# dafyomi

lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Eliezer):</font></b> She is immediately forbidden to 
          eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious, for he holds that she merely 
          suggests where he will find her husband, but authorizes 
          him to receive the Get anywhere!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, she told him to go the east, for her 
          husband is coming from the east, and the Shali'ach went 
          to the west;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since surely he will not 
               find her husband in the west, she is not forbidden 
               immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer teaches that this is not so. Perhaps he 
               will encounter her husband in the west!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'place an Eruv 
          of dates for me', and he placed an Eruv of figs, the Eruv 
          is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> The Eruv is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> Beraisa #1 is like R. Eliezer, who 
          holds that one who instructs a Shali'ach merely suggests 
          the easiest way to fulfill the mission, but he is not 
          insistent that it be done that way;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim, who hold that he is 
               insistent that things be done like he said.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Both Beraisos are like Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rashi):</font></b> In Beraisa #1, Reuven asked to 
               make an Eruv from Reuven's dates. One does not care 
               which food is used for his Eruv;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In Beraisa #2, Reuven asked to make an Eruv 
                    from Shimon's dates (Reuven had permission for 
                    this). Reuven had no permission to take 
                    Shimon's figs, so the Eruv is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Tosfos):</font></b> In Beraisa #1, Reuven asked to 
               make an Eruv from the Shali'ach's dates. Reuven does 
               not care if the Shali'ach used his own figs instead;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In Beraisa #2, Reuven asked to make the Eruv 
                    with Reuven's dates. We say he specifically 
                    wanted the dates. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Your answer cannot resolve the 
          contradiction between the following Beraisos!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'place an 
               Eruv in the tower for me', and he placed it in the 
               dovecote, or vice-versa, the Eruv is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> The Eruv is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> There, it does not depend on whose food he uses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It does depend on this! The Beraisos discuss 
          making an Eruv with fruit from a tower or dovecote.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPRESSIONS AUTHORIZING DIVORCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven said 'write a Get and give it to my 
          wife', 'divorce her', or 'write a letter and give it to 
          her', they may write and give a Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he said 'exempt her', 'finance her', or 'do like is 
          proper to her', his words are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If he said 'send her', 'abandon her', 
          or 'cut her off', they may write and give a Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he said 'exempt her', 'finance her', or 'do like is 
          proper to her', his words are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Nasan):</font></b> If he said 'Patruha' (exempt her), 
          we fulfill this. If he said 'Pitruha', his words are 
          void. (Rashi's text is just the opposite. He explains 
          that Pitruha is the expression used in a Get. Patruha 
          connotes exempting her from a monetary obligation.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Nasan is from Bavel, he distinguishes between 
               Pitruha (an Aramaic word) and Patruha (which is 
               Hebrew). The Tana of our Mishnah, who is from Eretz 
               Yisrael, does not distinguish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the law if he says one of the 
          following: 'take her out'; 'abandon her'; 'permit her'; 
          'leave her alone'; 'do what will help her'; 'do like the 
          Torah says should be done for her'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to one of these - Beraisa):</font></b> If he said 'do like 
          the Torah says should be done for her' or 'do like is 
          proper to her', his words are void.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>4) BEING BROUGHT OUT IN CHAINS</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that in order for a Get to be valid, the husband must command that the Get be written and given to his wife. If he says only to write the Get (but not to give it), the Get cannot be given to her. The Mishnah records exceptions to this rule, such as cases in which the husband is in distress, where presumably his intention is that the Get should be written <i>and</i> given even though he says only to write the Get. One of these exceptions is the case of 'Yotzei b'Kolar,' one who is led out in chains. To whom does 'Yotzei b'Kolar' refer?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that 'Yotzei b'Kolar' refers to a man who is being brought out to receive the death penalty. Presumably, one who is locked up in chains because of a monetary infraction would <i>not</i> be able to give a Get by merely commanding that it be written; rather, he must command that it be written and given.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 2:12) writes that this Halachah applies even when the man is being punished merely for violating monetary law. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> quotes the Yerushalmi as the source for the Rambam's ruling. The Yerushalmi states that even if the man is chained up (in a 'Kolar') because of a monetary matter, this Halachah applies because whenever a man is chained up his life is in danger.
</p><p>
The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> understands that Rashi disagrees with the Rambam. The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b>, however, argues that Rashi agrees with the Rambam. Rashi explains that the Mishnah refers to one who is receiving the death penalty only because he explains the Mishnah in accordance with the practice of earlier times, when one who was embarking on a long journey was <i>not</i> included in the exceptions of the Mishnah. According to the later enactment that even one who embarks on a long journey is included in the list of exceptions in the Mishnah, one who is awaiting punishment for monetary misconduct is also included in the Mishnah's law.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMMANDS OF ONE ABOUT TO DIE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, if a man being taken out for 
          execution said 'write a Get for my wife', we would write 
          and give it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Later Chachamim said that the same applies to one leaving 
          to go overseas or into the wilderness;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon Shezuri says, the same applies to a dying man.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> When Geneiva was being taken out for execution, 
          he said 'give 400 Zuz to R. Avina from (my) wine of Nehar 
          Panya.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Zeira:</font></b> Rav Huna would rule that we give the money to 
          R. Avina.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a dying man gave a Get, it is like 
               his command to give a gift: just like he can retract 
               his gift if he gets better, he can retract a Get he 
               gave;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Zeira:</font></b> Rav Huna would also say, just like it suffices 
          if he says 'write a Get' without saying 'give', it 
          suffices to say 'give a gift', even though witnesses did 
          not acquire on behalf of the receiver.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Aba):</font></b> A Get and a gift are not the same in 
          all respects!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A gift can be given after he dies. You cannot say so 
               about a Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is no comparison!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A gift can be given after death. A Get cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, R. Aba asked the following.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Aba):</font></b> Geneiva was like a Shechiv Mera (a 
          sick person who fears lest he die) who gave away only 
          part of his money. Such a gift requires an acquisition!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that Rav Huna holds that it does 
          not require an acquisition. We hold that an acquisition 
          is needed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Geneiva was unlike a Shechiv Mera. He was sure 
          that he would die!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This implies that R. Aba holds that such a gift 
          requires an acquisition. We hold that no acquisition is 
          needed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, R. Aba asked the following.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Aba):</font></b> Geneiva did not say to give wine, nor 
          money obtained by selling his wine. He said 'from my 
          wine' (and this is meaningless)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna holds that he said this to give R. Avina 
               the upper hand (to collect from wine or money, in 
               case one of them was lost).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>AUTHORIZATION TO WRITE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If someone in a pit said 'whoever hears my 
          voice, write a Get to my wife', people who hear him may 
          do this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We should be concerned, perhaps a Shed 
          (demon, a being with similarities to angels and to 
          people) said this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The witnesses saw a human form.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shedim can assume a human form!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They saw his Bavu'ah (shadow).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shedim also have shadows!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They saw his Bavu'ah d'Vavu'ah (i.e. an extended, 
          or especially dark, shadow -- see Pischei Teshuvah EH 
          17:49).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Maybe Shedim also have Bavu'ah d'Vavu'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chanina):</font></b> They have shadows, but not Bavu'ah 
          d'Vavu'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps a co-wife gave this command (intending 
          to deceive and ruin her co-wife)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> At a time of 
          danger (e.g. he is prone to die and she will be an 
          Agunah, i.e. unable to remarry), we may write and give a 
          Get, even though we are not sure that the husband 
          commanded it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a healthy man said 'write a Get to my 
          wife', he is only teasing her (he did not say to give 
          it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which a healthy man said 'write a Get 
          to my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> If he jumped off b'Mezid, the Get 
          is valid. If the wind blew him off, it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The case brought contradicts the law 
          taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means that as 
          follows: if we later see that he really wanted to give 
          the Get, it is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  A man entered a Beis ha'Keneses and saw Reuven (a Rebbi 
          of children), Reuven's son and a third man; he asked that 
          two of them should write a Get for his wife. Reuven died 
          before a Get was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did the husband intend that Reuven's son may be 
          his Shali'ach, considering that Reuven was there at the 
          time?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> One does not have such 
          intention.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papi):</font></b> One has such intention.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav Papi.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A SHALI'ACH MAKE ANOTHER SHALI'ACH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If a man asked two people to give a 
          Get to his wife, or he asked three people to write and 
          give a Get to his wife, they must write it and give it 
          themselves;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GIFT AND A GET AFTER DEATH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara compares a Get which a man gives to his wife when he is deathly ill to a gift which a man gives under the same circumstances. Rebbi Aba asks that if the laws of a gift are compared to the laws of a Get, then just as his gift takes effect after his death his Get also should take effect after his death. The Gemara answers that it is impossible to compare the two with regard to taking effect after death since a gift <i>can</i> take effect after one's death, while a Get cannot. With regard to other matters, however, the two may be compared to each other.
</p><p>
What does the Gemara mean when it says that a gift can take effect after the benefactor's death? Once the benefactor is dead he cannot give a gift, just as he cannot give his wife a divorce after his death.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> explains that although a gift cannot take effect after one's death, in this case the Rabanan enacted that it take effect after his death. The Rabanan have the power to do so because of the rule, 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker.' In contrast, with regard to a Get given after death, the Rabanan do not have the power to change a status of Isur (the woman's status of Eshes Ish, of being a married woman), and therefore they cannot create a Get that will take effect after the husband's death. However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger remains with the question that although this is a clear distinction between a gift and a Get, the simple reading of the Gemara does not imply that it is making such a distinction.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> stresses that a Get cannot take effect after death since, when the husband dies, the wife is required to do Yibum (if they have no children). Once she becomes obligated to do Yibum at the time of his death, it is too late to become divorced. The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains that immediately at the time of the husband's death the Yibum relationship (Zikah) takes place and there is no opportunity for the Get to take effect. In contrast, the acquisition of a gift can take effect immediately after the benefactor's death. According to this approach, there is a clear distinction between the ability of a gift to take effect after the giver's death and the ability of a Get to take effect after the man's death.
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask, however, that once a person dies his heirs automatically inherit his possessions, immediately. Accordingly, why does his gift take effect after his death? As soon as the person dies, the item of the gift belongs to his heirs!
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is that there is a basic difference between the Zikah of Yibum, which takes effect immediately at the time of the man's death, and the transfer of ownership of the man's inheritance to its heirs. When one dies his possessions undergo a change of ownership. Under normal circumstances, his possessions are automatically transferred to his offspring. The enactment of the gift of a Shechiv Mera treats this gift like an inheritance for the recipient (see Bava Basra 149b, where the Gemara says that the Rabanan treat this gift like a Yerushah, and thus it does not work for a Ger who has no Halachah of Yerushah). The Rabanan enacted that when one gives a Matnas Shechiv Mera, the recipient of the gift is treated like an heir, and thus the Yerushah process transfers the item to the recipient of the gift instead of to the other heirs. 
</p><p>
With regard to Yibum, the law is that if one dies without children his marriage has never fully been terminated and the woman remains partly married to the brother of her deceased husband (see Rashi to Kidushin 4b, DH she'Chen). In such a case there is no opportunity for a Get to take effect after the husband's death (even if the Rabanan <i>did</i> have the power to change the status of an Isur) since the marriage automatically continues with the Yavam at the time of the husband's death, before the Get can take effect and create a divorce.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he asked three people to give a Get to his wife, they 
          may tell others to write (and give) it, for it is as if 
          the husband made them a Beis Din.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Chanina of Ono testified that R. Akiva (who was 
               imprisoned) also said so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yosi:</font></b> We told R. Chanina that we have a 
               tradition, that even if he asks the great Sanhedrin 
               to give a Get, they cannot appoint someone else to 
               write it, even if they will need to learn to write.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a man told 10 people to write and give a Get to his 
          wife, it suffices that one writes and two sign;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'all of you write', one writes and all 
               sign it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if one of them died before signing, the 
               Get is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - R. Yirmeyah bar Aba) Question:</font></b> If a man asked 
          two people to write and give a Get to his wife, and they 
          asked a scribe to write it, and they signed it, what is 
          the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> If she remarried relying on this Get, 
          she must leave her new husband. This law requires 
          investigation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he say that this must be investigated?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Shmuel is unsure whether or not Mili can 
               be transferred to another Shali'ach. (Mili is a 
               mission in which the Shali'ach did not receive 
               something needed for the mission. Some say that it 
               is a mission that does not finish the matter, or 
               depends on the consent of someone else.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Shmuel cited Rebbi to say that the 
               Halachah follows R. Yosi, that Mili cannot be 
               transferred to another Shali'ach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel is unsure what the husband meant when he 
          said 'write'. Did he mean that they should sign the Get, 
          or that they should write it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He should learn from our Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man asked two people to give a Get 
               to his wife, or three people to write and give it, 
               they must write it and give it themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel is unsure about what the Mishnah means. 
          Does 'they must write it' mean that they must sign it, or 
          that they must write the Get itself?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Obviously, it means writing the Get itself! In 
          the Reisha, R. Yosi says that if he asked the great 
          Sanhedrin to give a Get, they cannot appoint someone else 
          to write it, even if this necessitates that they learn to 
          write.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can understand this if he means that they must 
               write the Get itself. However, could you find a 
               Sanhedrin that does not know how to sign?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! Perhaps a new Beis Din does not know how to 
          sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel holds that if 'write' means to sign, 
          they can ask another to write the Get. Shmuel rules like 
          R. Yosi, that Mili cannot be transferred to another 
          Shali'ach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If 'write' means to sign, perforce the man wanted 
          them to ask another person to write the Get. It is as if 
          he told them to appoint another person to write it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi agrees that Reuven may tell Shimon 'appoint 
               a Shali'ach for me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yosi does not agree to this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A Get written by a scribe and signed by 
               one witness is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The text of the Mishnah says 'a Get 
               signed by the scribe and one witness is valid,'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who says 
               that Mili cannot be transferred to another 
               Shali'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Summation of question):</font></b> If R. Yosi agrees that 
               Reuven may tell Shimon 'appoint a Shali'ach for me', 
               this may lead to disaster!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Sometimes, a man tells two people to ask a 
                    scribe to write a Get, and to ask two Ploni and 
                    Almoni to sign it. To avoid embarrassing the 
                    scribe (that he was not asked to sign it), they 
                    will ask him to sign for one of the witnesses, 
                    and the husband did not authorize this (so the 
                    Get is Pasul)!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'WORDS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO A SHALI'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if a man sends a Shali'ach to sign a Get, the Shali'ach may not appoint someone else to sign it for him because 'words' ('Mili') cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach. <b>RASHI</b> and the <b>RAN</b> explain that this means that the Shali'ach cannot appoint another Shali'ach to sign the Get. In such a case, the Shali'ach transfers the command which he received, which is no more than a transfer of words.
</p><p>
This implies that the first Shali'ach <i>may</i> be appointed as a Shali'ach for 'words' as long as he does not transfer the task to another Shali'ach. This, however, seems to contradict the comments of <b>RASHI</b> later (71b, DH d'Omar) who writes that the question of making a Shali'ach for 'Mili,' words, is whether a Shali'ach may be appointed to perform a mission which involves only words or speaking. Rashi implies that the question of making a Shali'ach for 'Mili' applies even to the first Shali'ach! How does Rashi there understand the Gemara here?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>CHESHEK SHLOMO</b> answers that the discussion of the Gemara here involves two issues. The first issue is whether 'Mili' may be transferred to a Shali'ach, such as in a case in which one Shali'ach is appointed to sign a Get and afterwards he seeks to transfer the directive he received to a second Shali'ach.
</p><p>
The second issue is that of 'Omer Imru,' where the sender appoints a Shali'ach to appoint witnesses who will sign the Get. In such a case the Shali'ach does not transfer <i>his</i> mission to a second party, but rather he carries out his mission exactly as he was instructed. In this case, there is still a question whether such a Shelichus can take effect, since the entire mission of the Shelichus is nothing more than 'Mili,' words (to tell others to sign the Get). In other words, the issue of 'Mili' involves whether or not words can be transferred from one Shali'ach to another, while the issue of 'Omer Imru' involves whether a person can be appointed as a Shali'ach to carry out a mission which involves only words.
</p><p>
Based on this distinction, the Cheshek Shlomo answers that Rashi later is explaining the Gemara according to the opinion that 'Omer Imru' is not an acceptable way of appointing a Shali'ach, and therefore the issue is whether one can become a Shali'ach at all for 'Mili.' In contrast, Rashi here explains the discussion of 'Mili' which is an issue of a Shali'ach transferring his Shelichus to a second party.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) WHAT TASKS ARE TASKS OF 'MILI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that a Shali'ach who was sent to write and sign a Get may not appoint someone else in his place to carry out his mission, because he is a Shali'ach for a mission of 'Mili,' words, and 'Mili' cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach. The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) derives from verses that a person who was appointed as a Shali'ach to bring or receive a Get <i>may</i> appoint another Shali'ach in his place. Why is the case of the Gemara here considered 'Mili' but not the case of delivering a Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> here explains that appointing a Shali'ach to deliver a Get is not considered 'Mili' because the Shali'ach physically receives the Get from the husband and therefore he may transfer the Get to a second Shali'ach. In contrast, a Shali'ach appointed to write or sign a Get has nothing tangible in his hands to transfer to the second Shali'ach.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> in Kidushin explains that a Shali'ach appointed to deliver a Get is not a Shali'ach for 'Mili' because he is holding the actual document of the husband that must be delivered directly to the wife. According to the Tosfos Rid's logic, it is not enough for the Shali'ach to hold the object that was given to him by the sender. Rather, he must be holding the object which will be used to create the transaction for the sender. (According to Rashi, appointing a Shali'ach to deliver money for Kidushin is not considered 'Mili,' while according to the Tosfos Rid, it <i>is</i> considered 'Mili' since the Shali'ach does not have to give to the bride the actual money that he received from the man, for he can give other coins (of the same value) and the Kidushin will still take effect.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KADOSH M'RADUSH</b> (quoted by the <b>MORDECHAI</b> in Kidushin) explains that as long as the Shali'ach does not have the power to complete the transaction, his appointment is considered 'Mili.' According to this logic, only a Shali'ach to deliver a Get is not 'Mili' since the Shali'ach can deliver the Get even without the wife's consent. A Shali'ach for Kidushin, who needs the bride's consent in order to give her the money, and a Shali'ach to write a Get, who does not have the power to create the divorce but merely to write the document of divorce, <i>are</i> considered appointments of 'Mili.'
<br> 
<br>(d) The <b>RASHBA</b> in Kidushin writes that the Gemara there refers to a case in which the wife told the Shali'ach to appoint another Shali'ach for her. Such a case is not 'Mili' but rather a case of 'Omer Imru' (see previous Insight), and therefore the Shelichus is valid. (According to Rashi and the Tosfos Rid, the Gemara in Kidushin which says that a Shali'ach may appoint another Shali'ach must be referring only to a Shali'ach appointed to <i>deliver</i> a Get. A Shali'ach appointed to <i>receive</i> a Get may <i>not</i> appoint another Shali'ach, since receiving the Get is considered 'Mili.') (See also <b>MORDECHAI</b> here.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN MILI BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER SHALI'ACH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> L'Chatchilah, one may not ask two people to ask a 
          scribe and witnesses to write and sign the Get, therefore 
          we are not concerned for the above case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps a man will tell two witnesses to ask a 
          scribe to write a Get and to sign it themselves. To avoid 
          embarrassing the scribe, they will ask him to sign for 
          one of the witnesses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> L'Chatchilah, one may not ask two witnesses to 
          ask a scribe to write the Get, even if they will sign it 
          themselves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Not all agree to the above law. How can we 
          answer for the opinion that allows asking two witnesses 
          to ask a scribe to write the Get, if they will sign it 
          themselves?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yosi said two cases (in which Mili cannot be 
          transferred; Stam, and even when the Shali'ach was 
          explicitly told to do so). Shmuel holds like R. Yosi 
          regarding one of them (Stam), and argues about one (a 
          Shali'ach told to appoint another Shali'ach. Shmuel holds 
          that this works).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel citing Rebbi):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi, that 
          Mili cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Shimon b'Rebbi, to Rebbi):</font></b> Why did you rule 
          like R. Yosi? R. Meir and R. Chanina of Ono both argue 
          with him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rebbi):</font></b> Had you seen R. Yosi, you would 
          understand. His reasoning was with him (he could justify 
          everything he said);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah):</font></b> R. Meir was a Chacham 
               and a scribe. R. Yehudah was an (even bigger) 
               Chacham when he deliberated. R. Tarfon would bring 
               an avalanche of answers to a single question. R. 
               Yishmael was always prepared to teach. R. Akiva was 
               a storehouse of teachings wondrously organized;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Nuri was prepared to answer 
               questions from many different fields. The same 
               applies to R. Elazar ben Azaryah. The teachings of 
               R. Eliezer ben Yakov are Kav (few; some say that he 
               taught 102 laws, the Gematriya of Kav) but clean 
               (wherever his opinion is brought, the Halachah 
               follows him). R. Yosi's reasoning is with him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon learned much, and expelled a small amount.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> He forgot only a few things, i.e. the 
               bran (teachings unlike the Halachah);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Shimon:</font></b> You should follow my teachings. They 
                    are refinements of R. Akiva's teachings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a man asked two people to ask a scribe to 
          write a Get, and to ask two witnesses to sign it, the Get 
          is Kosher, but this should not be done.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ula):</font></b> If the Get is Kosher, why shouldn't it be 
          done?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> We are concerned lest a woman hire 
          false witnesses (who will tell a scribe and other 
          witnesses that her husband authorized them to write a 
          Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We are not concerned for this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses signed on a document of sale 
               or a Get of divorce, Chachamim are not concerned 
               that they are signed falsely!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Witnesses would not do a false act (signing), but 
          they would say a false matter (that the husband asked 
          them...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda, Rav Nachman and Rabah):</font></b> If a man asked two 
          people to ask a scribe to write a Get, and they 
          themselves will sign it, it is Kosher, but this should 
          not be done;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah, Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef):</font></b> The 
          Get is Kosher. This may be done l'Chatchilah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TELLING A MESSENGER TO TELL OTHERS TO SIGN A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that if 'Omer Imru' works, a husband may send a messenger to tell a scribe to write the Get and to instruct witnesses to sign the Get.
</p><p>
However, there is a rule that a witness may testify only about something that he saw with his own eyes. He may not testify about something that his friend told him about. Why, then, is the Get valid when signed by witnesses whom the messenger told to sign? The witnesses who sign the Get are testifying to its validity (that is, they are testifying to the fact that the husband wanted the Get to be written), but they did not hear directly from the husband that he wanted the Get to be written! They heard about his desire only from the messenger. Why, then, may they testify about his desire to write a Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Imru) answers that the rule that witnesses may not testify about something which they did not see themselves applies only when they testify about a specific event or action that occurred. In such a case, the testimony was not 'given over' to them as witnesses to testify about. In contrast, in the case of the Gemara here the testimony was 'given over' directly to these witnesses; the messenger was sent by the husband to appoint these people to be witnesses and thereby 'give over' the testimony to them. 
</p><p>
How Tosfos' words answer the question is unclear. After all, in practice the witnesses did not actually hear the command of the husband.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (28:7) answers that in the case of the Get, the witnesses do not testify about an action or event that took place. Their testimony is solely about the fact that the husband desires the Get to be written and signed by them. Since the messenger who tells them to sign it is the representative of the husband, he has the ability to convey the desire of the husband to the witnesses. As long as they hear from the husband's appointed representative that he wants them to sign the Get, they may testify about his desire.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) AGADAH: ATTRIBUTES OF THE SAGES</b></font><b>
<br></b>Isi ben Yehudah enumerates the attributes of some of the Chachamim. The commentators explain the meanings of his descriptions.
</p><p>
(a) 'Rebbi Meir was a wise man and a scribe.' The <b>IYUN YAKOV</b> explains that the attribute of being a scribe is that he had a perfect memory of the Torah and was able to write a Torah scroll without having to look into another one to know what to write (see Megilah 18b).
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> points out this is a rare combination of two attributes that usually are not found together in one person. People who are very sharp and sagacious tend not to have an extraordinary memory, while people who have a phenomenal memory tend not to apply their minds and develop a deep understanding of what they learn. Rebbi Meir, however, had both attributes.
</p><p>
(b) 'Rebbi Yehudah was a wise man when he would choose to be.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that this means that when Rebbi Yehudah wanted to delve into a matter carefully and thoroughly, he was wise.
</p><p>
The <b>ARUCH</b> (quoted by the Maharsha) explains that Rebbi Yehudah was the leader of the sages and was always the first to speak. Whenever he wanted to speak, he was able to speak spontaneous words of wisdom.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARATZ CHAYOS</b> explains that Rebbi Yehudah had the ability to dwell into the depths of the wisdom of the Torah in any situation in which he found himself, regardless of how unsettling or troublesome it was.
</p><p>
(c) 'Rebbi Tarfon was like a pile on nuts.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that just as when one removes a nut at the bottom of a pile of nuts, the entire pile of nuts collapses, so, too, when Rebbi Tarfon was asked a question, he would cite proofs from all parts of the written and oral Torah.
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> adds that Isi ben Yehudah uses the term 'nuts' to describe Rebbi Tarfon because the Gematriya of 'Egoz' (nut) is the same as that of 'Tov' (good) and the Torah is called Tov ('Lekach Tov'; Mishlei 4:2). In addition, just as one must crack the shell to get to the fruit of the nut, so, too, one must toil in order to 'break open' the Sugya one is learning by asking questions and analyzing it so that he will arrive at a proper understanding of the Gemara.
</p><p>
(d) 'The teaching of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov was Kav v'Naki (measured and pure).' <b>RASHI</b> explains that although Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov taught less (in terms of quantity) than the other sages (his teaching was 'measured'), that which he taught was always accepted as the Halachah (it was 'pure'). The <b>MAHARSHA</b> writes that there are 102 Beraisos taught by Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov (102 is the Gematriya of 'Kav').
</p><p>
The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> explains that Isi ben Yehudah uses the term 'Kav' because a measure of a Kav is comprised of four Lugim, which represent the four basic approaches to studying the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Derash, and Sod. He adds that Torah is acquired by one who limits himself in worldly indulgence, like the Kav of carobs which Rebbi Chanina would eat each week, and which would be his sustenance for the entire week.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some versions switch the opinions of Rabah and Rav 
               Yosef.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST ALL THE SHELUCHIM PARTICIPATE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man told 10 people to write a Get...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man told 10 people to write a Get and 
          give it to his wife, one of them writes it on behalf of 
          all of them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he asked all of them to write it, one writes it 
               in front of all of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he said 'take this Get to my wife', one of them takes 
          it on behalf of all of them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he asked all of them to take it, one takes it in 
               front of all of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the law if he counted the people?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> Counting them is not like saying 
          'all of you';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Counting them is like saying 
          'all of you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> They don't argue. One discusses when he 
               counted all of them. The other discusses when he 
               counted only some of them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Some explain that Rav Papa holds that counting all 
               of them is like saying 'all of you' (this shows that 
               he wants all to sign);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Others explain just the opposite (if he only counts 
               some, this shows that he is insistent that each of 
               the one s he counted sign. If he counts all of them, 
               we have no such indication.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah enacted that when a man appoints many 
          Sheluchim to write a Get, he should say 'all of you will 
          write, or only one of you; all of you will sign, or any 
          two of you; all of you will give it, or only one of you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps one will intend to say this, 
          but will say only 'all of you', causing the Get to be 
          Pasul!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, he should say 'write, any one of you; sign, 
               any two of you; give it, any one of you.'
<b>PEREK <b><b>MI</b></b> SHE'ACHZU</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>KORDAIKUS AND OTHER MALADIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man was seized by Kordaikus (an evil 
          spirit) and appointed Sheluchim to write a Get for his 
          wife, his words are void;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a man appointed Sheluchim to write a Get for his wife, 
          then was seized by Kordaikus, then said that the Get 
          should not be written, his latter words are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a man became unable to speak, and others asked him 
          'should we write a Get for your wife?' and he nodded his 
          head, we test him three times. If he answers properly no 
          and yes, we write and give the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is Kordaikus?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> It is a sickness caused by drinking wine 
          straight from the winepress.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> To cure it, one eats lean meat roasted on coals, and 
               drinks diluted wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> To relieve a sunstroke on the first day, one 
          drinks a cup of water. For a two day old sunstroke, one 
          lets blood. If it is three days old, he eats lean meat 
          roasted on coals and diluted wine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The remedy for an old sunstroke requires a black hen 
               or leeks, and standing in water until he grows weak, 
               and coming up from the water.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Lean meat roasted on coals and diluted wine help for 
               sunstroke (of three days). Fatty meat roasted on 
               coals and undiluted wine helps for chills.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef would turn a mill when he was chilled. Rav 
          Sheshes would carry beams until he sweated - 'work is 
          great, it warms those who do it.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes would not eat by the Reish Galusa. He 
          explained that this was because of sinful servants in the 
          latter's home.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He proved that these servants would rather serve a 
               limb of a living animal than admit to negligence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes (who was blind) agreed to eat if he himself 
          would supervise. The servants put in Rav Sheshes' portion 
          a bone on which one can choke. He sensed this and wrapped 
          his portion in his garment.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE GET OF THE MUTE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if one who lost his speech wants to divorce his wife, Beis Din asks him, 'Should we write a Get for your wife?' and if he nods his head, Beis Din tests him three times to see if his mind is clear, and then they write and give the Get to his wife on his behalf.
</p><p>
The Mishnah specifies that Beis Din asks him if he wants them to 'write' the Get. Based on his response, Beis Din writes <i>and</i> gives the Get to his wife. This seems to contradict the Mishnah earlier (66a) which states that if a man says only to 'write' the Get (and not 'give' the Get), we may not give his wife the Get. 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that Rashi says that the Mishnah refers to one who lost his ability of speech because of illness. Such a person is like a Shechiv Mera for whom we write and give a Get even when he says only 'write it' (and he does not say 'give it').
</p><p>


<font><b>4) STEALING FROM THE REISH GALUSA</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshes did not trust the servants of the Reish Galusa, and he wanted to demonstrate their wickedness to the Reish Galusa. In a scheme to prove to the Reish Galusa that his servants are suspected of violating the prohibition of eating Ever Min ha'Chai, he told his own servant to steal a leg from one of the Reish Galusa's animals that had been cooked and prepared for consumption. When the servants laid out the cuts of the animal which they had prepared for the meal, they counted only three legs. They went and cut off the leg of a live animal, cooked it, and placed it before the Reish Galusa and Rav Sheshes at the meal. Rav Sheshes then told his servant to place the leg which he had stolen next to the other legs. In this manner, Rav Sheshes exposed the wickedness of the servants of the Reish Galusa.
</p><p>
Why was Rav Sheshes permitted to tell his servant to steal? The Halachah is that one is prohibited to steal even if he plans to return the item, such as when he wants to steal the item as a joke or to anger his friend.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BEN YEHOYADA</b> answers that Rav Sheshes told his servant to steal the leg of the animal in the presence of the Reish Galusa who was the owner of the house and of the other servants. Since it was done with the consent of the Reish Galusa, it was not considered stealing.
