving the property, for this is the 
               law of Matanas (the gift of a) Shechiv me'Ra;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He cannot retract the freedom, for the slave was 
               already called a free man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to both questions - Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even R. Meir (the 
          Chachamim of R. Shimon) holds that we split one's words. 
          He disqualified the Get of freedom for a different 
          reason;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that if the master retains something in a 
               Get of freedom, it is Pasul. (We learn about freedom 
               from divorce, which requires Sefer Kerisus, totally 
               cutting off.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET GIVEN WITHOUT A DECLARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Get is contested, it will be Mekuyam 
          through its signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How many people contest the Get?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> One person contests it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that one person who 
               contests a Get is ignored!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, two contest it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Why does Kiyum help? Why should we believe the 
          two witnesses who signed more than the two contesting it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the husband contests the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one brought a Get from abroad and cannot 
          say 'it was written and signed in front of me', if the 
          Get has signatures, we are Mekayem it through the 
          signatures;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is one of three ways in which Gitei Nashim (of 
               divorce) and of freedom have the same law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why can't he say the declaration?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He is a deaf-mute.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A deaf-mute cannot bring a Get!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone can bring a Get, except for a 
                    deaf-mute, lunatic or minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The case is, the Shali'ach gave the 
          Get when he was healthy, and became deaf before he was 
          able to say the declaration.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SIMILARITIES OF GITEI NASHIM AND OF FREEDOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The law of Gitei Nashim and of freedom is the 
          same.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Gitei Nashim and of freedom are the same 
          regarding three Halachos:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who brings a Get to or from Chutz La'aretz (must 
               say 'it was written...');
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Any Get on which a Kusi signed is Pasul, except for 
               Gitei Nashim and of freedom. (After Sancheriv exiled 
               the 10 tribes, he settled Nochrim in their place. 
               The Kusim converted to avoid being eaten by lions, 
               but did not accept the Oral Torah);
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'PALGINAN DIBURA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara inquires about a case of an Eved who brings a Get Shichrur (bill of release) for himself in which it is written, 'All of my possessions are hereby given to you.' Abaye and Rava argue about the status of the Eved. Abaye says that since the Eved does not acquire any of the possessions of his master with this Shtar (since, as a single (and invalid) witness, his word is not sufficient to validate the Shtar), he also does not acquire his freedom. Rava says that the Eved acquires his freedom, but he does not acquire any of the master's possessions.
</p><p>
Rav Ada bar Masnah asks that Rava seems to follow the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who applies the principle of 'Palginan Dibura.' However, the Halachah does not follow the view of Rebbi Shimon with regard to 'Palginan Dibura.'
</p><p>
The Gemara cites the source for the opinion of Rebbi Shimon with regard to 'Palginan Dibura.' The Mishnah in Pe'ah (3:8) states that if a person writes all of his possessions to his slave, the slave goes free (and acquires all of his master's possessions). However, if the master writes a clause excluding a specified part of his land from the gift to his slave, according to the Tana Kama there the Eved does not go free because it is assumed that just as the master left out that piece of property from the gift to the Eved, he also did not intend to give the Eved his own freedom. Rebbi Shimon argues and says that the Eved <i>does</i> go free in such a case, because it is assumed that the master excluded only the land that he specified. Rebbi Shimon agrees, however, that if the master writes to his slave that he is giving him all of his possessions 'except for one small amount' without specifying which part of his property he wants to exclude, the slave does not go free.
</p><p>
How do Rebbi Shimon's words in that Mishnah imply that he rules 'Palginan Dibura'? <b>RASHI</b> explains that Rebbi Shimon's words imply that the Eved goes free even when the master writes to him that he is giving him all of his possessions except for one field, without specifying which field. Since the master does not specify which field he excludes, the Eved cannot take any of the fields. Therefore, the Eved receives no possessions from his master except for his own freedom. (He does not receive any Metaltelin, because ownership of Metaltelin cannot be transferred through a Shtar.)
</p><p>
Since Rebbi Shimon rules that the Eved acquires his freedom with such a Shtar even though he acquires nothing else, it is apparent that he rules 'Palginan Dibura.' Even though the Shtar is not able to transfer to him any of the master's other property, it is able to give him his own freedom.
</p><p>
How does Rav Ada prove that the Halachah does not follow the view of Rebbi Shimon? He quotes Rav Nachman who said that 'even though Rebbi Yosi praised Rebbi Shimon, the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir.'
</p><p>
There are a number of questions on Rashi's explanation of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) Why is Rebbi Shimon's ruling in the Mishnah in Pe'ah considered 'Palginan Dibura'? In Rebbi Shimon's ruling, the Eved does not receive any land simply because it is not known which land the master gave to him. Out of doubt he gets no land because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Ra'ayah.' There is nothing inherently faulty with the Shtar itself with regard to the land. Since the doubt applies only to the land and not to the Eved's freedom, the Eved certainly should gain his freedom even without the utilization of 'Palginan Dibura'!
</p><p>
In general, the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' applies only to 'Ne'emanus,' the ability to believe a person's testimony. That is, if a person makes a statement which has more than one consequence, and the person is not trusted for one of the consequences, is his word accepted with regard to the other consequences? 'Palginan Dibura' allows Beis Din to accept the person's testimony with regard to only one of the consequences. The Gemara also applies the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' to a case in which a person makes a statement which has a number of consequences, and the person intends for his statement to be understood in one particular way with regard to one of the consequences. May Beis Din assume that he wants his statement to be understood the same way with regard to the other consequences (for example, the case of a Shechiv Mera who wrote all of his property to his slave)? 'Palginan Dibura' enables Beis Din to interpret the person's statement differently with regard to the different consequences.
</p><p>
How does the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' apply to the person who gives away all of his possessions, except for one unspecified plot, to his Eved? The reason why the Eved does not receive land has nothing to do with the intention of, or the trustworthiness of, the master's statement!
</p><p>
(b) Why should the Eved receive no land at all? He should receive all of the land except for the cheapest plot! (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH l'Olam)
</p><p>
(c) How does the statement of Rav Nachman, who says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Meir, teach that 'Palginan Dibura' does not apply? Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon apparently argue about two points. Their first point of dispute is the case in which the master omits one specified piece of property from his gift. According to Rebbi Meir, it is assumed that he intends to leave out the Eved as well, and the Eved receives nothing. According to Rebbi Shimon, it is not assumed that he intends to leave out the Eved, and the Eved receives everything else (including his freedom). This ruling seems unrelated to 'Palginan Dibura.' Their second point of dispute is the case in which the master excludes an unspecified plot of land from the gift. Rebbi Shimon implies that if the master excludes an unspecified plot of land and therefore the Eved does not receive <i>any</i> land, 'Palginan Dibura' applies and the Eved goes free despite the fact that he receives no land.
</p><p>
Perhaps when Rav Nachman rules like Rebbi Meir, he rules like him only in one point of the dispute, but not in both. Perhaps Rav Nachman rules that if the master omits one specific piece of property from the gift, he intends to omit the Eved as well. Accordingly, it is not evident what Rav Nachman maintains with regard to 'Palginan Dibura' in cases where it is applicable.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Rashi explains, according to the Tana Kama who argues with Rebbi Shimon, that when the master excludes a specified plot of land from the gift to his Eved, the reason the Eved does not go free is because it is assumed that just as the master excluded that piece of land and did not seriously mean '<i>all</i> of my property,' he also intended to leave out the Eved. He had no real intention to free the Eved, and he was merely trying to flatter the Eved. The Shtar was not intended to be taken seriously.
</p><p>
In the case where the master leaves out an <i>unspecified</i> plot of land, the same logic applies. Since the master is not really giving any of the land to his Eved, the terminology he used in the Shtar is not accurate. He intends only to give the Eved his freedom, but not to give him '<i>all</i>' of his property. It must be that the master wrote '<i>all</i> of my property' in order to flatter his slave, and he did not intend any of the gift to be taken seriously. Accordingly, the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' is necessary in this case to show that although the master was not serious with regard to the gift of land, he <i>was</i> serious with regard to giving the slave his freedom. The focus is on the <i>intention</i> of the master and not merely on the question of how to treat property in doubt ('ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro'), and thus it indeed is appropriate to apply the concept of 'Palginan Dibura' here.
</p><p>
(b) Why does the Eved not receive all of the land except for the plot with the lowest value? After all, when a person sells all of his land to his friend except for one plot, the buyer receives all of the land except for one plot, and since it is in doubt which plot he is not entitled to receive it is assumed that it is the best, most expensive plot (that is, the buyer must bring proof that the seller intended to leave out a cheaper plot of land).
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation answers this question as well. Perhaps a gift differs from a sale. When a person makes a sale and receives money in return for land, he cannot say that he was not serious and merely wanted to fool the buyer, and that he did not mean to sell his land. The sale is valid and binding except for one piece of land, and the buyer takes all of the land except for the most expensive plot. In contrast, when a person gives a gift to his friend and leaves out an unspecified plot, he may claim later that he really did not intend to give anything to his friend, but that he was just trying to flatter his friend.
</p><p>
(See <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Olam and DH Halachah) and the <b>RAN</b>, who explain the Gemara differently.)
</p><p>
(c) This approach answers the third question as well. When Rebbi Meir rules that when a master gives all of his property to his Eved except for one item it is assumed that he means to exclude the Eved from the gift as well, his ruling is based on the concept of 'Lo Palginan Dibura,' we do <i>not</i> apply 'Palginan Dibura.' Rebbi Meir means that since the master showed that he did not seriously mean '<i>all</i>' of his property, it is assumed that he also was not serious about the rest of the property, including the Eved, for otherwise he would not have said that he is giving to the Eved '<i>all</i> of my property' but he would have specified what he wanted to give and said, 'I am giving to you <i>your freedom</i> (Atzmecha), and my property.' 
</p><p>
Rebbi Shimon argues and says that 'Palginan Dibura' <i>does</i> apply, and it is assumed that the master was serious about freeing his Eved. Rebbi Shimon takes this one step further and says that not only is it assumed that the master was serious about giving the Eved his freedom when he left out only a small part of his property, but even when the master excluded from the gift <i>all</i> of his property except for the Eved, it is assumed that he was serious about giving the Eved his freedom. When Rav Nachman rules like Rebbi Meir, he rules that we do not apply 'Palginan Dibura,' and even if the master leaves out a small part of his property the Eved does not go free.
</p><p>
The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Meir's reasoning is not based on the logic of 'Lo Palginan Dibura.' Normally, it is assumed that when a master leaves out a small part of his property from the Shtar, he does not mean to leave out the Eved, because the master clearly says that he is giving all of the rest of his property to the Eved, and we thus apply 'Palginan Dibura.' Although there is a slight possibility that the master was not serious about freeing his Eved, that possibility is not taken into consideration when we determine the meaning of the words in the Shtar. However, with regard to a Get Ishah or a Get Shichrur, the Torah writes that the words in the Get must be unequivocal ('Kerus Gita'). Consequently, since there is some degree of ambiguity in the wording of the Shtar, the Eved cannot go free.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) HALACHAH: AN 'ILEM' WHO DELIVERS A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a Shali'ach who delivers a Get from Medinas ha'Yam cannot say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' the Get must be validated by having two witnesses testify to the authenticity of the signatures on it.
</p><p>
The Gemara inquires about what type of Shali'ach the Mishnah refers to when it says that he cannot say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' If the Shali'ach is a Cheresh (deaf), he cannot be appointed as a Shali'ach in the first place since he is not considered a Bar Da'as, a person with sufficient intellectual capacity. It must be that he was healthy at the time he delivered the Get, and he became a Cheresh after he delivered the Get but before he could say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not answer simply that the Shali'ach cannot say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because he is an 'Ilem,' a mute, who cannot speak but who can hear. Since he can hear, he is considered a Bar Da'as and may be appointed as a Shali'ach, but he cannot say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because he is unable to speak.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (5a, DH Ileima) explains that if the Mishnah would have meant that the Shali'ach is an Ilem, it would have said that 'he <i>did not</i> say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'' and not that 'he <i>could not</i> say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'.' 
</p><p>
What does Tosfos mean? An Ilem does not <i>choose</i> not to speak; he <i>cannot</i> speak, and thus the words 'he could not say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'' appropriately describe him! Tosfos apparently means that an Ilem would not have watched the writing of the Get in the first place since he knew that he would not be able to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when he delivers it, since he is mute. Since he willingly did not witness the writing of the Get, the Mishnah should phrase his inability to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' as a consequence <i>of his choice</i> and say that he did not do what the Chachamim required of him ('he <i>did not</i> say...'). The phrase, 'he <i>could not</i> say...,' implies that the Shali'ach attempted to do what the Chachamim required of him but was unable to; for example, he was able to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the time he saw the writing of the Get, but he lost the ability to say it at a later point.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (5a) explains that the Halachah that a Get delivered by an Ilem needs Kiyum through its signatures is an obvious Halachah. The Mishnah would not teach an obvious Halachah. If, however, the Mishnah refers to a person who was <i>able</i> to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the time he brought the Get, the Mishnah indeed teaches a novel Halachah, that although the Shali'ach presently is a Cheresh, the Chachamim are not concerned that people will mistakenly assume that they are permitted to appoint a Cheresh as a Shali'ach to deliver a Get.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> explains that if the Shali'ach is an Ilem, he <i>could</i> say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' by writing the words on paper. Why would he be permitted to testify through writing, if there is a rule that testimony must come from a witness' mouth and not from what he writes ('mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam')? The Ran writes that since the Chachamim were lenient and required only a single witness to be Mekayem a Get by saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' they were also lenient to permit the Shali'ach to be Mekayem the Get through written testimony.
</p><p>
The Ran proves this from the laws of testimony on behalf of an Agunah. In the case of an Agunah, written testimony about the death of the woman's husband is accepted even though the testimony of a Tzarah (co-wife) of the Agunah is not accepted. In the case of a Get, where a Tzarah <i>may</i> deliver a Get and testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav' (23b), certainly written testimony should be acceptable.
</p><p>
Tosfos and the Rosh obviously reject the Ran's approach and maintain that written testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' does not suffice to be Mekayem the Get. How do they respond to the Ran's proof?
</p><p>
1. The <b>RIVASH</b> (#240) explains that the reason why the Tzarah is believed is not that the Chachamim were more lenient in the case of the delivery of a Get, but rather that there is no reason to suspect that the Tzarah is lying. She will lie only if doing so will damage her Tzarah. In the case of permitting an Agunah, the testimony of a Tzarah is not accepted because she stands to cause considerable damage to her Tzarah with her lie, in that if her Tzarah marries another man based on her testimony she will become prohibited to her husband upon his return (which will demonstrate clearly the falsehood of the Tzarah's testimony). When the Tzarah says 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' however, her testimony cannot be proven false, because if the husband denies that he sent the Get he will not be believed.
</p><p>
2. The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (EH 142:7) suggests that with regard to accepting the word of a witness, Beis Din believes a Shali'ach who brings a Get more than a witness who testifies about an Agunah, simply because the fact that the Shali'ach is carrying the Get supports his statement. However, the reason why Beis Din does not accept testimony in writing is not related to the trustworthiness of the testimony or of the witness. It is simply a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv in which the Torah states that testimony in writing is not considered valid testimony. Therefore, the fact that the Ilem is carrying a Get cannot make his testimony any more valid than the written testimony in the case of an Agunah. Although the Chachamim were especially lenient in the case of an Agunah and permitted written testimony, they were not as lenient with regard to Gitin with regard to matters (of Pesulim) that are not related to the trustworthiness of the witness.