</p><p>
(b) The Ben Yehoyada answers further that the servant took the leg of the animal in order to prevent the Reish Galusa and Rav Sheshes from sinning by eating prohibited meat, for the servants were not trustworthy and were not meticulous with the laws of food preparation. In order to demonstrate that the Reish Galusa's servants were not trustworthy and thus to prevent people from eating prohibited food, it was permitted to steal. (This was a specific ruling relevant only to that situation and is not meant to be understood as the Halachah in practice. In any situation, a competent rabbinical authority must be consulted.) 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EVIL SERVANTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  The servants made a lame excuse to check his garment, and 
          found his portion wrapped inside. They complained to the 
          Reish Galusa that Rav Sheshes did not even eat, for he 
          wanted only to make trouble!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes excused himself by saying that the meat 
               came from a stricken animal. This claim was 
               verified.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The servants dug a pit, covered it, and tried to make Rav 
          Sheshes fall in. Rav Chisda hinted to him about the 
          danger.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Sheshes (to a child):</font></b> What verse are you 
               learning?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The child:</font></b> 'Veer to the right, or to the left.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Sheshes asked his attendant, and heard that he saw a 
          mat. He averted it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FINDING THE SHAMIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Bavel):</font></b> 'I (Shlomo) made for myself... 
          Shedim v'Shedos' - these are male and female Shedim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael):</font></b> These are wagon coaches.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Chachamim of Bavel, why did he 
          need the Shedim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'The Beis ha'Mikdash was built from complete 
          rocks like they were quarried...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shlomo (to Chachamim):</font></b> How can I cut the rocks 
               without iron?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Use the Shamir (a special worm) that 
               Moshe used to engrave the stones of the Efod.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Chachamim suggested that Shedim might know where to find 
          the Shamir. Shlomo pressed two Shedim together (to coerce 
          them to tell him). They did not know. They said that 
          Ashmedai, king of the Shedim, might know.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They told Shlomo where Ashmedai resides, and his 
               daily schedule. Shlomo sent Benayahu ben Yehoyada 
               with a chain and ring. Each with Hashem's name 
               carved on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Benayahu replaced Ashmedai's water with wine. Ashmedai, 
          realizing that wine is not conducive to wisdom, was 
          reluctant to drink it. When he became very thirsty, he 
          drank the wine and fell asleep. Benayahu put the chain on 
          him, and told him 'your Master's name is on you.' 
          Ashmedai could not free himself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Benayahu took Ashmedai to Shlomo. Ashmedai encountered a 
          date tree. He rubbed against it, and toppled it. He did 
          the same to a house. He came to a widow's shack. She 
          supplicated that he not rub against it. He bent away, and 
          broke a bone. He applied to this 'soft speech breaks a 
          bone.'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DISEASED PIECE OF MEAT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates the incident involving Rav Sheshes and the servants of the Reish Galusa. They served him meat with a bone that could have caused him to choke. Rav Sheshes (who was blind) felt the bone and wrapped it in a cloth. <b>RASHI</b> explains that he wrapped both the bone and the piece of meat that was on it. When he finished eating, the servants saw that he had wrapped something in a cloth and they were curious as to what it was, so they accused him of stealing a silver cup. They checked him and found the piece of meat and accused him of coming not to eat but to torment them. He told them that he came to eat the meat but that he did not eat that piece of meat because it had the taste of diseased meat which is not healthy.
</p><p>
Rashi proves that Rav Sheshes wrapped the piece of meat as well as the bone from the words of the Gemara itself. When the servants of the Reish Galusa found something wrapped in cloth and accused Rav Sheshes of coming to torment them and not to eat with them, Rav Sheshes said that he did not eat the meat because it was diseased, and he showed them the meat he had wrapped. Clearly, he had wrapped up the meat and not only the bone.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> explains that Rav Sheshes wrapped up the meat since it truly tasted diseased, as Rav Sheshes said to the servants when they found the meat, and not because he knew that there was a bone in it. Why, according to Tosfos, does the Gemara relate that he felt the bone in the meat and that is why he wrapped up the meat? Perhaps he was entirely unaware of the bone, and he wrapped up the meat simply because it tasted diseased!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that if not for the fact that Rav Sheshes found the bone, he simply would have discarded the diseased meat. Once he found the bone, however, he wanted to keep it as evidence to show the Reish Galusa that his servants are lowly, unscrupulous evildoers.
</p><p>
According to the Maharsha's explanation, it is not clear why Rav Sheshes needed to take the whole piece of meat and then offer other reasons for why he did not eat the meat. He simply should have taken the bone and shown it to the Reish Galusa to prove that his servants were trying to harm him.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARAL</b> explains that if Rav Sheshes would have removed the bone from the meat, he would not have been able to prove that the servants served him meat with a dangerous bone in it. He did not want them to be able to claim that the bone was not left with the meat, and therefore he left the bone attached to the meat so that he would have clear, undeniable evidence of their conduct.
</p><p>
However, if the reason why he kept the meat was to prove that the servants acted wickedly, why did he say that he wrapped it up because it was diseased?
</p><p>
The Maharal explains that Rav Sheshes told the servants that he did not eat the meat because it tasted diseased because he did not want the servants to be aware that he suspected them of attempting to murder him. He wanted to prove their behavior to the Reish Galusa. Hence, he used the fact that the meat was diseased as an excuse why he did not eat it, implying that he had every intention to eat it if it had not been diseased. (The Maharal points out that this explanation is compatible with Rashi's explanation of the Gemara, but Tosfos writes that the reason why he did not eat the meat indeed was because it tasted diseased.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE EXISTENCE OF THE 'SHAMIR' IN THE ERA OF THE SECOND BEIS HA'MIKDASH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara in Sotah (48b) teaches that when the Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the creature known as the Shamir ceased to exist. Does this refer to the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash or the second? Did the Shamir exist in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> here (DH Ika) explains that the Gemara means that after the <i>second</i> Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Shamir ceased to exist, but it did exist and was used during the time the second Beis ha'Mikdash stood. Tosfos proves this from the Gemara here which says that when Shlomo ha'Melech cut the stones for the construction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, he used the Shamir which Moshe Rabeinu used for cutting the stones of the Efod when he engraved in them the names of the Shevatim. This implies that the Shamir is needed to cut the stones of the Efod. Since the Gemara in Kidushin (31a) says that in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash they sought to buy new stones for the Efod, they must have had the Shamir to cut them.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> in Parshas Terumah (quoted by the <b>RASHASH</b> here) explains that there was no need for the Shamir to cut the stones of the Efod. He says that only for the stones of the Choshen was there a need for the Shamir, since the Torah writes that they must be 'b'Milu'osam,' in their state of completion. The Torah does not write this with regard to the stones of the Efod, and therefore the names of the Shevatim on those stones may be etched out with a tool and there is no need for the Shamir to cut them. The Ramban understands that when the Gemara says that Moshe Rabeinu used the Shamir for the Efod, it does not mean that he used it for the stones on the straps of the Efod, but rather he used it for the stones that were on the Choshen which was connected to the Efod. (See Shmuel I 23:9.) 
</p><p>
According to the Ramban's opinion, there is no proof that the Shamir existed in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash since, as the Gemara in Kidushin relates, they needed stones only for the Efod and not for the Choshen. 
</p><p>
However, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (52b) teaches that the Chashmona'im could not use the stones of the Mizbe'ach which were defiled by the Syrian-Greeks. The Gemara explains that they could not cut them and then use them, because metal tools may not be used to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach. <b>TOSFOS</b> asks that according to his own view that the Shamir existed in the time of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, why did the Chashmona'im not use it to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach?
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that although the Beis ha'Mikdash was built from 'Even Sheleimah' (complete stones) and the Shamir was used to cut those stones, the Shamir could not be used for the cutting of the stones of the Mizbe'ach since they had to be perfectly smooth to the extent that one's fingernail would not get caught on them. The Shamir could not produce such a smooth cut. 
</p><p>
Tosfos' opinion that the Shamir could not be used for the Mizbe'ach is consistent with his view that the Shamir existed in the times of the Chashmona'im. In contrast, according to the Ramban's opinion, since it is possible that the Shamir did not exist during the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash it was not used for the stones of the Mizbe'ach; had the Shamir been available during that era, though, it would have been used to cut the stones of the Mizbe'ach.
</p><p>
This approach may also explain the <b>RAMBAM's</b> opinion. The Rambam (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 1:14) writes that a stone with a bump on which one's fingernail may snag is unfit for the Mizbe'ach, because the Torah requires that the Mizbe'ach be built from 'Avanim Sheleimos' (complete stones). The Rambam adds that the same law applies to the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash.
</p><p>
The Rambam equates the requirements for the stones of the Mizbe'ach with the requirements for the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash (at least with regard to the requirement of 'Avanim Sheleimos'). Consequently, the Rambam could prove from the Gemara here that if the Shamir may be used for the stones of the Beis ha'Mikdash, it also may be used for the Mizbe'ach. Why, then, did the Chashmona'im not use the Shamir for the stones of the Mizbe'ach? It must be that they did not have the Shamir (as the Ramban maintains). (See Rambam, Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 9:7 and 9, who does not mention how they cut the stones of the Choshen and Efod. Also see Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos 9:11, where he writes that the Shamir <i>was</i> used for the Urim v'Tumim.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Ashmedai saw a blind man, and set him on his path. He 
          also set a drunkard on his path.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  He saw a jubilant wedding, and cried. He heard a man 
          request shoes that will last for seven years, and 
          laughed. He saw a sorcerer engaging in his trade, and 
          laughed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  When he arrived, he was not taken to see Shlomo for three 
          days. The first day, they told him that Shlomo had drunk 
          too much. Ashmedai put one brick on another. Shlomo 
          explained that he hinted that they should give him more 
          to drink.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  The next day, they told him that Shlomo had eaten too 
          much. Ashmedai removed the brick from on top of the 
          other. Shlomo explained that he hinted that they should 
          withhold from him (excess) food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  At the end of three days, he was taken to see Shlomo. He 
          cast a reed of four Amos in front of him, and said 'when 
          you will die, you will have in the world only four Amos 
          (your grave). You conquered the entire world. You were 
          not satisfied until you also conquered me?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shlomo:</font></b> I do not desire you (to be under my reign). 
               I need the Shamir to build the Beis ha'Mikdash!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ashmedai:</font></b> It is entrusted to the angel appointed 
               over the sea, who entrusts it only to a wild 
               chicken.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The wild chicken uses the Shamir to cleave 
               mountains, enabling vegetation to grow in the 
               middle.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Shlomo's men found the nest of a wild chicken 
                    with fledglings inside; they covered it with 
                    glass. The bird returned and was unable to 
                    enter the nest; it brought the Shamir to cleave 
                    the glass. Shlomo's men shouted, and the bird 
                    dropped the Shamir, which they took.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ASHMEDAI'S BEHAVIOR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Ashmedai explained his behavior when he was taken to 
          Shlomo.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He set the blind man on his path because he heard a 
               Heavenly proclamation that the man was a Tzadik, and 
               whoever helps him would merit (a share in) the world 
               to come.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He set the drunkard on his path, for the drunkard 
               was wicked. This would help the drunkard receive his 
               reward in this world, depriving him of the world to 
               come.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He cried at the wedding, for he foresaw that within 
               30 days the Chasan would die, and the Kalah would 
               unable to remarry for 13 years until the Yavam (a 
               baby) could do Yibum or Chalitzah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> He laughed at the man who request shoes that will 
               last for seven years, for he knew that the man would 
               not live seven days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> He laughed at the sorcerer, for he did not know that 
               he was above the king's treasure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Shlomo detained Ashmedai until he finished building the 
          Mikdash. One day when they were alone, he asked him 
          'k'To'afos' are angels. 'Re'em' are Shedim. What is so 
          special about Shedim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ashmedai:</font></b> If you will remove the chain from me and 
               give me the ring (with Hashem's name), I will show 
               you.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shlomo consented. Ashmedai swallowed Shlomo (some 
               texts - the ring), put one wing in Heaven and one on 
               the ground, and threw Shlomo 400 Parsa'os (about 
               1600 kilometers).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'Zeh Hayah Chelki mi'Kol Amali' - Rav and Shmuel 
               argued about whether Shlomo was left with only his 
               staff, or only his cloak. He went begging from door 
               to door, saying 'I, Koheles, was king over Yisrael.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  (Ashmedai had assumed the appearance of Shlomo, and was 
          acting like king.) When Shlomo came before the Sanhedrin, 
          they observed that he never veered from his claim to be 
          Shlomo, unlike a lunatic, who says more than one 
          absurdity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Sanhedrin investigated. They found that the acting 
          king was having Bi'ah in socks, which would cover up the 
          telltale feet of a Shed. Further, he was requesting to 
          have Bi'ah with his wives when they were Nidah, and with 
          his mother Bas Sheva.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  They gave to Shlomo a ring and chain with Hashem's name. 
          He came to Ashmedai, who fled in fear.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Still, Shlomo forever remained afraid of Ashmedai - 
               'Motaso sheli'Shlomo... mi'Pachad ba'Leilos.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav and Shmuel argued about whether or not Shlomo ever 
          resumed being king (like at first).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>CURES FOR HEADACHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  For a headache due to excess blood, one cooks together 
          certain woods, and pours 300 cups of the soup on each 
          side of the head, or 60 cups (on each side) in which a 
          white rose was cooked.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  For an aching half-head, one uses a silver coin to 
          slaughter a wild chicken over the aching half, being 
          careful lest the blood blind his eyes;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The dead fowl is placed on the doorpost, so the 
               patient will rub against it when he enters and 
               leaves.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CURES FOR HEAD AILMENTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  For Beruksi (a protrusion from the eye), one makes a 
          mixture of eye shadow and ground dried scorpion. This is 
          applied three times (not more!) to each eye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  For night blindness, one ties a rope of animal hair to 
          his leg on one side, and to a dog on the other side. 
          Children bang pottery, an incantation is recited, and he 
          collects meat from seven houses, and eats it near 
          wasteheaps. The rope is removed from his leg, and they 
          blow into the dog's eye.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  For day blindness, seven spleens are roasted on a 
          bloodletter's flask. The patient requests them from a 
          healthy person outside the house. After eating them, he 
          breaks the flask (so the blindness will not return).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  For a nosebleed, one finds a Kohen named 'Levi', and 
          tells him to write 'Levi' backwards;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If not, certain other charms may be written by any 
               person.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, one may burn together fodder... to 
               make ashes. One inserts in each nostril a strand of 
               wool dipped in vinegar and rolled in the ashes;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he straddles an irrigation channel 
               that flows from east to west and takes in each hand 
               mud from under the opposite foot. He inserts in each 
               nostril a strand of wool dipped in the mud.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he sits under a gutter pipe, and 
               others pour water on him through the pipe and recite 
               a charm.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  For a bleeding mouth, we take straw of wheat to see if 
          the blood sticks to it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it sticks, the blood is from the lungs. This can 
               be cured;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it does not stick, it is from the liver. There is 
               no cure.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Ami - Mishnah):</font></b> If an animal's liver 
               was entirely removed, or if the lung was punctured 
               or lacking, the animal is Treifah. (This shows that 
               a wound in the lungs is more severe than one in the 
               liver!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If the blood of the liver comes 
               through the mouth, this shows that the liver has 
               totally dissolved.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> If the blood is from the lungs, one cooks a mixture 
               of beets, etc. and eats it, then drinks strong beer 
               made in Teves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  For ailing inner teeth, one grinds garlic, oil and salt, 
          puts the mixture on the thumbnail, and surrounds it with 
          dough.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The garlic must not touch the flesh, lest it cause 
               Tzara'as.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  For quinsy (a swollen throat with blisters), first, one 
          puts a certain root or leaves in the mouth to prevent 
          excessive swelling;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One puts a nut's volume of bran, etc. in his mouth 
               to gather the pus in the blisters;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Another person blows white cress seeds into the 
               patient's mouth through a straw, to burst the 
               blisters;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> One takes honey mixed with soil that was shaded by a 
               privy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  For an inflammation of the lining of the nose and throat 
          - one cooks ammoniac, etc. until the ammoniac is fully 
          cooked (for then all the ingredients are fully cooked), 
          and drinks it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he cooks milk of a white goat with 
               twigs, and drinks it.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: TALMUDIC REMEDIES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara describes at length many remedies for various ailments. These Talmudic remedies differ noticeably from the medicines and medical procedures commonly used today. Are these remedies recommended for use today?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b> (Chulin 8:12) writes that the sages of earlier generations issued a Cherem (decree of excommunication) in order to prevent anyone from using the remedies described in the Gemara. He explains that this was instituted because those remedies were intended specifically for the nature of people in Bavel and for the climate of Bavel, and they are not compatible for treating people of our nature and in our climates. If a person would attempt to use those remedies and find that they do not work, he might come to ridicule the words of the Chachamim without realizing the reason for why they did not work for him.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARIL</b> (quoted by <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> to Shulchan Aruch YD 336) suggests a similar idea. He gives an additional explanation for why these remedies do not work for our illnesses: we do not know the exact method of preparation of these remedies. (See Rebbi Akiva Eiger there for an exception to this rule.) 
</p><p>
The <b>CHAVOS YA'IR</b> (Teshuvah 234) expands on this idea. He says that we do not know the exact translation or identity of the herbs and other materials mentioned in the Gemara, and we do not know the exact quantities that should be used and the proper method of preparation. He also cites the Yam Shel Shlomo's explanation.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> quotes none of these remedies. In Hilchos De'os (4:18) he mentions occasions when one may perform blood-letting. The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> quotes the Gemara in Shabbos (129a) which mentions the conditions under which blood-letting is advisable, which is not compatible with what the Rambam writes. The <b>KESEF MISHNEH</b> answers that this is not a question on the Rambam since it is known that the remedies of Bavel, to which the Gemara in Shabbos refers, are not compatible with the nature of people in our places of residence. This may also explain why the Rambam cites none of the Talmudic remedies mentioned here in Gitin.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV SHERIRA GA'ON</b>, quoted by the Otzar ha'Ge'onim (Chelek Teshuvos, Gitin 68b), writes that the remedies recorded in the Gemara were developed based on general medical knowledge of that time and not based on Torah knowledge (for if they were based on Torah knowledge, the remedies would apply today as well). Since the remedies were based on the general medical knowledge of that time, we are not required to accept those medications and procedures. <b>RABEINU AVRAHAM</b>, the son of the Rambam, writes a similar idea. (It is important to stress that this applies only to medical procedures. In contrast, <i>Halachic</i> decisions made by the Amora'im are based on their knowledge of Torah and must be accepted by all generations, since they had a greater and clearer knowledge of the laws of the Torah than we have today.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If neither is possible, he eats excrement of a white 
               dog kneaded with balsam. (Preferably, one should 
               avoid eating excrement, for this disconnects the 
               limbs.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>ALIMENTS OF THE HEART AND DIGESTIVE TRACT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  For a sharp pain, one drinks water poured over an arrow 
          shaped rock;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Alternatively, one drinks water from which a dog drank at 
          night.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This should be taken from a place where snakes are 
               not found, for the water was uncovered.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> One who drank exposed water should drink a Revi'is 
               of undiluted wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  For an abscess, one drinks a Revi'is of undiluted wine 
          mixed with red aloe.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  For heart palpitations, one eats three loaves of soaked 
          barley bread, then drinks diluted wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> That will surely aggravate 
          the problem!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Ravina):</font></b> This remedy is for a heavy heart. 
          For a fluttering heart, one eats three loaves of wheat 
          bread soaked in honey and drinks undiluted wine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  For heart pain, one eats mint, cumin and sesame.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  For intestinal pain, for three days, one eats 100 peppers 
          with wine each day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ravin of Nerash used 150 of our (smaller) peppers 
               (i.e. of Bavel) to cure Rav Ashi's daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  For intestinal worms, one drinks a Revi'is of wine 
          through a leaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  For white intestinal worms, one wraps a certain seed in 
          cotton cloth, and soaks it in water. One drinks the 
          water, making sure not to drink the seed, lest it 
          puncture the intestines.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  To stop diarrhea, one eats a fresh mint plant soaked in 
          water. To relieve constipation, one eats a dry mint plant 
          soaked in water.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  For an inflated spleen, one dries out seven water 
          leeches, and drinks them in wine, in the course of three 
          days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, one takes the spleen of a goat that 
               has not borne children, sticks it to the inside of 
               an oven and recites an incantation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he lacks an oven, he can stick the spleen between 
               the bricks of a new house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, one takes the hand of one who died on 
               Shabbos, puts it on his spleen and recites an 
               incantation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he roasts a fish on a smith's coals, 
               eats it dipped in the smith's water, then drinks 
               this water.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A goat that used to drink a smith's water was 
                    (slaughtered, and) found to have no spleen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he should drink much wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> If he has much 
               wine to drink, he will never have the problem to 
               begin with!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rather, he should accustom himself to eating 
                    bread each morning. This helps the entire body.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  For hemorrhoids one wraps acacia, etc. in flax or cotton 
          and puts it on the afflicted area.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he drinks diluted beer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  For haunches, one takes brine of small fish and rolls it 
          60 times on each hip.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  For kidney stones, one takes three drops each of tar oil, 
          leek juice and clean wine, and puts them in the place of 
          urination.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, one hangs from the Ever the handle of 
               a flask, or a red thread spun by a woman of ill 
               repute, or a louse from a man and a louse from a 
               woman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The patient should urinate on a dry bush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  When the stone leaves, he should keep it. It 
                    relieves fevers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  For external fever, one boils (separately) date pits and 
          special leaves, and sits between them. He pours the water 
          in two basins. He rests a table on them, and sits on it 
          (on top of one basin). He alternates sitting over the two 
          basins.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After the vapors enter his body, he bathes in the 
               waters, and drinks from the water of the leaves.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He should not drink water from the date pits, for 
               this causes sterility.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  For internal fever, one brings beets that grew in seven 
          patches, and cooks them with the soil they grew in. He 
          eats them and drinks beer with leaves;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, he eats grapes of a vine draped over 
               a date tree, with water.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXTERNAL MALADIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  For a wart, one roasts fat wheat kernels on a new shovel. 
          He applies the exuding oil to the wart.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Simi bar Ashi healed Tzara'as in this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> One struck by a poisoned spear will not live;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Eating fatty meat roasted on coals and drinking 
               diluted wine can prolong his life so he can instruct 
               how to apportion his estate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Idi bar Avin):</font></b> One who swallows a wasp will not 
          live;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Drinking a Revi'is of strong vinegar can prolong his 
               life so he can instruct how to apportion his estate.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> One who eats ox meat with turnips 
          and sleeps under the moon on the night of the fourteenth 
          or fifteenth of the month in summer will contract a fever 
          of the bones.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who fills his stomach with anything will 
          contract Achilu (inflammation of the bones).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Even eating too many dates causes it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why would I think not?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that since dates satiate, 
          warm, stop constipation, energize and do not make one 
          finicky, also they do not cause Achilu. He teaches that 
          this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> All other liquid medicines are taken for three, 
          seven or 12 days. The cure for Achilu is taken until he 
          recovers;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All other liquids are taken on an empty stomach. For 
               Achilu, the patient first eats, drinks, and relieves 
               himself;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He then kneads lentil flour with old wine and drinks 
               it. He wraps himself in sheets and sleeps until he 
               wakes up on his own, and immediately takes off the 
               sheets.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>SUGGESTED HEALTH PRACTICES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Nasan citing Eliyahu):</font></b> One should eat a third of what 
          his stomach can hold, drink the same amount, and leave a 
          third empty;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In case he gets angry, his stomach will have room to 
               handle it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Chiya):</font></b> To avoid intestinal problems, one 
          should dip his bread in wine or vinegar all year round. 
          If one enjoys his food, he should beware to cease before 
          he fills his stomach; one should not delay excreting when 
          he feels the need.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar Ukva):</font></b> One who drinks Tilya (bad wine) will become 
          weak.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> There are 60 types of wine. The best is 
          scented red wine, the worst is white Tilya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man has Bi'ah after letting blood, the 
          children will be weak. If also she just let blood, the 
          children will contract Ra'asan (a severe Tzara'as in 
          which a rodent resides in the brain).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> If he ate in between, there is no 
               concern.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> One who has Bi'ah upon returning 
          from a journey will have weak children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One should not have Bi'ah after leaving a 
          privy for the time to walk a half Mil (nine or 11 
          minutes), for the Shed of the privy accompanies him for 
          that long.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he did, the children will be epileptic.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One who has Bi'ah while standing will get 
          cramps. If he was sitting, or if he lies below her, he is 
          afflicted with Delarya (Aruch's text - Alarya (yawning)).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> The cure for Delarya is 
               saffron that grows in hedge.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa would chew it and swallow it. Rav Papi 
               would chew it and spit it out.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  One who lacks strength for Bi'ah should drink saffron 
          boiled in wine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan attributed his return to youth to this 
               cure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Three things weaken a person - fear, travel and sin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We learn about fear from 'my heart is worried; my 
               strength abandoned me.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We learn about travel from 'my strength was 
               afflicted on the way.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We learn about sin from 'my strength stumbled in my 
               sin.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  One's body is weakened by eating, drinking or having 
          Bi'ah while standing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  If one does any of five things and immediately stands up, 
          he is closer to death than life:</font></b> eating; drinking; 
          letting blood; sleeping; or Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  These six things will cause death - if one returns weary 
          from travel, lets blood, enters the bathhouse, gets 
          drunk, sleeps on the ground and has Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is only if he does them in 
               order.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> Even if he does them out of order, they 
               will weaken him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A case occurred in which a weak slave died 
                    after doing only three of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Eight things are harmful if overdone, but are good if 
          done sparingly - travel, Bi'ah, wealth, work, wine, 
          sleep, hot water (for bathing and drinking) and 
          bloodletting.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Eight things diminish semen - salt, hunger, Tzara'as, 
          crying, sleeping on the ground, eating coriander, eating 
          gourds out of season, and letting blood below the belt. 
          The last is doubly bad.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Letting blood higher than the belt is doubly good.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: GIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT TO A 'NOCHRI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara relates that Rav Simi treated an idolater who was suffering from leprosy with a remedy that the Gemara prescribes, and the idolater was healed of his illness.
</p><p>
How could Rav Simi give medical treatment to a Nochri? The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (26a) prohibits a midwife or a nurse-maid from rendering her services to a Nochri child because doing so enables that child to grow up to serve idols! (<b>TOSFOS</b> in the name of <b>RABEINU ELCHANAN</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ME'IRI</b> (in Avodah Zarah), the <b>DARCHEI TESHUVAH</b> (YD 158:2), and others (see <b>RASHBA</b>, Teshuvos 1:8 and as cited by the Beis Yosef in YD 154) write that the prohibition of the Gemara in Avodah Zarah applies only to treating Nochrim who actually serve idols. A Jew is permitted to give medical treatment to a Nochri who does not serve idols.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b>, cited by Tosfos, answers that perhaps Rav Simi was permitted to treat the Nochri because he needed to practice this medical treatment in order to know how to administer to it to Jews who might have the same illness. To practice a medical treatment on a Nochri is permitted.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers further that if the Nochri knows that the Jewish medical practitioner is an expert in the treatment of his illness, the Jewish doctor is obligated to treat the Nochri in order to prevent malice ('Eivah') of the Nochri towards the Jews.
</p><p>
This is also the way the <b>RAMBAM</b> rules (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:2). The Rambam, however, adds a second condition that is necessary to allow a Jew to treat an ill Nochri. He adds that even when there is concern for malice, a Jew still is prohibited from treating the Nochri unless the Jew takes a fee for treating him. Conversely, even when the Jew takes money for his services, he may not treat the Nochri unless there is concern for malice. (The <b>DEVAR YAKOV</b> cites the <b>YAD DAVID</b> who writes in the name of the <b>SEMAG</b> that the Rambam himself relied on this Gemara as his source for becoming a doctor in Egypt, where he treated Nochrim. The <b>YAD DAVID</b> himself adds that although there was no concern for malice in the Rambam's case, the Rambam was permitted to treat Nochrim because they did not serve idols, as the Me'iri and others mention.)
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Toras ha'Adam) also rules that a Jew may not treat a Nochri where there is no concern for 'Eivah,' even when the Jew would receive money for his services. However, he maintains that where there is a concern for 'Eivah,' a Jew may treat a Nochri <i>even for free</i>. (This is in contrast to the view of the Rambam, who permits a Jew to treat a Nochri where there is a concern for 'Eivah' only when the Jew receives money for his services.) (The Ramban derives this from the Gemara earlier in Gitin (61a) which says that we visit the sick of the Nochrim just as we visit the sick of the Jews, and visiting the sick is a form of healing, as the Gemara in Nedarim (39b) teaches.)
</p><p>
(It is interesting to note that the <b>TZITZ ELIEZER</b> (17:6) asks how could Elisha, the prophet, have cured Na'aman from his leprosy, as Na'aman was a Nochri? He answers that in the case of Elisha, there was a great Kidush Hash-m involved, and therefore Elisha was permitted to cure Na'aman.)
</p><p>
(d) Tosfos answers further that perhaps to heal an adult Nochri from his illness is not the same as tending to an infant. In the case of treating an infant, the Jew actually helps to raise the child who will serve idols. In contrast, an adult is already an idol-worshipper, and thus the Jew does not help him become an idol-worshipper by providing treatment for his illness; the Jew merely helps to remove illness or risk of death and does not play an active role in bringing the Nochri to serve idols.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 158:1) rules that a Jew may not provide medical care for a Nochri even if he receives money for it, unless there is concern for 'Eivah.' The <b>REMA</b>, however, rules like the <b>RAMBAN</b> that when there definitely will be resentment against the Jews if a Jew does not treat a Nochri, a Jew is permitted to treat a Nochri even for free.
</p><p>
(All of this applies to rendering medical treatment to a Nochri on a weekday. There are various other Halachos with regard to transgressing the laws of Shabbos in order to give medical treatment to a Nochri.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) REFRAINING FROM WORLDLY PLEASURES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that one who is at a meal in which the food entices him should hold himself back and refrain from eating it.
</p><p>
<b>RAV ELIYAHU DESSLER</b> (Michtav me'Eliyahu 4:268) asks that this Gemara seems to contradict the Yerushalmi at the end of Kidushin which states that a person will be judged (and punished) for all of the pleasures of this world that were presented to him to eat and from which he did not partake. (That is, Hash-m created food to be eaten and enjoyed so that man would feel gratitude to his Creator, and thus one should not refrain from eating and appreciating Hashem's provision of food for him.) Similarly, the Gemara in Ta'anis (11a) says that one who fasts is considered a sinner. How is the Gemara here to be reconciled with the Yerushalmi and with the Gemara in Ta'anis?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV DESSLER</b> answers that there are two types of people. The first type is the person who is attracted to physical pleasures. Such a person should make guidelines to distance himself from indulgence in worldly pleasures. The second type is the person who is in control of his desires for worldly pleasures. Such a person should partake in acts of eating tasty foods so that he will be able to appreciate Hashem's creations and thank Hash-m for them.
</p><p>
(b) Another possible way to resolve this apparent contradiction is as follows. The Yerushalmi teaches that it is not commendable to refrain from eating various foods, since one who refrains from them will not fully appreciate Hashem's goodness. On the other hand, the Gemara here refers to one who is eating a meal and enjoying it already; such a person should not over-indulge at the meal, but he should stop eating before he finishes all the food that is there. This seems to be the intention of <b>RASHI</b> when he writes that one should not 'fill his stomach' from the meal he enjoys.
</p><p>
The <b>EIN MISHPAT</b> also seems to understand the Gemara in this manner, since he refers to the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos De'os (4:15) who writes that over-eating is unhealthy. The Rambam quotes the verse, 'One who watches over his mouth and tongue protects himself from troubles (Tzaros)' (Mishlei 21:23). He explains that the verse is teaching that one who watches over his mouth from over-indulgence in food and his tongue from talking unnecessary chatter protects himself from 'Tzaros.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Summer is the season for gourds. Then, 
               they are beneficial. In winter, they are harmful. In 
               spring and fall, they are neutral.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO AUTHORIZED A GET AND FELL SICK</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If a man appointed Sheluchim to write a Get for his wife, 
          then was seized by Kordaikus, then said that the Get 
          should not be written, his latter words are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #1 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Get may be given 
          immediately.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Opinion #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Get may be written only 
          after he recovers.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish learns from the Mishnah - 'his latter 
               words have no effect';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan explains that this means only that he 
               need not give another command to give the Get when 
               he recovers, but it cannot be written while he is 
               sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Reish Lakish compares a seized man to a sleeping man. R. 
          Yochanan compares him to an insane man.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan does not compare him to a sleeping man, 
               for he will not recover automatically, but a 
               sleeping man awakes automatically.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish does not compare him to an insane man, 
               for we have a cure for Kordaikus, but not for 
               insanity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does R. Yochanan disagree with the following?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If a man's windpipe and foodpipe were cut, 
               and he gestured to witnesses to write a Get for his 
               wife, they write and give it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man was found cut up or hanging, and 
               he gestured to witnesses to write a Get for his 
               wife, they write and give it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In those cases, the man is totally sane, just 
          weakness has begun. If one was seized by Kordaikus, his 
          mind is deranged.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Shmuel contradicts himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If a man's windpipe and foodpipe were cut, 
               and he fled, we may testify that he died, permitting 
               his wife to remarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here, Shmuel rules that he is alive. We cannot allow 
               his wife to remarry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is alive, but he will (soon) die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the one who slaughtered him should be 
          exiled (to a city of refuge, if it was unintentional). 
          This is not true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven slaughtered Shimon's windpipe 
               and foodpipe b'Shogeg, he is not exiled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Hoshaya):</font></b> We are concerned lest Shimon did not 
          die from the slaughter alone, rather a wind contributed, 
          or Shimon precipitated his own death (by moving around).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What difference is there between these reasons?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If Shimon was in a marble house and moved about, 
          only the latter concern applies. If he was outside and 
          did not move, only the former concern applies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man became unable to speak, and others 
          asked him if we should write a Get for his wife and he 
          nodded his head, we test him three times. If he answers 
          properly no and yes, we write and give the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest a sickness causes 
          him to nod his head as people nod to indicate 'no' or to 
          indicate 'yes'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> We test him so he must alternate 
          answers of 'yes' and 'no,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps a sickness causes him to nod 
          alternatively in these two ways!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We do not ask in the order of a simple 
          alternation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> We ask him questions relevant 
          to the season.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What are examples of this?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We ask if he would like to be covered 
               with a coat or sheets.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> (Failing this test does not show that his 
               mind is disturbed. Perhaps he was struck by a chill, 
               or felt hot!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, we ask if one can now find fruits that 
          are out of season.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE GET OF A 'SHOTEH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether a Get may be given to a man's wife in a case where the man gave a command to write and give a Get to his wife and subsequently lost his sanity as a result of the Kurdiyakus sickness. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Get may not be given until the man's sanity returns, just as a Get may not be given for a Shoteh. Reish Lakish disagrees and maintains that one who is sick with Kurdiyakus can be cured, and therefore his lack of sanity is similar to one who is sleeping who can have the Get delivered for him by a Shali'ach; his condition is not similar to that of a Shoteh for which there is no known cure.
</p><p>
Both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish agree that a Get may not be given for a man who became a Shoteh, even when he commanded the Shali'ach to deliver the Get before he became a Shoteh.
</p><p>
Is this Halachah -- that a Get given on behalf of a man who became a Shoteh is invalid -- mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>TUR</b> (EH 121) maintains that if a Get is given on behalf of a man while the man is a Shoteh, the Get is invalid mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 2:15) writes that if a man who is not sane gives a Get before he returns to his sanity, the Get is 'Pasul,' invalid. The Acharonim point out that the term 'Pasul' implies that it is invalid only <i>mid'Rabanan</i>.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> and the <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 121:2) understand that the Rambam maintains that the Get is Pasul mid'Rabanan only in a case where the man was insane as a result of the Kurdiyakus sickness. If, however, the man was a Shoteh, the Rambam would agree that the Get is Pasul <i>mid'Oraisa</i>. His logic is that even though Rebbi Yochanan says that one who has the Kurdiyakus sickness cannot give a Get, still he admits that this is only a Pesul d'Rabanan since this illness has a remedy.
</p><p>
Other Acharonim (See <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b>, <b>CHELKAS MECHOKEK</b>, <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> to Shulchan Aruch ibid.) disagree with the Beis Yosef's interpretation of the Rambam. Their logic is that since Rebbi Yochanan does not differentiate between a mental illness that has a remedy and one that has no remedy, there is no reason to assume that a Get given by a man who has an illness which has a remedy is Pasul only mid'Rabanan. They understand that according to the Rambam, even if one sent a Shali'ach to give a Get to his wife and then became a Shoteh, the Get is Pasul only mid'Rabanan, and the Rambam disagrees with the view of the Tur that it is Pasul mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
There are various explanations of the logic behind this dispute between the Rambam and the Tur.
</p><p>
Some Acharonim (<b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b>, Hilchos Gerushin 2:15, <b>AFIKEI YAM</b> 2:44) explain that the dispute is based on different ways of understanding the nature of Shelichus. The Rambam understands that a Shali'ach completely represents the one who sent him in the transaction. Since it is the mind of the Shali'ach which causes the transaction to take place, there is no concern that the one who sent him is now a Shoteh; the sender's condition is no longer relevant. In contrast, the Tur understands that appointing a Shali'ach is merely a way of extending the sender's ability to do the act. Therefore, it is the mind of the sender which causes the transaction to take place, and if he becomes a Shoteh the Shali'ach cannot carry out the mission.
</p><p>
The Yerushalmi (quoted by the <b>RAN</b>) says that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree in a case where one gives a Get to his wife with the stipulation that it should take effect in thirty days, and within those thirty days he becomes ill with Kurdiyakus. The Yerushalmi equates the Get a Shali'ach gives after the sender has become a Shoteh to a Get a man gives but which takes effect only when he is a Shoteh. If the situations indeed are comparable, one may infer that the question of a Shali'ach who gives a Get for a man who has become a Shoteh is not a question involving the laws of <i>Shelichus</i> but is a question involving the necessity of the husband to be sane at the time the Get takes effect, even if he completed his act before he became insane (that is, it is a matter of the laws of <i>Get</i> and not of Shelichus).
</p><p>
Based on this, <b>RAV SHMUEL ROZOVSKY</b> and others understand that the dispute about whether or not a Get may be given (mid'Oraisa) on behalf of a Shoteh is based on their understanding of the reason for why a Shoteh cannot give the Get himself. The Rambam maintains that a Shoteh cannot carry out a transaction when there is a need for his Da'as, for his understanding and soundness of mind. In a case where the Da'as of the Shali'ach is involved, such as when the Shali'ach gives the Get or when the Get was given when the husband was sane but will take effect only when he is a Shoteh, there is no reason for the Get <i>not</i> to take effect. In contrast, the Tur understands that it is impossible for any transaction to take effect for a person who does not have Da'as at the time that the transaction is supposed to take effect. Therefore, if the man is a Shoteh at that time the Get will not take effect even though someone with Da'as is carrying out (or has carried out) the act. (E. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A MUTE TESTIFY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> If a Cheresh (deaf person) can communicate 
          by writing, we (fulfill his written request to) write and 
          give a Get to his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Why must Rav Kahana teach this? We 
          know this from our Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man became unable to speak and 
               others asked him if we should write a Get for his 
               wife and he nodded his head, we test him three 
               times. If he answers properly no and yes, we write 
               and give the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a mute. He is 
          not like a (total) Cheresh (who lacks understanding):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One who can speak but not hear is a 
               Cheresh. One who can hear but not speak is a mute;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Both of them are like healthy people in every 
               respect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa):</font></b> 'If he will not testify' 
          excludes a mute, for he cannot testify.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why can't he testify by writing?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Testimony must be 'Al Pi (oral)', not 
          through their writing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Just like we test him (one who became 
          mute, to see if he is alert enough) to give a Get, we 
          test also regarding sales and gifts, for testimony, and 
          for inheritances.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that he can testify, even though he 
               cannot speak!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi):</font></b> The Beraisa refers to 
          Edus Ishah (testimony that a man died to permit his wife 
          to remarry). Chachamim were lenient about Edus Ishah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> We test for inheritances (he 
          testifies about others)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> No, it refers to his Bechor. (Tosfos - 
          he identifies his firstborn son; Rashi - he commands that 
          his Bechor not get an extra portion.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> We test for sales and gifts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He testifies about others' transactions!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it refers to what he sells and gives.
<br>
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH DEAF MEN MAY DIVORCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Kahana - Beraisa):</font></b> For Metaltelim 
          we rely on gestures and facial expressions of a Cheresh 
          and what he writes, but not for Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not he can 
          divorce:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Seifa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> This applies only 
               to one who was deaf from birth, but if a hearing man 
               became deaf, he writes (a Get) and witnesses sign 
               it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he was deaf from birth, why can't he 
          divorce? Just like he married through gesturing, he can 
          divorce through gesturing (the whole marriage is only 
          mid'Rabanan)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That reasoning applies to a regular marriage. The 
          Beraisa says that he cannot divorce a woman with whom he 
          did Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> From what kind of marriage did she fall to 
          Yibum?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the deceased husband was also a Cheresh, just 
               like she was (initially) married through gesturing, 
               she can be divorced (even by the Yavam) through 
               gesturing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Her first husband was healthy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Her first husband was also a Cheresh. We 
          decree that the Yavam cannot divorce, lest he divorce 
          when her first husband was healthy.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If we make such decrees, we should never allow 
          him to divorce, lest he divorce after doing Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> People can confuse Yevamos (who fell from 
          different types of husbands), but they would not confuse 
          a woman whom he was Mekadesh with his Yevamah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We do not decree about (one who fell to Yibum 
          from) a Cheresh due to (falling from) a healthy man!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: A MAN WHO WRITES HIS COMMAND TO GIVE A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Kahana says in the name of Rav that we may give a Get on behalf of a man who is a deaf mute who wrote that he wants a Get to be written and given to his wife. Rav Yosef questions what Rav Kahana intends to teach, since this Halachah can be derived from the Mishnah which says that if the husband became mute, we test his desire to give the Get by asking him questions and seeing how he nods his head.
</p><p>
Rebbi Zeira rejects the question and says that we <i>cannot</i> learn Rav Kahana's Halachah from the Mishnah, because the Mishnah refers to one who is mute but can hear, and thus he is Halachically considered an intelligent person. In contrast, Rav Kahana refers to a deaf mute who cannot hear, who Halachically is considered a Shoteh.
</p><p>
Rav Yosef's question implies that writing is an equal or stronger expression of one's desire to divorce than nodding one's head (and, therefore, one can derive from the Mishnah, which relies on nodding, that writing is also a valid expression of one's desire). However, the Gemara later (72a) concludes that we may not rely on writing as a valid form of expression of one's desire to give a Get, even though no one disagrees with the Mishnah that relies on nodding as a valid expression of one's desire to give a Get.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHBA</b> (see also <b>TOSFOS</b> to 72a, DH Kolo) explains that Rav Yosef understands that writing is a stronger proof of one's desire than the nodding of one's head. The Gemara later disagrees with this and relies on nodding but not on writing.
</p><p>
The Rishonim give two explanations for why the Gemara disagrees with Rav Yosef's assumption. The <b>ROSH</b> (6:19) writes that even the Gemara later (72a) agrees that writing one's intent is no less of a proof of his intent than nodding his head; the reason why the Gemara there does not accept the Halachah of Rav Kahana is that he says that even one who is deaf <i>and</i> mute may write his command to give a Get to his wife. The Gemara there maintains that one who is a deaf mute is Halachically unable to give any commands to carry out transactions, and the fact that he can write does not give him the status of one who can speak (this is based on Rebbi Zeira's rejection of Rav Yosef's question).
</p><p>
The Rosh and other Rishonim also cite the opinion of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who quotes a Tosefta that implies that the scribe who writes the Get must actually '<i>hear</i>' the command to write it. Even if the husband writes to him a command to write the Get, the scribe may not write it. Based on the Tosefta, Rabeinu Tam maintains that even a person who is not a deaf mute may <i>not</i> write a command to give a Get because, as the Tosefta says, the scribe must <i>hear</i> the command spoken.
</p><p>
The Rosh explains that this is not a contradiction to the Mishnah here which permits giving a Get based on the nodding of the husband's head; the nodding of the head is a stronger form of command since he shows his will with physical expressions of his body. The Rosh also answers that the Mishnah is not a contradiction to the Tosefta since the Mishnah refers to one who is mute; in such a case the Rabanan were lenient to rely on the nodding of the husband's head so that the woman will not remain an Agunah. (The second answer must maintain that nodding one's head is not a stronger expression of one's desire than writing, and it must differentiate between a mute who writes his desire and a <i>deaf</i> mute who writes his desire, as the Rosh mentions earlier.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 120:5) quotes the opinion that a Get may not be given based on a man's written command. He then writes that there are those who maintain that one who is mute may give such a command in writing.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WRITING ONE'S TESTIMONY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that a witness must give testimony orally and may not write his testimony and send it to Beis Din. This is derived from the verse, 'Al Pi Shenayim Edim' -- 'By the mouth of two witnesses' (Devarim 17:6), which implies that the testimony must be expressed by the mouths of the witnesses.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> points out that use of documents (Shtaros) signed by witnesses is considered an acceptable form of proof and a way of creating transactions. Why are documents an acceptable form of testimony? The Gemara states that written testimony is not acceptable!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RASHI</b> answers that a document is different from normal testimony, because the document was signed at the time of the transaction and that is the normal way of effecting the transaction.
</p><p>
How does Rashi's answer resolve the question? After all, the verse still implies that the testimony of witnesses must be spoken and not written.
</p><p>
The <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RIM</b> (Teshuvos, YD 14) explains that Rashi understands that the reason why the Torah disqualifies written testimony is that it is not the normal way of testifying. This reasoning applies only to testimony in court at the time of the hearing; such testimony is given <i>after</i> the act took place. In contrast, a document which is signed at the time of the transaction for the sake of serving as a record and proof of the transaction is specifically done in writing for that very purpose: so that it should serve as proof for a long period of time. Since this is the normal way this type of proof is made, it is an acceptable form of testimony.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If two brothers were married to two 
               sisters, and both brothers or sisters (or all of 
               them) were Chereshim, and one brother died, his wife 
               is exempt from Chalitzah and Yibum.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the wives were unrelated, they may do Yibum. The 
               Yavam can later divorce the Yevamah if he wants to.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> This refutes Answer #2. We must rely on 
          Answer #1.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues with 
          Chachamim (the first Tana of his Beraisa. They say that 
          if a healthy man married and became deaf, he cannot 
          divorce even if he can write.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If she went insane, he may not 
          divorce her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he went deaf or insane, he may never divorce her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why does it say never?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It means, even if he can communicate 
               through writing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> Had R. Yochanan not taught 
          otherwise, one could have said that R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          explains the first Tana;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (to Question m:2):</font></b> The Mishnah says 
               'never' to include even if he is very sharp.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> 'Never' alludes to R. Yitzchak's law:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> Mid'Oraisa, one may divorce an 
                    insane woman, just like one may divorce a sane 
                    woman against her will;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Chachamim enacted that one may not divorce 
                    her, lest men freely have Bi'ah with her. (If 
                    he went deaf or insane, he may never divorce 
                    her, i.e. even mid'Oraisa.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE COMMAND TO WRITE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If two people asked a man if we should write a 
          Get for his wife and he said 'write it', and they 
          appointed a scribe to write it and witnesses to sign it, 
          even if they gave the Get to him and he gave it to his 
          wife, it is Pasul. He must personally tell the scribe to 
          write and the witnesses to sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> The Get is Pasul because he said only 
          'write.' Had he said 'write and give', it would be valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Meir, who says that Mili may be 
               transferred to another Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Seifa):</font></b> He must personally tell the scribe 
          to write and the witnesses to sign.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like R. Yosi, who says that Mili may not be 
               transferred to another Shali'ach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Indeed, the Reisha is like R. Meir and the 
          Seifa is like R. Yosi!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> The entire Mishnah is like R. Meir. 
          The case is, he did not say 'give'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say that it is Pasul because 
          he did not say 'give'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, the case is, he did not 
          command three people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, it should say that it is Pasul because 
          he did not command three people!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, the entire Mishnah is like R. 
          Yosi. The case is, he did not tell them to appoint a 
          scribe and witnesses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> If so, it should say that it is Pasul 
          because he did not tell them to appoint a scribe and 
          witnesses!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE HUSBAND'S COMMAND TO WRITE THE GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a man told someone to write a Get, and that person told others to write and sign the Get, the Get is invalid until the husband directly tells the scribe and the witnesses to write and sign the Get.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> (EH 123:1) asks that the Mishnah says that both the writing and the signing of the Get must be done as a result of the command of the husband. This does not seem to be compatible with any existing opinion. According to Rebbi Meir, who maintains that the witnesses who sign the Get make the Get valid ('Edei Chasimah Kartei'), it is enough to appoint the witnesses; there is no need to have the Get written as a result of the husband's command (because the requirement of 'v'Kasav' refers to the signatures and not to the document). According to Rebbi Elazar, who maintains that the witnesses who see the giving of the Get are the ones who make it valid ('Edei Mesirah Kartei'), it is enough to write the Get as a result of the husband's command; it is not necessary for the witnesses to sign the Get as a result of his command. Why does the Mishnah require that the writing <i>and</i> signing of the Get be done only as a result of the husband's command?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>BEIS SHMUEL</b> answers that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (21b) who requires the husband's command for both the writing and the signing of the Get.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps another answer may be suggested based on the view of the <b>RIF</b> and <b>RAMBAM</b> who maintain that Rebbi Elazar agrees that when there are signatures on the Get, it is not necessary to have witnesses at the time of the delivery of the Get. In such a case, Rebbi Elazar agrees that both the writing and the signing of the Get must be done as a result of the husband's command.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE COMMAND TO WRITE A GET (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> R. Yosi does not agree that Mili may be 
          transferred when he tells the Shali'ach to appoint 
          another Shali'ach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a scribe wrote a Get and one witness 
               signed it, it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> The text of the Mishnah says that the 
               scribe (also) signed the Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who says 
               that Mili may not be transferred to another 
               Shali'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Summation of question):</font></b> If R. Yosi agreed that Mili 
               can be transferred when the Shali'ach was told to do 
               so, disaster could result!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If a man asked two Sheluchim to ask Reuven (a 
                    scribe) to write a Get, and to ask David and 
                    Moshe to be witnesses and sign it, the 
                    Sheluchim might be concerned for Reuven's 
                    disgrace. They might ask him to be one of the 
                    witnesses, even though the husband did not 
                    authorize this (and the Get will be Pasul)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Rather, the Reisha is R. Meir, and the Seifa 
          is like R. Yosi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The entire Mishnah is like R. Yosi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that not only when he did not 
               say 'give', but even when he said 'give', the Get is 
               Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is not only when he did not tell three people. 
               Rather, it is Pasul even when he told three;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This is not only when he did not say 'tell (a scribe 
               and witnesses)'. Rather, it is Pasul even when he 
               said 'tell'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If a scribe wrote a Get Lishmah and 
          witnesses signed it Lishmah, and they gave it to the 
          husband and he gave it to his wife, it is valid only if 
          the scribe and witnesses heard the husband's voice 
          command them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'They will hear (his voice)' shows that it is not 
               enough that he instructs Sheluchim to command them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'The husband's voice' teaches unlike Rav Kahana 
               (71a, who said that if a Cheresh can communicate by 
               writing, we write and give a Get to his wife).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET ON CONDITION THAT ONE DIES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If when Reuven gave his wife a Get, he said 
          'this Get will be valid if I die', 'this is your Get from 
          (after) this sickness' or 'this is your Get after my 
          death', the Get does nothing;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get from today if I die', or 
          'this is your Get from now if I die', the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get from now and after my 
          death', she gets the stringencies of being divorced and 
          still married. If she falls to Yibum, she does Chalitzah, 
          but not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get from today if I die from 
          this sickness', and he recovered enough to walk in the 
          market, then fell sick and died, we evaluate:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he died from the initial illness, the Get is 
               valid. If not, it is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> When he says 'if I die', it is Pasul. 
          We must say that this is like saying 'after I die.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Seifa):</font></b> If he said 'this is your Get from now 
          if I die', the Get is valid. This shows that 'if I die' 
          is not like saying 'after I die'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> 'If I die' has two connotations: from 
          now, or after death;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he prefaces it by saying 'from today', it means 
               from now. If not, it means after death.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES THE HALACHAH FOLLOW OUR MISHNAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this Get will be valid 
          if I die', the Get does nothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> If he died without children, the widow does 
          Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that the Get does nothing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It does nothing to permit her to marry a 
          stranger, but she is also forbidden to the Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Seifa says that she does Chalitzah. This 
          implies that in the Reisha, she may do Yibum!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Mishnah is like Chachamim; Rav Huna's law 
          is like R. Yosi, who says that the date on a document 
          proves when it takes effect (in our case, from when it 
          was given).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yosi, Chalitzah should not be 
          needed. She was divorced immediately, before he died!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Huna is unsure whether or not the 
               Halachah follows R. Yosi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The following episode shows that he was 
               sure!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rav Huna asked Rav Nachman to ask Rabah bar 
                    Avuha whether the Halachah follows R. Yosi or 
                    not.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabah bar Avuha (citing Rav):</font></b> The Halachah 
                    follows R. Yosi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> What is R. Yosi's 
                    reasoning?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Huna):</font></b> The date on a document 
                    proves when it takes effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, Rav Huna is unsure whether R. Yosi 
          said this even if the condition was not written in the 
          document, but was stated verbally.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) STIPULATING THAT THE GET TAKE EFFECT AFTER DEATH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when a man gives a Get to his wife and stipulates that the Get should take place when he dies, the Get is not valid (since a Get cannot take effect after the husband's death). The Gemara cites the opinion of Rebbi Yosi who says that in such a case the Get <i>does</i> take effect; since the date is written in the Get, the man's stipulation is interpreted to mean that at the time that the husband dies the Get will take effect <i>retroactively</i> from the time of the date written in the Get. <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Rav Huna) explains that Rebbi Yosi's logic (in a case of a person who gives a gift to take effect after his death) is that if the person's intention was to give the gift after his death, he would not have written the date in the document.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (17a) teaches that there is an enactment that every Get must have the date written in it. However, in order for the date written in the document to be proof that the man wants the transaction to take place from that date, he must have had the option <i>not</i> to write the date in the document. In the case of a Get, however, he <i>must</i> write the date. How, then, can the fact that the date is written in the Get be proof that he wants the Get to take effect from that date?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TORAS GITIN</b> answers that although the date must be written in the Get, if the man would have wanted the Get to take effect only after his death, he would have written in the Get the date as '<i>the time of his death</i>' (even though he would not be writing a specific date since he does not yet know when he will die, it suffices to write a time that can easily be verified). Since he did not write 'the time of his death' in the Get, but rather the actual date on which the Get was written, we must assume that he wanted it to take effect from the time it was written.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> answers that when Rashi writes that the proof that the man wants the Get to take effect from the time it was written is from the fact that he wrote the date, Rashi refers only to a case in which the man wrote that he wants it to take effect '<i>after he dies</i>.' The Mishnah, however, discusses a case in which the man wrote that the Get should take effect '<i>if</i> he dies.' Since the term 'if he dies' may be interpreted to mean that it should take effect retroactively (as Abaye here explains), Rebbi Yosi rules that the date written in the Get instructs us to interpret the term 'if he dies' to mean that the Get will take effect retroactively even though we do not have any other proof that this is his intention.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b> explains that Rashi's opinion earlier (17a) is that it is enough to write the year in which the Get was written in order to satisfy the rabbinic requirement for writing the date in the Get. Since the man specified the actual date when he did not need to do so (since the year would have sufficed), this is proof that he wanted the Get to take effect retroactively from that day.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Was Rav Huna really unsure about this?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this Get should take effect 
               if I do not return within 12 months', and he died 
               within 12 months, the Get is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim permitted her to get married 
               (without Chalitzah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> These Chachamim are the Beis Din that 
               permitted the oil of Nochrim. They hold like R. 
               Yosi, who says that the date on a document proves 
               when it takes effect. (Surely, Rav Huna agrees!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, Rav Huna was unsure whether or not the 
          Halachah follows R. Yosi regarding a verbal condition.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is this really so?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get if I die', or 
               'for I will die', the Get is valid;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he said 'when I will die' or 'after my 
                    death', it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </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> He said 'from today', and it is 
                    like Chachamim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> The Mishnah already teaches that if 
                    he said 'from today if I die', the Get is 
                    valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, he didn't say 'from today', and it 
               is like R. Yosi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> This shows that the Halachah follows R. Yosi even 
               regarding verbal conditions!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rava was sure, but Rav Huna was unsure.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, Rava discusses according to Chachamim, 
          when he said 'from today.' He came to teach about two 
          expressions that are not taught in the Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'For I will die' is like 'if I die';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'When I will die' is like 'after I die.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get after 
          my death', the Get does nothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> According to R. Yosi, if he died without 
          children, the widow does Chalitzah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the Seifa, when he said 'from today and after I 
               die', Chachamim say that she does Chalitzah. Since 
               R. Yosi holds that the date on a document proves 
               when it takes effect, saying 'after my death' is 
               like saying 'from today and after my death', so she 
               will also require Chalitzah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that R. Yosi holds like 
          Rebbi, who says that the Get is valid and Chalitzah is 
          not needed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna teaches that this is not so. Rebbi does not 
               hold like R. Yosi, nor does R. Yosi hold like Rebbi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To what teaching of Rebbi do we refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get from 
               today and after I die', she gets the stringencies of 
               being divorced and still married. If she falls to 
               Yibum, she does Chalitzah, not Yibum;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rebbi says, such a Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To which teaching of R. Yosi do we refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'write and give a Get 
               to my wife if I do not return within 12 months', if 
               they wrote the Get within 12 months and gave it 
               after 12 months, the Get is Pasul;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, it is valid.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE GET OF A SHECHIV MERA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get from today if I 
          die from this sickness', and was Omed (recovered) and 
          walked in the market...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> The Get of a Shechiv Mera (a sick person who 
          fears lest he die) is like a gift he gives. Just like he 
          can retract a gift if he recovers (he gave it only 
          because he expected to die), he can retract his Get (for 
          the same reason).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also, if he said to write a Get, we give it, even 
               though he didn't say 'give'. Also regarding a gift, 
               if suffices if he said 'write', even though 
               witnesses didn't acquire on behalf of the recipient.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get from today if I 
          die from this sickness', and was Omed and walked in the 
          market, then fell sick and died, we evaluate:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he died from the initial illness, the Get is 
               valid. If not, it is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If he can retract, why must we evaluate 
               the cause of death?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rav Huna says that if he gets better, he 
                    retracts. He got better!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> (Mar brei d'Rav Yosef): The case is, he 
               contracted a new sickness just when he was cured of 
               the first sickness.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that he was Omed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He recovered from one sickness and caught 
               another sickness.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that he walked in the 
               market!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He walked with help of a staff. It teaches 
               that only if he walked on his staff we must 
               estimate. If not, we assume that he died from the 
               first illness.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE GET OF A DEATHLY ILL PERSON WHO RECOVERS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Huna says that the Get of a deathly ill person is like his gift. Just as he can retract his gift if he recovers from his illness, so, too, he can retract the Get. Rabah and Rava disagree with Rav Huna.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that Rav Huna refers even to a case in which the man did not specify that he was giving the Get only on the condition that he will die from the illness. We assess the situation and assume that his intent was to give the Get only on the condition that he die as a result of the illness. The <b>RAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> infer from Rashi later (73a, DH Lo) that if the man stated a condition that the Get take effect if he dies, everyone agrees that the Get is annulled if he recovers. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who understands that if the man does not mention that he is giving the Get 'if he will die,' everyone agrees that he cannot retract the Get even if he recovers from his illness. He explains that Rav Huna refers to a case in which the man said that the Get that he wrote should take effect '<i>from today</i> if I will die.' Rav Huna maintains that in such a case, if he recovers (to the extent that he can walk out in the marketplace) the Get is nullified even if he eventually dies from the same illness. Rabah and Rava disagree and maintain that since he eventually died from the same illness, the Get takes effect.