</p><p>
3. The reason why the Chachamim were more lenient with regard to written testimony in the case of an Agunah is that they saw a pressing need to be lenient. They were concerned that the person who witnessed the death of her husband might be far away and will not be interested in investing the time and expense involved in coming to testify personally for the woman about the death of her husband. Therefore, the Chachamim permitted that witness to send a letter with written testimony in order to permit the woman to remarry. In contrast, the Chachamim saw no pressing need to permit written testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' since the Shali'ach who brings the Get will always be standing in front of Beis Din at the time he says 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>REMA</b> (EH 142:7) cites the <b>RIVASH</b> (above) who rules like Tosfos, that an Ilem cannot write 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' since it must be said verbally. However, the <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> (#11) points out that the Rema seems to contradict his own ruling in Choshen Mishpat (46:7), where he also cites the <b>RIVASH</b> (#413) who rules that Kiyum Shtaros is more lenient than other forms of testimony and may be done through writing! Since the Halachah follows Rava, who rules that 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is said in order to be Mekayem the Get, why should an Ilem not be able to write 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and be Mekayem the Get through his written testimony?
</p><p>
The Beis Shmuel answers that the Rema differentiates between an Ilem who cannot speak and a person who can speak but chooses to write. An Ilem cannot be Mekayem a Shtar through written testimony, while a person who is able to speak may be Mekayem a Shtar through written testimony.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> All documents written by courts of Nochrim, even 
               though they are signed by Nochrim, are valid, except 
               for Gitei Nashim and of freedom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, they are the same also regarding a fourth 
          Halachah. One who says 'give this Get to my wife or 
          slave' can retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, Chachamim said three to exclude R. 
          Meir's case;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why did R. Meir say four? What does he come to 
               exclude?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses do not know how to sign, 
          we scratch outlines of the letters of their names in the 
          parchment, and they fill them in with ink;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this applies only to 
               Gitei Nashim. For Gitin of freedom, or all other 
               documents, witnesses may only sign if they can read 
               and sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The first Tana did not discuss whether or not 
          they can read!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If witnesses do not know how to read, we read the 
               document to them, and they sign;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If witnesses do not know how to sign, we scratch 
               outlines...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> There are more similarities of Gitei Nashim and 
          of freedom!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If Levi said 'give this Get to my 
          wife, and this Get to my slave', and Levi died, we do not 
          give them posthumously. If he said 'give 100 Zuz to 
          Ploni', we give it posthumously.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We list only similarities that do not apply to 
          other documents;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravin):</font></b> If a Shechiv Mera said 'write and give 100 
               Zuz to Ploni', we do not give it posthumously. 
               Perhaps he wanted to give the gift only through a 
               document, and a document cannot be given 
               posthumously.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> Gitei Nashim and of freedom are similar 
          regarding Lishmah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for Rabah. We said that they 
               are the same regarding saying 'it was written and 
               signed in front of me', which is because they must 
               be written Lishmah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is difficult for Rava.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> Both according to Rabah and Rava, why did 
          the Beraisa omit saying that neither can be written while 
          attached to the ground?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to Questions 2 and 3):</font></b> The Beraisa counts only 
          Gitin Pasul mid'Rabanan, not those Pasul mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> A Get signed in the courts of Nochrim is Pasul 
          mid'Oraisa, and this was counted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, Yisrael witnesses saw it handed 
          over. This is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah 
          Karsei (a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it 
          given. Therefore, the Get is Kosher mid'Oraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Surely, the Stam Tana of our Mishnayos (9a, 
          10a and 10b) is like the first Tana of the Beraisa, for 
          he teaches only these three similarities);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah (10b) - R. Shimon):</font></b> Even these (Gitei 
               Nashim and of freedom written by courts of Nochrim, 
               even though they are signed by Nochrim) are Kosher;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Shimon holds like R. Elazar, that 
               Edei Mesirah Karsei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> The Stam (first) Tana does not hold like 
               R. Elazar!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE ELEMENT OF 'IGUN' INVOLVED WITH FREEING A SLAVE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that although the Chachamim were lenient to allow illiterate witnesses to sign a Get by having Beis Din make indentations in the paper which the witnesses trace with ink, they did not allow such signatures on a Get Shichrur of an Eved.
</p><p>
Why did the Chachamim not institute the same leniency for a Get Shichrur? The Chachamim allowed a single Shali'ach to be Mekayem a Get Shichrur by saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' which shows that they recognized some element of Igun in the case of the Shichrur of an Eved, just like the element of Igun in the case of a Get Ishah. Why, then, were they not lenient to permit illiterate witnesses to sign a Get Shichrur with the assistance of Beis Din?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> answer that there is an element of Igun when an Eved who has received a Get Shichrur cannot be Mekayem it, because without validation of the Get Shichrur he can marry neither a Shifchah (a maidservant) nor a Bas Chorin (a normal Jewess). However, if the master does not write a Get Shichrur in the first place, the Eved remains permitted to a Shifchah and there is no element of Igun if he is not freed.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (9a, DH Shavu), however, rejects an argument similar to this one by pointing out that even if a Shali'ach is not believed to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' there will not necessarily be Igun for the slave, because the Shali'ach simply could refrain from delivering the Get to the Eved until there are two witnesses to validate it, and thus the Eved does not have to become prohibited to a Shifchah.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> answers that when the master sends a Get to the Eved to be given against the Eved's will, the Shali'ach will deliver the Get before there is Kiyum, and therefore it would be considered Igun if the Shali'ach would not be believed to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Therefore, the Chachamim instituted that the Shali'ach is believed to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in order that there not be Igun for the Eved by not being allowed to marry a Shifchah or a Bas Chorin.
</p><p>


<font><b>4) 'ARKA'OS' OF 'NOCHRIM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa says that a Get Ishah or Get Shichrur signed by Nochrim in a court of law of Nochrim ('Arka'os') is invalid, while other types of Shtaros are valid. <b>RASHI</b> explains first that other Shtaros are valid because of the rule, 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina,' which states that the laws of non-Jewish kingdoms are binding on all of their Jewish inhabitants. It seems from Rashi that although Nochrim are not valid witnesses, they are accepted as witnesses on a Shtar that involves a monetary transaction because of the rule that whatever the governing body says about monetary law is binding. Accordingly, a Nochri is not a valid witness for a Get Ishah or Get Shichrur, because they do not involve monetary transactions, and therefore 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' does not apply to them.
</p><p>
However, in the following comment of Rashi (DH Chutz), Rashi says that Nochrim are not valid witnesses for a Get because they are not 'Bnei Kerisus' -- they have no involvement with Gitin and Kidushin, concepts which have no pertinence or applicability to them at all. In contrast, Nochrim <i>do</i> have involvement with matters of monetary law, which is pertinent to them because of their Torah obligation to set up courts of law ('Dinim'). With regard to the Shichrur of slaves, the testimony of Nochrim is not accepted because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah' from Get Ishah. (Rashi repeats later (DH Pesula d'Rabanan, and 10b, DH Kerisa) that Nochrim are not valid witnesses for a Get because they are not 'Bnei Kerisus.')
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand for a number of reasons.
</p><p>
(a) If Rashi has already explained in his first comment that Nochrim are valid witnesses for Shtaros which involve monetary transactions because of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina,' why does he write in the following comment that they are accepted as witnesses because they are obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Dinim,' implying that they are valid witnesses mid'Oraisa because the Torah commands them to set up courts of law? 
</p><p>
If Rashi maintains that Nochrim are not valid witnesses mid'Oraisa and their testimony is accepted for monetary matters only because of the principle of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina,' why does Rashi have to explain that they are not valid witnesses for a Get Ishah because they are not 'Bnei Kerisus'? They are not valid witnesses because there is no 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' for a Get! On the other hand, if Rashi maintains that Nochrim <i>are</i> valid witnesses mid'Oraisa for monetary matters, as he implies in his second comment, why in his first comment does he need to give the reason of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' to justify why Nochrim are valid witnesses?
</p><p>
(b) Rashi's second approach, in which he implies that Nochrim are valid witnesses mid'Oraisa for Shtaros of monetary matters, seems to contradict a number of Sugyos, as Tosfos points out (here and in Bava Kama 88a). The Gemara in Bava Kama (88a) says that an Eved is a valid witness only because he is commanded to do Mitzvos, implying that a Nochri is not a valid witness.
</p><p>
In fact, the Gemara later (10b) questions the Mishnah which repeats the Halachah of this Beraisa. The Gemara asks why a Nochri should be accepted as a witness on a Shtar Matanah (a Shtar which effects a transaction of a gift) to make the Shtar able to create a Kinyan. Since the Shtar is signed by a Nochri, even if he is telling the truth the Shtar is like a 'Chaspa b'Alma,' a blank piece of earthenware of no value (implying that the Shtar has no valid witnesses signed on it). The Gemara answers that the Shtar is valid because of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina.' (In its second answer, the Gemara suggests that a Shtar Matanah is indeed not valid when signed by Nochrim, but the Sugya here seems to follow the logic of the first answer; see Tosfos, DH Milsa).) The Gemara (10b) clearly expresses the reason which Rashi mentions in his first comment here, that Nochrim are valid witnesses only because of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina.' 
</p><p>
(c) In Rashi's second comment, in which he explains that Nochrim are not valid witnesses for a Get Ishah because they are not 'Bnei Kerisus,' he adds that they are also not valid witnesses for a Get Shichrur because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' The reason Rashi resorts to the Gezeirah Shavah is apparently in order to explain why the laws of Get Shichrur may be learned from the laws of Get Ishah with regard to the validity of Nochrim as witnesses. If Nochrim are disqualified from testifying for a Get Ishah simply because the concepts of Kidushin and Gerushin do not apply to them, the same logic would <i>not</i> disqualify them from testifying for a Get Shichrur, since the concept of Get Shichrur <i>does</i> have applicability to them. Rashi therefore adds that since a Nochri is unfit for the Kerisus of a Get Ishah, and a Gezeirah Shavah compares Get Shichrur to Get Ishah, it follows that just as a Nochri may not be a witness for a Get Ishah he may not be a witness for a Get Shichrur.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi take this approach? He should explain simply that a Nochri cannot own an Eved the same way a Yisrael owns an Eved (as the Gemara says later (38a), that a Nochri cannot own the body of another Nochri ('Gufo') but can own him only with regard to receiving the income from his labor, whereas a Yisrael has a Kinyan on the Guf of an Eved)! Rashi should say that a Nochri is unfit to be a witness for a Get Shichrur since the concept of Get Shichrur does not have applicability to a Nochri! (<b>PORAS YOSEF</b>, <b>DIBROS MOSHE</b>)
</p><p>
It is possible to argue that since a Nochri can own a slave of his own to <i>some</i> measure, he therefore is considered to have some involvement with the concept of Shichrur. (See Dibros Moshe.) However, even if this approach is correct, Rashi could just as well have explained that the concept of Shichrur from a <i>Kinyan ha'Guf</i> does not apply to a Nochri, and <i>that</i>  is why a Nochri cannot sign a Get Shichrur. What forces Rashi to assume that the concept of Shichrur <i>does</i> apply to a Nochri with regard to Get Shichrur, and he cannot sign a Get Shichrur only because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah'? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Af Al Pi) explains that Nochrim are valid witnesses, mid'Rabanan, only for normal Shtaros of monetary matters. Rashi, in contrast, understands that they are valid witnesses <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. His source presumably is the Gemara later on this Daf which asks why the Beraisa does not mention that Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved are similar with regard to many other laws, such as the requirement of 'Lishmah' and the invalidity of a Get written on something 'Mechubar.' The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is not listing any Pesulim d'Oraisa but only Pesulim which are mid'Rabanan. The Gemara challenges this assumption by asking that the Halachah that allows signatories who are Nochrim on other Shtaros but not on a Get is mid'Oraisa, and yet the Beraisa still includes it in its list. The Gemara answers that the Beraisa follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar who says that 'Edei Mesirah Karti' and thus the Pesul of such signatories is only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
It is clear from the Gemara that according to Rebbi Meir, signatories who are Nochrim are accepted on other Shtaros but not on a Get, because of a Pesul mid'Oraisa that applies specifically to a Get. That is why Rashi explains that Nochrim are valid witnesses for Shtaros of monetary matters <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. (The reason why they are valid mid'Oraisa is either 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' or because monetary matters have pertinence to them).
</p><p>
This approach may be understood further, based on the following two questions. What is the logic of the Gemara to suggest that the Beraisa is interested only in listing Pesulim that are mid'Rabanan? What reasoning might the Beraisa have for deeming it unnecessary to mention Pesulim d'Oraisa? After all, the Pesulim d'Oraisa are derived from Derashos and are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, and thus they are not any more obvious than the Pesulim d'Rabanan. The Beraisa should find it necessary to provide a complete list of all of the similarities between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved! 
</p><p>
Moreover, the Gemara rejects the answer that the Beraisa is not listing Pesulei d'Oraisa due to the fact that the Beraisa itself mentions the similarity between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved with regard to the Halachah of 'Chazarah' (a person who sends a Get to his Eved or to his wife and changes his mind). According to Rebbi Meir, he may retract the Get, since both a Shichrur Eved and a Get Ishah are a 'Chov' (liability) to the recipients. Because of this, the Gemara rejects the answer that the Beraisa limits itself to Pesulim d'Rabanan. 
</p><p>
However, this question of the Gemara is obvious. What did the Gemara assume when it initially suggested that the Beraisa does not include Pesulim d'Oraisa? The Beraisa explicitly mentions a Pesul d'Oraisa (that of Chazarah)!
</p><p>
Rashi himself (DH Chutz) provides the answer to these questions. Rashi writes that with regard to every Pesul d'Oraisa, Shichrur Eved is similar to Get Ishah because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' Rashi means that there is nothing novel in teaching that any Pesul d'Oraisa which applies to Get Ishah also applies to Shichrur Eved; the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that. This is why the Beraisa does not need to list Pesulim d'Oraisa; it is obvious that with regard to Pesulim d'Oraisa, Shichrur is similar to Get Ishah due to the Gezeirah Shavah. The Chidush is only that Shichrur is similar to Get Ishah with regard to laws that are <i>d'Rabanan</i>, because the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah' does not apply with regard to Dinim d'Rabanan. Rather, the Dinim d'Rabanan of Get Ishah apply to Shichrur only when a particular law is logically applicable to Shichrur as well.
</p><p>
This explains why the Gemara was not bothered by the fact that the Beraisa lists the Halachah that one who sends a Get to his wife or Eved may retract the Get. The reason why one may retract his decision after he sends a Get to his wife is that it is a liability (Chov) for a woman to be divorced, and the Halachah is that 'Ein Chavin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.' Since the Halachah of Chazarah is based on the reality of whether it is a Zechus or a Chov for the woman (or the Eved) to receive a Get, it cannot be derived through the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' This is why the Chachamim, who argue with Rebbi Meir, maintain that one <i>cannot</i> retract a Get Shichrur which he has already sent to his Eved (unlike the Halachah in the case of a Get Ishah), for they maintain that a Get Shichrur is a <i>Zechus</i> for the Eved. Therefore, if Rebbi Meir argues with the Chachamim and maintains that Shichrur is also a Chov, it would be important for the Beraisa to mention that Shichrur is similar to a Get in this regard, even though it is a Halachah d'Oraisa, since it is not derived from the Gezeirah Shavah and, therefore, is not self-evident. (As to why the Gemara rejects the answer of 'Pesulim d'Oraisa Lo Katani,' see Insights to 10a).
</p><p>
This approach explains why Rashi finds it necessary to explain that a Nochri is not a valid signatory for a Get Shichrur because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah' and not because he has no relevance to Shichrur. Since the Gemara says that the Halachah of 'Arka'os' is a Pesul d'Oraisa (which, therefore, should not be listed in the Beraisa), it is evident that it applies to Shichrur as derived from Get Ishah through the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' This answers the third question.
</p><p>
The other two questions answer each other. As mentioned above, Rashi finds it necessary to explain that a Nochri would have been a valid witness for a Get Shichrur if not for the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' Consequently, Rashi must find a way to explain how a Nochri could be a valid witness mid'Oraisa, when the Gemara later (10b) clearly says that his testimony is worthless even for a Shtar Matanah (and certainly for a Get Shichrur)! Rashi answers that the Nochri is a valid witness for Shtaros of monetary matters because of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina.' The Gemara later (10b) which says that a Nochri is <i>not</i> valid for Shtarei Matanah refers to a place in which there is no 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' that allows Nochrim to testify on a Shtar Matanah. Where there is 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina,' however, the Nochri <i>is</i> a valid witness, as the Gemara there says in its answer to its question concerning why a Nochri can be a valid witness for a Shtar Matanah.