</p><p>
The Rishonim (<b>RAMBAN</b> and others) challenge Rashi's explanation. The Gemara questions the view of Rav Huna from the Mishnah which states that if the man writes that the Get should take effect 'from today' if he dies from his illness, and then he recovers and walks outside, and then he becomes sick again and dies, we evaluate the situation: if he died from the original illness, the Get takes effect; if he did not die from the original illness, the Get does not take effect. According to Rashi, however, Rav Huna refers to a case in which the man made <i>no</i> condition, and in that case Rabah disagrees with Rav Huna. In the case of the Mishnah, in which the man made a condition, Rabah does not disagree with Rav Huna! Why, then, according to Rashi, does the Gemara ask from the Mishnah only on Rav Huna and not on Rabah and Rava as well?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that the basic dispute between Rav Huna and Rabah is whether we may interpret a man's words by his implied intention even though he did not articulate his intention explicitly in those words. This is relevant both in a case in which he does not mention the condition at all (which is the case Rav Huna discusses) and in a case in which he said that the Get should take place if he dies but did not specify that it should not take effect if he recovers and then dies (which is the case of the Mishnah). Therefore, even though the law in the Mishnah is a different case, it still depends on the logic of Rav Huna and Rabah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> answers that the Gemara disagrees with Rav Huna even in a case in which the man made an explicit condition. When Rashi writes that <i>everyone</i> agrees that he may nullify the Get when he made a condition, Rashi means only that Rabah and Rava agree with Rav Huna in such a case, since they disagree with Rav Huna only because of a Gezeirah that people will say that a Get can take effect after death. That Gezeirah, however, applies only in a case where the Get was given without any conditions.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACTIONS OF A SHECHIV MERA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This implies that if a Shechiv Mera who went 
          from one illness to another (and died) gave a gift, it is 
          valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> If a Shechiv Mera went from one illness 
               to another (and died), if he gave a gift, it is 
               valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah and Rava):</font></b> If a Shechiv Mera gave a Get, he cannot 
          retract if he recovers. This is a decree, lest people 
          think that a Get can work after the husband dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Can it be that (if he retracts, mid'Oraisa the 
          retraction is valid, so) the Get is Pasul, and Chachamim 
          decree that she is considered divorced?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! Everyone who is Mekadesh a woman intends 
          that the Kidushin be like Chachamim say. Chachamim make 
          such a Get to work by saying that the Kidushin was void 
          retroactively.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXCEPTIONAL ONSIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get from today if I 
          die from this sickness', and the house caved in on him or 
          he was bitten by a snake, the Get is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said '...if I do not recover from this 
               sickness' and the house caved in on him or he was 
               bitten by a snake, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the law different in the Seifa?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael):</font></b> We did not learn 
          (that the Get is valid) when a lion ate him. (The Seifa 
          is mistaken.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Reuven sold land to Shimon, and 
          accepted Acharayus (responsibility) to compensate him for 
          any Ones (an unavoidable loss of the land). A river was 
          rerouted through the land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ravina:</font></b> He accepted Acharayus for any Ones!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Acha bar Tachlifa and Rava:</font></b> This is an exceptional 
          Ones. (He did not accept Acharayus for such an Ones.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina - Beraisa):</font></b> If he said '...if I do not 
          recover from this sickness' and the house caved in on 
          him, or he was bitten by a snake, the Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rava):</font></b> The Reisha of that Beraisa 
               says that the Get is Pasul!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti):</font></b> Granted, there is 
                    a contradiction within the Beraisa. Does this 
                    mean that one cannot ask from it?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Yes! Since there is a mistake 
                    in the Beraisa, we cannot rely on it. We rely 
                    on reasoning (he did not accept such an Ones).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua hired sailors 
          to transport some sesame. The workers accepted Acharayus 
          for any Ones. The river was dammed up. They asked the 
          sailors to pay for donkeys to take the sesame.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> The sailors are exempt. This is an exceptional 
          Ones.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO WAS SECLUDED WITH HIS CONDITIONALLY DIVORCED WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (If a Get was given 'from today if I die',) 
          the husband and wife may not be secluded together;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It suffices to have anyone with them, even a slave, 
               except for her Shifchah, for she feels no shame in 
               front of her Shifchah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is her status in the interim?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A MAN AND WOMAN WHO WERE DIVORCED AND THEN SECLUDED THEMSELVES TOGETHER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa which teaches that when a man divorces his wife and then is found living together with her, 'we are afraid that Z'nus occurred, and we are not afraid that Kidushin occurred.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> asks what problem would be created through Z'nus for which the Beraisa must say that 'we are <i>afraid</i> that Z'nus occurred'? With regard to marrying a Kohen, her act of Z'nus will not prohibit her to a Kohen because she is already prohibited to marry a Kohen because of her status as a Gerushah, a divorcee. With regard to eating Terumah if she is the daughter of a Kohen, Z'nus will not prohibit her from eating Terumah because the daughter of a Kohen becomes prohibited from eating Terumah only if she had forbidden relations (such as with a Mamzer), but here she had relations with a single man who was not prohibited to her.
</p><p>
Rashi answers that when the Beraisa says that we suspect Z'nus, it does not mean that a problem was created because of the Z'nus. Rather, it means that we suspect that there was Z'nus and <i>not</i> that Kidushin took place (see <b>RASHASH</b>).
</p><p>
If Rashi maintains that a woman can become a Zonah only through forbidden relations, why does he need to explain that Z'nus does not prohibit her to a Kohen because she is a Gerushah? He should explain that Z'nus cannot prohibit her to a Kohen because this act is not an act that is forbidden and thus it does not render her a Zonah. 
</p><p>
Moreover, why does Rashi insist that a woman becomes a Zonah only through forbidden relations? The Gemara in a number of places mentions the opinion of Rebbi Elazar (Yevamos 63b) that even when an unmarried man has relations with an unmarried woman ('Panuy ha'Ba Al ha'Penuyah she'Lo l'Shem Ishus'), he renders her a Zonah. (<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> suggests that one question answers the other. Rashi follows the view of <b>TOSFOS</b> in Yevamos (69a, DH Lo) who explains that even Rebbi Elazar considers a 'Panuy ha'Ba Al ha'Penuyah' to be a Zonah only with regard to her ability to marry a Kohen afterwards, but not with regard to her ability to eat Terumah; she is still permitted to eat Terumah. Therefore, Rashi must explain that she is already prohibited to marry a Kohen because she is a Gerushah, for otherwise the Beraisa might mean that she is a Zonah because of her act of Bi'ah with a Panuy. However, with regard to eating Terumah, Bi'as Penuyah cannot make her a Zonah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) GIVING A GET BASED ON 'BEREIRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah earlier (72a) teaches that if a man divorces his wife with the condition that the Get should take effect from today, retroactively, if he dies as a result of his present illness, the Get takes effect retroactively if he dies due to that illness. The next Mishnah (73a) continues and says that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi disagree about the status of the woman before the husband dies. Rebbi Yehudah says that she has the status of a full-fledged Eshes Ish until the husband dies, and Rebbi Yosi says that she is 'divorced and not divorced.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH k'Eshes Ish, and DH u'Meshani) explains that the second Mishnah refers to a different situation than the first Mishnah. In the case of the second Mishnah, the husband did not stipulate that the Get should take effect retroactively from the moment that it was given, but rather that it should take effect retroactively from the moment before the man dies. Rebbi Yehudah maintains 'Yesh Bereirah' -- that such a condition is valid even though the man did not know whether, or when, he would die; the condition is still valid and the Get can take effect retroactively based on future circumstances. Rebbi Yosi, on the other hand, maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' and since at the time the Get was given it was unknown whether the husband would die the next minute, the Get will take effect out of doubt from that moment onward. Although the man did not die afterwards, we cannot conclude that the Get certainly did not take effect at the present moment based on a future event (the fact that the man did not die), because 'Ein Bereirah.'
</p><p>
A Beraisa adds that even according to Rebbi Yosi, the Get is a Safek Get only if the man actually dies due to his illness. If he recovers from the illness, even Rebbi Yosi agrees that the Get does not take effect at all.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Tana) and the other Rishonim ask a number of strong questions on Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
1. <b>RASHI</b> teaches that those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah' will rule that when a Get is made conditional upon a future event, the Get takes effect out of doubt and the woman is considered to be Safek Megureshes, doubtfully divorced. This seems illogical, though; according to the opinion that maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' the woman should not be divorced at all! Since it is impossible to know at the time the Get was given whether or not it will take effect, the law should be that it does <i>not</i> take effect, as the Gemara implies in Eruvin (37b). The Gemara there teaches that according to the opinion that 'Ein Bereirah,' if a person places an Eruv Techumin 2,000 Amos away from his house and says, 'Any Shabbos during which I decide to use the Eruv, I want this to be an Eruv Techumin retroactively from the beginning of that Shabbos,' the Eruv is not valid. If 'Ein Bereirah' means that we are unsure whether or not the Kinyan took effect, as Rashi here explains, then the Gemara there should teach that if the person decides, on Shabbos, that he wants the Eruv to be his Eruv, it should be a <i>Safek</i> Eruv (and, consequently, he should not be permitted to walk in the opposite direction of the Eruv, or past the point of the Eruv).
</p><p>
2. If Rebbi Yosi maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' even if the husband recovers from the illness the Get should still be a Safek Get because at the time the Get was given it was impossible to know whether or not he would recover. Why, then, does the Beraisa teach that if he recovers, everyone agrees that it is not a Get?
</p><p>
3. Rebbi Yosi does not argue with the Tana in the earlier Mishnah, in the case of a man who divorces his wife on condition that the Get will take effect retroactively from the day that the Get was given ('meha'Yom...'). He discusses only the case of the second Mishnah, in which one divorces his wife retroactively from the moment immediately before his death. If Rebbi Yosi maintains 'Ein Bereirah' as Rashi asserts, the Get should not take effect even if he says 'from today,' because the Gemara (25b) says explicitly that in the case of 'meha'Yom Im Mesi' the Get is valid only because of Bereirah! (See <b>RASHI</b> there, DH Mah Hi, and DH ul'Chi Mayis.)
</p><p>
4. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Tana) explains Rebbi Yosi's Safek differently. Rebbi Yosi maintains '<i>Yesh</i> Bereirah.' However, Rebbi Yosi is uncertain whether the words 'me'Es she'Ani ba'Olam' ('from the time that I am still alive') mean that the Get should take effect retroactively from the time that it was given or retroactively from a moment before the husband's death. Therefore, during the period between when it was given and when the husband dies, the woman is Safek Megureshes.
</p><p>
Rashi himself (74a, DH Be'ilasah Teluyah) agrees that there is a Tana who maintains that 'from the time that I am still alive' refers to the time when the Get was given. Why, then, does Rashi not explain here like Tosfos, that Rebbi Yosi is uncertain whether that Tana is correct or whether Rebbi Yehudah is correct, and <i>that</i> is the cause of his Safek? (<b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> suggests a different reading of Rashi which answers all of the questions. When Rashi writes that according to Rebbi Yosi the Get takes effect mi'Safek, out of doubt, because of 'Ein Bereirah,' he does not refer to the normal situation of Bereirah which the Gemara discusses earlier (25b) and in other places. Rebbi Yosi maintains that Bereirah, in the normal sense, <i>does</i> work ('Yesh Bereirah'). Rather, Rashi means that if the woman has relations with another man before her husband dies, she must bring a Korban Asham Taluy (and not just a Korban Chatas which is brought for a definite transgression, and which is less expensive than an Asham Taluy), like a person who did a Safek Aveirah, an act that might have been an Aveirah, even if her husband ends up dying later (not at the next moment) and retroactively she was not divorced.
</p><p>
He explains that Rebbi Yosi's logic is that if a person eats a piece of fat, the status of which is in doubt, and he does not know whether it was permitted fat or forbidden fat, and then -- before he brings a Korban Asham Taluy -- he discovers that it was actually forbidden fat, he is exempt from bringing an Asham Taluy (and he brings only a Korban Chatas), because the forbidden fat never had an opportunity to become permitted; it was unequivocally prohibited, and there was no possibility that it could have been permitted. However, when another man lives with this woman, at that moment it is possible that the act indeed will turn out to have been permitted, based on the future circumstances. For such an act, an Asham Taluy must be brought even though Bereirah reveals that the woman was <i>not</i> divorced at the time of the act, since -- at the time the act was done -- the act could have become permissible, retroactively.
</p><p>
(The Tosfos ha'Rosh might mean that the Torah deals more stringently with a Safek Aveirah than with a Vadai Aveirah; see <b>TALMIDEI RABEINU YONAH</b>, beginning of Berachos. Consequently, if the Aveirah can be viewed as a Safek, a Chatas does not suffice. Alternatively, the Tosfos ha'Rosh might mean that since the act is viewed as a Safek Aveirah, she must bring <i>both</i> a Chatas <i>and</i> an Asham Taluy, since it has elements of both a Safek Aveirah and a Vadai Aveirah. See <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>, DH Tana.)
</p><p>
This answers all of the questions on Rashi. Rashi is not discussing Bereirah at all, and therefore this Sugya does not contradict any of the Sugyos of Bereirah.
</p><p>
Why, though, does the woman not bring an Asham Taluy if the husband does not die from the illness? Even if he does not die, the possibility exists that he might die the next moment and therefore it should be a Safek Aveirah and not a Vadai Aveirah! The Tosfos ha'Rosh answers that if the husband does not die, the stipulation he made was not fulfilled and the Get does not take effect in the first place. Consequently, the Tenai can be ignored; it is as if he never gave a Get in the first place.
</p><p>
(b) If, however, Rashi's words are to be understood literally and he indeed refers to the normal case of Bereirah (see also Rashi to Chulin 14a, DH Osrin, who says that those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah' rule that the Kinyan takes effect mi'Safek), Rashi's approach seems to be as follows: Rashi understands that even if we rule 'Ein Bereirah,' the Kinyan still takes effect, but the details which were dependent upon the outcome of the future event remain in doubt. For example, when a person has two fruits of Tevel and says, 'If it rains tomorrow, the one on the left will be Terumah for the one on the right, but if it does not rain tomorrow, the one on the right will be Terumah for the one on the left,' according to Rashi one of the two fruits certainly becomes Terumah, but which one it is remains in doubt. According to the way most Rishonim understand 'Ein Bereirah,' neither fruit becomes Terumah because 'Ein Bereirah' dictates that a present status cannot take effect based on a future event. According to Rashi, however, one of the fruits is Terumah, but exactly <i>which</i> fruit is Terumah remains in doubt. The change of status is effected, but the details that depended on the future event remain in doubt even after the future event occurs.
</p><p>
Rashi understands that when one makes a Kinyan dependent on a future event, the Kinyan does not depend on what actually happens in the future (since the Kinyan must take place <i>now</i>). Rather, it depends on what is <i>destined -- at this point in time -- to happen in the future</i>. Even if it actually does rain tomorrow (in the example above), those who rule 'Ein Bereirah' maintain that the Kinyan does not take effect because it was impossible to know on the previous day, when the condition was stipulated, that <i>it was destined to rain the next day</i>. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Eruvin 37b, DH Ela, cites a similar ruling in the name of <b>MAHARI</b>. See <b>CHIDUSHEI REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> in Ma'arachah #4 to Eruvin 38a, DH v'Nir'eh d'Vein. See also Insights to Eruvin 37:1, Yevamos 67:1, Gitin 25:1, Zevachim 3:1, and Chulin 14:3.)
</p><p>
Why, in the case in Eruvin, does the Eruv <i>not</i> take effect when the person decides on Shabbos to use it? It should take effect mi'Safek! The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (19:1) quotes the <b>KESONES PASIM</b> who explains that even Rashi considers it a Safek only when the person makes a condition that leaves a number of different possibilities for how the Kinyan might take effect. For example, in the case of the Mishnah here, the Get could take effect at this moment or at the next moment, or at the next moment. Consequently, it takes effect mi'Safek from the first minute onward. In contrast, in the case of the Eruv, where the person makes only a single Eruv and says that either it will or will not take effect based on what he decides later on Shabbos, the Erev does <i>not</i> take effect mi'Safek.
</p><p>
Logically, however, the difference between these cases is difficult to reconcile. Perhaps the Kesones Pasim refers to the reasoning that the Gemara proposes that 'a person does not put himself into a situation of Safek' by making ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in more than one way (see Nedarim 61a and Background there, #4), which means that a person would not accept an obligation in the first place if he knew that doing so would create a questionable, Safek obligation. Because of this principle, if a person makes an Eruv conditional on his decision to use it during Shabbos, according to the view that 'Ein Bereirah' we may assume that he did not intend that the Eruv take effect at all in order to avoid having a Safek Eruv.
</p><p>
However, if a person separates Terumah and leaves it up to Bereirah to determine which of the fruits will be Terumah and which will be Chulin, if the Terumah takes effect on one of the fruits it is not a Safek Terumah but a Vadai Terumah, and the fruit may be eaten by a Kohen. Since the separating of the Terumah accomplishes the goal of the person who separated it (by removing the Isur of Tevel from the fruit), the person who separated the Terumah is not bothered by the fact that he does not know exactly which fruit is Terumah. It is still better than having Tevel. The same applies when a person divorces his wife in order to exempt her from Chalitzah in such a way that there is a doubt about the moment at which the divorces takes effect.
</p><p>
(According to this understanding, even if a person makes an Eruv Techumin in both the east and the west and he leaves it up to Bereirah to determine which Eruv will take effect, even though there are two different possibilities for where the Eruv will take effect we do not say that the Eruv takes effect mi'Safek. If it were to take effect mi'Safek, it would not accomplish anything for the one who made it, other than limiting (as a result of the doubt) the distance that he was already permitted to travel.)
</p><p>
An important question on the approach of the Kesones Pasim is that he assumes that in the Mishnah here, the man certainly wanted the Get to take effect but left up to Bereirah the moment at which it would take effect. However, from the Gemara that says 'u'Vilvad she'Yamus' (as long as he dies) and from Rashi here (beginning of 73b) who mentions that 'me'Es she'Ani ba'Olam <i>Im Mesi</i>,' it appears that the man did not give the Get with intention that it definitely take effect, but he left open the possibility that if he recovers from the illness the Get will not take effect at all. Accordingly, the case of the Gemara here should be similar to the case in Eruvin, where the possibilities are that the Eruv will either take effect or will not take effect and we rule that it does not take effect even mi'Safek!
</p><p>
Perhaps the question of Tosfos may be answered as follows. According to Rashi, when the Beraisa in Eruvin says that according to the Chachamim (who maintain 'Ein Bereirah') the Eruv is not valid, it means only that the Eruv is not a <i>Vadai</i> Eruv. It is, however, a <i>Safek</i> Eruv, just as the Get in the case of the Gemara here is a Safek Get according to those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah.'
</p><p>
How will Rashi answer the third question -- why does Rebbi Yosi not argue with the Tana Kama with regard to the Halachah of 'meha'Yom Im Mesi'? Even if, as the Kesones Pasim suggested, he does not rule that the Get takes effect <i>mi'Safek</i> in that case (since the Get has only one time at which it can take effect, and not a number of different possibilities), he should argue with the Tana of the Mishnah and rule that the Get does not take effect <i>at all</i>! 
</p><p>
The answer to this question seems to be that according to Rashi here, any Tenai which contains only two possibilities (i.e. the Kinyan either <i>will</i> or <i>will not</i> take effect) is <i>not</i> dependent on Bereirah. Bereirah means that we are unsure <i>how</i> the Kinyan will take effect; for example, will the Terumah take effect on this fruit or on another, will the Get take effect at this time or at another? That is why Rebbi Yosi, who maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' argues only with Rebbi Yehudah in the case of the Seifa; we are unsure <i>when</i> the Get takes effect -- it may take effect on any one of the days between the day it was originally given and the day the husband actually dies. In the Reisha, however, Rebbi Yosi agrees that the Get is valid if the husband dies. Since the Get must take effect at the time it was given or not at all, the rule of 'Ein Bereirah' is not invoked and the Tenai is valid.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (25b, DH ul'Chi) indeed mentions this logical distinction between a Tenai with two possibilities and Bereirah, but he rejects it (based on the Sugya on 25b). However, the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>ME'IRI</b> (ibid.) do make this distinction, and perhaps Rashi here does as well.
</p><p>
How is this approach consistent with the Beraisa in Eruvin, in which the Chachamim argue with Rebbi Shimon in the case of a person who gives himself the option to choose, in the middle of Shabbos, whether the Eruv Techumim he designated before Shabbos <i>is</i> valid or <i>is not</i> valid? Since the question in that case involves only two possibilities, it should not depend on Bereirah! The answer is that Eruv Techumim differs from other Kinyanim (such as the giving of a Get). The 'Kinyan' of the Eruv is not the simple function it performs by giving its owner permission to walk another 2,000 Amos. The Eruv accomplishes a 'Kinyan Shevisah' -- it 'acquires' for its owner a 'place of residence' from which he may walk 2,000 Amos in any direction on Shabbos. If there is <i>no</i> Eruv Techumim, the owner <i>still</i> acquires a Kinyan Shevisah, a 'place of residence.' His Kinyan Shevisah is the place in which he finds himself when Bein ha'Shemashos arrives. According to this perspective, it is evident that the rules of Bereirah <i>should</i> apply to Eruv Techumim since the point in question is whether the Shevisah is <i>here</i> (in his house) or <i>there</i> (where the Eruv Techumim is resting).
</p><p>
However, the Gemara earlier (25b) clearly concludes that even a simple condition with two possibilities ('yes' or 'no') <i>is</i> considered Bereirah (see Rashi and Tosfos there, DH ul'Chi Mayis). (See how the Ramban there answers this question, cited in Insights to Gitin 25:2:b. The Me'iri suggests that the Sugya there does not mean what it says.) The answer is that according to Rashi, the view of the Gemara there is <i>not</i> unanimous. Rashi understands that the Gemara here disagrees with the Gemara there about this point. 
</p><p>
How, though, does the Gemara there (25b) explain the words of the Mishnah here? Why, according to the Gemara there, does Rebbi Yosi disagree only with the Seifa of the Mishnah and not with the Reisha ('this shall be a get <i>from now</i> if I die from this illness')?
</p><p>
Rashi there (25b, DH Mah Hi; see Tosfos DH ul'Chi) answers this question by suggesting that the Gemara there understands the Mishnah of 'Mah Hi b'Osan ha'Yamim' differently from the way the Gemara here understands it. The Gemara there apparently was not aware of the Beraisa which says that the dispute between Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Yehudah applies to a situation in which the husband indeed died from his illness. Instead, the Gemara understands that the dispute applies to a situation in which the husband <i>is still alive</i> and it is still unknown whether he will die or recover. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the rules of Chazakah allow us to treat his wife as a full-fledged Eshes Ish. Rebbi Yosi argues that she is viewed as one who is Safek-married and Safek-divorced (since an action was done to effect divorce; see Insights to Gitin 28:2:a). Consequently, both Rebbi Yehudah <i>and</i> Rebbi Yosi rule 'Yesh Bereirah,' according to the way the Gemara there understands the Mishnah here. The Gemara here, on the other hand, understands the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yosi differently (based on the Beraisa which insists that the husband <i>already</i> died).
</p><p>
How does Rashi answer the second question, why is the Get not a Safek Get if the man recovers (according to Rebbi Yosi)? Since Rebbi Yosi maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' the status of the Get should remain in doubt regardless of what happens in the future. The answer to this question seems to be that according to Rashi here and Rashi earlier (26a, DH Lo Ratzah), the ruling of 'Ein Bereirah' creates a Safek with regard to the Kinyan only if the condition is <i>fulfilled</i>. If the condition is <i>not</i> fulfilled, even if the Halachah is 'Ein Bereirah' the Kinyan is certainly not valid and there is no doubt that the Kinyan might have taken effect. The reason for this seems to be that the Torah teaches that a Tenai stipulated in a Kinyan has the ability to annul a Kinyan retroactively. Therefore, at the time that the condition is not fulfilled, any Safek Kinyan is retroactively removed from that point on. Since the circumstance which caused the stipulation not to be fulfilled has already occurred, Bereirah does not have to be invoked in order to positively remove the Kinyan. 
</p><p>
This also explains why a Tenai that the person is able to fulfill and intends to fulfill is not considered Bereirah (Rashi 25b, DH ul'Chi Mayis). Since the person intends to fulfill the Tenai, we assume that he wants the Kinyan to take place for certain. There is no doubt about whether or not he wanted the Kinyan to take place, and therefore Bereirah is not necessary. Later, when he does not fulfill the condition, the Tenai can retroactively revoke the Kinyan. 
</p><p>
(According to the approach in the previous few paragraphs, this is even more clear; the Sugya here maintains that a Tenai can bind a Kinyan to a future event, as long as it is only making or breaking the Kinyan.)
</p><p>
The reason why Rashi does not explain like Tosfos and say that Rebbi Yosi is not sure whether 'me'Es she'Ani ba'Olam' means the moment before his death or the present moment (when he makes that statement) is the Beraisa which teaches that Rebbi Yosi considers a Get to be a Safek Get only if the husband dies. According to Tosfos, the Beraisa should not need to teach this Halachah, for it is obvious that if the husband does not die the Tenai was not fulfilled, and thus there is no way for the Get to take effect either 'meha'Yom' (from the day he makes his condition) or from the moment before he dies. Tosfos maintains that Rebbi Yosi rules '<i>Yesh</i> Bereirah,' and thus the Get can <i>only</i> take effect if the husband dies, for his death clarifies that the Get was indeed a valid Get! (See <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> who is bothered by this question.) 
</p><p>
Rashi therefore explains that Rebbi Yosi maintains 'Ein Bereirah,' and thus the Beraisa teaches an important Chidush. It shows that even those who maintain 'Ein Bereirah' agree that the Get will not be a Safek Get if the husband remains alive, for the reason explained above -- that a Tenai can retroactively remove a Kinyan. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> She is fully divorced;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yosi):</font></b> She has the stringencies of being 
          divorced and not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses saw that they were 
          together in the dark, or that she slept with him below 
          the foot of the bed, we are not concerned for another 
          matter (this will be explained). We are concerned for 
          Zenus (extramarital relations). We are not concerned for 
          (Bi'ah with intent for) Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, we are concerned even for 
          Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does the Beraisa mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If witnesses saw that they had 
          Bi'ah, we are concerned for Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he gave her money (after Bi'ah), we are concerned 
               for harlotry. The money was her hire. We are not 
               concerned for Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, even in this case we 
               are concerned for Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav Nachman, like which Tana'im in 
          our Beraisa is Rabah's teaching?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> If witnesses did not see 
               Bi'ah, Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that 
               another Get is not needed. Beis Hillel require 
               another Get only when witnesses saw that they had 
               Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> His teaching is like Chachamim and like R. Yosi 
          b'Rebbi Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> The Beraisa does not mention money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa means that if 
          witnesses saw that they had Bi'ah, we are concerned for 
          Zenus. We are not concerned for Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, we are even concerned 
               for Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Abaye, like whom is Rabah's 
          teaching?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> If so, why does the Beraisa say that we 
          are concerned even for Kidushin? (It is the only concern. 
          Harlotry does not create any additional Isurim!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, 
          even if witnesses did not see Bi'ah, we are concerned for 
          Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rava, like whom is Rabah's 
          teaching?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is not like either Tana.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CONDITIONAL GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah) Question:</font></b> What is her status in the interim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> She is fully divorced;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yosi):</font></b> She has the stringencies of being 
          divorced and not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> This applies only if he dies (from the 
          sickness).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When he dies, why does the Get help? A Get 
          cannot take effect after death!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> The case is, he said '(the Get should 
          take effect) at the last moment I am in the world' 
          (Rashi; Tosfos - it is as if he said this).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> In the interim, her husband has 
          the following privileges: he receives Hefker objects that 
          she finds and her earnings; he can annul her vows; (if 
          she would die) he inherits her and (if he is a Kohen) 
          becomes Tamei to engage in her burial.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The rule is, she is like his wife in every respect, 
               just she does not need another Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, if she has Bi'ah with another man, 
          liability for this is contingent (not yet determined).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, if she has Bi'ah with another man, it is a 
          Safek whether they are liable for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, she has the stringencies of being divorced 
          and not divorced, provided that he (eventually) dies from 
          the sickness.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do R. Meir and R. Yosi disagree about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Meir holds that they bring a 
          Korban Asham Taluy (for one who is unsure whether or not 
          he sinned) for Bi'ah. R. Yosi exempts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Chachamim and R. Yosi do not disagree!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They disagree about R. Zeira's law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Zeira):</font></b> Whenever Rabanan said 'she is divorced 
               and not divorced', he is obligated to feed her. 
               (Chachamim obligate him; R. Yosi does not.)
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CONDITIONAL GET (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you give me 200 Zuz', she is divorced, and she 
          gives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said ' on condition that you give me within 30 
               days', she is only divorced if she gave within 30 
               days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> A case occurred in Tzidon in 
               which a man gave a Get on condition that she return 
               his garment. She lost the garment. Chachamim ruled 
               that it suffices that she return its value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says 'and she gives.' What 
          does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> (She is divorced immediately), 
          provided that she eventually gives;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> She is divorced when she gives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What difference does it make when the divorce 
          takes effect?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If the Get was torn or lost in between, according 
          to Rav Huna, the Get works. According to Rav Yehudah, she 
          needs another Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argued similarly about Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If David said 'you are Mekudeshes to me 
               on condition that I give you 200 Zuz', she is 
               Mekudeshes, and he gives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says 'and he gives.' What does 
               this mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> (She is Mekudeshes 
               immediately,) provided that he eventually gives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> She is Mekudeshes when he 
               gives.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What difference does it make when the 
               Kidushin takes effect?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> If Reuven was Mekadesh her in between, 
               according to Rav Huna, she is Mekudeshes to David. 
               He must merely fulfill his condition;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  According to Rav Yehudah, she is not Mekudeshes 
                    to David until he gives (so Reuven's Kidushin 
                    takes effect).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah needed to argue both about 
          divorce and Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had they argued only about Kidushin, one might have 
               thought that only there Rav Huna says that he is 
               Mekudeshes immediately, for he comes close to her. 
               In divorce he separates from her, so Rav Huna would 
               agree that she is not divorced until she gives the 
               money.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Had they argued only about divorce, one might 
                    have thought that only there Rav Huna says that 
                    she is divorced immediately, for he is not 
                    ashamed to ask her for the money. Regarding 
                    Kidushin, she is ashamed to ask him for the 
                    money, so Rav Huna would agree that she is not 
                    Mekudeshes until he gives the money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also, had they argued only about divorce, one might 
               have thought that only there Rav Yehudah says that 
               she is not divorced until she gives the money, for 
               he separates from her. In Kidushin, he comes close 
               to her, Rav Yehudah would agree that she is 
               Mekudeshes immediately;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Had they argued only about Kidushin, one might 
                    have thought that only there Rav Yehudah says 
                    that she is not Mekudeshes until he pays, for 
                    she is ashamed to ask him for the money. 
                    Regarding divorce, he is not ashamed to ask her 
                    for the money, so Rav Yehudah would agree that 
                    she is not divorced until she gives the money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Therefore, they needed to argue in both cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (against Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 
          'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 
          Zuz', even if the Get was torn or lost, she is divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She may not remarry until she pays.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (against Rav Yehudah - Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 
          'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 
          Zuz', and he died (without children), if she gave him, 
          she is (divorced and) exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah. If 
          not, she must do Yibum or Chalitzah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may give to his 
               father, brother or another relative (to exempt 
               herself from Yibum and Chalitzah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They argue only about whether or not 'to me' also 
               connotes 'or to my heirs', but all agree that she is 
               divorced immediately, on condition that she give the 
               money.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  These refute Rav Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Beraisos are like Rebbi. I hold 
          like Chachamim, who argue:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna citing Rebbi):</font></b> Saying 'on condition' is 
               like saying 'from now.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> In Bavel, we used to say that Chachamim argue 
          with Rebbi about 'on condition';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When I went to Eretz Yisrael, I heard R. Asi cite R. 
               Yochanan to say that all agree that saying 'on 
               condition' is like saying 'from now.' They argue 
               only about 'from today and after death.'
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A CONDITION WHICH IS BEYOND ONE'S ABILITY TO FULFILL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that if a man divorces his wife on condition that she give him back his coat, and the coat is lost, she may fulfill the condition by returning to him instead the value of the coat. The Gemara (74b) explains that the Chachamim disagree with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and rule that if the coat is lost, the Get cannot take effect.