</p><p>
That answer alone, however, does not suffice. Why should 'Dina d'Malchusa' make a Nochri a valid witness mid'Oraisa for a <i>Shtar Shichrur</i> (if not for the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah')? 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' applies only with regard to monetary law!
</p><p>
To answer this question, Rashi proposes that the source for the laws of 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' is the Torah's obligation for Bnei Noach to set up a system of courts and law. Rashi is explaining that this commandment not only obligates the Nochrim to ensure that justice is administered for criminals, but it also grants them the power to set up a system of law which establishes guidelines for monetary matters, such as guidelines for what constitutes an acquisition. This is what the Chachamim refer to when they say 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' -- the system of the courts of Nochrim that establishes legal guidelines in monetary matters is binding on all of the residents of that country, mid'Oraisa. (See Dibros Moshe.)
</p><p>
If this is the source for the right of the Nochrim to establish laws, this source gives them the right to enact any mandate or statute pertaining to anything that affects their constituents in any way -- and not just for monetary law. Granted, they cannot set up guidelines with regard to what is considered Kidushin and Gerushin; since Kidushin has no applicability to Nochrim, the Torah does not command them -- or give them the right -- to establish guidelines for it. However, a Nochri <i>does</i> have the ability to acquire an Eved (even though that acquisition is not a 'Kinyan ha'Guf' but only grants the owner the rights to the slave's income). Therefore, 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' applies and grants the Nochri court system the right to enact laws which are binding with regard to the purchase of slaves. Rashi proposes that because of these laws, the signature of a Nochri witness should be valid even for a Get Shichrur of a <i>Jew's</i> Eved.
</p><p>
This explains why the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah' is required to teach that Dina d'Malchusa does not give Nochrim the ability to make an enactment that will affect the Get Shichrur of an Eved Kena'ani. (The logic behind this teaching of the Gezeirah Shavah is that the Shichrur of an Eved Kena'ani of a Jew is <i>not</i> in the same category as the Shichrur of an Eved of a Nochri. Rather, it is a contract which involves Kerisus of Kinyan ha'Guf, and Nochrim are not 'Bnei Kerisus.') (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS UNIQUE TO GITEI NASHIM AND OF FREEDOM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They all hold like R. Elazar regarding which 
          witnesses empower a Get. They argue about a Get in which 
          the witnesses have names that Yisre'elim are never called 
          by. (The first Tana disqualifies it, lest the husband use 
          the witnesses signed for Edei Mesirah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Canceling Shelichus to give a Get disqualifies 
          mid'Oraisa, yet it was taught (in the Beraisa and 
          Mishnayos, according to R. Meir)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, we count only laws that do not apply 
          to documents of Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Canceling Shelichus applies to Kidushin, yet it 
          was taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Kidushin is different, for the Shali'ach cannot 
          give the document against her will. One can give a Get of 
          divorce or freedom against the will of the wife or slave.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>KUSI WITNESSES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any Get with a Kusi witness on it is Pasul, 
          except for a Get of divorce or freedom;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred in which the witnesses on a Get were 
               Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike all the Tana'im 
          of the following Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Matzah of Kusim is permitted. One who 
               eats it on Seder night fulfills the Mitzvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful 
               about the details of Mitzvos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Kusim are established to 
               keep some Mitzvos, and they keep those Mitzvos more 
               meticulously than Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah is unlike the first Tana, for he would 
               accept all documents with Kusi witnesses!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar, for he would 
               disqualify even a Get of divorce with a Kusi 
               witness!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> It is unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for he would not 
               distinguish between Gitei Nashim and other 
               documents:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If Kusim are established not to bear false 
                    testimony, they should be valid for both;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If Kusim are suspected to bear false 
                    testimony, they should be Pasul for both!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Kusim are established not to 
               bear false testimony regarding divorce, but are 
               suspected regarding other documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, even two Kusim signed on a Get 
               should be valid!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The Mishnah accepts only a Get 
                    with one Kusi signed on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, the Mishnah is like R. Elazar. The case 
          is, a Yisrael signed underneath the Kusi.
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN A 'SHTAR SHICHRUR' AND A 'GET ISHAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Meir maintains that mid'Oraisa a Get sent to a woman or to an Eved is not valid when the sender changes his mind before it reaches the intended recipient. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Chazarah) explains that since the sender no longer wants to give a Get, the Shali'ach who delivers the Get is no longer considered the Shali'ach of the sender. Consequently, mid'Oraisa there is no Gerushin (or Shichrur) because the Torah requires that the Get be given from the hands of the husband or his Shali'ach into the hands of the woman (or the Eved), and here the person who delivered the Get was neither the one who wrote the Get nor his Shali'ach. 
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi write that the Get is not valid because of 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1) -- because the husband did not put it into her hand? Even if the husband himself were to give a Get to his wife <i>without</i> intending to divorce her (but rather for her to look at and give back to him, for example), the Get would not be valid because a Get is valid only when it is given willingly by the one who wrote it with intention to be Makneh it to his wife (or Eved). In this case, where the Shelichus was repealed and the person carrying the Get delivered it to the woman or to the Eved against the will of the husband or the master, the Get will not be valid because there is no Da'as Makneh (intention of the giver), and not because of the verse which requires 'v'Nasan b'Yadah.'
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa mentions only those similarities between Shichrur and Get which do not also apply to Kidushin. Why, then, does the Beraisa mention the retraction of the document ('Chazarah')? If the man sends a Shtar Kidushin to a woman and then changes his mind before it reaches her hands, she does not become Mekudeshes! The Gemara answers that if the husband makes a Shali'ach to give his wife a get against her will ('Ba'al Korchah'), he may change his mind, but in the case of Kidushin there is no such thing as a Shali'ach bringing Kidushin against the will of the woman (Rashi, DH b'Shelichus).
</p><p>
What does the Halachah of giving a Get 'Ba'al Korchah' have to do with the Halachah of Chazarah? The Beraisa also could have mentioned that Shichrur Eved is similar to Get Ishah with regard to the laws of writing it on something that is 'Mechubar.' Although these laws of 'Mechubar' apply to a Shtar Kidushin as well, the Beraisa still needs to mention 'Mechubar' because a man who sends his wife a Get against her will must also be careful that it is not written on something that is 'Mechubar.'
</p><p>
(c) Why does the Beraisa not mention the similarity between a Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved that both may be sent against the will of the recipient, which does not apply to Shtar Kidushin? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, DH b'Shelichus)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> According to Rashi (see Insights to 9:4), the reason why the Beraisa does not mention similarities between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved that are Halachos mid'Oraisa is that it is obvious that a Shtar Shichrur is similar to a Get Ishah with regard to all of the Halachos mid'Oraisa, since the laws of Shtar Shichrur are derived from Get Ishah through the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah.' As mentioned earlier, this explains why the Gemara initially assumed that the Beraisa is justified in listing the similarity between Get Ishah and Shichrur Eved of Chazarah, since this similarity has nothing to do with the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah,' but rather it depends upon other considerations (i.e. whether it is a Chov or a Zechus to the recipient). Why, then, does the Gemara eventually reject the answer of 'Pesulim d'Oraisa Lo Katani' for the reason that the Beraisa lists the Halachah of Chazarah, if there is a good reason for why that Halachah is mentioned in the Beraisa even though it is a Halachah d'Oraisa?
</p><p>
According to Rashi, the answer is that the Gemara ascertained that the reason why the Beraisa lists the Halachah of Chazarah is <i>not</i> in order to teach that Shichrur of an Eved is a Chov to the Eved. Rather, the Beraisa is interested only in teaching Halachos that affect Shichrur and Get because of the way that the <i>Shtar</i> Shichrur and the <i>Shtar</i> of Get Ishah must be written, signed, or validated. The fact that the master can change his mind when he sends a Shtar Shichrur has nothing to do with the way the Shtar is written. Chazarah depends on an external factor -- that the result of the Shtar is not wholly beneficial to the Eved.
</p><p>
Therefore, the Gemara concluded that the similarity of Chazarah means something else entirely. It means that if the master sends a Shtar Shichrur to his Eved and changes his mind before the Eved receives it, <i>even if</i> the master later (after the Shtar is handed to the Eved) decides that he <i>wants</i> to free his Eved and he wants the Shtar to be valid, it still does not take effect. The reason for this is the Halachah that the master or his Shali'ach must <i>give</i> the Shtar to the Eved; the Eved cannot <i>take</i> it for himself from atop the ground. This Halachah is derived from the words 'v'Nasan b'Yadah,' as Rashi says later (24a, DH Lo Amar Klum). Although the verse says 'v'Nasan' only in the Parshah of Get Ishah, the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah' teaches that a Shtar Shichrur must also be <i>given</i> to the Eved by the master (and not <i>taken</i> by the Eved). This is why the Gemara asks that the Beraisa should not list the Halachah of Chazarah; that Halachah is also derived through 'Lah, Lah.'
</p><p>
This also explains why the Gemara earlier (9b) does not ask why the Beraisa does not mention the Halachah that an Eved cannot take the Shtar for himself but it must be given to him, like a Get Ishah. The Gemara asks only that the Beraisa should mention the Halachos of 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar.' According to this explanation, the Gemara cannot ask why the Beraisa leaves out the Halachah that the master must <i>give</i> the Get to the Eved, because the Beraisa indeed mentions that Halachah (in the form of the Halachah of Chazarah), as the Gemara concludes!
</p><p>
This answers the first question as well. Why does Rashi write that when the master changes his mind the Shichrur is not valid because of the requirement of 'v'Nasan'? He should explain that it is not valid because the master does not want to free his Eved! The answer is, as explained above, that the Gemara understands that the case in the Beraisa is where the master consents to the Shichrur <i>after</i> it has already reached the hands of the Eved. In such a case, where the master <i>does</i> have intention for the Shichrur to be valid, the only reason the Shichrur is not valid is because of 'v'Nasan,' since the Get Shichrur was not given by the master (or by someone appointed by him as his Shali'ach) to the Eved.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not mention laws which do not apply to Kidushin. The logic behind this is that if the Halachah applies to Kidushin, the reason it applies is because of the Hekesh which compares Gitin to Kidushin. Any Halachah which can be derived through that Hekesh may also be applied to Shichrur through the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah,' and therefore the Beraisa would not have to teach that this Halachah applies to Shichrur.
</p><p>
The Gemara then asks that the Halachah of Chazarah <i>does</i> apply to Kidushin and yet the Beraisa still mentions it. It applies to Kidushin because it is inherently a Chov for a woman to become married, since marriage prohibits her to everyone else. Therefore, the Shtar Kidushin takes effect only when it reaches the hands of the woman. When the husband sends a Shtar Kidushin with a Shali'ach and he changes his mind before it reaches the hands of the woman, and then he changes his mind again and wants the Kidushin to take effect, the Kidushin will <i>not</i> be valid because it was not <i>given</i> to her by the man (or by his appointed Shali'ach), and a Shtar Kidushin has the requirement of 'v'Nasan' just like a Get, because of the Hekesh. Accordingly, the Gemara asks, why does the Beraisa mention that the Halachah of Chazarah applies to Shichrur if it is obvious? Any law which is derived through the Hekesh to apply to Kidushin is also learned through the Gezeirah Shavah to apply to Shichrur!
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa intends to teach that when the husband appoints a Shali'ach to give a Get to his wife (or the master appoints a Shali'ach to give a Shtar Shichrur to his Eved) Ba'al Korchah, against her will, and then he changes his mind before it reaches her, and then he changes his mind again -- after she receives it -- and decides that he <i>does</i> want it to take effect against her will, the Get does <i>not</i> take effect. This is a Halachah that does not apply to Kidushin (since he cannot make Kidushin take effect against the woman's will). Therefore, the Beraisa finds it necessary to mention that this Halachah nevertheless <i>is</i> derived from Get Ishah to Shichrur Eved, even though it is <i>not</i> derived from Get Ishah to Kidushin through the Hekesh.
</p><p>
One may ask, however, why should the Gemara assert that this Halachah does not apply to Kidushin? This seems to be the same Halachah of 'v'Nasan' which <i>does</i> apply to Kidushin when the man wants the Kidushin to take effect <i>with</i> the woman's consent. As such, it <i>is</i> a Halachah which applies to Kidushin.
</p><p>
The answer is that the Halachah of 'v'Nasan' which applies to a Get Shichrur given Ba'al Korcho, <i>against the will</i> of the Eved, could not have been inferred from the Halachah of 'v'Nasan' which applies when a Kidushin is given with the <i>consent</i> of the woman. These two Halachos are two different levels of the requirement of 'v'Nasan.' The reason for this is that 'v'Nasan' does not require the master to physically hand the Shtar to the Eved. Rather, even if he does something that causes the Shtar to enter the domain of the Eved (or if the husband causes the Get to enter the domain of his wife), it is considered a fulfillment of 'v'Nasan.' (See <b>TOSFOS</b> 77b, DH v'Teizil, and <b>RASHI</b> there, DH Harei Zu Chazakah.)
</p><p>
When a Shtar Shichrur is delivered to the Eved without the consent of the master, and then the master decides that he wants to free his Eved and the Eved consents to make a Kinyan on the Shtar Shichrur, it is clearly the Eved who is instigating the Kinyan by wanting to acquire the Shtar Shichrur. Therefore, it is not considered 'v'Nasan.' One might have thought, however, that when the master decides that he wants the Shichrur to take effect <i>against the will</i> of the Eved, even though the Shichrur takes effect only when it enters the domain of the Eved and the Eved acquires it against his will, that this is considered as though the master instigated the Kinyan (and has fulfilled the requirement of 'v'Nasan'). The Beraisa therefore teaches that the Shichrur is <i>not</i> valid because it does <i>not</i> fulfill the requirement of 'v'Nasan' (since the master did not physically bring it into the domain of the Eved). <i>This</i> is a Halachah that cannot apply to Kidushin, and therefore the Beraisa finds it necessary to teach that this Halachah <i>does</i> apply to Shichrur (because of the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Lah, Lah').
</p><p>
This approach explains the connection between the Halachah of Chazarah and the Halachah of giving a Get against the will of the recipient. This also answers the question of Tosfos, who asks why the Beraisa does not list the Halachah that Shtar Shichrur and Get Ishah both may be given against the will of the recipient. As explained above, the Beraisa is interested in listing only Halachos that apply to the writing, signing, or validating of the Shtar, and not Halachos that depend on external factors and that do not relate to the Shtar itself. (See <b>TORAS GITIN</b>.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Yisrael would let a Kusi sign before him only if 
               he knew that the Kusi is reliable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, if one Kusi signed (first) on other 
          documents this should also be valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must say that we are concerned lest the Kusi 
          is unreliable. The Yisrael signed before the Kusi signed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Yisrael expected someone more important than 
               himself to be the other witness, therefore he signed 
               at the bottom (to show deference).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Here also, we should be concerned lest the 
          Yisrael signed first (at the bottom), expecting someone 
          more important than himself to be the other witness!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Since we have no such concern, this 
          shows that witnesses on a Get must sign in front of each 
          other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It is a decree due to the case when 
          the husband says 'all of you should sign this Get.' (If 
          two, but not all, sign, the Get will appear to be valid, 
          but really, it is Pasul!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The Mishnah accepts only a Get with one Kusi 
          signed on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must he teach this? It is clear from the 
          Mishnah! It says, any Get that has one Kusi like a 
          witness is Pasul (except for a Get of divorce or 
          freedom)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a Get of divorce or 
          freedom is valid even if both witnesses are Kusim, and 
          the Mishnah discusses one Kusi witness, for this 
          disqualifies other documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Two Kusim on a Get do not disqualify it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A case occurred in which the witnesses on 
               a Get were Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is 
               Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah should say 'its witness' 
          was a Kusi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Really, R. Gamliel allows even two 
          Kusim. He argues with the first Tana.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means as follows:</font></b> R. 
               Gamliel allows even both witnesses to be Kusim. A 
               case occurred in which the witnesses on a Get were 
               Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is Kosher.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOCUMENTS OF COURTS OF NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> All documents written by Nochri courts, even 
          though Nochrim signed them, are valid, except for Gitei 
          Nashim or freedom;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, even these are valid; they are only Pasul 
          when done by commoners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> The Mishnah does not distinguish between 
          documents of sale and gift.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  We understand why documents of sale are valid - the 
          giving of the money made the acquisition, the document is 
          merely a proof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The judges would not write a document if the money 
               was not given, for this would damage their 
               reputation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is a document of a gift valid? (If Nochri 
          courts made it,) it has no power to transfer property!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Shmuel):</font></b> The law of the kingdom (that court 
          documents transfer property) is binding.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Mishnah should say 'except for documents 
          like Gitei Nashim (i.e. that are not merely proofs, but 
          change ownership or status).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> Even these are Kosher...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Nochrim have nothing to do with divorce. Their 
          Gitin have no effect!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> R. Shimon holds like R. Elazar, that 
          Edei Mesirah Karsei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Aba taught that R. Elazar admits that an 
          intrinsic forgery (a Get in which the testimony of the 
          signed witnesses is Pasul) is Pasul. Here, the judges are 
          Pasul witnesses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is clear from the judges' names 
          that they are Nochrim. (No one would rely on them for 
          witnesses of divorce.)
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>NOCHRI NAMES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What kinds of names are clearly of Nochrim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Some examples are Hormiz, Avudaina bar 
          Shivetai,...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> If the names could be of Yisre'elim, the Get 
          is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Reisha teach 'they are 
          Pasul only when done by commoners'? Even if judges made 
          the Get, we can distinguish!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is valid only if the judges' names are clearly of 
               Nochrim. If not, it is Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This is what the Mishnah means!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is valid only if the judges' names are clearly of 
               Nochrim. If not, it is as if it was done by 
               commoners, and it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Reisha refers to monetary documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It teaches that monetary documents are Pasul only 
               when done by commoners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> R. Akiva and Chachamim agree that 
          all documents made in Nochri courts are valid, even if 
          Nochrim signed them, even Gitei Nashim or freedom;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue only when they are done by commoners. R. 
               Akiva says that they are valid. Chachamim disqualify 
               them, except for Gitei Nashim or freedom. (All agree 
               that these are valid, even if they were done by 
               commoners.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Gitei Nashim or freedom 
               (signed by Nochri commoners) are valid only in 
               places where Yisre'elim do not normally sign them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> He should decree to disqualify them even 
               where Yisre'elim do not normally sign them, due to 
               places where Yisre'elim normally sign them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> In a place where Yisre'elim normally sign, 
               if we would accept Gitin with clearly Nochri names, 
               people would also accept Gitin with names that could 
               be Yisre'elim (and they might rely on the 
               signatures). People do not distinguish between the 
               difference in names;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We can accept Gitin (with names that are 
                    clearly of Nochrim) in places where Yisre'elim 
                    normally do not sign them, and people will not 
                    come to accept them in places where Yisre'elim 
                    normally sign them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOCUMENTS OF NOCHRIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Ravina was about to accept monetary documents made in 
          gatherings of Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rafram:</font></b> The Mishnah accepts only those made in their 
          courts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A Persian document given in front of Yisrael 
          witnesses may be used to collect from Bnei Chorin (the 
          borrower's property, but not from what he sold).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The witnesses cannot read it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, they can.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We require writing that cannot be (erased and) 
          forged!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The paper was treated with gall-nuts. (The 
          writing cannot be erased).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The last line of the document must summarize 
          the document!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, one should be able to collect even from 
          property that the borrower sold (after the loan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> People do not hear about such a document. (Buyers 
          did not know about a lien on the land.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If witnesses signed 
          on a Get, and their names are Nochri names, what is the 
          law?
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'SHTAR' WRITTEN IN PERSIAN </b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that a Shtar written in Persian that was given over in front of Jewish witnesses (Edei Mesirah) may be used to collect from 'Nechasim Bnei Chorin' but not from 'Nechasim Meshubadim.'
</p><p>
What type of witnesses signed the Shtar?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shtara) explains that Nochrim <i>Hedyotos</i> signed the Shtar. He proves this from the Gemara later (19b) which says that a Shtar signed by <i>Arka'os</i> of Nochrim is valid and may be used to collect even from Meshubadim.
</p><p>
Why may a Shtar signed by Hedyotos be used to collect even from Nechasim Bnei Chorin, if the Mishnah says that only a Shtar signed by Arka'os, and not by Hedyotos, is valid? Rashi explains that since the Edei Mesirah are Jewish, Beis Din may rely on the Shtar.
</p><p>
However, if there are valid Edei Mesirah who can attest to the details of the transaction, why is a Shtar necessary at all? Why should Beis Din need to rely on the signatures of the Hedyotos in the Shtar? The Gemara should say simply that one may collect based on the Jewish witnesses (the Edei Mesirah), and not only may the signatures on the Shtar be ignored, but the entire Shtar itself may be ignored!
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> asks this question. He answers that the Shtar is necessary because it prevents the borrower from claiming that he already repaid the debt. Although the Shtar does not allow the lender to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim, it <i>does</i> provide proof that the debt has not yet been repaid. (According to the view of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 27:1) who maintains that a Shtar which cannot be used to collect from Meshubadim cannot be used to prove that the debt was not repaid, another explanation will need to be given.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> (see <b>TOSFOS</b>, DH Lo Nechleku) rules that the Beraisa mentioned earlier on the Daf disqualifies a Shtar signed by Hedyotos even when there <i>are</i> Jewish Edei Mesirah, according to the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Akiva. Therefore, the Ri explains that the Persian Shtar discussed by the Gemara was signed by <i>Arka'os</i>. Although it was signed by Arka'os, it may not be used to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim because it does not have a 'Kol.' 
</p><p>
The Ri alters the Girsa of the Gemara later (19b) in order to make it consistent with this ruling. (See <b>ROSH</b> 1:10.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> himself explains that the Persian Shtar discussed by the Gemara has <i>no</i> signatures at all. Although the Rabanan disqualified a Persian Shtar on which Hedyotos signed even when there are Jewish Edei Mesirah (because it is 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho'), they did <i>not</i> disqualify a Persian Shtar that has <i>no</i> witnesses signed on it.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We had only one case, in which the 
          names were Lukas and Luke. We accepted it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We accepted these names; but if (also) Yisre'elim 
               often have such names, the Get would be Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Signed Gitin from abroad are valid, 
          even though the witnesses' names are Nochri names, since 
          most Yisre'elim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa itself gives the reason, because most 
          Yisre'elim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> What is the law of 
          signed Gitin from abroad, on which the witnesses' names 
          are Nochri names?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan - Beraisa):</font></b> They are valid, since 
          most Yisre'elim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUIRING ON BEHALF OF OTHERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'give 
          this Get to my wife', or 'to my slave', in either case 
          Reuven can retract;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, he can retract from a Get to his wife, but 
          not from a Get to his slave;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because we may do something beneficial for 
               someone in his absence, but not something 
               detrimental. (A Shali'ach can receive a Get on 
               behalf of a slave, for freedom is beneficial, since 
               one need not feed his slave. One cannot accept a Get 
               for a woman, for divorce is detrimental, since one 
               must feed his wife.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Meir:</font></b> Also freedom is detrimental. It 
               disqualifies a slave from eating Terumah, just like 
               divorce!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> That is because a slave is his master's 
               property. (This will be explained.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> We learn from Chachamim that if one 
          seized property from a borrower to acquire it on behalf 
          of a creditor, he acquires it for him (just like a 
          Shali'ach acquires a Get for a slave).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> Does this apply even if 
          this harms others? (There are other creditors who would 
          have wanted to seize the property.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> Yes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> R. Yochanan taught that if one 
          seized property from a borrower on behalf of a creditor 
          when this harms others, he did not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Your proof from our Mishnah is invalid. One who says 
               'give' means 'acquire for.' (Reuven himself told the 
               Shali'ach to acquire.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about one 
          who seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a 
          creditor when this harms others:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If Levi gathered Pe'ah 
               (produce in the corner of the field which is left 
               for the poor) and said 'this is for Ploni the Oni 
               (poor person)', he acquired for him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, he must give it to the first Oni he 
               finds.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) SIGNATURES OF FOREIGN-SOUNDING NAMES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Get is valid when it has the signatures of witnesses who have names commonly used by Nochrim (and Beis Din does not know whether those signatories are Jewish or not). <b>RASHI</b> explains that Reish Lakish's question was whether Beis Din may accept the Get when there are valid Edei Mesirah, or whether it will be invalid even with Edei Mesirah because it is 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho.'
</p><p>
Rebbi Yochanan answers that the only Shtar which the Chachamim permitted, with Edei Mesirah, is a Get with signatures of 'Shemos Muvhakim' of Nochrim ('Lukus' and 'Lus') -- names used exclusively by Nochrim and not by Jews. A Get that has signatures of 'Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim' -- names of Nochrim that are not used exclusively by Nochrim but are used by Jews -- is not valid.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi explain that Reish Lakish's question was whether or not the Get is valid because of its Edei Mesirah? The Gemara later cites a Beraisa that states that when a Get is brought from Chutz la'Aretz with foreign names signed on it, it is valid, since most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such names. Rashi explains that the Beraisa permits Gitin with foreign names even without Edei Mesirah because we assume that the signatories are Jewish. The Gemara attempts to prove from the Beraisa that even when a Get comes from within Eretz Yisrael with foreign names signed on it, we may assume that the signatories are Jewish.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi here not explain that the reason why Reish Lakish wanted to permit the Get was because we assume that the signatories are Jewish? Why does Rashi explain instead that Reish Lakish's question was whether or not we rely on the Edei Mesirah? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, in fact, explains this way, that Reish Lakish wanted to permit such a Get because we assume that the signatories are Jewish.) (<b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>)
</p><p>
(b) According to Rashi, the Gemara is questioning whether we permit a Get with names of Nochrim which are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the Edei Mesirah (according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon). Why is the Gemara questioning whether we accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim according to Rebbi Shimon? The Gemara earlier (10b) takes it for granted that Rebbi Shimon does <i>not</i> accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the invalidating factor of 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho.' (<b>RASHBA</b>, <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
(c) Regarding the Beraisa which says that Gitin which come from Chutz la'Aretz with foreign names are valid because most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such names, the Gemara concludes that the reasoning of the Beraisa does <i>not</i> apply in Eretz Yisrael, since most Jews in Eretz Yisrael have Jewish names. Rashi writes that since Jews in Eretz Yisrael have Jewish names, if a Get with foreign names is sent from within Eretz Yisrael we must suspect that the signatories are not Jewish, and therefore the Get is invalid even with Edei Mesirah 'like the Rabanan of our Mishnah.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi attribute this opinion to the Rabanan of the Mishnah? The names signed on the Get in that case obviously are not Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim, because Rashi writes that we are uncertain about the identity of the witnesses who signed. In such a case, even Rebbi Shimon of the Mishnah disqualifies a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho' (10b)! (<b>MAHARSHA</b> and others)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The reason why Rashi explains that Reish Lakish sought to permit the Get because of the Edei Mesirah is that he wants to explain the context of Rebbi Yochanan's answer to Reish Lakish's question. Rebbi Yochanan answered that we permit a Get with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim but not a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim. If Reish Lakish's question was whether the signatories are assumed to be Jews or Nochrim, Rebbi Yochanan's answer about permitting a Get with signatures of Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim is entirely unrelated to Reish Lakish's question. Reish Lakish asked only about names that could be Jewish names. Why did Rebbi Yochanan answer that we permit Gitin with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim?
</p><p>
Therefore, Rashi explains that Reish Lakish indeed was questioning whether we may rely on Edei Mesirah even when the names signed on the Get are names of Nochrim that are <i>not</i> Muvhakim. Rebbi Yochanan replied that we rely only on foreign-sounding names when they are Shemos Muvhakim. 
</p><p>
(b) Although Rebbi Shimon normally does not permit a Get signed with names of Nochrim that are not Muvhakim because of the Pesul of 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho,' this Pesul is only a Pesul <i>d'Rabanan</i>. Therefore, when there is a possibility that the witnesses who signed the Get are actually Jewish (and the Get is not Pasul), perhaps we may be lenient since it is only a Safek d'Rabanan. That is why Reish Lakish asked what the Halachah is when the names on the Get are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim and we do not know whether the witnesses who signed are Jewish or not. (<b>RASHBA</b>, <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> explains that Rashi means to say that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not necessary rule like Rebbi Shimon. (After all, the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Shimon, and thus the Halachah should follow their opinion, the opinion of the majority.) Rashi suggests that <i>even</i> the Rabanan -- who invalidate a Get both when it has Shemos Muvhakim and when it has Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the Pesul of 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho' -- might permit the Get in the case of Reish Lakish in which there is only a <i>doubt</i> about whether it is 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho,' since the persons signed on the Get might actually be Jews. 
</p><p>
The Rashba explains that even names like 'Lukus' and 'Lus' -- which are Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim -- do not preclude the possibility that the signatories are really Jews. The Gemara says only that it is very uncommon for Jews to bear such names, but not that it is impossible or unheard of completely.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>, however, points out that from the context of Rashi's words it seems that Rashi's intention is <i>not</i> to explain why the Get would be valid <i>even</i> according to the Rabanan, but why a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim would be invalid according to the Rabanan (and <i>only</i> according to the Rabanan). Why should Rashi limit this ruling to the opinion of the Rabanan? Even according to Rebbi Shimon, Safek Nochrim with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim should invalidate a Get, and Safek Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim should not!
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHA</b> also writes that Rashi seeks to explain the entire Sugya according to the opinion of the Rabanan. The Maharsha explains that the only reason why the Rabanan invalidate a Get with foreign-sounding names signed on it is that we might rely on the Nochrim who signed it to serve as the Edei Mesirah as well. When a Get comes from Medinas ha'Yam, however, it is impossible to use the witnesses who signed it as the Edei Mesirah (since they are out of the country). Therefore, the Rabanan have reason to be more lenient and say that when the names are Shemos Muvhakim the Get is valid, and only when the names are <i>not</i> Muvhakim do they invalidate the Get. 
</p><p>
Rebbi Shimon, in contrast, would accept the Get even when the names are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim. Since Rebbi Yochanan accepted only a Get from far away that was signed with Shemos Muvhakim, Rashi understands that he followed the opinion of the Rabanan. 
<br> 
<br>Another possibility (see <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>) is that when Rashi writes that a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim is invalid 'like the Rabanan of our Mishnah,' he does not refer to the <i>Tana Kama</i> of the Mishnah, but rather to <i>all</i> of the Tana'im of the Mishnah (the 'Rabanan' of the Mishnah refers to the Tana Kama as well as Rebbi Shimon)! Rashi means out that one should not think that the Gemara here follows a minority opinion. Rather, the Gemara's ruling is accepted by all of the Tana'im of the Mishnah (to the exclusion of the Tana'im of the Beraisa).