</p><p>
It is evident from here that when a woman does not fulfill the condition which the man stipulated when he gave her the Get -- even if it is beyond her ability to fulfill it -- the Get does not take effect. This is also evident from the next Mishnah (75b) which teaches that when a man divorces his wife on condition that she nurse their son for two years, and the child dies within two years, the Chachamim rule that the Get is not valid. Similarly, the Gemara (end of 74b) implies that if a husband stipulates that a Get should take effect only if his wife pays him 200 Zuz, and when she comes to pay him he refuses to accept the money, if 'Nesinah Ba'al Korchah' (giving something to someone against his will) is not considered a 'Nesinah' the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
All of these sources contradict the Gemara in Kesuvos (3a) which says that according to some opinions, Rava rules 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin' -- if a man gives his wife a Get on condition that it should take effect only if he does not return within thirty days, and then he is prevented from returning due to circumstances beyond his control, the Get is not valid because he really wanted to return (and thereby annul the Get) but was unable to do so. If the Get is valid even though the condition was not actually fulfilled, why is the woman not divorced in the case of the lost coat? Since she wanted to return the coat but was unable to (because it was lost), the Get should take effect! (<b>RE'AH</b> in Shitah Mekubetzes to Kesuvos 2b; <b>RITVA</b> to Gitin 30a)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RE'AH</b> and <b>RITVA</b> answer that every condition has two sides: one side which will cause the Kinyan to take effect ('Kiyum' of the Tenai), and another side which will annul the Kinyan ('Bitul' of the Tenai). When Rava says that an Ones (circumstance beyond one's control) affects a Tenai that was made in a Get, he means that a <i>Kiyum</i> of a Tenai through Ones is not considered a Kiyum. For example, if a man stipulates that the Get will take effect if he is away for thirty days, being away for thirty days is a Kiyum of the Tenai since it causes the Get to take effect. If the husband is kept away for thirty days against his will, it is not considered a Kiyum of the Tenai and the Get does not take effect. 
</p><p>
In contrast, if the <i>Bitul</i> of the Tenai was done b'Ones, it remains a Bitul of the Tenai. That is why -- when the woman does not return the coat to her husband even though she was unable to return it -- the condition that makes the Get take effect has not been fulfilled and the Get is not valid. Similarly, if she does not pay him money because he refuses to take it, or she does not nurse his child because the child died, the Get is not valid since she has not fulfilled the Tenai. The logic behind this is obvious: an Ones only <i>takes away</i> a person's action; it does not <i>create</i> an action where there was none. Therefore, an Ones can remove the Kiyum of the Tenai to prevent the Get from taking effect, but if there was no Kiyum of the Tenai, even the Ones cannot create a Kiyum of the Tenai.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Kesuvos 1:2) shows that the opinion of the Re'ah is based on the Yerushalmi (Gitin 7:6). However, the <b>RAN</b> (Kidushin 56a) understands the Yerushalmi differently.
</p><p>
Based on the Ran's interpretation, the Kehilos Yakov suggests another answer to the contradiction between the Gemaras here and the Gemara in Kesuvos. The Ran understands that 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin' applies only to a Tenai which was made by the husband and which depended on his own actions. Since he does not want to be forced into a Kinyan, he certainly does not want the Kinyan to take effect if he is Mekayem or Mevatel the Tenai against his will, due to circumstances beyond his control. In the Mishnayos here, however, the husband made a condition that depended upon the actions of his <i>wife</i>. He wanted his wife to return his coat, or to give him money, or to nurse his child. He does not care whether his wife did not do these actions because she chose not to or because she was unable to do them. If she fails, for any reason, to do for him what he wants, he does not want the Get to take effect. Therefore, the rules of Ones will not affect the Get in these cases.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES FOR WHEN A CONDITIONAL GET OR KIDUSHIN TAKES EFFECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna with regard to whether a Get or Kidushin given with a condition with the words 'Al Menas' ('on condition that...') takes effect retroactively from the time the Get or Kidushin was given, or whether the Get or Kidushin takes effect only at the moment the Tenai is fulfilled.
</p><p>
In the case of a Get, the Gemara says that the practical difference between the two opinions is when the Get was destroyed before the Tenai was fulfilled. Rav Huna, who says that it takes effect retroactively, will rule that the Get is valid in such a case, while Rav Yehudah will rule that it is not valid. In the case of Kidushin, the Gemara says that the practical difference between the two opinions arises when the woman who received the conditional Kidushin accepted another Kidushin from a second man after she received the first Kidushin but before the Tenai was fulfilled. According to Rav Huna, who says that the first Kidushin takes effect retroactively when the condition is fulfilled, the second Kidushin is not valid at all. According to Rav Yehudah, the second Kidushin is valid and the first one is not.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara give two different examples of the practical difference between Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna, in the cases of Gerushin and Kidushin? In both Gerushin and Kidushin, either one of the practical differences seems to apply.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Gemara does not suggest that the practical difference in the case of Kidushin given with a condition is the case of a Shtar Kidushin which was destroyed, because that difference would apply only to Kidushin performed with a Shtar. Most acts of Kidushin, however, are performed with money (Kesef), and the Kinyan Kesef can take effect at a later date even if the original money is lost (Kidushin 59a). Why, though, does the Gemara not suggest that in the case of a Get given with a condition that the practical difference between the two opinions is where the woman who received the Get accepts Kidushin from another man before the condition in the Get is fulfilled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ika Beinaihu) writes that the Gemara indeed could have suggested this case as a practical difference for Gerushin as well.
</p><p>
Tosfos apparently understands that the loss of the Shtar is a more common occurrence in the case of a Get than a woman's acceptance of another Kidushin before the condition of the Get is fulfilled.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (60b, DH Ika) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> here explain that even according to Rav Yehudah, it is not clear that the Get takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled. Although he argues with Rav Huna who says that the Get or Kidushin takes effect retroactively, he does not rule out this possibility entirely. He considers the Get or the Kidushin to take effect mi'Safek, until the time that the condition is fulfilled. (See also Tosfos to 74b, DH ad'Miflegi.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, in the case of Kidushin, when the woman accepts a second Kidushin before the condition of the first is fulfilled, Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah indeed will argue. Rav Huna will say that the second Kidushin is definitely not valid, and the woman does not need a Get from the second man, while Rav Yehudah will require a Get out of doubt, mi'Safek. However, with regard to Gitin, both Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah will require the second man to give her a Get. Rav Huna will require a Get from the second man b'Vadai, since the Get took effect retroactively, while Rav Yehudah will require a Get from the second man only mi'Safek. Therefore, the Gemara does not suggest this as a practical difference with regard to Gitin. (This is the way the <b>MAHARSHA</b> in Kidushin explains Tosfos.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> seems to address the question in Kidushin (60b, DH Mai Beinaihu) where he writes that the reason the Gemara asks for the practical difference between the Amora'im with regard to Get is that there seems to be no difference between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah, since even Rav Huna agrees that the woman is not allowed to accept Kidushin l'Chatchilah until the condition of the Get is fulfilled (since she does not yet know that the Get is valid).
</p><p>
Rashi understands that 'Pashtah Yadah' in the Gemara does not mean that b'Di'eved the woman accepted Kidushin from a second man. Rather, it means that the woman is <i>permitted l'Chatchilah</i> to accept a second Kidushin. (The reason the Gemara says 'Pashtah Yadah' in the past tense (an implication that it is only b'Di'eved) might be to stress that according to Rav Huna, the second Kidushin is not valid even b'Di'eved.)
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara say with regard to Kidushin that accepting a second Kidushin <i>is</i> a practical difference between Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna? The answer is that according to Rav Yehudah there is no question that the first Kidushin has not yet taken effect, since the condition has not yet been fulfilled. Therefore, the woman is permitted to accept a second Kidushin l'Chatchilah. Rav Huna, in contrast, would not allow her to accept a second Kidushin because she might be married to the first man retroactively (if the condition is later fulfilled). 
</p><p>
(The <b>RASHASH</b> in fact asks why the Gemara gives the practical difference of a woman who accepted Kidushin, b'Di'eved, in the past tense, and not that she <i>may</i> accept Kidushin, implying l'Chatchilah. According to the approach mentioned here, the Gemara's intention indeed may be that that she may accept Kidushin l'Chatchilah.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one gave a Get 'from today and after 
               death', she is divorced and not divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi says, this is a (proper) Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rav Yehudah, they argue even about 
          'on condition.' The Beraisa should rather teach that 
          case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about 'from today and after death', to 
          show that Rebbi holds that it works even in that case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rather, they should argue about 'on condition', 
          to show that Chachamim say it does not work (immediately) 
          even there!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is better to teach the extremity of the 
          lenient opinion (Rebbi).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MUST A STIPULATION BE FULFILLED EXACTLY AS STATED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'on condition that you give me 
          within 30 days', she is divorced only if she gave within 
          30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that really, he is not 
          insistent that she pay within 30 days, and he said this 
          just to get her to pay quickly. The Mishnah teaches that 
          this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> A case occurred in 
          Tzidon...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The case does not illustrate a law of the 
          Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means as follows. 
          If he said to her 'on condition that you return my 
          garment', and she lost the garment, since he specifically 
          wanted the garment, she cannot fulfill the condition;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, it suffices that she 
               return its value;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon ben Gamliel:</font></b> A case occurred in Tzidon in 
               which a man gave a Get on condition that she return 
               his garment. She lost the garment, and Chachamim 
               ruled that it suffices that she return its value.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Asi):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on 
          condition that you give to me 200 Zuz', and then he 
          pardoned her from paying, what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We can ask according to Chachamim and according to 
               R. Shimon.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim said that she cannot fulfill the condition 
               with money only because he did not pardon her. Here, 
               he pardoned her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon said that she can give its value only 
               because she appeases him with the money. Here, she 
               did nothing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> She is not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If Reuven told Shimon 'my 
          property is forbidden to you (to benefit from) like a 
          Korban, unless you give to my son a Kor of wheat and two 
          barrels of wine', he is forbidden until he gives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, Reuven can permit this vow by 
               himself, by saying 'I consider it as if I received.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here is different, for he stipulated in order to 
          pain his wife, so the Get cannot work until she pays. 
          There, Reuven stipulated for his own benefit. He may 
          decide that he does not need it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which a man told his sharecropper 
          'other sharecroppers irrigate the grain three times a 
          year and receive a quarter of the yield. If you will 
          irrigate four times, I will give you a third.' Rain came, 
          and there was no need for the extra irrigation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> He did no extra work, so he receives only the 
          usual quarter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabah:</font></b> It was not needed (he did not detract from his 
          contract). He gets the full third.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Yosef holds like Chachamim, and Rabah 
          holds like R. Shimon. (Just like money helps in place of 
          the garment, rain is in place of irrigation.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> This cannot be. The Halachah follows Rabah, 
          and the Halachah in our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Conclusion:</font></b> Indeed, Rav Yosef holds like Chachamim. 
          However, Rabah (who surely could hold like R. Shimon) 
          could also hold like Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim said that money cannot replace the garment 
               only regarding divorce, for he intended to pain her. 
               Here, Reuven intends for his own profit. He does not 
               need the extra irrigation!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>GIVING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE RECEIVER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, one who bought a house in a walled 
          city would hide on the day which completed one year after 
          buying it (so the seller would be unable to redeem it, 
          and the buyer would be able to keep it forever);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hillel enacted that the seller may deposit the 
               redemption money in a chamber and forcibly enter the 
               house. The buyer can take his money when he wants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rava) Inference:</font></b> From Hillel's enactment, we 
          learn that if one says 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you give me 200 Zuz', the Get is valid only if he 
          willingly takes the money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hillel needed to enact that the seller can give the 
               money against the buyer's will. This implies that 
               without the enactment, giving against his will does 
               not work.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> Perhaps Hillel needed to enact for 
          when the buyer is not around, but when he is around, 
          whether or not he consents to accept the money, the 
          redemption works!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rava) Inference:</font></b> From Hillel's enactment, we 
          learn that if one says 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you give me 200 Zuz', the Get is valid whether or 
          not he takes the money willingly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Hillel needed to enact only for when the buyer is 
               not around. When he is around, whether or not he 
               consents to accept the money, the redemption works!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> Perhaps the Get is only valid when 
          he consents to accept the money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It sufficed for Hillel to enact that the money be 
               put in the chamber not in front of the buyer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> Whenever R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          appears in a Mishnah, the law is like him, except for 
          three places: the Mishnayos about a cosigner, the Get in 
          Tzidon (our Mishnah), and a party in a case who finds a 
          proof after the time he was allotted.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) BREAKING DOWN THE DOOR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Erchin (31b) which describes Hillel's enactment with regard to the law of buying back a house in a walled city. One who sells a house in a walled city may redeem his house from the buyer for up to one year after the sale (Vayikra 25:29-30). During that year, the buyer of the house must return the house to the seller should the seller offer to refund the money. If the seller does not redeem his house within the first year, the buyer may keep it and the seller loses it forever. At one point, it happened that the buyers of such houses would hide themselves near the end of the year so that the original owners would not be able to find them in order to redeem their houses. Hillel enacted that 'the money may be deposited in a certain office... and thereafter the original owner may break down the door and enter the house.' That is, Hillel enacted that the original owner could redeem his house against the will of the occupant.
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah there use such an odd statement of 'break down the door'? If the Mishnah had said, 'He may thereafter reclaim possession of his house, by force if necessary,' its intent would have been clear. What does the Mishnah mean to add by saying that he may 'break down the door,' and why is that part of Hillel's statement?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>ROGATCHOVER GA'ON</b> explains this enigmatic statement of the Mishnah as follows:
</p><p>
1. The Gemara later on this page cites a discussion about whether giving an object to a person against his will constitutes a valid act of 'giving.' For example, if a man says to his wife, 'I consent to divorce you, but only on condition that you give me 200 shekels,' and he subsequently refuses to accept the payment in order to invalidate the divorce, may she give the money to him against his will? Is this considered a valid fulfillment of the condition?
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> (75a) asserts that even if the Halachah is that payment by coercion is acceptable, it is acceptable only as an act of <i>giving</i>, but the other party will not <i>acquire</i> what was given. That is, a forced act of giving will help only when it is not necessary for the recipient to take acquisition of what has been given. Nobody can be forced to <i>receive</i> an object (to acquire it through a Kinyan) against his will, so the recipient (in this case, the divorcing husband) will not acquire the money that has been forced upon him. Nevertheless, it can be said that the woman has 'given' him the money and fulfilled the condition, since making something <i>available</i> for another person to take can also be called 'giving'. In the case of the divorce, the condition was for the woman 'to give' 200 shekels to the man. To fulfill this condition, it suffices for her to make the money <i>available</i> to her husband. Even though the money does not become the property of the husband (that is, he did not 'receive' it and it did not become his property), nevertheless, by making it available to him the woman has 'given' it to him.
</p><p>
Accordingly, after Hillel's enactment to pay the buyer of the house against his will (which the Gemara compares to the divorce case), the money is considered as having been 'given' by the original owner when he throws it into the specially appointed office, but the recipient (the one who bought the house) does not own that money as long as he does not wish to <i>receive</i> it.
</p><p>
2. Once we understand that the act of giving something against the recipient's will qualifies only as an act of giving on the part of the giver but not as an act of receiving on the part of the recipient, we must address another question. When the Torah says that the original owner of the house may redeem his house within the first year after the sale, how exactly does this redemption work? The redemption of a house in a walled city may be viewed in two different ways:
</p><p>
The first way is that the Torah enforces an implicit stipulation in the sale of a house in a walled city, that if the seller refunds the money the sale is annulled <i>retroactively</i>. Accordingly, the buyer's money which had been in the possession of the seller for several days or months is considered, in retrospect, a loan.
</p><p>
The second way to view the redemption of a house in a walled city is that the original sale is never annulled. Rather, the house is <i>repurchased</i> by the original owner when he returns the money to the buyer. The original sale was unconditionally valid, but the Torah imposes upon the buyer an obligation to make a <i>new</i> sale when the original owner returns to him the money within the first year.
</p><p>
The two sides of this debate are taken up by the <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> and the <b>NESIVOS HA'MISHPAT</b> (CM 55:1). The Nesivos assumes the first of the two alternatives, while the Ketzos prefers the second side of the argument. (The Gemara in Erchin (31a) lends strong support to the first interpretation, that no new 'repurchasing' has taken place. The Gemara there asserts that when the seller repays the purchaser and takes back his house, it is as if he had taken a one-year loan of money from the purchaser. The Gemara explains that had the Torah not specifically allowed it, it would have been forbidden for the purchaser to be given sole use of the house during that year, due to the prohibition of Ribis (interest), since he would have benefited from the seller's possessions in return for the loan that he gave. However, the <b>RASHBA</b> here (75a, DH Temiyah) clearly seems to favor the second approach, that the sale is final and that the seller 'buys' back his house upon giving its value to the purchaser. He infers this from the fact that the verse refers to the transaction as a 'sale': 'v'Chi <i>Yimkor</i>...' (Vayikra 25:29).)
</p><p>
The Rogatchover Ga'on follows this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. According to the second opinion quoted above (that of the Ketzos ha'Choshen), the original sale of the house is never annulled. Therefore, in order to receive his house back the original owner must (a) return the money that he received from the buyer and (b) make the house his property once again through a new, bona fide act of Kinyan.
</p><p>
Putting the money in the designated office against the will of the buyer may suffice for 'giving' back the money to the buyer (condition (a)), since giving forcefully is classified as 'giving.' However, based on the Rashba's premise, the money does not come into the possession of the purchaser of the house. Therefore, the payment cannot constitute a proper Kinyan of 'payment of money' to allow the original owner to regain acquisition of the property (condition (b)). In order for this Kinyan to work, the money must be <i>received</i> by the seller and not just made available to him. Only when one party <i>receives</i> the money does the other party receive the land in return.
</p><p>
Hence, in order for the original owner to get his house back, he must still perform a legal act of acquisition on that property before the year's end. Until he performs that act of Kinyan, the house will not become legally his again. The Kinyanim of 'payment,' 'barter,' and 'transferal of deed' obviously are not functional in this case, since the other party in the sale is unwilling to cooperate. The only option left is for the original owner to make a Kinyan of Chazakah on his house -- by making an improvement or change in the state of the property. The Mishnah (Bava Basra 42a) describes the classical Chazakah as 'locking a door or breaking down a locked door.'
</p><p>
This is what the Mishnah means when it states that the process by which the original owner gets his house back is not complete with just depositing the money; he must also 'break down the door' to his house. He must <i>break down the door</i> in order to make a Kinyan of Chazakah on the house. Only by making a formal act of acquisition (Kinyan) before the year's end will the house return to his possession!
</p><p>
(<b>TZAFNAS PANE'ACH</b>, Kuntrus Hashlamah, page 4; see also Ishim v'Shitos by Ha'Rav Zevin, in the section describing the insights of the Rogatchover Ga'on, 2:15. The same explanation was suggested by the <b>BRISKER RAV</b> (cited by Rav Shmuel Rozovsky in his Shi'urim to Kesuvos 3a) and the <b>EINEI SHMUEL</b> on Erchin.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IMPROPER TANAYIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man gave a Get and said 'the Get is yours 
          but the paper is mine', she is not divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'on condition that you return the paper 
               to me', she is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the two clauses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Beraisa is like R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel, who says that she may give money in place of the 
          garment. Here also, she can appease him with money in 
          place of returning the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel said only that 
          she may give money in place of the garment when the 
          garment is lost. Here, the Get is around, so we have no 
          source to say that she can give money in its stead!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa is like R. Meir, 
          who says that a Tanai (stipulation) is invalid unless 
          doubled (if this, then...; if not, then...)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The case is, he said only 'you are divorced if you 
               return the Get.' He did not double the Tanai (and 
               say 'you are not divorced if you don't return it'), 
               so the Get works unconditionally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> You imply that had he doubled the 
          Tanai, (the condition would be valid and) the Get would 
          be void. We learn about Tanayim from Moshe's Tanai with 
          the Shevatim of Reuven and Gad!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, the Tanai (if they will fight valorously) 
               precedes the result (they will inherit in Gil'ad). 
               Here, the result (divorce) preceded the Tanai 
               (returning the Get). Even had he doubled it, the 
               Tanai would be invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> The Get is valid because the result 
          preceded the Tanai.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> You imply that had he 
          mentioned the Tanai before the divorce, the Tanai would 
          be valid and) the Get would be void. We learn Tanayim 
          from the Tanai with Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, the Tanai (fighting) and the result 
               (inheritance) are unrelated. Here, the Tanai 
               (returning the Get) and the result (the divorce) are 
               contradictory (Tosfos)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GIVING TO A PERSON AGAINST HIS WILL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Erchin (31b) which describes Hillel's enactment with regard to the law of buying back a house in a walled city. One who sells a house in a walled city may redeem his house from the buyer for up to one year after the sale (Vayikra 25:29-30). During that year, the buyer of the house must return the house to the seller should the seller offer to refund the money. If the seller does not redeem his house within the first year, the buyer may keep it and the seller loses it forever. At one point, it happened that the buyers of such houses would hide themselves near the end of the year so that the original owners would not be able to find them in order to redeem their houses. Hillel enacted that 'the money may be deposited in a certain office... and thereafter the original owner may break down the door and enter the house.' That is, Hillel enacted that the original owner could redeem his house against the will of the occupant.
</p><p>
Rava proves from Hillel's enactment that when a person gives something against the will of the recipient, it is not considered a valid 'Nesinah' (act of giving). He proves this from the fact that Hillel found it necessary to make a special enactment that the original owner may put the money for the house in an office that was designated for that purpose, rather than give the money directly to the buyer against the buyer's will.
</p><p>
Rav Papa refutes Rava's proof by pointing out that Hillel's enactment was only necessary for when the buyer is not present (he is hiding from the original owner), as the Mishnah states. When the buyer is present, the original owner may give him the money against his will.
</p><p>
What was Rava's reasoning? Rav Papa's logic seems obvious! Hillel's enactment was to provide an office which would be considered the property of the buyer so that the seller could deliver money to the buyer by putting it in that office, even though the buyer is not present. When the buyer is present (or when any of his property is accessible), it would not be necessary to put the money in an office, but rather it could be given directly to the buyer against his will (or placed upon his property). Hillel's enactment did not relate to the fact that giving against the recipient's will is not considered 'Nesinah.' Rather, when the person is not present, it is impossible to give him anything.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The Rishonim discuss this question and offer various solutions.
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Erchin (32a, DH mid'Itztrich) and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> here explain that if giving something against the recipient's will is considered a valid 'Nesinah,' since the original owner may give the money to the buyer against his will he may not only give the money directly to the buyer but he may give it even to another person to acquire it on behalf of the buyer against the buyer's will. Hence, if 'Nesinah' against the recipient's will is a valid 'Nesinah,' Hillel would not have had to designate an office into which to put the money. Since Hillel <i>did</i> designate such an office, it must be that the buyer cannot be paid against his will even when he is present.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> asks a strong question on the approach of Tosfos and the Tosfos ha'Rosh. The Halachah is that a Get may be given to a woman against her will when she is present, but when she is not present a Get may not be given to a third party to acquire it on behalf of the woman, because a Get is a Chov (liability) to the woman (Gitin 11b).
</p><p>
The Rashba therefore concludes that Rava indeed cannot prove from Hillel's enactment that giving against the recipient's will is considered an act of 'Nesinah.' Rather, his proof is based on the logical consideration that even when the recipient is present, giving something to him against his will is not considered a 'Nesinah,' just as it is not considered a 'Nesinah' when he is not present.
</p><p>
How, though, will Tosfos answer the Rashba's question? Why may the money be given to the recipient through Zechiyah (via a third party) against his will, while a Get may not be given to a woman through Zechiyah against her will?
</p><p>
1. The <b>DEVAR YAKOV</b> suggests an answer based on the <b>RAN</b> (Gitin 37a). The Ran asks how a lender can be Mezakeh land to a borrower in order for his Pruzbul to be effective. Giving the land to the borrower should be considered a Chov to the borrower, since it causes the debt to remain in force! The Ran answers that perhaps when receiving something that is essentially a Zechus (benefit) to the recipient, even if it results indirectly in a loss, it is still considered a Zechus and the principle of 'Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav' applies.
</p><p>
The same logic may apply in our case. Since receiving money is essentially beneficial for the buyer of the house, it is considered a Zechus, even though it results in the loss of the house that he bought.
</p><p>
In contrast, receiving a Get is not essentially a Zechus for the woman.
</p><p>
2. Perhaps the Rashba and Tosfos are following their respective opinions regarding what is considered a 'Nesinah' of a Get, or of money for a house against the recipient's well.
</p><p>
From Tosfos (end of DH Michlal), it seems that when a person gives a Get stipulating that the wife must give him 200 Zuz, he means not only that the wife should <i>hand over</i> to him the money, but that he should <i>acquire</i> the money that she gives to him. The same might be true about a house in a walled city. It is not sufficient for the original owner to hand over the money to the buyer, but rather the buyer must <i>acquire</i> the money. Regarding a Get, though, the opposite is true; it is necessary to hand over a Get to the wife, even if she does not acquire it (for example, where the wife is a Ketanah or a Shotah who cannot make acquisitions), and if she acquires the Get without the husband giving it to her, it is not a valid Get. Therefore, if a man tries to be Mezakeh a Get to his wife against her will, since the Mezakeh, the third party, is not a Shali'ach, it is not considered as though the Get was placed by the husband into her hands, and the Get is not valid. In contrast, in the case of a house in a walled city, if the Mezakeh acquires the money for the buyer, then the sale is revoked.
</p><p>
This explains why the Gemara does not learn from the verse, 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1) which teaches that a man may divorce his wife against his will, that giving something against the recipient's will is considered a valid 'Nesinah' (and falls into the category of 'v'Nasan'). The verse cannot prove that a person can <i>acquire</i> something against his will.
</p><p>
The Rashba, however, explains that even if giving against the recipient's will is considered a 'Nesinah,' it <i>cannot</i> enable the recipient to acquire the item. Rather, in the case of a house in a walled city, it is sufficient to place money in the property of the buyer, whether or not he acquires it. In the case of a Get, it is sufficient for the woman to place money in the husband's hand against his will, if giving against a person's will is considered a 'Nesinah.' Consequently, paying the buyer of the house may indeed be compared to giving the Get to a woman. The Rashba in fact asks why the Gemara does not learn from 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' that a 'Nesinah' against one's will is considered a 'Nesinah' (see also <b>RASHASH</b>; the Rashba answers this question by differentiating between <i>giving</i> something and <i>giving back</i> something).
</p><p>
Since the Rashba compares Get Ishah to a house in a walled city, he may indeed prove from Get that one cannot be Mezakeh money through a third party to the buyer of a house in a walled city. 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> The Get is valid because 
          the Tanai and the result contradict each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah is like Rebbi, who says 
          that saying 'on condition that' is like saying 'from now' 
          (so there is no contradiction between the Tanai and the 
          result).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Shmuel enacted that a Shechiv Mera who gives a Get should 
          say 'if I do not die (from this illness), the Get is 
          Pasul. If I die, the Get is valid.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why not say 'if I die, the Get is valid. If I 
          do not die, the Get is Pasul'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One does not begin with something to his 
          detriment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why not say 'the Get is Pasul if I do not die?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tanai must precede the result.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> We learn conditions from the Tanai with 
          the tribes of Reuven and Gad!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, the positive (if they will fight) precedes 
               the negative (if they will not fight). Every Tanai 
               must be like this;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In Shmuel's text, the negative comes first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Rather, he should say 'if I do not die, the Get 
          is Pasul. If I die, the Get is valid. If I do not die, it 
          is Pasul,'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> His initial words (if I do not die) are favorable. 
               The positive Tanai (if I die) precedes the 
               (repetition of) the negative.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TANAYIM FOR DURATIONS OF TIME</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on condition 
          that you serve my father, or that you nurse my son'...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How long is the period of nursing?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> It is two years;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (R. Yehudah):</font></b> It is 18 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the son or the father dies, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get on condition that you serve 
          my father for two years', or 'that you nurse my son for 
          two years', if the son dies or the father says that he 
          does not want her to serve him, even if she did nothing 
          to upset him, the Get is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, such a Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The rule is, whenever she does not inhibit 
               fulfillment of the Tanai, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Must she really nurse for two years?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If she served the father or 
               nursed for one day, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel (who said about a Tanai to return a garment that 
          he seeks his own benefit. Here also, he wants her to 
          nurse as long as is needed). The Beraisa is like 
          Chachamim (who say that he intends to pain her, so one 
          day suffices).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel is mentioned only in the 
          Seifa. This implies that the Reisha is not R. Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the Beraisa is like R. Shimon, who is 
          lenient about conditions. Our Mishnah is like Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> In the Mishnah, he did not specify for 
          how long she must nurse. In the Beraisa, he specified one 
          day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Not specifying is like specifying 
          one day!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The period of nursing is two years. R. Yehudah 
          says, it is 18 months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Rava, this is how long she must nurse 
               when he did not specify.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to Rav Ashi, one day should 
               suffice!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah teaches that the day must be 
               within the first two years (or 18 months) of the 
               son's life.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If he divorced 'on condition that you 
          serve my father for two years' or 'that you nurse my son 
          for two years', if the son dies or the father does not 
          want her to serve him, even if she did nothing to upset 
          him, the Get is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, according to Rava, in the Reisha he did not 
               specify the time, and in the Seifa he did.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to Rav Ashi, what is the difference 
               between the clauses? (Rashi - in both, we must say 
               that the son died before she nursed the required 
               time; Tosfos - also in the Reisha, when he did not 
               specify a time, it is as if he specified!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TANAYIM ON A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1 - R. Meir):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get on 
          condition that you serve my father or nurse my son for 
          two years', the Get is valid even if she does not, since 
          he did not double the Tanai (if you do not serve...);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, the Get is valid only if she fulfills the 
          Tanai;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, every Tanai in the Torah and 
          prophets is doubled!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some explain that he challenges R. Meir. Since we 
               have multiple sources from which to learn the law, 
               we do not learn in general.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Others explain that he challenges Chachamim. We 
               learn from these sources that Tanayim must be 
               doubled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa #2 - R. Meir):</font></b> If one said 'this 
          is your Get on condition that you serve my father for two 
          years, or that you nurse my son for two years', if the 
          son or father dies, the Get is Pasul;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, even if the Tanai was not fulfilled, 
               the Get is valid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  She can say, I am ready to serve or nurse. 
                    Bring your father or son!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Both R. Meir and Chachamim contradict their opinions 
               in Beraisa #1!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 1 (for R. Meir):</font></b> In Beraisa #2 he doubled 
          the Tanai, so it is binding.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer - part 2 (for Chachamim):</font></b> In Beraisa #2, they hold 
          like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that if she did not 
          cause that the Tanai is not fulfilled, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven told his wife in front of witnesses 
          'this is your Get on condition that you serve my father 
          for two years', and later told her in front of witnesses 
          'it is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz', 
          the latter Tanai does not cancel the former;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she fulfills either, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get on condition that you give 
          me 200 Zuz', and later said 'this is your Get on 
          condition that you give me 300 Zuz' (both times were in 
          front of witnesses), the latter Tanai cancels the former. 
          We cannot join one witness who saw the first Tanai with 
          one who saw the second.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To which clause does this refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot refer to the Seifa. The first Tanai was 
               cancelled, so surely the witnesses who saw it cannot 
               be used!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, it refers to the Reisha.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that since she can make 
          her Get valid by fulfilling either Tanai, it is as if 
          they are one Tanai, and witnesses can join. The Beraisa 
          teaches that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET CONDITIONAL ON NOT RETURNING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven was going from Yehudah to Galil, and 
          he told his wife 'this is your Get on condition that I do 
          not return within 30 days', if he reached Antiferas and 
          returned, the Tanai is Batel (i.e. she is not divorced);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he was going from Galil to Yehudah, and he said 'this 
          is your Get on condition that I do not return within 30 
          days', if he reached Kefar Osna'i and returned, the Tanai 
          is Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he was going abroad and made this Tanai, reached Ako 
          and returned, the Tanai is Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get if I will go 30 days without 
          seeing your face', if he was constantly leaving and 
          returning, since he was not secluded with her, it is a 
          (proper) Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> The Mishnah implies that Antiferas is 
          in Galil (the Tanai is void because he reached his 
          destination and did not tarry);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> Antiferas is in Yehudah. Kefar 
          Osna'i is in Galil. In between we are in doubt. (If he 
          returned after he passed Antiferas, but before he reached 
          Kefar Osna'i, she has the stringencies of being divorced 
          and not divorced.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ON CONDITION THAT YOU NURSE MY CHILD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara poses a contradiction between the Mishnah and a Beraisa. The Mishnah (75b) teaches that when a man gives his wife a Get on condition that it will take effect only if she nurses his baby, she must nurse the baby for two years (the normal time a child nurses). The Beraisa, however, teaches that it is sufficient for the wife to nurse the child one day in order to fulfill the condition.