</p><p>
Rashi follows his own view as expressed earlier (10b, DH Teni Chutz), where he explains that the Tana Kama of the Mishnah here follows the view of Rebbi Meir, that Edei Chasimah Kartei. Hence, there is no Tana in the <i>Mishnah</i> who would say that according to <i>Rebbi Elazar</i> a Get with Shemos Muvhakim is invalid. All of the Tana'im in the Mishnah agree that a Get with Shemos Muvhakim is valid (with Edei Mesirah) according to Rebbi Elazar. The Tana'im of the <i>Beraisa</i> (9b), however, argue about whether Rebbi Elazar would permit a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim, as the Gemara there explained.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUIRING ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1 (Ameimar):</font></b> Perhaps all agree that one who 
          seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a creditor 
          does not acquire for him when this harms others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer holds that Migo (since) Levi could make 
               his property Hefker (and he would be an Oni, who may 
               take Pe'ah), even when he is rich, Pe'ah befits him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since he could acquire Pe'ah for himself, he may 
               acquire it for an Oni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2 (Ameimar):</font></b> Perhaps all agree that one who 
          seizes for a creditor acquires, even when this harms 
          others;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim expound that one cannot acquire Pe'ah for 
               an Oni from 'do not gather, for an Oni (you will 
               leave it).' We read this 'do not gather for an Oni.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Eliezer expound this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This forbids a poor man to gather Pe'ah from 
               his own field.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST ONE FEED HIS SLAVE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man does not want to feed...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> One can tell his (Kena'ani) slave 'work for me 
          and I will not feed you,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. The case is, the master told him 'feed 
          yourself from your earnings.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The corresponding case of his wife would be 
          that he told her 'feed yourself from your earnings.' Why 
          is he obligated to feed his wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, her earnings do not suffice for her 
          food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that it likewise discusses a 
          slave whose earnings do not suffice for his food!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One need not feed a slave who eats more than the 
          value of his work.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a slave was exiled to a refuge city (for 
          killing b'Shogeg), his master need not feed him, but his 
          earnings go to his master.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> One can tell his slave 'work for me and I will 
          not feed you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. The case is, the master told him 'feed 
          yourself from your earnings.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Beraisa say that his 
          earnings go to his master?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The excess earnings (above the cost of his food) 
          go to his master.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that since the master does 
          not give the slave at times when the slave lacks, he does 
          not take from the slave when the slave has extra. The 
          Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the law is always true, why does the Beraisa 
          discuss a slave in exile?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says about one in exile 'he will live.' One 
          might have thought that one must take extra efforts to 
          ensure his livelihood. The Beraisa teaches that this is 
          not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE MUST FEED A WIFE IN EXILE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If a wife was exiled to a refuge city, 
          her husband must feed her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We must say that he did not tell her to feed herself 
               from her earnings.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Just like in the Seifa he did not tell her, also in 
               the Reisha he did not tell his slave!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, he told them. He must feed his wife when 
          she cannot feed herself from her earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If he told his wife to feed herself 
          from her earnings, he is allowed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> In the previous clause he did not say 
               this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa says thusly: if she earns enough to 
          feed herself, he can tell her to feed herself from her 
          earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she can earn enough, this is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that due to 'the honor of 
          the king's daughter is (to stay) inside', she need not 
          work and he must feed her. The Beraisa teaches that this 
          is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST ONE FEED HIS SLAVE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not a master 
          can tell his slave 'work for me and I will not feed you':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> In years of 
               famine, a slave can tell his master, 'feed me or 
               free me';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the master need not comply;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Chachamim hold that a master can say 
               'work for me and I will not feed you', and R. Shimon 
               says that he cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> If so, (according to R. Shimon) why does 
          the slave request food or freedom? His claim should be 
          'feed me or give me my earnings towards my food'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> If so, why does the Beraisa discuss 
          specifically famine years?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rather, (all agree that one cannot tell his slave 'work 
          for me and I will not feed you'). The case is, his master 
          said 'feed yourself from your earnings.' In famine years, 
          the slave's earnings do not suffice;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that if he will not feed 
               him, he must free him, so people will have mercy on 
               him and feed him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim hold that whoever has mercy to feed a free 
               man will also have mercy to feed a slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> If one makes Hekdesh his slave's hands, the slave 
          borrows money for food, and pays up the debt through his 
          earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> One can tell his slave 'work for me and I will 
          not feed you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. The case is, his master is feeding him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why does the slave borrow to eat?
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GATHERING PE'AH ON BEHALF OF A SPECIFIC POOR PERSON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara (11b) attempts to prove from the Mishnah in Pe'ah (4:9) that the Tana'im argue about whether one may acquire an item on behalf of someone else when other people will lose out as a result ('ha'Tofes l'Ba'al Chov b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim'). The Mishnah describes a case in which a person gathers Pe'ah and declares that he is gathering it on behalf of a specific poor person. Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one may acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of the poor person, while the Rabanan rule that he may not acquire the Pe'ah for a specific person but instead must give it to the first poor person he finds. The Gemara rejects this proof and says that even the Rabanan may rule that a person normally <i>is</i> able to acquire an object on behalf of someone else 'b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim,' but the case of Pe'ah is different. In the case of Pe'ah, a specific verse in the Torah prohibits one from gathering Pe'ah for a specific poor person ('Lo Selaket l'Ani'; Vayikra 23:22). Similarly, perhaps Rebbi Eliezer maintains that normally a person <i>cannot</i> acquire something on behalf of someone else 'b'Makom she'Chav l'Acherim,' but in the case of Pe'ah he <i>can</i>, since he can be Mafkir all of his own possessions and make himself a poor person who is then entitled to take the Pe'ah for himself. Since he could take it for himself, he may be acquire it on behalf of someone else. Only when he is unable to take the object for himself may he not acquire it on behalf of someone else. 
</p><p>
The Gemara adds that Rebbi Eliezer does not derive from the verse, 'Lo Selaket l'Ani,' that a person cannot be Zocheh the Pe'ah for a specific poor person, but rather he learns that a poor person may not keep the Pe'ah that comes from his own field.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that in the case of the Mishnah in Pe'ah, the person who gathered Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person was a wealthy field-owner. The wealthy field-owner gathered the Pe'ah of his own field on behalf of a specific poor person.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi explain that the person who gathered the Pe'ah for the poor person was both wealthy <i>and</i> the owner of the field?
</p><p>
Rashi's intention is to explain why the person could not take the Pe'ah for himself. Since he is the owner and he is wealthy, he is not entitled to take Pe'ah for himself. Why, though, does Rashi need to say that he is both the owner and that he is wealthy? Even if the person who owns the field is poor, he still is not entitled to acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of another poor person! Conversely, if the person is wealthy, even if he is not the owner of the field, he is not entitled to take the Pe'ah for himself! How does Rashi know that the Mishnah refers to someone who is both the field-owner and wealthy?
</p><p>
(b) Rashi himself in Bava Metzia (9b) emphatically rejects the possibility that the person who gathered the Pe'ah on behalf of a poor person is the owner of the field. Rashi there writes that if the person who gathered the Pe'ah for the poor person is the owner of the field, Rebbi Eliezer would <i>not</i> have permitted him to acquire it on behalf of the poor person, according to the Gemara's conclusion. The Gemara concludes that the reason why Rebbi Eliezer permits the wealthy man to acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person is that the wealthy man is able to be Mafkir all of his possessions and then take the Pe'ah for himself. The owner of a field, however, can never take Pe'ah from his own field, because Rebbi Eliezer agrees that 'Lo Selaket l'Ani' teaches that a poor person cannot take Pe'ah from his own field! How does Rashi here answer this question?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The reason why Rashi needs to explain that the person who gathers the Pe'ah on behalf of a poor person is wealthy is that the Gemara here says that when he is Mafkir his property 'he will become a poor person and be able to take Pe'ah,' which implies that the reason why he was unable to take Pe'ah for himself until now is that he was wealthy.
</p><p>
The reason why Rashi says that he is the owner of the field might be the fact that the Mishnah does not explain why the person cannot take the Pe'ah for himself. (It does not mention '<i>a wealthy person</i> who collects Pe'ah' on behalf of a poor person, but merely 'one who collects Pe'ah' on behalf of a poor person). This implies that the reason why he may not collect the Pe'ah for himself is not that he is wealthy, but that he owns the field (regardless of the amount of money he has).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (on the Mishnah in Pe'ah) explains that although the owner of a field may not gather Pe'ah for himself from his own field, if he is Mafkir the field he becomes permitted to take Pe'ah from it, just as he is permitted to take Pe'ah from any other field. Accordingly, the owner of the field may acquire the Pe'ah on behalf of a specific poor person since he is able to be Mafkir his field and take the Pe'ah for himself.
</p><p>
Rashi in Bava Metzia rejects this approach, perhaps because he considers it unfeasible to suggest that making one's field Hefker can permit a person to take the Pe'ah that was separated <i>before</i> he made his field Hefker. The verse prohibits the person who owned the field at the time Pe'ah was designated from <i>ever</i> taking the Pe'ah that he designated himself.
</p><p>
Rashi here seems to take a different approach than that of the Rosh. Rashi (DH l'Hazhir) explains that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the verse does not teach that a poor person may not <i>take</i> Pe'ah from his own field, but rather it teaches that a poor person may not <i>exempt</i> himself from separating Pe'ah from his own field. Once he separates Pe'ah, however, the verse does <i>not</i> prohibit him from collecting that Pe'ah. Even if he is not Mafkir his field, perhaps the poor owner of the field is permitted to take the Pe'ah which he separated from his own field. 
</p><p>
Rashi in Bava Metzia (9b, DH Mi she'Liket), however, explains that the verse indeed teaches that a poor person may not gather Pe'ah for himself from his own field. That is why Rashi explains there that the owner of the field can never gather Pe'ah on behalf of a specific person (since he cannot collect his own Pe'ah even after he is Mafkir his own field). 
</p><p>
(The <b>RASH</b> on the Mishnah in Pe'ah points out that the Yerushalmi implies that an owner of a field is <i>permitted</i> to gather the Pe'ah for a specific poor person.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He borrows for extra food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (The treasurer of) Hekdesh should tell him 
          'until now, you managed with standard rations. Now also, 
          that suffices for you!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is beneficial for Hekdesh that he eats extra, 
          for this will increase his value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can he pay his debt through his earnings? 
          Every bit of money he earns becomes Hekdesh immediately!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He pays from his earnings bit by bit, before his 
          earnings accumulate to a Perutah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> We must say that the case is that the master is 
          feeding him (to answer a contradiction in Rav).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Rav):</font></b> If one makes his slave's hands 
               Hekdesh, the slave works and eats what he earns. If 
               he will not work, who will feed him?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Resolution:</font></b> In the former teaching, the master feeds 
               him. In this teaching, he does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If in the first teaching, the master does not 
          feed him, because a master can say 'work for me and I 
          will not feed you', why does the second teaching say, 
          'who will feed him'? Whoever wants to will feed him (we 
          are not concerned)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must say that Rav holds that he cannot say 
          'work for me and I will not feed you,'
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>PAYING FOR DAMAGING A SLAVE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's 
          slave, Reuven compensates Shimon for the loss of earnings 
          and the medical expenses. The slave is fed from Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> R. Yochanan holds that a master can say 'work 
          for me and I will not feed you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. The case is, the master is feeding him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why is the slave fed from Tzedakah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is for extra food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say he is financed from 
          Tzedakah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Our inference was correct. R. Yochanan holds 
          that a master can say 'work for me and I will not feed 
          you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did R. Yochanan say that Shimon receives 
          the compensation for the loss of earnings and the medical 
          expenses? Obviously, he gets the compensation for the 
          loss of earnings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Indeed, it was merely taught along with the 
          medical expenses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The medical expenses should go to the slave. He 
          must heal himself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the doctors estimated that he needs 
          five days of treatment; they gave him a potent (but 
          painful) drug that healed him in three days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that the savings goes to the 
               slave, since it came through his pain. R. Yochanan 
               teaches that it goes to the master.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A SLAVE BENEFIT BY GOING FREE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Elazar):</font></b> We told R. Meir that a slave 
          benefits by going free!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Meir:</font></b> No, it is disadvantageous for him. If his 
               master was a Kohen, freedom disqualifies him from 
               eating Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> The master can say that he will not feed 
               him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Meir:</font></b> A Kohen's slave who fled, or a Kohen's wife 
               who rebels on him, may eat Terumah, but a freed 
               slave may not!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  But it is disadvantageous for a wife to be 
                    divorced, for she is disqualified from Terumah 
                    and ceases to be fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we understand this dialogue between R. 
          Meir and Chachamim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Meir admitted 'you refuted my proof from food. 
          What can you answer about Terumah?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The master could throw a Get at the 
               slave (and free him against his will), and 
               disqualify him from Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The slave could run away!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A Kohen's slave who fled, or a Kohen's wife who 
                    rebels, may eat Terumah, but a freed slave may 
                    not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Meir's argument is sound. Why didn't 
               Chachamim agree?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Mishnah records their answer, 
               because he is the money of the Kohen. His master may 
               sell him to a Yisrael for a small amount and 
               disqualify the slave from Terumah, wherever the 
               slave is.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE ELEMENT OF 'CHOV' OF A DIVORCE FOR A WOMAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the argument between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan in the Mishnah (11b) with regard to whether one who appointed a Shali'ach to bring a Get Shichrur to his Eved may retract the Shelichus. Rebbi Meir maintains that freedom is a Chov, a liability, for the Eved, and, therefore, just as a Shali'ach may not acquire a Get Ishah on behalf of a woman without her knowledge, one may not acquire a Get Shichrur on behalf of an Eved. The Rabanan counter that freedom is a Zechus, a benefit, for the Eved, because he does not necessarily receive Mezonos from his master even while he is an Eved. The Rabanan agree that the divorce of a woman is a Chov for her because 'it prohibits her from Terumah (if she is married to a Kohen) and it causes her to lose her husband's financial support.'
</p><p>
The Rabanan in the Beraisa here present two arguments to explain why it is a Chov for a woman to be divorced: not only does she lose Mezonos, but she loses Terumah as well. Similarly, Rebbi Meir's words in the Mishnah (11b) imply that one of the reasons why the Rabanan consider it a Chov for the woman to be divorced is that she thereby loses Terumah (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 13a, DH u'Mah Ilu). 
</p><p>
Why do the Rabanan note the fact that the wife loses Terumah when she is divorced? This reason applies only to the wife of a Kohen. The other reason (the fact that she loses financial support), in contrast, explains why the divorce of <i>every</i> woman is a Chov! What do the Rabanan intend to add when they say that her loss of Terumah gives the divorce the status of a Chov?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> If the only reason why a divorce is considered a Chov to the woman is that she loses Mezonos, a divorce should not be a Chov for an Arusah for whom the husband does not provide Mezonos (see Kesuvos 57a). Since she does not receive Mezonos, an Arusah does not lose Mezonos as a result of divorce. The fact that after she becomes married (with Nisu'in) she is able to receive Mezonos does not make Erusin into a Zechus, as Rashi earlier writes (10a, DH u'Parchinan).
</p><p>
The Rabanan mention the Chov of losing Terumah in order to explain why a divorce is not a Zechus for a woman who is an Arusah. After all, the divorce permits her to become married to any person she wants, and it does not cause her to lose Mezonos. The Rabanan explain that if the husband is a Kohen, the Arusah's divorce indeed is a Chov because she loses the right to eat Terumah.
</p><p>
This answer, however, needs elucidation. Just as an Arusah does not receive Mezonos, an Arusah also is not permitted to eat the Terumah of her Arus, the Kohen! Even after twelve months have passed and her Arus has not yet married her (with Nisu'in) -- at which time he is obligated to give her Mezonos, she still may not eat Terumah (according to the Mishnah Acharonah, Kesuvos 57b)! The Gemara in Kesuvos (57b) points out, however, that there are two reasons why an Arusah is not permitted, mid'Rabanan, to eat Terumah. According to Ula, the Chachamim were concerned that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters (who are not Kohanim) since she is still living in her father's home. According to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, the Chachamim were concerned for 'Simpon' (a 'revocation' of the marriage) -- the husband might discover later that the woman has a blemish, and the Kidushin will be rendered a 'Mekach Ta'us' (an acquisition in error). The betrothal will be annulled retroactively, and, consequently, the woman will have transgressed the Isur d'Oraisa of eating Terumah. The Gemara there explains that there is one situation in which an Arusah may eat Terumah: where the husband accepts upon himself that even if the woman has a blemish he wants the Kidushin to remain valid. In such a situation, the Arusah may eat Terumah since there no longer is any concern for 'Simpon.' If twelve months have passed and the husband has begun to give Mezonos to his Arusah, there is no concern that she might feed the Terumah to her family members, because after twelve months she eats in a separate place. Therefore, according to all opinions there is a situation in which an Arusah may eat Terumah. In such a situation it would be considered a Chov for the woman to receive a Get, because the Get would cause her to lose the Terumah.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS FREEDOM GOOD FOR A SLAVE? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Meir explained only why it is 
          disadvantageous for a Kohen's slave to go free. What will 
          he say about a Yisrael's slave?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> Freedom forbids him 
          to a female slave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To the contrary, he benefits. He becomes 
          permitted to a Bas Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A slave prefers loose, immodest, unrestricted 
          Bi'ah with a female slave.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN ONE CAN RETRACT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven said 'give this Get of divorce (or 
          freedom) to my wife (or slave)', and Reuven died, we do 
          not give it posthumously;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he said 'give 100 Zuz to Ploni', and Reuven died, we 
          give it posthumously.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - R. Yitzchak bar Shmuel, citing Rav):</font></b> We give 
          the money only if it is piled up in a corner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If Reuven is healthy, why does it matter 
               if the money is gathered? Meshichah (taking it to 
               the recipient's premises to acquire it) was not 
               done!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, Reuven is a Shechiv Mera.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must the money be piled up? It is as if the 
          words of a Shechiv Mera were written and handed over!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Zevid):</font></b> Really, he is healthy. This is 
          like another teaching of Rav:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> If Levi says to Yehudah 'you have money of 
               mine. Give it to David', and all three are present, 
               David acquires the money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Really, Reuven is a Shechiv Mera. 
          This is like a different teaching of Rav:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> If a Shechiv Mera said 'give 100 Zuz of my 
               property to Ploni':
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he said 'this 100 Zuz', we give it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If he did not specify which money, we do not 
                    give. Perhaps he referred to a deposit of Ploni 
                    that is buried somewhere.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Halachah is, we are not concerned lest he 
               referred to buried money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Rav Papa explain like Rav Zevid?
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FREEING AN 'EVED' AS A PENALTY FOR 'SHEN V'AYIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Meir maintains that it is not a Zechus for an Eved to go free. The Gemara explains that Rebbi Meir's logic is that an Eved prefers to remain an Eved in order to be permitted to live with a Shifchah.
</p><p>
If it is considered a Chov for an Eved to go free according to Rebbi Meir, why does the Torah command a person to send his Eved to freedom for 'Shen v'Ayin' -- if the owner of an Eved wounds him by knocking out an eye or a permanent tooth (or for severing any one of the 24 'Roshei Evarim'), the master must give the Eved his freedom (Shemos 21:26-27). Why does the Torah punish the master for making the Eved suffer by requiring him to do something that will cause further suffering to the Eved (i.e. freeing him)? The Torah should command the master to give the Eved to a different master or to give money to the Eved, but not to free him! (<b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Once an Eved has suffered or has been abused due to his status as an Eved, he will always remember the traumatic experience of being an Eved and will no longer find pleasure in being permitted to live with a Shifchah. Therefore, the Torah commands the master to free him. In such a situation, freedom is certainly a Zechus for the Eved.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He understands that Rav's law applies both to a 
          loan and to a deposit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Rav Zevid learn like Rav Papa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot establish the Mishnah to discuss a 
          Shechiv Mera.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says that if Reuven said 'give this Get of 
          divorce (or freedom) to my wife (or slave)', and Reuven 
          died, we do not give it posthumously;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Had Reuven not died, we would give them. 
               This is only because Reuven said 'give'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Shechiv Mera, even if he did not say 
               'give', we give them!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, they said that if a man 
                    being led to his execution said 'write a Get to 
                    my wife', we write it and give it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Later, they added, even a man departing on a 
                    sea voyage or with a caravan;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>  R. Shimon Shezuri says, this applies even to 
                    a Shechiv Mera.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Why did Rav Zevid assume that the 
          Mishnah is like R. Shimon Shezuri? Perhaps it is like 
          Chachamim!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>MA'AMAD SHELOSHTAM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> If Levi says to Yehudah 'you have money of mine. 
          Give it to David', and all three are present, David 
          acquires the money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Presumably, Rav's law applies only to a deposit 
          (because he could give it over), but not to a loan. 
          However, Rav actually said it even about a loan!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If Levi says to Yehudah 'you borrowed 
               money from me. Give it to David', and all three are 
               present, Yehudah owes the money to David.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does this work?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ameimar):</font></b> It is as if Yehudah said when he 
          borrowed the money 'I am indebted to you, or anyone who 
          will come in your stead.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If so, it should not be possible to 
          give the loan to someone who was not born at the time the 
          loan was given!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even R. Meir, who says that one can transfer 
               ownership of something that did not come to the 
               world, allows transferring only to someone in the 
               world!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE 'KINYAN' OF 'MA'AMAD SHELOSHTAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether the Kinyan of Ma'amad Sheloshtan works only for transferring ownership of an item that is a Pikadon (a deposit), or even for a Milveh (a loan of money). Rava says that it is logical that it works only for a Pikadon. Rav says that it works even to transfer a Milveh. The Gemara then questions how Ma'amad Sheloshtan works.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara is asking that if Ma'amad Sheloshtan works for a Milveh, how does it effect the transfer? The object being transferred is not a specific object, but rather it is a sum of money!
</p><p>
Rashi implies that there is a clear reason why Ma'amad Sheloshtan <i>does</i> work for a Pikadon, and the Gemara is asking only how it can work for a Milveh. It seems that in the case of a Pikadon, since there is a specific object that is being transferred the Shomer is able to be Makneh that object to the intended recipient with 'Kinyan Chatzer,' through the principle of 'Zachim l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.'
</p><p>
According to Rashi, why would it be necessary to institute a Kinyan of Ma'amad Sheloshtan to effect a transfer of a Pikadon? The ownership should be transferred through the mechanism of 'Zachim l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav,' without the mechanism of Ma'amad Sheloshtan!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RASHI</b> maintains that with regard to giving a gift (Matanah), when one says 'Ten' ('give [this item to so-and-so]'), it is not considered as though he says 'Zechi' ('make an acquisition [on this item on behalf of so-and-so]'). That is, 'Ten Lav k'Zechi' -- saying 'Ten' is not like saying 'Zechi.' (Only with regard to paying back a loan is 'Ten k'Zechi'; see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 11b, DH Kol.) Therefore, if the intended recipient is not standing there when the benefactor tells the Shomer to give ('Ten') the object to the intended recipient, the intended recipient is not Koneh the object until it reaches his hands. When, however, the intended recipient is also present (i.e. Ma'amad Sheloshtan), the Rabanan instituted that 'Ten' should be considered like 'Zechi' even for a Matanah. (See <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>.)
</p><p>
This is why Rashi says that for a Pikadon, the mechanics of Ma'amad Sheloshtan are easy to understand -- since the Rabanan instituted that 'Ten' is like 'Zechi.'
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Gufa), however, does not accept this approach. Tosfos asks that it should not have been necessary for the Rabanan to institute Ma'amad Sheloshtan simply because 'Ten' is not like 'Zechi.' If the giver really intends for the transfer of the gift to take effect, he should say simply 'Zechi,' without Ma'amad Sheloshtan, and thus Ma'amad Sheloshtan is extraneous.
</p><p>
It is possible that Rashi understands that Ma'amad Sheloshtan was not instituted for the benefit of the giver but for the benefit of the recipient, in order that he receive the gift immediately so that no quarrels arise in case the giver changes his mind. Alternatively, if Ma'amad Sheloshtan pertains only to a Pikadon, it might not be a rabbinical institution at all. Rather, the Rabanan simply understood that a person's intentions when he instructs the Shomer in the presence of the recipient to give over the object to the recipient is that 'Ten' should mean 'Zechi.'
</p><p>
According to Rashi, Mar Zutra -- who concludes that Ma'amad Sheloshtan is a 'Hilchesa b'Lo Ta'ama' -- rules like Rav that Ma'amad Sheloshtan works for a Milveh. Those who maintain that it works only for a Pikadon understand that it is a 'Hilchesa b'Ta'ama,' a Halachah <i>with</i> a rational explanation.
</p><p>
Tosfos, however, maintains that even if Ma'amad Sheloshtan works only for a Pikadon, it is still a 'Hilchesa b'Lo Ta'ama.' Hence, Ma'amad Sheloshtan works even if the object being transferred is not in the possession of the Shomer at the time and, consequently, he cannot acquire it on behalf of the recipient. Moreover, Ma'amad Sheloshtan works even if the Shomer does not want to give it to the recipient.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask that according to Tosfos -- who says that the Rabanan would not have instituted Ma'amad Sheloshtan if any other Kinyan could have been used -- why was it necessary to institute Ma'amad Sheloshtan? The benefactor could give the object through the mechanism of 'Odisa' ('Hoda'ah') even against the will of the Shomer, and even if the object is not in the Shomer's domain. The owner simply could issue an admission that the object belongs to the recipient, and that serves as sufficient evidence that the object now belongs to the recipient, as the Gemara in Bava Basra (159a) teaches. 
</p><p>
The Acharonim offer a number of answers.
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAHARSHAL</b> suggests that it is not advisable for the owner to admit that an object belongs to someone else when it really does not, because the Torah warns against speaking falsehood, 'mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak' (Shemos 23:7). Therefore, the Rabanan instituted Ma'amad Sheloshtan in order to help a person avoid speaking falsehood.
</p><p>
2. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that an 'Odisa' can transfer the ownership of the object to the recipient only when the benefactor makes this admission in front of two witnesses (see <b>RITVA</b> to Bava Metzia 46a; without witnesses, we suspect that the benefactor is not serious about giving the gift). The Rabanan instituted Ma'amad Sheloshtan to avoid the need to find two witnesses.
</p><p>
Although these two answers explain the <b>ROSH</b>, who, like Tosfos, explains that Ma'amad Sheloshtan is necessary because no other Kinyan would work, nevertheless they do not seem to apply to the words of Tosfos. Tosfos himself asks that according to Rashi, the Rabanan should not have instituted Ma'amad Sheloshtan because the benefactor could give the item through 'Odisa.' This implies that Tosfos maintains that 'Odisa' <i>is</i> a valid, alternative method to transfer ownership of the object.
</p><p>
3. The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> and <b>KARNEI RE'EM</b> explain that according to Tosfos, Ma'amad Sheloshtan not only transfers the ownership of the object, but it transfers even the obligation of Shemirah for the object, such that the Shomer must continue to watch the object for the new owner. Hence, if the Rabanan had not instituted Ma'amad Sheloshtan, even if the owner would transfer ownership through 'Odisa,' the Shomer could say that he accepted to watch the object only for the original owner and he could insist on returning it only to the original owner. The enactment of Ma'amad Sheloshtan obligates the Shomer to return the object to the new owner as if he had accepted to watch it for him in the first place.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MA'AMAD SHELOSHTAM (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rather, through the benefit of 
          converting an old loan into a new loan, Yehudah is able 
          to obligate himself to David.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Huna, son of Rav Nechemyah):</font></b> If so, Rav's law 
          would not apply if David were like people of Bar 
          Elyashiv's house, who force one to pay immediately! 
          (Transferring a loan to such people is not beneficial.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps indeed, that is true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, the law would vary according to 
               the recipient (and this is unreasonable)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Mar Zutra):</font></b> Rather, Rav's law is one of three 
          enactments without reason (how they work). The others 
          are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a man wrote a document giving all 
               his property to his wife, he made her only an 
               overseer on the property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chinena):</font></b> If a man marries off his oldest son 
               in a house, the son acquires the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav (to Rav Acha Bardela):</font></b> I deposited saffron by you. 
          Give it to Ploni. I am telling you in front of him; I 
          will not retract.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that he could retract if he 
          wanted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No. Rather, he said 'I cannot retract.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did Rav need to say this? He already 
               taught the law of Ma'amad Sheloshtam!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that only a large 
               gift requires that all three are present, but one 
               can transfer a small gift even if the recipient is 
               not there. Rav teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Some gardeners (who worked together) calculated among 
          themselves that one of them (Reuven) had five half-Zuz 
          too much. They told him, in front of the owner of the 
          land, to give it to the owner of the land. They made an 
          acquisition.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reuven later calculated by himself, and saw that he 
               did not have too much.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> You cannot retract! Rav's law obligates 
               you. Also, they made an acquisition!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> He is not simply refusing to pay. He says that 
               he erred!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> I did not realize that this was the 
               case. Any mistaken acquisition is invalid.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A SHALI'ACH ACQUIRE ON BEHALF OF THE RECIPIENT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> If Reuven said 'Holech (take) 100 Zuz to Ploni, 
          that I owe him', and the money never reached Ploni, 
          Reuven still owes him. He cannot retract and tell the 
          Shali'ach 'give me back the money';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Since Reuven must pay if the money never 
          reaches Ploni, he can tell the Shali'ach 'give me back 
          the money.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about whether or not saying 'take' 
          is like saying 'Zechi (acquire for).' (Rav holds that it 
          is, therefore Reuven cannot retract.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> No, all agree that it is like saying 'Zechi'. 
          They argue about whether or not we apply the principal 
          'Migo' (since if the money never reaches Ploni, Reuven 
          must pay, he can tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the 
          money'. Only Shmuel applies Migo.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz 
          to Ploni, that I owe him' or 'that he deposited with me', 
          or 'give (the loan or deposit of) 100 Zuz...', and the 
          money never reached Ploni, Reuven still owes him. He 
          cannot tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the money.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In the case of a deposit, one does not want his 
          money to be in the hands of someone he did not entrust 
          with it. (Therefore, the Shali'ach does not acquire the 
          money for Ploni. Reuven should be able to retract!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The case is, Reuven has denied the 
          deposit. (Surely, Ploni wants the deposit to pass to 
          someone else's hands!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Some people in Mechuza owed Rav Sheshes for coats he had 
          given them. He asked Rav Yosef bar Chama to bring the 
          money when he came from there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The people gave the money to Rav Yosef. They asked 
               him to make an acquisition to accept Acharayus (to 
               bear the loss if the money will not reach Rav 
               Sheshes, and they will be exempt). He agreed, but 
               evaded them and never made the acquisition.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 - Rav Sheshes:</font></b> You acted properly, not to 
               fulfill upon yourself 'the borrower is a slave to 
               the lender.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 - Rav Sheshes:</font></b> You acted properly. 'The 
               borrower is a slave to the lender' (so they have 
               Acharayus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiyah had a silver flask in 
          Neharde'a. He asked R. Dostai b'Rebbi Yanai and R. Yosi 
          bar Kipar to bring it when they came.
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHEN THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF A GIFT DIES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a dispute between two Beraisos with regard to a case in which a person sent money with a Shali'ach to give to his friend, who died before the Shali'ach reached him. The sender said to the Shali'ach, 'Give this money to my friend,' and the intended recipient died before the money reached him. One Beraisa says that the money is returned to the sender, and the other Beraisa says that it is given to the heirs of the intended recipient.
</p><p>
Rav Aba bar Mamal suggests that both Beraisos agree that saying 'Holech' ('bring [this gift to so-and-so]') is <i>not</i> like saying 'Zechi' ('make an acquisition [on this gift on behalf of so-and-so]'). The Beraisa which says that the money is given to the heirs of the recipient refers to a case in which the benefactor was a Shechiv Mera (on his deathbed).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Shechiv Mera) explains that since the words of a Shechiv Mera are 'k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami' -- as if they are written in a contract and given over, and when a Shechiv Mera says 'Holech' it is as though he says 'Zechi,' the recipient acquired the money before he died (that is, he acquired it at the time the money was given to the Shali'ach). Hence, the money goes to his heirs. Rashi reiterates a number of times in the Sugya that when a Shechiv Mera says 'Holech' it is as though he says 'Zechi.'