</p><p>
Rava answers that in the case of the Mishnah, the husband did not specify a duration of time. The Beraisa, on the other hand, refers to a case in which the husband specifically said that his wife must nurse the child for at least one day in order for the Get to take effect.
</p><p>
Rav Ashi answers that the Mishnah and Beraisa refer to the same case. Even if the husband did not specify a duration of time, the wife is obligated to nurse the child for only one day. When the Mishnah says that she must nurse the child for two years, it means merely that the one day that she nurses the child must be during the first two years of the child's life (for that time is the period during which a child nurses).
</p><p>
The Gemara questions Rav Ashi's answer from the Mishnah which states that when the husband did not stipulate that the wife should nurse the child 'for two years' but only that she should nurse the child (without mentioning any amount of time), if the child dies within two years the Get is valid. Conversely, when the husband <i>did</i> stipulate that the wife should nurse the child 'for two years,' if the child dies within two years the Get is <i>not</i> valid.
</p><p>
According to Rava, the difference between these two cases is clear. According to Rav Ashi, though, why should the Halachah in the Reisha differ from the Halachah in the Seifa? What difference does it make whether the husband specified 'for two years' or not? This is the Gemara's question on Rav Ashi.
</p><p>
Why is the Mishnah understandable according to Rava, and in what way does it refute the opinion of Rav Ashi?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that according to Rava, in the second case of the Mishnah the husband must have intended to make a more stringent condition because he added extra words to his condition (the words 'for two years') which were not necessary, since she must nurse the child for two years in any case. He must have meant that the Get should <i>only</i> take effect if the wife actually nurses the child for two years. 
</p><p>
In contrast, according to Rav Ashi, when the first case in the Mishnah says that the Get is valid when the child dies, it must refer to a situation in which the mother did not nurse the child for even a single day (for otherwise, the Get would be valid since the mother nursed the child for a day). Why, then, is the Get valid? Since the wife did not nurse the child at all, there is no reason to consider the condition fulfilled! This is the Gemara's question on the view of Rav Ashi.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> questions the explanation of Rashi.
</p><p>
(a) According to the way Rashi explains the Gemara, the question on Rav Ashi is from the first part of the Mishnah (the Reisha) and is unrelated to the second part of the Mishnah (the Seifa). The Gemara, however, asks why the Halachah in the Reisha differs from that of the Seifa, implying that the question on Rav Ashi is from the contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa. (See also <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>, and <b>MAHARSHA</b> in Mahadura Basra.)
</p><p>
(b) Why does Rashi assume that the Mishnah refers to a situation in which the child died before the mother nursed him at all? Perhaps the Mishnah means that the child died before the mother nursed him for a full day, but she <i>did</i> nurse him for part of a day. Since she nursed the child for part of a day, the condition is considered to have been fulfilled!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) According to Rashi, the Gemara's question indeed is from the second case of the Mishnah, from the contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa. Had the Mishnah not recorded in the Seifa that the Get does not take effect if the child dies before the mother begins to nurse him, it would have been possible to suggest that even if the mother does not nurse the child at all the condition is considered to be fulfilled. This is because the primary purpose of the condition was that the father should not have to hire a nurse-maid for his child. Once the child dies, the father no longer needs someone to nurse the child. Therefore, it is as if he said in his condition that his wife must nurse the child only if the child is alive. (This is the view of <b>TOSFOS</b> to 75b, DH Mes ha'Ben.) However, now that the Seifa teaches that this is not the case, but rather we assume that the husband specifically wanted the wife to do something for him and to work for him before the Get takes effect, the same should be true in the Reisha. This is the question on Rav Ashi. (Maharam Shif)
</p><p>
Why does Rav Ashi not learn like Rava, that since the husband added extra words in the case of the Seifa he meant to make the condition more stringent, and that is why the Get is not valid in the Seifa if the child dies (while in the Reisha the Get should be valid)?
</p><p>
The answer is that when the husband adds the words 'for two years,' he is being more stringent with regard to the amount of time that the wife must nurse the child. Since, in the Reisha, the wife must nurse the child for only one day out of the two years, when the husband adds the words 'two years' it must be that his intent is to add that she must nurse for the entire two years. However, there is no reason to assume that in addition to that requirement the husband means that the wife must actually nurse and not just be <i>ready</i> and <i>available</i> to nurse (such as in a case where the child dies and does not need the services of the mother). Therefore, with regard to the death of the child, the Reisha and the Seifa of the Mishnah should be identical.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi understands that when the Beraisa says that a wife must nurse the child for one day, it does not mean that she must nurse him for an entire day. Rather, it means that the wife must nurse the child for a part of one day, for any amount of time, even if she does so for less than one day. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to 75b, DH u'Reminhu)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah agrees that Antiferas is in 
          Yehudah. The case is, he made two Tanayim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He said 'if I reach Galil, the Get should take 
               effect immediately. Or, if I delay 30 days before 
               returning, the Get should be valid';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if he reached Antiferas, which is still 
               part of Yehudah, and returned within 30 days, the 
               Tanai is Batel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he was going abroad... (and reached Ako, 
          the Tanai is Batel)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that Ako is in Chutz La'aretz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Safra taught that when Chachamim of Bavel 
          would return to Bavel, Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael would 
          accompany them until Ako, for it is forbidden to leave 
          Eretz Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The Mishnah agrees that Ako is in Eretz 
          Yisrael. The case is, he made two Tanayim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He said 'if I reach Chutz La'aretz, the Get should 
               take effect immediately. Or, if I delay 30 days 
               before returning, the Get should be valid';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, if he reached Ako, which is still part of 
               Eretz Yisrael, and returned within 30 days, the 
               Tanai is Batel.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW SECLUSION CAN INVALIDATE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'this is your Get if I will go 30 
          days without seeing your face' (since they were not 
          secluded, it is a (proper) Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> He did see her within 30 days (just they were 
          not secluded)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> 'Seeing your face' is a euphemism 
          for (the lower 'face', i.e.) Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He literally meant seeing her 
          face. The Mishnah does not say that she is divorced, 
          rather that the Get is proper, i.e. it is not an old Get 
          (in which they had Bi'ah between the writing and the 
          giving);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he later fulfills the Tanai, the Get will take 
               effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get if I 
          will go 30 days without seeing your face', if he was 
          constantly leaving and returning, since he was not 
          secluded with her, it is a Get. We are not concerned for 
          an old Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest he 
          appeased her (Rashi - and was secluded with her; Tosfos - 
          and cancelled the Get)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The case is, he trusted her 
          to say that he did not appease her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get from 
          now if I don't come within 12 months', and he died within 
          this time, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest he appeased her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna):</font></b> The case is, he trusted her 
          to say that he did not come.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  According to Version #2, in the Mishnah, when we do not 
          know that he returned, Rabah bar Rav Huna would be 
          concerned for appeasement had he not trusted her, all the 
          more so in the Beraisa, when we know that he returned!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  According to Version #1, in the Beraisa, when we know 
          that he returned, had he not trusted her, we would be 
          concerned for appeasement. In the Mishnah, when we do not 
          know that he returned, even if he didn't trust her, we 
          are not concerned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A DATE PROVE WHEN A GET SHOULD TAKE EFFECT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Mishnah:</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get if I don't come 
          within 12 months', and he died within this time' the Get 
          is void;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this is your Get from now if I don't come 
          within 12 months', and he died within this time, the Get 
          is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If one said 'write and give a Get to my wife if I don't 
          come within 12 months'; the Sheluchim wrote the Get 
          within 12 months and gave it after 12 months, the Get is 
          void;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi says, it is a valid Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If they wrote and gave the Get after 12 months, and the 
          husband died, if the Get was given before he died, it is 
          valid. If not, it is Pasul. If we do not know, this is 
          the case of (having the stringencies of) being divorced 
          and not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> (In the Reisha, when he did not say 
          'from now') our Rebbeyim permitted her to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who are these Rebbeyim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> They are the Beis Din that 
          permitted oil of Nochrim. They hold like R. Yosi, that 
          the date on a document proves that that is the day it 
          should take effect.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> R. Yehudah Nesi'ah ruled this way. His 
               colleagues never consented.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Did they permit her to remarry 
          immediately, or after 12 months.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She should be permitted immediately. Since he died, 
               he cannot come, so the Tanai will definitely be 
               fulfilled!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps she must wait 12 months, until the Tanai 
               was actually fulfilled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Elazar ask regarding the 
               Seifa of our Mishnah ('this is your Get from now if 
               I don't come within 12 months', and he died), from 
               when she may remarry?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He could have asked about the Mishnah. Since 
               he asked an elder who was part of the Beis Din that 
               permitted in the case of the Beraisa, he asked about 
               the Beraisa.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE CONCERN OF 'SHEMA PIYES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara introduces a concern that should prevent a Shali'ach from delivering a Get to a woman. This concern is referred to as 'Shema Piyes' -- perhaps the husband appeased his wife (and no longer wants to divorce her). Because of this concern, the Gemara writes that when a man gives his wife a Get which includes a stipulation that it should not take effect until after twelve months have passed, the Get may not be used unless it is known for certain that the husband did not appease his wife. (According to one opinion in the Gemara, this is necessary only if the husband was seen in the city of the wife at some point during the twelve months.) One way to know for certain that the husband did not appease his wife is by ensuring that the husband originally stipulated that he trusts his wife to testify whether or not he appeased her.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the problem with the Get in a case where the husband might have appeased the wife is that he might have had relations with her before the time at which the Get took effect, and this will render the Get a 'Get Yashan.' The Gemara earlier (25b) explains that the reason why the Chachamim invalidated a Get Yashan is that the date on the Get might predate the conception of a child born before the divorce took effect, and this will cause people to say that the child was born out of wedlock when he really is a completely legitimate child.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> earlier (18b, DH Shema Piyes) asks a number of questions on Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(a) The Beraisa here teaches that in a case of a Get that takes effect after thirty days, where the husband was not together with his wife during that time, there is no concern that the Get is a Get Yashan. The Gemara asks that there still should be a concern that 'Shema Piyes,' perhaps he appeased her.
</p><p>
However, since the Beraisa states that there is no reason to be concerned that the Get is a Get Yashan, why is the Gemara concerned that he appeased her? It seems clear from the Gemara there that the concern for Get Yashan and for 'Shema Piyes' are two completely unrelated laws. 
</p><p>
(b) According to Rashi, who explains that when the husband appeases the wife there is a concern that the Get might be a Get Yashan and the date of the Get might precede the date of the child's conception, why is a Shali'ach permitted to deliver the Get when the husband announces that he trusts his wife's testimony to say whether or not he appeased her? Even if he trusts her, <i>Beis Din</i> cannot trust her, and therefore Beis Din should be concerned for the welfare of a child who was conceived after the date written in the Get, despite the woman's testimony.
</p><p>
(c) If the problem of 'Shema Piyes' is that the husband might have lived with his wife before the Get took effect, how can this concern be applied in a case where the husband gives a Get and stipulates that it should take effect in twelve months if he does not return before the twelve months have passed? If the husband was together with his wife, the Gemara should be concerned not that the Get is a Get Yashan, but that it is annulled altogether, since by returning to his wife before twelve months have passed the condition that he stipulated was not fulfilled and the Get cannot take effect at all.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) As Tosfos (ibid.) points out, Rashi here (DH Shema Piyes) answers this question by explaining that Beis Din certainly has no reason to be concerned that the husband clandestinely secluded himself with his wife and that the date in the Get will predate the conception of their child. However, Beis Din should be concerned that the husband -- in an attempt to frustrate his wife -- will come at a later date and try to invalidate the Get by <i>claiming</i> that he secluded himself with her and that the Get is a Get Yashan! Just as the Chachamim took precautions to prevent the husband from saying that the Get he gave is forged when he sends it from Medinas ha'Yam, they also took precautions to prevent the husband from being able to claim that it is a Get Yashan. 
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos continues and says that this approach answers the second question as well. There is no need to be concerned when the husband announces that he trusts his wife's testimony; since he gives her the power to override whatever he says, there is no concern that he will claim that the Get is a Get Yashan (because he would be embarrassed to do so).
</p><p>
(Although there is an opinion in the Gemara later (79b) that if the husband already divorced his wife with a Get Yashan she is permitted to marry someone else l'Chatchilah on the basis of that Get, nevertheless Rashi there (DH Im Nisgarshah) explains that she may get married on the basis of that Get only when her husband has left to Medinas ha'Yam and she cannot get another Get from him. The concern here is that the husband might claim that the Get is a Get Yashan and prevent her from marrying as long as he is in town. See also <b>TOSFOS</b> to Yevamos 14b, DH b'Get Yashan.) 
</p><p>
(c) Tosfos explains that according to Rashi, when the husband makes a condition that the Get will take effect only 'if I do not return within twelve months,' his condition means that the Get will take effect only if he does not return <i>permanently</i> within twelve months. Coming back to visit during that time is <i>not</i> a contradiction to his condition and does <i>not</i> annul the ability for the Get to take effect after twelve months. Hence, the Get can take effect after twelve months if not for the problem of Get Yashan.
</p><p>
(<b>RABEINU TAM</b>, cited by Tosfos (18b), suggests another approach to the Sugya of 'Shema Piyes' because of these questions.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A GET THAT TAKES EFFECT RETROACTIVELY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when a man gives a Get on condition that it take effect retroactively if he does not return home within twelve months, and then he dies within those twelve months, the Get is valid. In the Gemara, Rebbi Elazar suggests that perhaps the Mishnah means that when the husband dies, the Get is valid but the wife may not remarry until twelve months have passed.
</p><p>
Since the Get takes effect retroactively, why should she not be able to remarry immediately? It is clear that the husband will not return, and therefore she retroactively is divorced from that time!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH d'Ha) suggests that the requirement that the woman wait until twelve months have passed before she remarries is <i>mid'Rabanan</i>. The Rabanan were concerned that people who are not aware that her husband died will misunderstand why she married someone else within the twelve months. Therefore, the Rabanan instituted that she must wait until the twelve months have passed.
</p><p>
(b) The Yerushalmi here suggests that there is a concern that a miracle will occur and the husband will come back to life. (Perhaps the intention of the Yerushalmi may be that even if it seems clear to all that the husband is dead, we must take into account the minute possibility that a mistake was made concerning the husband's state.)
</p><p>
Why, though, should there be more of a concern that the husband will 'come back to life' when he gives a Get with a condition than when he dies without having given a Get to his wife (and he has children, or no brothers, and thus there is no need for Yibum)? Why does Beis Din let the woman remarry in such a case? Perhaps the husband will 'come back to life'! Conversely, if, in a normal case of a woman whose husband dies, Beis Din relies on two witnesses who testify about the husband's death in order to remove the prohibition (Isur Kares) of Eshes Ish, then Beis Din should rely on them in the case of a Get given on condition as well.
</p><p>
The answer appears to be that the stipulation which the husband makes in the Get depends on the husband's intention. Since the husband is divorcing his wife in this case only in order to release her from the obligation of Chalitzah, he presumably does not want the Get to take effect if there exists a remote possibility that he is still alive. Therefore, he intends for the Get to take effect only after the twelve months pass, in order to ensure that he actually died.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 9:11) writes that if the husband dies, the wife must wait until the twelve months pass 'and the condition is fulfilled.' The Rambam writes earlier (Hilchos Gerushin 8:21-22) that if the husband stipulates that the Get should take effect only on condition that his wife give him 200 Zuz before 30 days pass, and then the husband dies within those 30 days, if there is a Yavam the wife must wait until the 30 days pass before she may perform Chalitzah. If, however, the husband gives a Get with such a condition but does not stipulate a time limit during which the money must be paid, the wife must perform Chalitzah (and she may not perform Yibum, since the Get is considered to be a Safek Get).
</p><p>
The logic mentioned above to explain the Yerushalmi does not suffice to explain the words of the Rambam in the case of a Get that was given on condition that the wife give 200 Zuz to the husband within 30 days. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that the Rambam understands that every Get that is given with a condition is considered to be a Safek Get from the moment that the Get is given. In order for the Get to take effect or to be annulled, the condition that is written in the Get must either be fulfilled or annulled, respectively. It is only from the point at which the condition has been either fulfilled or annulled that the Get can take effect or become annulled retroactively. This is the Rambam's understanding of how a condition works. The Magid Mishneh praises the Rambam highly for this understanding of the concept of a condition.
</p><p>
<b>HAGA'ON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN</b> zt'l explained that the Magid Mishneh's view of the concept of Tenai, according to the Rambam, is an example of a Kinyan that takes place 'mi'Kan ul'Haba l'Mafrei'a.' 'Mi'Kan ul'Haba l'Mafrei'a' means that at the time the condition is fulfilled, the Get takes effect from then on, and although until that point the Get was not actually in effect, it is viewed from now on as if the woman was divorced from the time the Get was given. (That is, until the time the condition is fulfilled, the woman certainly was married. When the condition is fulfilled and the Get takes effect, the Get takes effect <i>as if</i> it had been in effect from the time that it was given.) Since the event that causes the Get to take effect or to become annulled retroactively happens at a later time (after 30 days or after twelve months), the retroactive effectiveness, or annulment, of the Get cannot be considered to have taken effect until that event actually occurs. Only then, when the event occurs, does the Get take effect retroactively.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FROM WHEN THE TANAI STARTS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If one says '(this is your Get) when the sun 
          will leave its case', all agree, this means from when it 
          rises. If he died during the night, it is a posthumous 
          Get, and is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he said 'on condition that the sun will leave its 
          case', he means that the Get should take effect 
          immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> Saying 'on condition' is like saying 
               'from now.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  They argue about when he says 'if it will go out,'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Those who hold like R. Yosi, who says that the date 
               on a document shows that it takes effect from the 
               date, say that it is as if he said 'it is a Get from 
               today if I die';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Those who argue with R. Yosi say that it is as if he 
               said 'it should be a Get if I die.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'write and give a Get to my wife if 
          I don't come within 12 months'...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion (Rav Yemar):</font></b> R. Yosi (who says that the Get is 
          valid) must hold that one may write a Get on Tanai, even 
          if the Tanai was not fulfilled!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> No. This case is different, for he 
          should have said 'if I don't come within 12 months, write 
          and give...';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He instead said 'write... if I don't...' to show 
               that the Get should be written now.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not distinguish between the two ways of 
               saying it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said '(give a Get if I do not come) 
          after the Shemitah cycle', we wait one year after 
          Shemitah. If he said 'after a year', we wait (another) 
          month; if he said 'after a month', we wait one week;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'after Shabbos' what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The three days after Shabbos are 
          considered after Shabbos. The three days before the 
          coming Shabbos are considered before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If he said 'after the festival', we 
          wait 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya taught this law in Rebbi's name, and the 
          listeners approved. He taught it in the name of 
          Chachamim, and the listeners did not show approval.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  He concluded that the Halachah does not follow this 
          teaching.
<b>PEREK HA'ZOREK</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET THROWN INTO HER DOMAIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one threw a Get to his wife when she was in 
          her house or Chatzer (courtyard), it is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he threw it in his own house or Chatzer, even if she 
          is in a bed with him, it is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he throws it into her garment or basket, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'and he puts in her 
          hand' obligates putting the Get in her hand, but not in 
          her roof or yard!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'And he puts' teaches that he may put in 
               anywhere (that belongs to her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  We learn similarly about a thief.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps a thief is liable only 
               if the stolen item is found 'in his hand', but not 
               in his roof or yard!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'Found, will be found' obligates him no 
               matter where (in his property) it is found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The Torah needed to teach both of these:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a Get, one might have 
               thought that that is because she is divorced against 
               her will; but theft, which is only when he intends, 
               must be in his hand;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about theft, one might have 
               thought that the Torah punishes a thief, but a Get 
               must enter her hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses her yard. A man acquires 
          his wife's property. It is like his yard!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> The case is, he wrote to her 'I 
          have no claims to your property,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This doesn't help!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said to his partner 'I have no 
               claims on this field', 'I have no involvement with 
               it', or 'my hand is withdrawn from it', his words 
               are void.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yanai):</font></b> He wrote this to her during Eirusin 
          (before Nisu'in);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  He holds like Rav Kahana, and like Rava:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Kahana):</font></b> One may stipulate that he does not 
               want to inherit an inheritance mid'Rabanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If one says 'I do not want the enactment 
               Chachamim made to help me', in a case like this (Rav 
               Huna's law), we heed his words.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) APPOINTING AGENTS TO WRITE A GET AFTER TWELVE MONTHS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (76b) teaches that if a man tells two people to write and give a Get to his wife if he does not return within twelve months, and they write it before twelve months have passed and give it after twelve months have passed, Rebbi Yosi rules the Get is valid. The Gemara first suggests that Rebbi Yosi's reasoning is that if the husband makes a condition with regard to when the Get should be <i>written</i>, the Get is valid even if the condition is not fulfilled.
</p><p>
What is the basis for the Gemara's suggestion? It is obvious that a person may make a condition in any appointment of a Shali'ach. Why should he not be able to make a condition in the appointment of a Shali'ach to write a Get?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> write that the Gemara assumes that according to Rebbi Yosi, the husband probably does not care when the Get will be written, as long as it will not be given until twelve months pass. The reason why the husband mentions that they should <i>write</i> the Get after twelve months is to ensure that it not be <i>given</i> until twelve months have passed. His main interest is only that the Get be delivered after twelve months.
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi would agree that if a man specifies to his agents that they not write the Get until after twelve months have passed (without mentioning the delivery of the Get), the Get may not be written until the specified time.
</p><p>
(b) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> and the <b>TAL TORAH</b> suggest another explanation. The Gemara in Kesuvos (74a) teaches that any act which cannot be done through a Shali'ach cannot be made dependent on a Tenai. The Gemara assumes at first that Rebbi Yosi follows his opinion as expressed earlier (66b) that 'Mili Lo Memseran l'Shali'ach' -- the man cannot appoint a Shali'ach to tell a scribe to write a Get. Although a Get cannot be written unless the husband commands the scribe to write it (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 22b, DH v'Ha), telling a scribe to write a Get cannot be done through a Shali'ach, and therefore it cannot be done with a Tenai. Consequently, the scribe should be allowed to write the Get regardless of the Tenai.
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara indeed reject this suggestion? Why may the husband make a Tenai in his appointment of the scribe to write the Get? The Tal Torah explains that commanding the scribe to write the Get is a way of appointing him as a Shali'ach. The rules of the appointment of a Shali'ach are different, and as long as the husband who appoints the Shali'ach does not want the scribe to be a Shali'ach, the scribe cannot write the Get. The normal laws of Tenai do not apply. The source for this is the <b>RAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> (Gitin 75b), cited by the <b>AVNEI MILU'IM</b> (38:2), who write that a Shali'ach cannot do anything contrary to what he was appointed to do even when the rules of Tenai do not apply. The logic is that he was appointed as a Shali'ach only to perform the will of the Meshale'ach, and he has no right to do something that the sender would not want him to do.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> A woman can tell her husband 'do 
                    not feed me, and I will not give to you my 
                    earnings.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Even when he puts the Get in her hand, 
          we must explain why it works. Also her hand belongs to 
          him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> We must say, the moment the Get is put 
          in her hand, she is divorced and simultaneously gets back 
          her Yad (power of acquisition).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also regarding her roof or yard, the moment the Get 
               enters them, she is divorced and they are hers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why does Rava need to explain how a 
          Get works when he puts it in her hand?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Granted, he owns the productivity of her hands, but 
               he does not own her hands!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Rava meant, we must explain the 
          opinion (Kidushin 22b) that a slave can himself receive a 
          Get of freedom from his master.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A slave's hand is like his master's hand (whatever 
               he acquires belongs to the master)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava answered that when a Get of freedom is put in a 
               slave's hand, he simultaneously goes free and 
               acquires his Yad;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This can also explain how a woman can receive a 
                    Get in her roof or yard!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ACQUISITION THROUGH ONE'S PROPERTY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A Shechiv Mera wrote a Get to his wife shortly before 
          Shabbos. He was unable to give it before Shabbos. He did 
          not expect to survive until after Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> He should give to her, for a gift, the place where 
          the Get is resting. She should close the door there (on 
          Shabbos) to acquire it through Chazakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One acquires through Chazakah by locking 
               up, fencing, or breaching a fence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Ilish:</font></b> How will it help her to acquire the area? What 
          a wife acquires belongs to her husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rava was embarrassed. Later, it was found that she was 
          only an Arusah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> A husband gets only what his wife acquires 
               after Nisu'in, not during Eirusin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rava):</font></b> Even if she was Nesu'ah, my suggestion 
          works. She acquires the area at the moment of divorce!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava already said this above!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The above statement was Rava's conclusion about 
          this case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was in her house...(she is divorced 
          when he throws the Get in).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> We must say that she is standing next to her house 
          or yard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Oshaya):</font></b> No, she may even be in a different city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was in her house...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means, it is as if she was in her house. 
          Because her house is being guarded for her, she is 
          divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Ula holds that the Torah allows her to 
          receive the Get in her yard because her yard is 
          considered like her hand (it must be near her). R. Oshaya 
          holds that her yard is like her Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, all hold that it is like her hand;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Ula requires it to be near her, like her hand;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (on behalf of R. Oshaya):</font></b> If so, we should 
               require that it be attached to her, as her hand! 
               Rather, it must be guarded for her, like her hand.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This excludes a yard not guarded for her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  A man threw a Get to his wife in the yard. It fell on a 
          piece of wood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If the piece is four Amos by four Amos, it 
          is a domain to itself, and she is not divorced. If it is 
          less than this, it is like the yard, and she is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Whose yard is it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is her yard, even if the piece is four by 
               four, she should be divorced!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is his yard, even if the piece is not four by 
               four, she should not be divorced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, he lent to her a place in his yard 
          to acquire the Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One lends only one place. If the wood is like an 
               independent place, he did not lend it as well.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We assumed that the piece of wood is not 10 Tefachim 
               tall. If it is, it is a place unto itself even if it 
               is not four by four Amos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We assumed that the wood does not have a special 
               name. If it does, it is a place unto itself even if 
               it is not four by four and not 10 Tefachim tall.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A WOMAN WHO TRANSFERS A GET INTO HER DOMAIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara relates that a man was very ill and wanted to divorce his wife so that she not need to perform Yibum or Chalitzah. He wrote a Get for her on Erev Shabbos but did not have time to give it to her before Shabbos arrived. On Shabbos, his health deteriorated and he wanted to divorce his wife right away in fear that he would die. Rava ruled that in order to divorce his wife without having to move the Get, which has a status of Muktzah, the man must do the following: He must be Makneh to her the piece of land upon which the Get is resting, and then the woman should close and open the door to that room in order to acquire the property through Chazakah. Once she has acquired the property, she acquires the Get as well.
</p><p>
The laws of Get require that the husband give the Get directly to the woman; he may not leave it on the ground and tell her to pick it up ('Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka'), because it must be <i>his</i> act which gives her the Get. This requirement is derived from the verse, 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1), as the Gemara teaches (78a). Why, then, may the dying man tell his wife to make a Chazakah on the property and thereby acquire the Get for herself? The <i>woman</i> is actively taking the Get, while the man is not actively giving it to her! 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (77b, DH v'Teizil) answers that since the Get came from the property of the husband directly into the property of the wife (through the Chazakah of the woman), it is considered as though he gave it to her directly.
</p><p>
The answer of Tosfos is unclear. In a case where the Get is resting in the husband's property and he tells the wife to pick it up ('Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka'), the Get comes directly from his property into her domain, and yet the Get is invalid because <i>she</i> did the action and not he. Why is this case different?
</p><p>
If Tosfos means that the Get of the dying man is valid because the Chazakah that his wife performed would not acquire the Get for her if not for the husband's consent, and therefore it is considered as though <i>he</i> is the one who is effecting the transfer of the Get, then Tosfos' words are even more problematic. Every time the wife picks up a Get upon the husband's command, she acquires the Get only if the husband agrees, and yet the Get is not valid because <i>she</i> performed the act of picking it up! It is clear that it does not suffice for the husband to provide the permission for her to acquire the Get; he must physically transfer the Get into her possession. Why, then, should the permission of the dying man suffice? He should be required to physically transfer the Get into his wife's possession.
</p><p>
The Acharonim answer that Tosfos means as follows. The husband indeed must perform the physical act of transferring the Get into his wife's hand, and if she does that act without him the Get is not valid. However, when the woman performs a Kinyan Chazakah, she is not physically transferring the Get into her domain since she does not touch the Get at all. Rather, it is the property of the husband which performs the physical transfer of the Get into the property of the wife. This is comparable to a Shali'ach of the husband handing over the Get to a Shali'ach of the wife (the land of each being like the Shali'ach of each). Therefore, the Get is valid.
</p><p>
In contrast, if the woman herself lifts up the Get from the property of the husband, it is <i>she</i> who effects the physical transfer, and thus the Get is not valid. (<b>CHASAM SOFER</b>)
</p><p>
Another way of explaining the answer of Tosfos is that in the case of the dying man, it is indeed the intention of the husband which causes the transfer of the Get into the domain of the wife, since he agrees to give over his Chatzer to her. Therefore, it is considered as though he is making the transfer, and he fulfills the requirement of 'v'Nasan b'Yadah.' Why, though, does the same logic not apply in the case of a woman who picks up a Get, with her husband's permission, that is resting in the husband's Chatzer? Since she can acquire it only with his permission, he should be considered the one to be giving it to her.
</p><p>
The answer is that when she picks up the Get, his permission does not put it in her hand. Even had he not given her permission, when she bends down and picks it up the Get is physically in her hand without his permission. His permission in that case does not accomplish 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' because 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' means that he must <i>physically</i> place the Get into her hands. In the case of the dying man, however, the wife never physically takes hold of the Get. It simply enters her Chatzer. Had the husband not given permission to the wife to acquire the Chatzer with Chazakah, the Get would physically be resting on the property of the husband and not on the wife's property. It is the husband's permission, therefore, which physically places the Get into the wife's property, and that is why his permission in this case is considered 'v'Nasan b'Yadah.' (See <b>SHI'UREI RAV SHIMON SHKOP</b>, Gitin #4, DH v'la'Aniyus Da'ati.) 
</p><p>


<font><b>3) ACQUIRING A GET BY ACQUIRING THE LAND UNDERNEATH IT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rava ruled that a man who was very ill and wanted to divorce his wife could do so on Shabbos by transferring to her the land on which the Get was resting. The woman should then close and open the door to that room in order to acquire the property through Chazakah, and once she has done that and acquired the property, she will have acquired the Get as well. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Harei Zu Chazakah) explains that when she makes a Chazakah on the Chatzer in which the Get is resting, she acquires the Get with 'Kinyan Agav.'
</p><p>
The Rishonim question Rashi's explanation. Why does Rashi explain that the woman acquires the Get with Kinyan Agav? He should explain that once the land becomes her, she is Konah the Get with Kinyan <i>Chatzer</i>!
</p><p>
It is clear that a woman may acquire a Get which is resting in a Chatzer through Kinyan Chatzer by making a Kinyan on the land, as Rashi himself writes earlier (21a, DH Kena'as'hu). The Gemara there explains that when the husband places a Get in his Eved's hands and is then Makneh the Eved to his wife, his wife immediately becomes divorced since she acquires the Get in the hands of the Eved through Kinyan Chatzer. (The Gemara adds that the Eved must be tied up so that he not be a 'walking Chatzer.')
</p><p>
Why does Rashi here find it necessary to explain that the wife acquires the Get through Kinyan Agav?
</p><p>
Moreover, if the wife acquires the Get through Kinyan Agav, why did Rava rule that the husband should give her the property upon which the Get is resting? The Halachah is that in order to acquire an item with Kinyan Agav, it is not necessary for the item to be resting on the land ('Tzivurin'). When the recipient takes possession of the land he automatically receives the Metaltelin wherever they are (Kidushin 27a). It must be that Rava required specifically a Kinyan <i>Chatzer</i>, and that is why he insisted that the husband should give to his wife the land underneath the Get; a Kinyan Agav would not suffice for the delivery of the Get because the Torah requires 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1), which means that the Get must be given directly to the woman's hand or Chatzer. Why, then, does Rashi explain that the Kinyan of the Get in this case is accomplished though a Kinyan Agav? (<b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>DIVREI EMES</b> (cited by the <b>ACHIEZER</b> 1:33:4, as cited by <b>SHI'UREI RAV SHMUEL ROZOVSKY</b> #239) explains that Rashi perhaps follows the view of the <b>ITUR</b> who rules that one who lends property cannot be Makneh an object to the borrower by placing it on the borrowed property (even though the borrower can acquire from other people by having them place the object on the borrowed property).
</p><p>
Rashi learns that the dying husband only <i>lent</i> to his wife the property underneath the Get, and he did not give it to her as a gift (as the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> here says, cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Mah). Therefore, the husband would not be able to be Makneh the Get to his wife with Kinyan Chatzer, but rather he needs to use Kinyan Agav. (See Shi'urei Rav Shmuel Rozovsky for another approach to this question.)
</p><p>
In response to the second question (why Rashi requires 'Tzivurin' for Kinyan Agav to take effect here), the <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (202:4) suggests that when one gives a Get, the Get must be resting on the property which is Koneh it through Agav, because if the Get is not there but is in the husband's property, it would be comparable to the case of a husband who gives to his wife a Get to which a string is attached, and he holds in his hand the second end of the string, which the Gemara (78b) says is not valid since it is not called 'Kerisus' (Devarim 24:1), complete severance from the husband. If the Get is resting in the property of the husband, it is also not called 'Kerisus.' 
</p><p>
What do the other Rishonim, who assert that a Kinyan Agav would work for a Get even without 'Tzivurin,' maintain? The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> (Gitin #16) explains that they maintain that there is no lack of 'Kerisus' unless the husband is physically holding the string that is attached to the Get, and he can pull the Get out of her hands with that string. If, however, the Get is merely resting in his property, it is still considered 'Kerisus.' 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests that according to Rashi, a Kinyan Chatzer would not suffice to acquire the Get for the woman since such a Kinyan would be comparable to a case of 'Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka' ('take your Get from upon the land') which is invalid. The husband must give the Get to his wife and she cannot take it by herself. A Kinyan Chatzer can acquire the Get for the woman only <i>after</i> the property is already in her possession. At that point, however, the Get no longer is resting in the property of the husband, and thus it is not considered as though he is giving it to her. In contrast, a Kinyan Agav takes effect on the property and on the Get at the same time; thus, the Get leaves the property of the husband and goes into the property of the wife at the moment of the Kinyan Agav. The fact that the wife acquires the Get through the Kinyan Chazakah that <i>she</i> makes does not make it 'Teli Gitech,' as explained in the previous Insight.
</p><p>
How, though, does this explanation reconcile the Gemara earlier (21a) which says that a woman may acquire a Get in the hands of an Eved through Kinyan Chatzer? The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> explains that the Gemara there rules like Rava's conclusion, that 'Gitah v'Chatzerah Ba'in k'Echad' (she acquires the Chatzer and the Get simultaneously), as Rashi there writes. The Gemara here at this stage, however, does not consider the logic of 'Gitah v'Chatzerah Ba'in k'Echad.' Rather, the Gemara thought that the wife of the dying man was an Arusah, and that the Kinyan of the Chatzer came first and afterwards the wife acquired the Get. Since the wife's Kinyan came only after she acquired the Chatzer, it is not considered as though the husband gave the Get directly to her and the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
Once the Gemara concludes that 'Gitah v'Chatzerah Ba'in k'Echad,' then even the Kinyan Chatzer of the Get comes at the same time as the Kinyan of the Chatzer itself, and therefore the Get is coming directly from the husband. (This is the way the Chasam Sofer explains the Pnei Yehoshua. See <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>.)
</p><p>
The Chasam Sofer adds that this answers the second question of the Rishonim on Rashi as well. Normally, a Kinyan Agav does not require the item to be 'Tzivurin,' resting on the land that is being acquired. However, as the Rishonim point out, a Kinyan of a Get must be done through 'v'Nasan b'Yadah,' through the husband placing the Get into the wife's hand. If the Get is resting on the husband's land, the woman cannot become divorced even though the Get has been transferred to her through Kinyan Agav. The Torah requires that the Get be physically placed in the woman's hand or courtyard. Therefore, in order for a Kinyan Agav to accomplish a Gerushin, the Get must be resting in the wife's land at the time the Kinyan takes effect.
</p><p>
In other words, Rashi maintains that the <i>Kinyan</i> of the Get is distinct from the '<i>b'Yadah</i>' of the Get. The Kinyan may be accomplished with Agav, and the 'b'Yadah' may be accomplished by the Get resting in her Chatzer. The other Rishonim maintain that the Kinyan which must be done is the type of Kinyan which involves 'b'Yadah,' since it is the element of 'b'Yadah' which accomplishes the Kinyan. 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THROWING A GET INTO A KLI</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Even if she is with him on the bed (the Get is 
          Pasul).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This applies only to his bed. If the bed is hers, 
          she is divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If it is his bed, 
               she is not divorced. If it is her bed, she is 
               divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If it is her bed, why is she divorced? This is 
          like Kelim of the buyer in the domain of the seller!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This shows that a buyer can acquire 
               through his Kelim in the domain of the seller!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and Rejection):</font></b> No. The case is, the bed is 10 
          Tefachim tall. It is above (not in) the husband's domain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The legs of the bed rest in his domain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One does not care about such a small place (he 
          pardons it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he throws it into her garment or basket 
          (she is divorced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is she divorced? This is like Kelim of the 
          buyer in the domain of the seller!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah and R. Elazar):</font></b> The case is, her 
          basket is hanging on her (it does not touch the floor).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> She is divorced as long as her 
          basket is attached to her, even if it rests on the floor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> The case is, the basket 
          is between her legs (he pardons the place to her).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Mesharshiya bar Rav Dimi):</font></b> The case is, 
          her husband sells baskets. (Therefore, he does not mind 
          that it is on the floor.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> The place of her garment and of 
          her basket is acquired to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This is because one does not mind if his wife's 
          garment or basket is on the floor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If he throws it into her garment, 
          basket or anything else like her basket, she is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do the words 'anything else like her 
          basket' include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They include a basket from which she eats dates.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DIVORCE WITHOUT HER UNDERSTANDING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one told his wife 'take this loan document' 
          (and gave a Get to her), or she found her Get in back of 
          him, and read it and realized that it is her Get, she is 
          not divorced unless he says 'this is your Get';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he put it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she 
          woke up and found her Get in her hand, it is Pasul unless 
          he says 'this is your Get.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> (When she found her Get in back of 
          him,) how does it help to say 'this is your Get'? This is 
          like telling her to take her Get from the ground (he 
          never gave it to her)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If one said 'take your Get from the ground', 
               she is not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the case is, she removed it from his 
          belt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Still, he did not give it to her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He bent his waist towards her to bring the Get 
          closer to her, and she took it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If he told her 'take this loan 
          document', or she took the Get from his belt, and found 
          that it is her Get, she is not divorced unless he says 
          'this is your Get';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, the Get is only valid if he 
          takes it back and gives it again and says 'this is your 
          Get.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  If he put it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she 
          woke up and found her Get in her hand, it is not a Get 
          unless he says 'this is your Get';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, it is valid only if he takes 
          it back and gives it again and says 'this is your Get.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  The Beraisa needed to teach both cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only the Reisha, one might have 
               thought that there Rebbi does not require giving the 
               Get again, because she was able to be divorced when 
               she got it, but if he gave it to her when she was 
               sleeping, Rebbi would agree that he must give it 
               again.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only the Seifa, one might have thought 
               that R. Shimon ben Elazar would admit in the Reisha 
               that he need not give it again, because she was able 
               to be divorced when she got it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If he wrote a Get for her and put it in her 
          slave's hand:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the slave is sleeping and she guards the slave, 
               she is divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the slave is awake, she is not divorced, because 
               her slave is like a Chatzer not being guarded for 
               her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the Get valid when the slave sleeps and 
          she guards him? A slave is like a moving Chatzer, which 
          does not acquire!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps when he sleeps he is not 
               considered a moving Chatzer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rava himself taught that if something 
               does not acquire when it moves, it does not acquire 
               when it is stationary.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the slave was tied up.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET THROWN IN RESHUS HA'RABIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman was standing in Reshus ha'Rabim and 
          her husband threw a Get to her:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it landed closer to her, she is divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it landed closer to him, she is not divorced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If it landed in the middle, she has the stringencies 
               of being divorced and not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The same applies to Kidushin, and to a debt;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a creditor said 'throw to me the money you owe me' and 
          it landed closer to the creditor, the loan was repaid 
          (even if the money was lost just after it landed);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it landed closer to the borrower, the loan was 
               not repaid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it landed in the middle, it was half repaid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the case of being closer to 
          her or to him?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> Within four Amos of her is called closer 
          to her. Within four Amos of him is called closer to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of being in the middle?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> They were 
               both standing within four Amos of where it landed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is like being closer to whoever was 
               there first! (Chachamim enacted that one acquires 
               the four Amos around himself, to avoid fighting 
               about found objects.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> They came at the same moment.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> It is impossible that they came 
                    precisely at the same moment!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The case is, they are 
               exactly eight Amos apart. Part of the Get is within 
               four Amos of him, and part is within four Amos of 
               her.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THROWING A GET INTO THE WIFE'S BASKET WHILE SHE IS IN THE HUSBAND'S HOME</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (77a) teaches that when a man throws a Get to his wife while she is standing in his home, she is not divorced even if the Get is with her in bed. The Gemara infers that this applies only if the Get is in <i>his</i> bed; if he throws the Get into her bed (or basket), the Get is valid and she is divorced.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the wife's bed should be able to acquire the Get for her while she is in her husband's house. The Gemara in Bava Basra (85b) discusses the question of whether utensils of a buyer can acquire an item for him when they are resting in the property of the seller. If the Mishnah here means that the woman <i>does</i> acquire her Get, we should prove from here that the utensils of the buyer <i>do</i> acquire the items for the buyer even when they are resting in the seller's domain.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the reason the bed acquires the Get for the woman is because the bed itself is more than ten Tefachim from the ground and thus is a separate domain unto itself. Only the legs of the bed occupy space in the husband's property below ten Tefachim, but the husband does not care about the space taken up by the legs of his wife's bed.
</p><p>
The Gemara gives several explanations for how the wife's <i>basket</i> acquires the Get for her while in the husband's domain. One answer is that the Get is thrown into the basket while the basket is resting between her feet. Another answer is that the husband is a basket salesman and thus he does not mind that his wife's basket rests on his property (since he has lots of baskets on his property).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Bein Yarchoseha) explains that all of these answers accomplish that the husband does not mind the fact that the wife's bed or basket is resting on his property, and therefore he is Makneh that property to the wife. As a result, it is the <i>wife's</i> property on which her basket is resting, and not the husband's property, and that is why her basket acquires the Get for her. Apparently, Rashi learns this from the wording of Rebbi Yochanan's answer, that 'Makom Kalsah Kanuy Lah,' the place where the wife's basket rests is <i>Kanuy</i> ('acquired') to her. 
</p><p>
How, though, does the woman acquire the property beneath the basket? Even if the husband does not mind that she uses that property, his lack of opposition still does not grant her the <i>ownership</i> of the property. She must do a formal act of Kinyan (such as a Chazakah) in order to acquire the property as her own. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Basra 85b, DH Kegon)
</p><p>
Moreover, if it is possible to be Makneh the property to the wife without an act of Kinyan, why should there be any question in the case of utensils of a buyer that are resting in the domain of the seller? Since the seller intends for the buyer to acquire the merchandise he is selling, the seller obviously lends to the buyer the area underneath the buyer's utensil. Property that is loaned is considered like a person's own Chatzer with regard to Kinyanim (see Tosfos to 77b, DH Mah she'Kansah). Accordingly, the utensils of the buyer resting on the property of the seller should acquire the merchandise for him.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU GERSHOM</b> and the other Rishonim in Bava Basra answer that when the basket rests between the woman's feet, it is as if it rests upon her body. Her body certainly is considered like her Chatzer, an independent and separate domain from the property of the man's domain in which she is standing.
</p><p>
With regard to the basket seller, Rabeinu Gershom explains that the Gemara means that the husband sold a basket to his wife. Because she gave her husband the pleasure of purchasing the basket from him, the husband in return is Makneh to her the property upon which the basket is resting ('b'ha'Hi Hana'ah...'). 
</p><p>
Rabeinu Gershom seems to refer to a type of Kinyan similar to a Kinyan Chalifin, in which one person who receives something from another person can be Makneh something else in return without doing any further act of Kinyan. (See Bava Metzia 47a and Kidushin 7a.) Apparently, according to Rabeinu Gershom the same type of Kinyan applies whenever a person buys a basket (or other item) that is resting on the floor of the seller's store (or home). 
</p><p>
It is not clear, however, how Rabeinu Gershom explains the Gemara's answer with regard to the legs of the bed. How does the woman acquire the area underneath the legs of the bed?
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVA</b>, cited by Tosfos in Bava Basra, answers that even if the woman does not own the area underneath the legs of the bed, as long as the seller does not object, the utensils of the buyer can acquire the merchandise for him. The reason the utensils of the buyer cannot acquire the merchandise when the owner objects is because the utensils are Batel to the ground on which they are resting, and that ground belongs to the seller. However, when the seller does not mind, the utensils are not Batel and they can be Koneh the merchandise inside them for the buyer.
</p><p>
According to the Riva, what would be considered a case in which the seller objects? Is it not obvious that when the seller wants to sell something to the buyer, he gives permission to the buyer to put his utensils in his property?
</p><p>
The answer is that according to the Riva, the utensils of the buyer are Batel to the domain of the seller unless the seller gives <i>unconditional permission</i> to the buyer to keep his item on the seller's property <i>any time</i> that he wants, and not just in order to accomplish the Kinyan. The momentary permission that the seller gives in order for the buyer to make a Kinyan does not suffice. 
</p><p>
According to the Riva, when the Gemara states according to Rebbi Yochanan that 'Makom Kalsah Kanuy Lah,' it does not mean that the place where the basket is resting literally belongs to the wife. Rather, it means that a husband never minds when his wife keeps baskets on his property. 
</p><p>
This may be the intention of Rashi as well. Although Rashi writes that the area where a woman sits ('Bein Yarchoseha') is Kanuy to her, he might simply be using the wording of the Gemara and he does not mean that the wife literally owns the property there. When Rashi adds that 'until now (meaning when the Get was given), the area that was between her feet was Kanuy to her,' he is emphasizing the point mentioned above -- that a utensil of the buyer can acquire for him only if the seller unconditionally allows the utensils to remain there, and not if he allows them to remain there only for the moment of the Kinyan itself. 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (189:1) writes (with regard to another point) that in order to acquire land through borrowing ('She'eilah'), it suffices to use the land for the purpose for which it was borrowed. It is not necessary to make a Chazakah of locking it up (as the Gemara says on 77b). According to the Ketzos ha'Choshen, the Gemara may simply mean that if a husband allows his wife to place her basket or bed on his property, the moment that she places it there she is Konah the area beneath it, b'She'eilah (through borrowing it), by using it as a place upon which to rest her basket or bed. 
</p><p>
(This clearly contradicts the explanation of Rabeinu Gershom and the Riva, who imply that the woman must make an actual Kinyan of Chazakah or Chalifin in order to gain true ownership of the land beneath the basket (as is clear from the previous two answers).)
</p><p>
However, according to the Ketzos ha'Choshen, why is it necessary for the Gemara to teach that the husband does not mind when his wife's bed or basket rests on his property and, as a result, she acquires the area from the moment that she puts her bed or basket there? Why does the Gemara not simply say that the husband wants his wife to acquire the Get, and therefore the moment he throws the Get into her basket she uses the land as a place on which to rest her basket in order to receive the Get?
</p><p>
One answer might be that the Mishnah implies that the husband can divorce his wife even <i>against her will</i> by throwing the Get into her basket or bed. If the woman does not own the land underneath the basket until the time the Get is thrown, then if she says that she does not want to receive the Get she does not acquire the land beneath the basket and the Get does <i>not</i> take effect. (See <b>CHIDUSHEI RABEINU MEIR SIMCHAH</b> in Bava Basra.) Therefore, the Gemara explains that the woman acquired the area beneath the basket or bed at the moment that the basket or bed was placed there. Since she already owns that area, when the husband throws the Get there she acquires it against her will.
</p><p>
However, this answer does not suffice to explain the Gemara's question regarding whether the utensils of the buyer in the domain of the seller acquire on behalf of the buyer, because the Gemara refers to a person who purchases a product <i>willingly</i>. Why does the Gemara not assume that when the seller sells something to the buyer, he gives the buyer permission to borrow the land underneath his utensil, and when the buyer fills up his utensil he makes a Kinyan on the land through She'eilah (borrowing)? Likewise, the Gemara earlier (77b), in the case of the dying man, required that the woman make a Kinyan Chazakah on the property underneath the Get even though, as the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> explains, the husband only <i>lent</i> her the land underneath the Get. Why should she not acquire the land by simply having her Get rest on it? 
</p><p>
Perhaps the answer is that even according to the Ketzos ha'Choshen, the borrower must perform an <i>action</i> which shows he is using the land. Simply by leaving his utensil, or her Get, on the land is not sufficient because no action is done. The borrower can acquire the land only at the moment at which he places his utensil there. At that moment, however, the seller was not yet Makneh to him the land b'She'eilah. (If the buyer would pick up his utensil and then place it down again with intention to make a Kinyan She'eilah on the land, then his utensil <i>would</i> be Koneh the area for him.)
</p><p>
This might also be the intention of Rashi if Rashi means literally that the land is 'Kanuy' to the woman.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A WOMAN WHO TAKES HER GET FROM UPON HER HUSBAND'S BACK</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a Get is valid if a woman finds it fastened to her husband's back and she takes it from there, as long as the husband afterward tells her, 'Have your Get.' The Gemara asks why the Get takes effect when he says, 'Have your Get.' It is comparable to a man who tells his wife to take the Get that is resting on the ground ('Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka') which is not valid, as Rava rules.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the wife pulled the Get from upon her husband's back. The Gemara asks that this also fails to fulfill the requirement of 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1), since <i>she</i> is <i>taking</i> it and he is not giving it to her.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the man bent himself towards his wife ('Arak Lei Chartzei'), and then the woman took the Get. Since he started the action of giving it to her, it is considered as though he gave it and not that she took it.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara change its wording in the second question? If the Gemara does not know that the husband moved himself closer to his wife in order to facilitate giving her the Get, it should have asked that the original question remains -- that it is still a case of 'Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka.' While it is true that the reason why the Get in a case of 'Teli Gitech' is invalid is that the Torah says 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' as Rashi mentions, nevertheless if the Gemara needed to quote Rava to ask its first question, it obviously did not assume that this Halachah would have been derived from 'v'Nasan' had Rava not taught it. Hence, the Gemara should quote Rava again in its second question and ask that nothing is gained by saying that the wife pulled out the Get.
</p><p>
Moreover, since the Gemara seems to learn that 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' is an obvious Derashah that needs no source, why does Rava need to teach that the Get in a case of 'Teli Gitech m'Al Gabei Karka' is not valid?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Without Rava's teaching, one might have thought that the requirement of 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' means only that the wife cannot take the Get on her own, without asking the husband, even if the husband wants to divorce her. If, however, the husband initiates the divorce by <i>telling</i> his wife to pick up the Get, one might have thought that his statement alone satisfies the requirement of 'v'Nasan.' Rava therefore teaches that 'v'Nasan' requires the husband to perform an act of giving, and not just to tell his wife to pick up the Get.
</p><p>
Accordingly, the flow of the Gemara is clear. Initially, the Gemara assumes that in the case of the Mishnah, the act of giving ('Nesinah') is accomplished when the husband says, 'Have your Get,' and not when the wife takes the Get from her husband's back. The Gemara then questions this answer from the ruling of Rava, who teaches that the husband's statement alone does not satisfy the requirement of 'v'Nasan.'
</p><p>
The Gemara then alters its understanding and says that, indeed, a statement alone does not qualify as 'Nesinah.' The 'Nesinah' occurs at the time the Get is physically transferred to the wife. Saying 'have your Get' is necessary only in order to ensure that the wife realizes that she is divorced (as <b>TOSFOS</b> says in DH Eino Get), because if the wife does not realize that she is divorced the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions this assertion. Since the <i>wife</i> is the only one who did an action, and not the husband, even without Rava's teaching it should be clear that the Get is not valid because there is no act of 'Nesinah' on the part of the husband.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the husband <i>does</i> do an act of physically delivering the Get to his wife -- this act is his act of bringing his body closer to the wife before she draws the Get from upon his body.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Gemara implies that the husband does not have to deliver the Get to the wife completely by himself, by physically handing it over to her. Rather, as long as he brings it closer to his wife, his wife may then take it from his hands.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b>, however, cites <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who explains that 'Arak Lei Chartzei' does not mean simply that the husband moves his body closer to the wife, but that the husband makes the Get looser by withdrawing his stomach so that it is easier for her to remove it from his belt. The Rosh writes that it may be inferred from Rabeinu Chananel that the husband must not only bring the Get closer to his wife, but he must also do an act of releasing the Get before his wife takes it. For example, the husband must stretch out his hand, and then open up his fingers, and then the wife may take the Get from his hand. 
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (78b, DH Im) raises another problem. If the wife takes hold of one side of the Get while the husband is holding the first side, perhaps the act should be considered a lack of Kerisus, like when the husband is holding the end of a string that is tied to the Get in such a way that he could pull it out of his wife's hand. Even if his wife pulls the Get out of his hand, the Get will not be valid because <i>she</i> took it and <i>he</i> did not give it, for his act of bringing the Get closer was meaningless all the while that his hand was closed.
</p><p>
In practice, Beis Din instructs the woman to close her hand, and the husband folds up the Get and pushes it into the wife's closed hand so that she grasps the Get tightly entirely through the act of the husband.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) A GET THAT LANDS HALFWAY BETWEEN THE MAN AND WOMAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that when the husband and wife are standing in a public domain and the husband throws a Get to his wife, if it lands closer to her she is divorced, and if it lands closer to him she is not divorced. If it is halfway between them ('Machtzeh Al Machtzeh'), she is 'Safek Megureshes' (doubtfully divorced).
</p><p>
Rav explains that 'Karov Lah,' closer to her, means that the Get is within the wife's four Amos, and 'Karov Lo' means that it is within the husband's four Amos. 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh' means that they are both standing within the same four Amos. The Gemara asks that if they are both standing within the same four Amos, then the Get should belong to the first person who entered those four Amos, and she should not be Safek Megureshes, since two people cannot own the same four Amos. It cannot be that they arrived there at the exact same moment, because there is a principle that 'Iy Efshar l'Tzamtzem,' it is impossible for two events to happen simultaneously.
</p><p>
Rav Kahana answers that when the Mishnah says 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh,' it means that the husband and wife are standing exactly eight Amos apart, and the Get is resting halfway between them.
</p><p>
There are a number of questions on this Gemara.
</p><p>
(a) Why does the Mishnah need to mention the four Amos of the husband altogether? His four Amos would seem to be no different from anyone else's four Amos, or any area outside of the woman's four Amos. The Mishnah should say that if the Get is far from her (i.e. outside of her four Amos), she is not divorced, and if it is partially in her four Amos and partially outside ('Machtzeh Al Machtzeh'), she is Safek Megureshes. It should make no difference whether or not the Get is within her husband's four Amos. (<b>RASHBA</b>; see also <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> writes that according to Rav Kahana, when the Mishnah says that the Get is 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh,' it means that the husband and wife are exactly eight Amos from each other. This is indeed the implication of the words of the Gemara (beginning of 78b) which says that the Get 'leaves his four Amos and enters her four Amos.' 
</p><p>
It is clear that when Rashi says 'not more [than eight Amos apart],' he means that if the man and woman would be standing more than eight Amos apart (plus the width of the Get), the Get could not be resting in both his set of four Amos and in her set of four Amos at the same time. However, why can they not be standing <i>less</i> than eight Amos apart? For example, if they are six Amos apart, and the woman arrived there first, when the Get rests four Amos away from her and two Amos away from him, it is half in his four Amos and half in her four Amos, even though they are standing less than eight Amos apart from each other.
</p><p>
(c) How can a woman acquire her Get through the Kinyan of 'Arba Amos'? The Kinyan of Arba Amos is only a Kinyan mid'Rabanan, and thus a Get acquired through the Kinyan of Arba Amos should not be valid mid'Oraisa! (The same question applies to Rebbi Yochanan's answer, that the wife acquires the Get as long as she is able to protect it, even if it is a hundred Amos away from her. Since no other item can be acquired in such a manner, how can a woman acquire a Get, mid'Oraisa, this way?)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain that the Mishnah teaches a new Halachah when it says that when the Get falls within the husband's four Amos the woman is not divorced. It is teaching that when the husband arrived there first and the woman arrived afterwards, and now they are both standing in the same four Amos, if the husband throws the Get next to the wife she is not divorced because the four Amos belong to him. (This also seems to be the intention of the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos Gerushin 5:9.)
</p><p>
The <b>TIFERES YAKOV</b> suggests that the Mishnah is teaching an additional Halachah. The Mishnah is teaching that even when the Get falls within the husband's four Amos (that is, where the husband arrived first, as the Rashba explains), and then he leaves those four Amos and they become her domain (because she remains standing there), the Get is still not valid. One might have thought that the Get is valid just as the Get of the dying man (77b) is valid since it was transferred directly from the husband's domain to the wife's domain. The Mishnah teaches that the Get is not valid because the husband is not <i>giving</i> the domain to his wife, but rather he is exiting the domain, making it like Hefker, and then she takes it for herself by remaining there (and she does not need his permission to acquire that area).
</p><p>
With regard to the Mishnah's case of 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh,' the <b>TIFERES YAKOV</b> and <b>CHAZON ISH</b> (147:1) write that the reason why the end of the Mishnah states that the other half of the Get is in the husband's domain is that if the other half of the Get is in Reshus ha'Rabim, the woman indeed would be divorced, just as the woman is divorced when she takes hold of one end of the Get and the other end is not in her hands.
</p><p>
This explanation is problematic. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (8a) implies that if part of an object (such as an item of Hefker) is resting on the ground and the other part is in one's hand, he does <i>not</i> acquire the object. Hence, the woman should not be divorced when the Get is resting on the ground of Reshus ha'Rabim (as the Tosfos ha'Rosh here writes). Why, then, does the Gemara say that when the Get is half in the man's domain it is not valid because it is 'Agid Gabei,' attached to him? The Gemara should say instead that it is not valid because it is not entirely in her domain, and it makes no difference in whose domain the other half is resting. The Tosfos ha'Rosh writes that the Gemara indeed means not that the Get is in the husband's domain, but that the Get is not entirely in the wife's domain. This is also the implication of <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Ha Agid Gabei).
</p><p>
Accordingly, when the Mishnah says that when the Get is 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh' she is not divorced, it really does not have to mention the husband's four Amos, because as long as the Get is partially outside of the woman's four Amos she is not divorced, regardless of whose four Amos the other half of the Get is resting. Apparently, the Mishnah discusses a Get which is resting partially in the husband's domain only because it mentions a Get which is in his domain in the first case of the Mishnah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TIFERES YAKOV</b> explains the reason for why there must be exactly eight Amos and not less between the man and the woman. If there would be less than eight Amos between them, the husband would not have a full four Amos for himself (that is, if the wife preceded him there, and she would not have four Amos if he preceded her). Since he has less than four Amos, he is not considered to have a significant area (Makom Chashuv) and thus the area becomes Batel to Reshus ha'Rabim. Consequently, the wife or husband (whoever has less than four Amos) cannot acquire the Get. (This is based on the earlier assertion of the Tiferes Yakov, that if the husband does not retain ownership of the other half of the Get, but it is merely resting in Reshus ha'Rabim, the Get takes effect and the woman is divorced.)
</p><p>
Another possibility is that the same Halachah indeed would apply if the man and woman were closer than eight Amos from each other. However, the Gemara prefers to find a case in which both the man and the woman each have a full four Amos, so that the case will be similar to the case in the beginning of the Mishnah, <i>and</i> so that the words 'Machtzeh Al Machtzeh' (half and half) will apply (since each one has <i>half</i> of the area between them). 
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Metzia (10a, DH Arba Amos) and the <b>ROSH</b> here address the question of why the Kinyan d'Rabanan of Arba Amos, or the fact that the woman is able to guard the Get from a hundred Amos away, suffices for the Kinyan of a Get. Tosfos and the Rosh write that the Rabanan instituted that a woman acquires a Get with her Arba Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim 'Mishum Iguna,' because the husband might disappear and she will not be able to get another Get from him. Tosfos adds that the Takanah of Kinyan Arba Amos was made only to acquire two types of items: a Metzi'ah (an item that was found) so that people not fight over it, and a Get because of the concern of Iguna. In all other situations, Arba Amos is not Koneh.
</p><p>
Tosfos implies that once the Rabanan gave to the woman the four Amos around her, that area becomes like her Chatzer mid'Oraisa, and therefore she can become divorced mid'Oraisa through the Kinyan which the Chatzer effects.