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not explain simply that when a Shechiv Mera gives a command, it is as if it his words are already given over ('k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami')? Why does Rashi add that when he says 'Holech' it is like 'Zechi'? The law of 'Divrei Shechiv Mera k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami' is unrelated to the principle of 'Holech k'Zechi'; even if the Shechiv Mera says merely, 'I want my money to be given to so-and-so,' and he does not say 'Holech' ('bring' or 'give' it to him), his words nevertheless are 'k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami' and we must honor his request and give the money to the recipient!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi is bothered by a number of questions. If the Kinyan takes place because of the words of the Shechiv Mera, it should make no difference whether or not the recipient was alive when the benefactor (the Shechiv Mera) gave over the money to the Shali'ach. What matters is that the recipient was alive when the benefactor <i>said</i> that he wants the money to be given to the recipient, since it is his Amirah, his words, which make the Kinyan. Accordingly, why does the Gemara say (in the words of Rav Zevid) that the recipient acquires the gift if he was alive 'at the time the money was given to the Shali'ach'? The Gemara should say that the recipient acquires the gift if he was alive 'at the time the benefactor <i>said</i> to give him the money.' (<b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, the Halachah is that although the words of a Shechiv Mera are considered written and given over ('k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami'), they only take effect <i>after</i> the death of the Shechiv Mera, and not retroactively (Bava Basra 137a). If the Kinyan here works through this special mechanism of 'Divrei Shechiv Mera,' why is the money given to the heirs of the recipient when the recipient died before the Shechiv Mera died? The recipient did not acquire the money while he was alive, and the money should go back to the sender (or to the sender's heirs), as <b>TOSFOS</b> asks! (<b>RASHASH</b>, <b>KARNEI RE'EM</b>, <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>)
</p><p>
To answer these questions, Rashi explains that since the Halachah is that the words of a Shechiv Mera are 'k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami' after the Shechiv Mera dies (because of the certainty that the Shechiv Mera wanted the money to be delivered to the recipient), when the Shechiv Mera adds 'Holech' we may assume that he adds that word in order to be Makneh the money to the recipient even earlier -- before he dies (unlike an ordinary statement of 'Holech' which is not like 'Zechi'). Therefore, the moment at which the Shali'ach receives the gift he is Zocheh on behalf of the recipient.
</p><p>
If, as Rashi writes, the Shechiv Mera's 'Holech' is like 'Zechi,' why does Rashi write later (15a, DH v'Yesh Omrim) that the sender may change his mind before the Shali'ach delivers the money and <i>not</i> give the money to the intended recipient? The recipient was already Koneh the money through the Zechiyah of the Shali'ach! (See also <b>MORDECHAI</b>.)
</p><p>
The answer is that the only reason why 'Holech' is like 'Zechi' in this case is that the gift of a Shechiv Mera ('Matnas Shechiv Mera') is a stronger form of Matanah gift than an ordinary Matanah. Therefore, we assume that he wants the recipient to be Koneh through his word 'Holech' being like 'Zechi.' Although a Shechiv Mera's words are 'k'Chesuvin uche'Mesurin Dami,' nevertheless a Shechiv Mera can change his mind before he dies. Therefore, the power of 'Holech' is no greater than the normal words of a Shechiv Mera, and we assume that the Shechiv Mera wants to give the gift retroactively from that point on the condition that he does not change his mind before he dies. (<b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>; see <b>RASHASH</b>.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The one s watching the flask gave it to them, and 
               asked them to make an acquisition to accept 
               Acharayus. They refused. The watchers asked them to 
               return the flask. R. Dostai agreed, but R. Yosi 
               refused.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They afflicted R. Yosi. They said to R. Dostai 'see 
               how stubborn he is!' He replied 'it is good that you 
               hit him.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> When they returned, R. Yosi complained:</font></b> not only he 
               didn't help me, but he even said 'it is good that 
               you hit him'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha:</font></b> Why did you act this way?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Dostai:</font></b> Those people are dangerous! If they say 
               'tie him up', they (others) tie the person up! If 
               they say 'kill', they 'kill'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha:</font></b> Are they close to the king? Do they have 
               horses and mules running after them?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Dostai:</font></b> Yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha:</font></b> You acted properly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beraisa #1:</font></b> If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz to Ploni', and 
          Ploni died before the Shali'ach arrived, the money 
          reverts to Reuven.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beraisa #2:</font></b> The money goes to Ploni's heirs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> The Beraisos argue about whether or not 
          saying 'take' is like saying 'Zechi'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1 (R. Aba bar Mamal):</font></b> No, all agree that 
          saying 'take' is not as saying 'Zechi';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #1, Reuven was healthy. In Beraisa #2, he 
               was a Shechiv Mera. (It is as if his words were 
               written and handed over, so Ploni acquired the money 
               immediately.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2 (Rav Zevid):</font></b> In both Beraisos, Reuven was a 
          Shechiv Mera. In Beraisa #1 Ploni died before the money 
          was handed over to the Shali'ach. In Beraisa #2, he was 
          alive at that time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> In both Beraisos, Reuven was 
          healthy. In Beraisa #1, Ploni died before Reuven died. In 
          Beraisa #2, Reuven died before Ploni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not saying 
          'take' is like saying 'Zechi':
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz to Ploni', 
               and Ploni died before the Shali'ach arrived, the 
               money reverts to Reuven;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Nasan and R. Yakov say, if Reuven died, the money 
               goes to Reuven's heirs;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Some say, it goes to Ploni's heirs;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, it is a Mitzvah to fulfill 
               the words of the deceased. (This is why it goes to 
               Ploni's heirs);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, the heirs of Reuven and Ploni share 
               the money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Chachamim of Bavel say, the Shali'ach decides to 
               whom he wants to give it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon ha'Nasi:</font></b> I was party to such a case. The 
               ruling was, it returns to Reuven's heirs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They argue as follows. The first Tana 
               says that 'take' is not like saying 'Zechi'. R. 
               Nasan and R. Yakov agree. They also say that there 
               is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> 'Some say' hold that saying 'take' is like saying 
               'Zechi';
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says that 'take' is not like 
               saying 'Zechi', but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill 
               the words of the deceased;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b>  Chachamim say to split the money. They are unsure 
               (whether or not 'take' is like saying 'Zechi', and 
               whether or not there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the 
               words of the deceased);
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b>  Chachamim of Bavel say, the best solution is to 
               leave it to the whim of the Shali'ach.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b>  R. Shimon ha'Nasi teaches how they ruled in an 
               actual case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. If Reuven was healthy, all agree that 
          'take' is not as saying 'Zechi';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue in a case when Reuven was a Shechiv Mera, 
               like R. Elazar and Chachamim argue in the following 
               Mishnah:
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WORDS OF A SHECHIV MERA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> If one declares how to divide his 
          estate, whether he is healthy or Shechiv Mera, land is 
          acquired only through a document, money or Chazakah 
          (using the land like an owner). One acquires Metaltelim 
          (movable property) by taking them to his premises;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, both land and Metaltelim (of a Shechiv 
          Mera) are acquired through his words.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> A case occurred in which the mother of 
               Bnei Rochel was sick. She said 'give my very 
               expensive pin to my daughter', and Chachamim 
               fulfilled her words!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Elazar:</font></b> Bnei Rochel were terrible sinners. 
               Chachamim fined them by giving the pin to her 
               daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The first Tana (of the previous Beraisa) holds like R. 
          Elazar. R. Nasan and R. Yakov agree with this, and also 
          say that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the 
          deceased;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  'Some say' hold like Chachamim of the Mishnah (that the 
          words of a Shechiv Mera acquire);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ha'Nasi holds like R. Elazar, but there is a 
          Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say to split the money. They are unsure 
          (whether the Halachah follows R. Elazar or Chachamim of 
          the Mishnah, and whether or not there is a Mitzvah to 
          fulfill the words of the deceased);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim of Bavel say, it is best to leave it to the 
          whim of the Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ha'Nasi teaches how they ruled in an actual 
<br>          case
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Was R. Shimon ha'Nasi the Nasi, or did R. 
          Shimon say 'the Nasi said...'? (Tosfos - we never heard 
          that R. Shimon was Nasi, therefore we suspect that 
          perhaps the Mishnah is abbreviated.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yosef said that the Halachah follows R. 
          Shimon ha'Nasi. (This shows that he was the Nasi.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> We can also ask about what Rav Yosef meant! 
          (Perhaps he rules like R. Shimon said in the name of the 
          Nasi, and he merely cited the Beraisa.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon ha'Nasi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We hold that the words of a Shechiv Mera 
          acquire!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yosef explains that Reuven is healthy (like 
          we originally explained the Beraisa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Shimon ha'Nasi said that the money goes to 
          Reuven's heirs. We hold that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill 
          the words of the deceased!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> The Beraisa should say, R. Shimon ha'Nasi 
          says... to Ploni's heirs.
<b>PEREK HA'MEVI</b> (the 2nd)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A PARTIAL DECLARATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> In the following cases, a Get from Chutz 
          la'Aretz is Pasul:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Shali'ach said 'in front of me it was written, 
               but not signed; 'in front of me it was signed, but 
               not written'; 'in front of me it was totally 
               written, and half was signed'; or, 'in front of me 
               it was totally signed, and half was written.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me', 
          and another Shali'ach says 'it was signed in front of 
          me', it is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If two Sheluchim say 'it was written in front of us', and 
          another Shali'ach says 'it was signed in front of me', it 
          is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me', 
          and two Sheluchim say 'it was signed in front of us', it 
          is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We already learned that the Shali'ach 
          must say 'it was written and signed in front of me'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If only for that Mishnah, one might have thought 
          that it should be said, but the Get is valid even if he 
          did not say it. Our Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'in front of me, it was totally 
          signed, and half was written', the Get is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Which half was written in front of him?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The first half was in front of him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Elazar taught that it suffices to see 
               the first line written Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he saw the second half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'it was totally written, and half 
          was signed, in front of me', it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Even if two people testify about 
          the signature that the Shali'ach did not see, it is 
          Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Kiyum must be totally like standard Kiyum of a 
               Get (two witnesses about each signature), or totally 
               like the enactment of Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If one person (the Shali'ach) would 
          testify about the second signature, the Get would be 
          valid. Now that two testify about it, can it be Pasul?!
<br><br><br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'B'FANAI NICHTAV CHETZYO'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if the Shali'ach who brings the Get from Medinas ha'Yam says 'b'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' -- 'in front of me half of it was written,' the Get is invalid.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if the primary part of the Get, the part with the names and actual words of the Gerushin, was written in front of the Shali'ach, the Get should be valid and it should not be necessary for the entire Get to be written in front of him. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the Shali'ach testified that the second part of the Get, the Tofes, was written in front of him. The writing of the Tofes in his presence is not enough to make the Get valid.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> asks that this Gemara's question and answer make sense according to Rabah, who requires that the Shali'ach say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in order to testify that the Get was written Lishmah. Accordingly, it is important that he testify about the part of the Get that makes it valid, and he does not need to testify about the part of the writing of the Get that is not necessary for the Get's validity.
</p><p>
Rava, however, maintains that the Shali'ach must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in order to be Mekayem the Get. He must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' to differentiate the Kiyum of the Get from the Kiyum of ordinary Shtaros, for which two witnesses are necessary. According to Rava, why must the Shali'ach say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' only on the crucial part of the Get? Saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' on any part of the Get is enough to show that this Kiyum is not an ordinary form of Kiyum Shtaros. How does Rava understand the Gemara?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that if the Shali'ach would say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' about the unimportant part of the Get, it would not show that this Kiyum differs from the Kiyum of ordinary Shtaros.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> points out the difficulty inherent in Tosfos' explanation. Any testimony about the writing of the Get, even about an unimportant part, should show that this form of Kiyum is not an ordinary form of Kiyum Shtaros. Moreover, why is it so obvious to the Gemara that saying 'b'Fanai Nichtav' about the Toref (the crucial part of the Get) without the Tofes suffices? If it is necessary to show, with a clear Heker, that the Kiyum of this document differs from the Kiyum of ordinary Shtaros, perhaps that Heker must include the entire Shtar. Even if the Get itself is valid, if the Heker is not optimally clear the Shali'ach's testimony may not be accepted as Kiyum for the Get.
</p><p>
The Pnei Yehoshua answers that when the Chachamim instituted the obligation to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because of the concern that the Kiyum of the Get may be confused with the Kiyum of ordinary Shtaros, the Chachamim did not merely institute that a few words be added to the Shali'ach's testimony. Rather, they instituted an obligation to write the Get in front of the Shali'ach who will deliver it. 
</p><p>
Accordingly, the enactment to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is more than plain words that prevent a potential problem; 'b'Fanai Nichtav' must be said because if the Get was not written in front of the Shali'ach, the Get itself is invalid.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, the Gemara is clear. The part of the Get that needs to be written in front of the Shali'ach is the Toref. Since the Tofes, in contrast, is not necessary for the validity of the Get, the Chachamim could not decree that it needs to be written in front of the Shali'ach -- since it does not need to be written at all! The Chachamim could decree that only if the <i>Toref</i> is not written in front of the Shali'ach, the Get is invalid.
</p><p>
(c) The Pnei Yehoshua adds that once the Chachamim decreed that the Shali'ach must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' they included in their enactment the necessity to attest to the validity of the Get -- that is, they it was written Lishmah. Since it is necessary to determine that the Get was written Lishmah, the significant part in this regard is clearly the Toref. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (Rava):</font></b> Even if the Shali'ach and another 
          person testify about the other signatures, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is a decree, lest people think that we can be 
               Mekayem other documents similarly, i.e. a witness 
               confirms his own signature, and joins a second man 
               to confirm the other signature.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This Kiyum is Pasul, since three fourths of it 
               relies on one witness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If one person (the Shali'ach) would 
          say everything (that he saw both signatures), the Get 
          would be valid. Now that two testify about it, can it be 
          Pasul?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Even if the Shali'ach is the other 
          witness, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Kiyum must be totally like standard Kiyum of a 
               Get, or totally like the enactment of Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'it was totally written, and half 
          was signed, in front of me', it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does anyone testify about the other signature?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> No.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> When one Shali'ach says 'it was written 
               in front of me', and another Shali'ach says 'it was 
               signed in front of me', each testifies about the 
               entire Get, yet it is Pasul. Here, there is 
               testimony about only half the signatures, there is 
               no need to teach that it is Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (We must say that a second witness testifies 
          about the second signature.) The Mishnah teaches like 
          Rava or Rav Ashi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This refutes Rav Chisda. (If it were Pasul even 
          when two witnesses testify about the second signature, 
          the Mishnah should have taught this!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Why does the Mishnah 
               teach 'it was written, but not signed, in front of 
               me?' The Seifa disqualifies even if it was written 
               and half-signed in front of him!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Indeed, the Reisha could be learned from the 
               Seifa, which teaches a bigger Chidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(u)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Also here, the Reisha could be learned from the 
          Seifa, which teaches a bigger Chidush!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER THINGS THAT DO OR DO NOT JOIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a ditch five Tefachim deep is next to a 
          wall five Tefachim tall, they do not join to be 
          considered a wall;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A wall must be 10 Tefachim below ground (e.g. the 
               edge of a pit) or 10 Tefachim above ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mereimar):</font></b> If a ditch five Tefachim deep is next to a 
          wall five Tefachim tall, they join to be considered a 
          wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Mereimar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ilfa):</font></b> Can hands become Tahor half-way?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Two people wash their hands from 
                    one Revi'is (the bare minimum to wash hands).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> One Revi'is suffices for 
                    one or two people to wash their hands. (Ilfa 
                    would not be unsure about this!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, he washed one hand at a time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> If one pours water on one hand 
               and immerses the other (in a river), his hands are 
               Tahor (even though he washed one at a time)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, he washed half of his hand, and 
               then the other half.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yanai taught that hands do not become Tahor 
          half-way!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Ilfa asks about when there is still liquid 
          Tofe'ach (wet) on he first half when he washes the second 
          half. R. Yanai discusses when the first half dried before 
          washing the second.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHEN THE SHALI'ACH SAYS THAT HE IS THE SECOND WITNESS WHO SIGNED THE GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which the Shali'ach who delivers the Get states that he saw only one of the two signatories sign the Get. The Get is not valid, even if someone else attests to the authenticity of the second signature.