</p><p>
However, this explanation does not apply to the case in which the woman acquires the Get because she is able to guard the Get even when it is a hundred Amos away. In that situation, the Rabanan did not enact that the area that the woman could guard is considered her Chatzer. The <b>ROSH</b> here writes that this was a special Takanah d'Rabanan through which 'Afka'inhu Rabanan l'Kidushin': when the Get is resting in a place which she could guard, the Rabanan uprooted the original Kidushin because of Iguna, according to Rebbi Yochanan. The <b>RAN</b> adds that the Takanah was made 'b'She'as ha'Shemad,' when the Nochrim forbid Jews from giving Gitin.
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests that just as the word 'v'Nasan' teaches that the Get does not literally need to fall into the wife's hand (as the Gemara on 77a mentions), it also teaches that it does not have to fall literally into her Chatzer. Any area which she can guard satisfies the requirement of 'v'Nasan,' even though it cannot acquire the Get for her through Kinyan Chatzer. (According to this approach, the same should apply to a thief; he should be Koneh the item if it is in a place that he can protect, even though that place does not belong to him. Moreover, according to this explanation, the Halachos of Get are apparently <i>not</i> the source of Kinyan Chatzer.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If so, he has a hold on the Get (and she 
               is not even doubtfully divorced)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> One pair of 
               witnesses says that it fell closer to him, and 
               another pair of witnesses says that it fell closer 
               to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It can be considered closer to 
          him or her, even if he or she is 100 Amos away.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case of being in the middle?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Shaman bar Aba):</font></b> R. Yochanan says that if 
               only one can guard the Get, it is called closer to 
               him (or her). If neither or both can guard it, this 
               is 'in the middle,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yonason):</font></b> Also in Bavel they explain this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If it is closer to her 
          than to him and a dog took it, she is not divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be. Must she forever guard 
               the Get?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, we must say that if it is closer to 
               her than to him, but if a dog came to take it he 
               could guard it but she could not, so she is not 
               divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Shmuel):</font></b> It is called closer to her if she can 
          bend down and pick it up;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I say that one should be stringent and not permit 
               her until she takes the Get in her hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Mordechai):</font></b> A case occurred (in which he died before 
          she picked up the Get), and Chachamim required her to do 
          Chalitzah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES THIS LAW APPLY ELSEWHERE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The same applies to Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Asi):</font></b> The law of the Mishnah applies only to divorce, 
          not to anything else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba - Mishnah):</font></b> The same applies to 
          Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Asi):</font></b> I did not mean to exclude Kidushin, for 
          the Torah equates divorce and Kidushin - 'v'Yotz'ah 
          v'Haysah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> The same applies to a debt. If a 
          creditor said 'throw to me the money that you owe me', 
          and it landed closer to the creditor, the loan was 
          repaid. If it landed closer to the borrower, the loan was 
          not repaid. If it landed in the middle, it was half 
          repaid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case was, the creditor said 'throw to me the 
          money that you owe me and you will be exempt.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, obviously he is exempt (if the money 
          lands closer to the creditor)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case was, he said 'throw to me the money 
          according to the law of divorce.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Also in this case, the law is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the creditor can say 
          'I was only joking (really, I do not exempt you until you 
          properly return the money to me).' The Mishnah teaches 
          that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN HE STILL HAS A HOLD ON THE GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If he put the Get in her hand, but he holds 
          a string attached to the Get: if he can yank it from her, 
          she is not divorced. If not, she is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We require (a Sefer of) cutting.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If her hand was slanted (so it could not 
          land in her hand), even if he threw it and it hit her 
          hand, she is not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is she not divorced? It will fall within 
          four Amos of her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, it never landed (e.g. it burned up 
          in mid-air).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be divorced because it was in the 
          airspace of the four Amos around her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> (R. Elazar was unsure whether or not the 
               enactment that four Amos around a person acquire for 
               him applies also to the airspace of those four 
               Amos.) From Rav Chisda, we may conclude that the 
               enactment does not apply to the airspace!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and rejection):</font></b> The case is, she is standing on 
          the riverbank. The Get was never destined to land within 
          four Amos of her. (It was destined to fall in the river.)
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET ACQUIRED IN MID-AIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was standing on the roof and he threw a 
          Get to her, once it reaches the airspace above the roof, 
          she is divorced;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he was on the roof and she was below, and he threw a 
          Get to her, once it leaves the airspace of the roof, even 
          if it was blotted out or burned in mid-air, she is 
          divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is she divorced? The roof is not 
          guarded! (The wind can blow the Get away, so the roof 
          cannot acquire for her!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The case is, there is a railing 
          around the roof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ula bar Manshiya):</font></b> The case is, the Get passed 
          less than three Tefachim above the roof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Anything less than three Tefachim above the roof is 
               like (resting on) the roof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he was on the roof...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is she divorced? The yard (in which she 
          stands) is not guarded (the wind can blow the Get 
          outside)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah, R. Elazar, Ula, and R. Asi):</font></b> The 
          case is, the walls around the yard (in which she stands) 
          are higher than the roof (so once the Get leaves the 
          roof, it is guarded).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Aba, also R. Zeira):</font></b> Is this only according 
          to Rebbi, who says (regarding Shabbos) that something in 
          mid-air is considered as resting?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ula, also R. Asi):</font></b> No, it is even like Chachamim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue only about Shabbos. Gitin depends on the 
               Get being guarded, and here the Get is guarded.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was blotted out...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> This applies only if it was blotted out 
          while descending. If it was blotted out while ascending, 
          she is not divorced.
<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> While ascending, it is not considered destined to 
          land (we cannot view it as if it already landed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it burned up...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> This is only if he threw the Get before 
          there was a fire. If the fire came first, she is not 
          divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> From the moment he threw it, it was destined to 
          be burned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>RECEIVING A GET THROUGH PROPERTY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a man lent property to his wife to 
          receive her Get, he lent to her only one property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> What is Rav Chisda's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If she was standing on the roof 
          and he threw a Get to her, once it reaches the airspace 
          above the roof, she is divorced.
<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></b>  If she owns the yard and the roof, she is 
                    divorced even before it enters the airspace of 
                    the roof!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If he owns the yard and the roof, even after 
                    it enters the airspace of the roof, she is not 
                    divorced!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> We must say that he owns the yard, and 
               she owns the roof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reisha):</font></b> If he was on the roof and she was below, 
               and he threw a Get to her, once it leaves the 
               airspace of the roof, even if it was blotted out or 
               burned in mid-air, she is divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If also here, he owns the yard and she 
               owns the roof, why is she divorced?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> We must say that here she owns the yard, 
               and he owns the roof.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is unreasonable. The Mishnah should 
               be consistent!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (to both questions):</font></b> Rather, in the entire 
               Mishnah he owns both, and he lends to her a place to 
               receive the Get;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah says that she is not divorced until 
                    the Get enters the airspace of where she is. 
                    This teaches that he lent to her only that 
                    place, for a man lends only one place.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> The objection to Answer #1 is unfounded. We 
          can say that in the Reisha, he owns the yard and she owns 
          the roof. In the Seifa, she owns the yard and he owns the 
          roof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> There are three laws about receiving a Get 
          through property:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi considers an airborne object to be resting and 
               Chachamim argue. That is only regarding Shabbos, but 
               here all agree that she acquires the Get (in 
               midair), because it is guarded.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda taught that if one erects a beam in a 
               Reshus ha'Yachid (private domain) with a basket on 
               top, even if it is 100 Amos tall, one who throws 
               something into it from Reshus ha'Rabim (a public 
               thoroughfare) is liable, for Reshus ha'Yachid 
               extends to the sky.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  That is only regarding Shabbos. A Get is not 
                    acquired this way, for a Get must be guarded, 
                    and this is not considered guarded.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN AREA WHICH PROTECTS THE GET EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO WALLS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that if the woman was standing on the roof and the husband threw the Get to her there, as soon as the Get reaches the airspace of the roof she is divorced. The Gemara asks why is she divorced when the Get reaches merely the airspace of the roof, if the airspace of the roof does not serve to protect the Get?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Ha) explains that the Get is not protected because the wind might blow away the Get before it lands on the roof. Consequently, the woman should not be divorced if the Get never comes to rest on the roof (such as when a dog grabs the Get before it reaches the floor of the roof). The airspace of a domain only acquires an object for its owner when the object will later land in that domain (see Bava Metzia 12a).
</p><p>
The Gemara gives two answers to its question. Rav Yehudah answers in the name of Shmuel that the Mishnah refers to a roof with a Ma'akeh (fence) which prevents the Get from being blown out of the area of the roof. Ula bar Menashya answers in the name of Avimi that the Mishnah refers to a case in which the Get reached within three Tefachim of the floor of the roof. <b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Pachos) explains that an object within three Tefachim of the ground is considered to be resting on the ground. Since the roof itself is higher than ten Tefachim high, it has the status of a 'Chatzer ha'Mishtameres' for everything that rests within it.
</p><p>
The Gemara later cites Rava who states that there are three 'Midos' in Gitin. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Shalosh) explains that there are three laws in Gitin which differ from the laws in other prohibitions. One of these differences is the ruling of Rav Chisda with regard to the laws of Shabbos. Rav Chisda ruled that if a beam was standing in a Reshus ha'Yachid and a Traskal (basket or small vessel) was resting on top of the beam, one who throws, on Shabbos, an object from Reshus ha'Rabim onto the Traskal in Reshus ha'Rabim is Chayav for transferring from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid, even if the Traskal atop the beam is at a height of a hundred Amos. In contrast, when a man throws a Get to his wife and it lands on a Traskal atop a beam in her domain, she is <i>not</i> divorced because the Get is not guarded while resting on the Traskal.
</p><p>
(The <b>RASHBA</b> asserts that in Rashi's text of the Gemara, the word 'Traskal' is not mentioned. The Rashba writes that although, with regard to the laws of Shabbos, the thrower of the object would be Chayav for throwing the object from Reshus ha'Rabim to the top of the beam even if there is no Traskal at the top, with regard to the laws of Gitin there must be a Traskal on top, because Rava's Chidush is that even if the Get lands on the Traskal the wife is not divorced because the Traskal does not guard the Get.)
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Aval) explains that if the beam is higher than the walls of the woman's Chatzer, she is not divorced. The wind will blow the Get beyond the walls of her Chatzer and it will not land on the ground of her Chatzer. A woman acquires her Get only in her Chatzer <i>which protects it</i>, as derived from 'b'Yadah' (Devarim 24:1), her hand, which protects the Get when the husband places it there. 
</p><p>
Rava's statement seems to contradict the answer of Ula bar Menashya, who teaches that even when a Chatzer has no walls it can acquire the Get for the woman as long as the Get reaches within three Tefachim of the ground. (See <b>RASHBA</b> in the name of the Yerushalmi which states explicitly that a Chatzer without walls acquires the Get for her if it reaches within three Tefachim of the ground.) Ula bar Menashya does not require that the Chatzer must be able to guard the Get. Accordingly, when the Get lands on her Traskal, even if the Chatzer does not protect the Get she should be divorced since the Get actually landed in her domain. How is Rava's statement to be reconciled with Ula bar Menashya's ruling?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> answer that since the Traskal is so narrow, it does not protect the Get at all. Since the Get will blow away even in an ordinary wind, it is not considered to have landed at all in her domain. In contrast, when the Get lands within three Tefachim of the floor of the roof, the roof's width protects the Get from blowing away in an ordinary wind, and thus the Get is considered to have landed in the wife's domain.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that according to the text of Rashi, there is no Traskal at the top of the beam, and the Get landed directly on the top of the beam. Accordingly, there is a clear difference between the two cases. When the Get lands within three Tefachim of the roof, it is considered to have landed on the roof itself because it is so close to the roof. The roof is a significant area (Makom Chashuv) and, therefore, it is not necessary that the Get be protected from the wind there. In contrast, when the Get lands on the top of a narrow beam, it is considered to be in the air still, since the beam is not a Makom Chashuv. Accordingly, in order to be considered to be in her domain it must be protected from the wind. If there are no walls to protect it, it is not considered to be in her domain and she does not acquire it.
</p><p>
This distinction between the case of Rava and the case of Ula bar Menashya applies even according to the text which includes the word 'Traskal.' In the case of the Mishnah, the woman is standing on the roof, and thus she is able to guard it once it is within three Tefachim of the floor of the roof. In contrast, when the Get is high up on the Traskal, she is not able to ensure that the wind will not blow it away from there. (See <b>MAHARAM</b>.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah taught that one may not stand on a roof 
               and collect rainwater from another roof (even if 
               they are attached), for just like the houses below 
               are distinct residences, the roofs are considered 
               distinct. (One may not transfer from one Reshus 
               ha'Yachid to a different Reshus ha'Yachid on 
               Shabbos.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  That is only regarding Shabbos. Gitin depend on 
                    the will of the husband (who lent to his wife 
                    the roof to receive the Get). A man is not so 
                    particular about on which roof she receives the 
                    Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a woman owns an inner yard, and her husband 
          owns an outer yard, and the walls of the outer are higher 
          than those of the inner, and he threw a Get to her, once 
          it (is above her Chatzer) and is lower than the outer 
          walls, she is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is she divorced? The Get is not guarded 
          within the walls of her property!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The outer walls also service the inner Chatzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  This does not apply to boxes. If she owns an inner box, 
          and he owns the outer box, and throws a Get, even after 
          it in the airspace of her box, she is not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It has not rested yet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Even after it rests, why is she divorced? This 
          is like the Kli of the buyer in the domain of the seller!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, his box has no bottom. (Her box 
          rests on the ground.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN OLD GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> A man may divorce his wife with 
          an old Get;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel forbid this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Get is old if the couple were secluded after the 
               Get was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Beis Shamai hold that we do not decree lest she 
          became pregnant after the writing, and people will assume 
          that the Get was given on the date written and say that 
          the child was conceived after the divorce. Beis Hillel 
          make this decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Aba):</font></b> If she remarried relying on an old 
          Get, she may remain married.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (R. Aba):</font></b> If she was divorced with an old Get, 
          she may remarry l'Chatchilah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>FINES FOR REMARRYING WITH AN IMPROPER GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman remarried relying on a Get with one 
          of the problems listed below, she suffers the following 
          penalties:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She may not remain married to her original nor her 
               new husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She may not marry anyone else until she gets a 
               proper Get from both husbands;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> She does not receive from either husband:</font></b> a Kesuvah, 
               Peros (the yield of her property), food, or the 
               remnants of (Rashi; Tosfos - compensation for 
               depreciation of) property that she brought into the 
               marriage;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If she took, she must return it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Children from either husband (after she remarried) 
               are Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> If she dies, neither husband may become Tamei (if he 
               is a Kohen) to engage in her burial;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Neither husband receives objects she finds or her 
               productivity;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Neither can annul her vows;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> If she is a Bas Yisrael, she is permanently 
               disqualified from marrying a Kohen;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> If she is a Bas Levi, she is disqualified from 
               eating Ma'aser;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b>  If she is a Bas Kohen, she is disqualified from 
               eating Terumah;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b>  Her children from either husband do not inherit her 
               Kesuvah;
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b></b>  If either husband died before giving her a Get, she 
               does Chalitzah with his brother, but not Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The problematic Gitin are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The date is not according to the reign of the king 
               of the land, rather according to the king of an 
               improper kingdom, or of the Medes, or of the 
               Yevanim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The year was counted from the building of the Beis 
               ha'Mikdash or its destruction;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He was in the east, but the Get says 'in the west';
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SECOND KOHEN WHO MARRIES THE DIVORCED WOMAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah lists various mistakes in the writing of a Get which render the Get invalid (such as writing the name of the wrong king in the Get, the wrong place, and wrong name). The Mishnah states that if a woman thought she was divorced with such a Get and became married to another man, she must leave both the first and second husbands. The Mishnah later states that if she dies, neither man may become Tamei for her. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mitam'in) explains that if the two men are Kohanim they are not allowed to touch her body and bury her. Even though a Kohen is permitted to become Tamei and bury his wife (Vayikra 21:2), in this case the Rabanan penalized her for getting married with a faulty Get and considered neither man to be her husband.)
</p><p>
Rashi clearly implies that the second husband was also a Kohen. Since the first Get was valid mid'Oraisa and Pasul only mid'Rabanan, the woman was a Gerushah (divorcee) mid'Oraisa. How, then, was it possible that she remarried a Kohen, who is forbidden from marrying a Gerushah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>CHOCHMAS SHLOMO</b> answers that Rashi does not actually mean that both men were Kohanim. Rather, he means that only the first husband was a Kohen, while the second was a <i>Nazir</i>, who is also not allowed to touch a corpse. (See <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> who questions the Chochmas Shlomo from the Mishnah in Nazir (47a) which states that a Nazir is never allowed to become Tamei for his wife, in contrast to a Kohen, and thus according to the Chochmas Shlomo the Mishnah here is teaching nothing new.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that when Rashi writes that if both husbands are Kohanim they are not allowed to become Tamei for her, he refers to one of two possible scenarios. The first possibility is that the first husband was a Kohen and was still alive when his wife died. Since he had given her a Get which was valid mid'Oraisa, she is no longer considered his wife to permit him to become Tamei for her. In this scenario, there is no need to add that she remarried another Kohen after she received the Get.
</p><p>
The second possibility is that the first husband died after he gave the Get. The second Kohen married her under the assumption that she was <i>widowed</i> and not divorced, because he did not know that her first husband had given her a Get before his death. Since, in reality, the Get from the first husband is valid mid'Oraisa, the woman has the status of a Gerushah, and therefore the second husband is not allowed to touch her corpse. The Gemara in Yevamos (22b) states that a Kohen may bury his wife only if she is permitted to be married to him, but not if she is Pesulah to him. (See <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> YD 373:4, who rules that a Kohen may not touch his dead wife if she was a Gerushah.)
</p><p>
The Maharsha adds that the Gemara later (81a) mentions a similar case. The Gemara there teaches that if there was a rumor that a Kohen had written a Get for his wife and she remarried another Kohen, she must leave the second husband. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mai) explains that the Gemara refers to a case in which the first husband died and the woman remarried another Kohen. She must leave him because of the rumor that she received a Get from her first husband before he died. The Maharsha points out that Rashi there is careful to write that the first Kohen died, because if it was known that the first Kohen divorced her the second Kohen never would have married her. Similarly, the Gemara here refers to a case in which the second Kohen thought he was marrying a widow and not a divorcee.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>MAHAMRAM SHIF</b> suggests that the second Kohen indeed transgressed the law when he married the Gerushah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>CHOCHMAS SHLOMO</b> suggests a different explanation for the Gemara. Perhaps, in contrast to Rashi's explanation, both husbands were <i>not</i> Kohanim. When the Mishnah says that neither man may become Tamei for his wife, it means that they are not obligated to make themselves Tamei to bury her, since neither one is considered her full husband.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> questions this explanation from the words of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avel 2:6) who rules that only Kohanim -- who are prohibited from becoming Tamei for non-relatives (Vayikra 21:1) -- are conversely obligated to become Tamei for close relatives (Vayikra 21:2-3). In contrast, Yisraelim who are not prohibited from become Tamei for non-relatives are not obligated to become Tamei for relatives. (See <b>RA'AVAD</b> there who disagrees with the Rambam.) 
</p><p>
The <b>SHA'AGAS ARYEH</b> (#66) writes that <b>RASHI</b> in Yevamos (29b, DH v'Lo) agrees with the Rambam. Accordingly, Rashi cannot explain that the Mishnah refers to a husband who is a Yisrael whom the Rabanan prohibited from becoming Tamei to bury his wife because she is not his proper wife, because a Yisrael is never obligated to become Tamei even for his proper wife. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IMPROPER GITIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If the scribe changed his or her name, or the name of his 
          or her city, all these penalties apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A man died without children. One of his wives (Leah) was 
          Ervah (a close relative) to the Yavam, which exempts 
          herself and all Tzaros (co-wives) from Yibum and 
          Chalitzah. If Sarah (a Tzarah) remarried, and then we 
          learned that Leah is an Ailonis (so she was never really 
          married, and Sarah was forbidden to remarry without 
          Chalitzah), all of the above fines apply to Sarah. (Fines 
          that pertain to the first husband, e.g. she may not be 
          married to him, apply to the Yavam.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A man died without children. One of the widows (Leah) did 
          Yibum. (This exempts the other Tzaros from Yibum and 
          Chalitzah.) If Sarah (a Tzarah) remarried, and then we 
          learned that Leah is an Ailonis (so the Yibum was Pasul, 
          and Sarah was forbidden to remarry without Chalitzah), 
          all of the above fines apply to Sarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A scribe wrote a Get for a man and a receipt (saying that 
          the Kesuvah has been paid) for his wife. The man divorced 
          his wife and took the receipt; she remarried. Later, he 
          finds that he has the Get, and she has the receipt. We 
          realize that the scribe gave the wrong document to each 
          party, so she was never divorced! All the above fines 
          apply;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says, this is only if the mistake is realized 
          immediately. If not, the man is not believed to forbid 
          her to her second husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> 'An improper kingdom' refers to Rome;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is called 'improper' because it does not have its 
               own alphabet or language.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>R. MEIR'S OPINION ABOUT GITIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> It was enacted to date a Get according to the 
          kingdom for the sake of Shalom with the king.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If that is the reason, if this was not done, 
          why must she leave her new husband and the children be 
          Mamzerim?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! This is R. Meir's opinion;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> R. Meir holds that any deviation from 
               the enactments of Chachamim in Gitin disqualifies 
               the Get, and the children (from the new husband) are 
               Mamzerim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If it was dated according to the kingdom of 
          Yavan...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  It was necessary to teach the different cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about Rome, one might have 
               thought that other kings resent a Get dated 
               according to Rome because the Romans currently rule;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This would not apply to Yavan or the Medes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about Yavan, one might have 
               thought that other kings resent such a Get because 
               Yavan once ruled;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This would not apply to the building of the 
                    Beis ha'Mikdash.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about the building of the Beis 
               ha'Mikdash was taught, one might have thought that 
               other kings resent this because we mention our 
               praise;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This would not apply to the destruction of the 
                    Beis ha'Mikdash, for this is our sorrow;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. The Get is 
               Pasul in all these cases.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He was in the east, but the Get says 'in the 
          west,'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who was in the east?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The husband was in the east.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The next clause teaches this - 'the name 
               of the husband or wife, or the name of his or her 
               city was changed'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the scribe was in the east.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna would tell scribes to write the location 
               they are in, not where they were commanded to write 
               the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Meir (who is 
          concerned for Shalom with the kingdom). Chachamim say, 
          even if the Get was dated according to a minor city 
          official (who keeps track of boundaries of people's 
          inheritances), she is divorced.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) IS THE NAME OF A CITY AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A GET</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that if the name of her city or his city was recorded incorrectly in the Get and the woman remarried on the basis of this Get, she must leave both her first and second husbands.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shinah) writes that the Mishnah does not mean literally that the name of a city was written incorrectly. Rather, the Mishnah refers to a case in which a city is known by two different names in two difference places. In such a case, the principal name of the place or person must be written in the Get, and one must mention that there is an additional, secondary name. 
</p><p>
What is the Halachah when the name of the city of residence of the husband or wife is entirely omitted from the Get? Is the Get invalid?
<br> 
<br>(a) Many Rishonim rule that the name of the cities of the husband and wife are essential components of the Get. If mention of either city is omitted from the Get, the Get is invalid. This is the view of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (quoted by the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> in Bava Basra 167b), <b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA</b> (1:213), and others.
</p><p>
The Rashba cites support for this ruling from the Gemara earlier (19b). The Gemara states that if one gives a Sefer Torah to his wife and declares that this is her Get, she is not divorced. (That is, the passage in the Sefer Torah which teaches the Mitzvah to give a Get is not considered a valid Get.) One of the reasons the Gemara there gives for why such a Get is not valid is that it does not contain his name and her name, and the names of his and her places of residence. The Gemara there clearly implies that a Get is invalid when the name of his or her city is omitted.
</p><p>
(b) Although the Rishonim quoted above may maintain that the Get is invalid only mid'Rabanan, the <b>SHILTEI GIBORIM</b> quotes the <b>RI'AZ</b> who rules that a Get which does not contain his or her city is invalid according to Torah law. The Shiltei Giborim states that he agrees with the ruling of the Ri'az.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b> here (#9) writes that even if one does not write the name of the city of the man or woman, the Get is valid b'Di'eved. The Mishnah invalidates the Get only when the name of the city was written <i>incorrectly</i>, but not when it was entirely omitted.
</p><p>
The <b>KORBAN NESANEL</b> (#70) cites proof for the ruling of the Rosh from the Mishnah earlier (26a). The Mishnah states that a scribe who prepares Gitin in advance must leave blank the place where the name of the husband is written, the place where the name of the wife is written, and the place where the date is written. The fact that the Mishnah mentions only these three items suggests that the omission of only one of these three render the Get invalid. If the name of his or her city is omitted, the Get is still valid. The reason why the Get is invalid if the name of the city is written incorrectly is that the Get is considered 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho' (see above, 4a, and Insights to 11:2), which everyone agrees is invalid since incorrect details are written in it. In contrast, if the name of his or her city is omitted entirely, the Get does not appear to be false, and since only non-essential components are missing the Get is valid (b'Di'eved).
</p><p>
The Korban Nesanel refutes the proof of the Rashba (see (a) above) by stating that in some texts of the Gemara, the Gemara (20a) says only that both of their names are essential. It does not mention that the name of both of their cities is essential. This is in fact the text of the <b>HAGAHOS HA'GRA</b>. (See also <b>BI'UR HA'GRA</b> to <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> EH 128:3, who writes that this is also the text of Rashi and Tosfos there.) (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a Get was dated 
          according to a servant of the king in Buscar, what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Even R. Meir admits that in such a case 
          she is divorced, since the servant is part of the same 
          kingdom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is this different than dating according to 
          a minor city official?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, it is a disgrace. Here, it honors the 
          kingdom.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Meir. Chachamim say that 
          the children are not Mamzerim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim admit to R. Meir that if the name of the 
               husband or wife, or the name of his or her city was 
               changed, the children are Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> If the name of the 
               husband or wife, or the name of his or her city was 
               changed, all the fines apply.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who taught this clause?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If R. Meir taught it, he should have taught it 
                    together with the previous case (since the law 
                    is the same)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, Chachamim taught it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OTHER FINES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man died without children (and Sarah 
          remarried because Leah was Ervah to the Yavam, and Leah 
          was found to be an Ailonis, all the fines apply).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Inference):</font></b> The fines apply when Sarah 
          remarried, but if she was Mezanah, she is not fined.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rav Hamnuna!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If a Shomeres Yavam had Bi'ah with a 
               stranger, she is forbidden to the Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, the fines apply whether she married or was 
          Mezanah. The Tana discusses marriage, for this is nicer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when Sarah remarried. 
          The same applies if she was Mezanah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> This supports Rav Hamnuna.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> If a Shomeres Yavam had Bi'ah with a 
               stranger, she is forbidden to the Yavam.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, the fines apply only when she remarried, 
          for then she could be confused with a woman who remarried 
          after hearing (false testimony) that her husband died 
          overseas. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Leah did Yibum (and Sarah remarried ...), 
          all of the above fines apply to Sarah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  It was necessary to teach this case and the previous 
          case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had we taught only the first case, one might have 
               thought that only there she is fined since Yibum was 
               never done; but here Yibum was done, so she would 
               not be fined;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had we taught only this case, one might have thought 
               that only here she is fined because she knew that 
               she fell to Yibum, but in the first case she thought 
               that she was exempt from the moment her husband 
               died, so she would not be fined.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the scribe erred... R. Eliezer says, if the 
          mistake is realized immediately...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is considered immediately?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The whole time they are involved 
          in the divorce is called immediately. After they divert 
          to another matter is considered 'later.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> If she did not yet 
          remarry, that is immediately. After remarriage is 
          considered 'later'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He cannot forbid her to her second husband.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rav Ada bar Ahavah. He is not believed 
               only if she remarried.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to Shmuel, her husband is not 
               believed even if she did not remarry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means that he cannot uproot her 
               permission to marry a second husband.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DO REBBI MEIR AND THE CHACHAMIM ARGUE ABOUT TORAH LAW </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (79b) states that if the date in the Get was written in accordance with the year of the reign of a king who is not the present or local ruler, the Get is invalid. The Gemara (80a) explains that the reason for this decree is in order that the Jewish nation should always be on peaceful terms with the ruling power. If the name of the wrong king was written and the wife remarried on the basis of this Get, a child from the second marriage has the status of a Mamzer because the woman is still married to the first husband. This is according to Rebbi Meir's opinion that whenever one alters the 'Matbe'a' (form) which the Chachamim instituted for the writing of a Get, the Get is disqualified and any child born from a second marriage based on this Get is a Mamzer. 
</p><p>
The Gemara here quotes Rebbi Aba in the name of Rav that this ruling is only in accordance with Rebbi Meir's opinion. The Chachamim, in contrast, rule that b'Di'eved the child is not considered a Mamzer. The Chachamim agree with Rebbi Meir that if the name of the husband or wife, or the name of the husband's city or wife's city, is written in the Get incorrectly, a child born afterwards would be a Mamzer.
</p><p>
The simple reading of the Gemara here raises difficulties with the interpretation of <b>TOSFOS</b> (20a, DH Ha) of the Gemara. The Gemara earlier (19b) discusses a case in which a man gives a Sefer Torah to his wife as a Get. The Gemara (20a) says that even if the man paid the scribe in advance to write -- with the man's wife in mind -- the passage in the Torah that describes the Mitzvah of Get, there is no reason to be concerned that there is any validity to the Get. The Halachah requires that the scribe write the names of the husband and wife in the Get, and if he did not do so the Get is not valid.
</p><p>
The Gemara here explains that when the Mishnah says that the child from the second marriage is a Mamzer when the husband's or wife's name is written in the Get incorrectly, it is expressing the view of Rebbi Meir. Tosfos there (20a) writes that this implies that according to the Chachamim, if the names are written incorrectly the Get is invalid only mid'Rabanan. Accordingly, if the names are omitted entirely, according to the Chachamim the Get should be valid.
</p><p>
The words of Tosfos are very difficult to understand. The Gemara says explicitly in the name of Rav that the Chachamim <i>agree</i> with Rebbi Meir that if the names are written incorrectly, the child will be a Mamzer. How does Tosfos reconcile his understanding of the Mishnah with Rav's statement? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARAM</b> (20a) answers that Tosfos understands that the dispute between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim involves an incorrectly written <i>rabbinically</i> required term in the Get, such as the writing of the date according to the reign of the incorrect king. It must be that Rebbi Meir maintains that in such a case the Get is invalid according to rabbinic law, while the Chachamim argue that the Get is valid b'Di'eved. This is apparent from Rebbi Meir's reasoning that whenever one alters the 'Matbe'a' of a Get causes any children born to his wife from her second husband to be Mamzerim. Tosfos therefore understands that when Rav says that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Meir when the names are written incorrectly, it must be that they agree that this type of mistake is the same type of mistake as writing the name of the wrong king according to Rebbi Meir. After all, this is the context of their dispute. Accordingly, Tosfos maintains that the incorrect name of the husband or wife in a Get results in the Get's disqualification only according to Rabbinic law and not according to Torah law. Consequently, Tosfos infers that if the names are omitted entirely, the Get is valid, and thus Tosfos asks his question on the Gemara there: Why is the Sefer Torah which the husband gives to his wife as a Get not a valid Get even though their names are not written in it? (See also <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> to 20a.) (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