</p><p>
Rav Chisda explains that even if two witnesses testify about the second signature, the Get still is not valid. Rave argues that if two witnesses testify about the second signature, the Get certainly is valid; two witnesses are not worse than a single Shali'ach's testimony that he saw the second signatory sign the Get. Rather, the Gemara refers to a case in which the Shali'ach joins with another witness and together they testify that they recognize the second signature. In such a case, the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi argues with Rava and asserts that just as the Shali'ach would be believed if he would say 'b'Fanai Nechtam' about the second signature, he would also be believed to testify with another witness about that signature. Accordingly, when the Shali'ach joins with another witness and they testify about the second signature, the Get is valid.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi agrees, however, that if the Shali'ach says about the first signature 'b'Fanai Nechtam' and then he declares that <i>he</i> is the second witness who signed the Get, the Get is not valid. His reasoning is that '[the validity of the Get must be established] either entirely with Kiyum ha'Get or entirely with the Takanas Chachamim.' That is, either the ordinary form of Kiyum Shtaros must be used for both signatures, or the Takanos Chachamim of 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam' must be used for both signatures. Two different forms of Kiyum may not be used.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi's opinion is difficult to understand. If the Shali'ach would have said 'b'Fanai Nechtam' about the second signature, he certainly would have been believed. Why, then, is he not believed when he says that he is the second witness?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH <b>ANI</b>) answers in the name of the Yerushalmi that since the Shali'ach signed the Get, his testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' about the writing of the Get and the other signature is no longer acceptable because he is considered 'Noge'a b'Davar.' Although he does not stand to gain anything by validating the Get, his involvement in the signing of the Get is enough to activate the principle of, '[the validity of the Get must be established] either entirely with Kiyum ha'Get or entirely with the Takanas Chachamim,' and thus the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> adds that according to this explanation, even if two witnesses testify about the Shali'ach's signature in the Get, the Shali'ach still is not believed to say 'b'Fanai Nechtam' about the other signature. Since he signed the Get, he is slightly biased and his testimony about the other signature is not accepted.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> explains that the Shali'ach's testimony that he is the second witness who signed the Get is not accepted for a different reason. In contrast to the previous case of the Gemara in which the same form of testimony was given about both signatures, in this case there are two different forms of testimony about the two signatures. When the Shali'ach says that the first witness signed the Get in front of him, he is testifying about the signature. When he says, 'I am the second witness [who signed the Get],' he is testifying <i>not</i> about his actual signature but about the words written in the Get itself. Since the Shali'ach's testimony of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is believed only because of the Takanas Chachamim, which applies only when he testifies as a single Shali'ach, his testimony cannot combine with his testimony about what is written in the Get. The Takanas Chachamim does not combine with another form of testimony (his own word that he signed the Get), since the two forms of testimony are different. In such a situation, the principle of  '[the validity of the Get must be established] either entirely with Kiyum ha'Get or entirely with the Takanas Chachamim' applies. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES WATER JOIN TO BE METAHER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Even if the first half still has liquid 
          Tofe'ach, this does not help!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> The following are not connections for 
               Tum'ah or Taharah: a liquid poured or flowing down 
               an incline, or a liquid Tofe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Ilfa asks about when the first half still has 
          liquid Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach (wet enough to wet something 
          else).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This also is explicit in a Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach connects.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the Beraisa discusses Mikva'os, and it is 
          like R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Mikveh contains exactly 40 Sa'im and 
               two people immersed in it, one after the other, the 
               first is Tahor and the second is Tamei. (Some water 
               remains on the first person, so less than 40 Sa'im 
               remain in the Mikveh);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if the second immerses before the 
               first totally leaves the water, also he is Tahor. 
               (The water on the first person is considered 
               connected to the Mikveh.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> We know that if one enters (bathes in, or 
          has poured upon him) three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim ( 
          water that was in a Kli), he is Tamei;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> If he enters half this amount, 
          and the other half falls on him, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> We know that a man had a seminal emission, 
          and he is sick, if nine Kabim of water are poured on him, 
          he is Tahor (i.e. he may learn Torah);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If he immerses half (his body), and 
          (nine Kavim of) water is poured on half (his body), what 
          is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TWO WHO BRING A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front 
          of me', and the other says 'it was signed in front of me' 
          (it is Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> This is only when 
          only one is a Shali'ach to give the Get. If both are 
          Sheluchim, it is Kosher.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WATERS THAT JOIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara earlier (15b) asks what the Halachah is in a case in which one washed part of his hand, and while it was still wet he washed the other part to complete the Netilah. Do the waters from each washing combine on the hand to make one Netilah or not? The Gemara proves that the two waters on the hand should not combine from the Mishnah in Taharos (8:9) which states that 'Nitzok Katafras and Mashkeh Tofe'ach do not join.'
</p><p>
However, that Mishnah does not answer the Gemara's question with regard to water which is 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach.' The Gemara cites a Beraisa which says that such waters are considered to join together. The Gemara refutes this proof by saying that the Beraisa refers specifically to Mikva'os and follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yehudah rules that when one immerses in a Mikvah which contains exactly 40 Se'ah of water (the minimum amount) and stands up to exit the Mikvah, and another person immerses there while the first person's foot has not yet left the Mikvah, all of the water on the first person is considered as though it has flowed back into the Mikvah. Accordingly, the minimum amount of water remains in the Mikvah for the second person who immerses.
</p><p>
The Gemara means that although Rebbi Yehudah maintains that water which is 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' joins with other water, his opinion does not prove that the water joins in the case of Netilas Yadayim.
</p><p>
(a) What is the Gemara's refutation of its proof from the Beraisa? Even though the Beraisa follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, the Gemara should prove from <i>his</i> view that water which is 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' joins for Netilas Yadayim just as it joins for a Mikvah.
</p><p>
(b) Moreover, Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is difficult to understand. As <b>TOSFOS</b> writes, Rebbi Yehudah presumably does not disagree with the Mishnah in Taharos which states that Katafras, water flowing on an incline, does not serve to 'attach' the upper and lower waters. Why does he state that the water on the first person is considered attached to the Mikvah, if the water on his body is also on an incline?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Two approaches are suggested by the Rishonim to explain the first question.
</p><p>
1. <b>RASHI</b> explains that although 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' causes waters to attach, the waters used for Netilas Yadayim require a stronger connection that the one created by 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach.' The Netilah must done on the entire hand at one time, but in the case of the Gemara the first Netilah is no longer present. Although the <i>waters</i> may be considered attached, the acts of <i>Netilah</i> are not.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, what does the Gemara mean when it says 'Dilma l'Inyan Mikva'os' -- perhaps 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' applies only to a Mikvah? The Gemara always knew that the Beraisa of 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' refers to Mikva'os and nevertheless it assumed that if 'Tofe'ach' joins the waters for a Mikvah it also should join the waters for Netilas Yadayim. Now that the Gemara questions the proof from the Beraisa it should say, 'Dilma <i>Rak</i> l'Inyan Mikva'os' perhaps it works <i>only</i> for Mikva'os and <i>not</i> for Netilah.
</p><p>
2. <b>TOSFOS</b> quotes the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> who understands the Gemara differently. According to the Ri, the Mishnah of 'Nitzok' refers not to the attachment of Mikva'os, but rather to <i>Hashakah</i>. The principle of Hashakah states that when impure water is attached to the water of a Mikvah, the impure water becomes Tahor. The Mishnah teaches that Nitzok does not work to make an attachment of Hashakah, but the Gemara's Havah Amina understands that 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' <i>does</i> work. The Gemara assumes that since it works for Hashakah, it also works for Netilah. The Gemara never assumed that the attachment of Mikva'os proves anything about Netilah. (The difference between Mikva'os and Netilah may be that for Mikva'os, the attachment is necessary only to make the minimum Shi'ur of a Mikvah, for which Nitzok suffices. In contrast, for Hashakah and Netilah, the impure water (in the case of Hashakah) and the water already on the hand (in the case of Netilah) needs to be made Tahor or rectified in some other way, for which a stronger form of attachment is necessary.)
</p><p>
According to the Ri, the Gemara's refutation of the proof from the Beraisa is clear. 'Dilma l'Inyan Mikva'os' means that perhaps 'Tofe'ach Al Menas l'Hatfi'ach' works only to attach one Mikvah to another (to make the minimum required Shi'ur of water), but it does not work to make Hashakah. Therefore, the Beraisa provides no proof for the Halachah in the case of Netilah.
</p><p>
(b) How is Rebbi Yehudah's statement to be understood? If he maintains that Nitzok does not serve to attach two groups of water, why does he state that the water on the first person (whose foot is still in the Mikvah) is considered attached to the Mikvah?
</p><p>
1. According to the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> cited by Tosfos, the answer is simple. Katafras does not work for Hashakah but it <i>does</i> work for Mikva'os, and thus it works in the case of the person whose foot is still in the Mikvah.
</p><p>
2. <b>RABEINU TAM</b>, also cited by Tosfos, gives a different answer. He explains that there are two types of Katafras. When the water on top is on its way down and will fall into the lower water, the concept of 'Gud Achis' applies and thus one may immerse in the lower Mikvah. This applies in the case of the person's foot which is still in the Mikvah. The Mishnah, however, refers to two bodies of water attached by a stream, where the water in the upper pool is <i>not</i> flowing down. In this case, Katafras is not a Chibur. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
	  1.   He exempts two Sheluchim who bring a Get from a 
               declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Reisha):</font></b> If two Sheluchim say 'it was 
          written in front of us' and one says 'it was signed in 
          front of me', it is Pasul. R. Yehudah says, it is valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You should also say that this is only when only one 
               (of those who saw it written) is a Shali'ach to give 
               the Get; but if both are Sheluchim, Chachamim agree 
               that it is Kosher!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> Yes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When only one (of those who saw it written) is 
          a Shali'ach to give the Get, why do Chachamim and R. 
          Yehudah argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim decree lest people come to be Mekayem 
          other documents when only one witness recognizes the 
          signatures. R. Yehudah does not decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one Shali'ach says 'it was 
          written in front of me', the other says 'it was signed in 
          front of me' (it is Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> This is even when both are 
          Sheluchim to give the Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He obligates two Sheluchim who bring a Get from 
               abroad to make the declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Reisha):</font></b> If two Sheluchim say 'it was 
          written in front of us' and one says 'it was signed in 
          front of me', it is Pasul. R. Yehudah says, it is valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You should also say that this applies even when both 
               (of those who saw it written) are Sheluchim to give 
               the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> I do!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do Chachamim and R. Yehudah argue?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim (in general) require the declaration 
          out of concern lest it was not written Lishmah. 
          (Therefore, even two Sheluchim must testify that they saw 
          it written and signed. Since only one of them saw it 
          signed, we decree that it is Pasul, lest people come to 
          be Mekayem other documents based on one witness);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah (in general) requires the declaration 
               because witnesses are not available for Kiyum. When 
               there are two Sheluchim, there is no concern for 
               Kiyum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Rabah and Rava argue like Chachamim and R. 
          Yehudah do!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No. Each Amora can say that both Chachamim and 
          R. Yehudah hold like he does:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava explains like Version #1;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rabah explains that both are concerned for Lishmah. 
               The Beraisa discusses after the law of Lishmah 
               became well-known;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Chachamim decree that the declaration must 
                    still be made, lest the law be forgotten again. 
                    R. Yehudah does not make this decree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, R. Yehudah should argue (and 
               permit) also in the Reisha, when one Shali'ach says 
               'it was written in front of me', the other says 'it 
               was signed in front of me'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Indeed, Ula taught that R. Yehudah argues 
               also in the Reisha!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Oshaya, against Ula - Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah 
          says that the Get is valid in this case, but not in 
          another case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case he disqualifies is when one 
               Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me' and 
               the other says 'it was signed in front of me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, he disqualifies when one says 'it was signed 
          in front of me but not written in front of me,'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since R. Yehudah did not 
               decree lest the law of Lishmah be forgotten again, 
               he also does not decree that the Shali'ach must 
               testify about the writing of the Get (which itself 
               is a decree lest people think that one witness 
               always suffices for Kiyum).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If two Sheluchim brought a Get from 
          abroad, R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about whether or 
          not they must make a declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yehudah and Rabah):</font></b> If two Sheluchim bring 
          a Get from abroad, must they say 'it was written and 
          signed in front of us'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> They need not say it. They 
          themselves would be believed to say that they witnessed 
          the divorce. (Therefore, there is no concern lest the 
          husband contest the Get.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) TWO SAY 'B'FANAI NICHTAV' AND ONE SAYS 'B'FANAI NECHTAM'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim disagree about the law in a case in which two witnesses say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and one witness says 'b'Fanai Nechtam.' In its second approach, the Gemara explains that even when both (or all) of the witnesses are Sheluchim of the husband, the Chachamim invalidate the Get, because they follow the view of Rabah who requires that 'b'Fanai Nichtav...' be said in order to ensure that the Get was written Lishmah. In contrast, Rebbi Yehudah follows the view of Rava who requires 'b'Fanai Nichtav' only for the purpose of Kiyum. Since, in this case, there are two Sheluchim who testify about the Gerushin, the enactment of 'b'Fanai Nichtav' is not applicable; the Sheluchim are valid witnesses themselves for the Kiyum of the Get.
</p><p>
According to this approach, the Gemara understands that Rebbi Yehudah accepts the Get even when <i>one</i> Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' alone and the second Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nechtam' alone.
</p><p>
Rebbi Oshiya questions this assertion from the Beraisa which states, 'Rebbi Yehudah Machshir ba'Zu v'Lo ba'Zu,' which presumably means that Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim in the case of one Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and the second says 'b'Fanai Nechtam.' The Gemara answers that the Beraisa means that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the Get is invalid when the Shali'ach says 'b'Fanai Nechtam v'Lo b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> asks that the Gemara should give a much simpler answer. Rebbi Yehudah certainly agrees with the Chachamim that where only one of the witnesses is a Shali'ach of the husband, even when both say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and one says 'b'Fanai Nechtam,' the Get is invalid. Since the single witness who says 'b'Fanai Nechtam' is not a Shali'ach, he is not entitled to testify about the Gerushin itself, and thus the enactment of 'b'Fanai Nichtav...' applies to the Shali'ach and requires that he testify about both the Kesivah and the Chasimah (in order for people not to confuse the enactment of 'b'Fanai Nichtav...' with the general law of Kiyum Shtaros which needs two witnesses).
</p><p>
Since Rebbi Yehudah agrees in this case, why does the Gemara not answer simply that the Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah is 'Machshir ba'Zu v'Lo ba'Zu' refers to this case?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> answers (based on Tosfos) that if only the witness who says 'b'Fanai Nechtam' is a Shali'ach, not only is there a possibility that Rebbi Yehudah validates the Get, but even the Chachamim may validate it as well! The reason for this is a follows: In the case of two who say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and one who says 'b'Fanai Nechtam,' there is enough testimony to validate the Get -- two witnesses on the Kesivah and one Shali'ach on the Chasimah. The only reason the Chachamim invalidate the Get in such a case is to differentiate between 'b'Fanai Nechtam,' for which one Shali'ach suffices, and Kiyum Shtaros for which two witnesses are necessary. 
</p><p>
The Chachamim rule that the one who says 'b'Fanai Nechtam' also must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' so that people will see that this method is not the conventional form of Kiyum Shtaros (for which it is not necessary to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav'). Therefore, when two witnesses say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and one says 'b'Fanai Nechtam,' the Get is invalid.
</p><p>
However, if the witnesses on the Kesivah are not Sheluchim while the witness on the Chasimah <i>is</i> a Shali'ach, people will not make a mistake. They will see clearly that for the Kesivah, on which the Shali'ach did not testify, two witnesses are necessary. For the Chasimah, on which the Shali'ach testified, the single Shali'ach is believed alone. Everyone will understand that he is believed because of the special Takanas Chachamim, and no one will confuse this form of Kiyum with the general form of Kiyum Shtaros.
</p><p>
This logic applies both according to the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah. This is why the Gemara does not say that this is this case in which Rebbi Yehudah agrees with the Chachamim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


