# dafyomi

lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TWO SHELUCHIM WHO BRING A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  While Rav Yehudah, Rabah and Rabah bar bar Chanah were 
          talking, two Chaverim (Persians, or a nation that 
          corrupted the Persians) took their lamp. Rabah bar bar 
          Chanah beseeched Hash-m:</font></b> if we do not merit to be under 
          Your protection, please let us be under the Edomites!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> This implies that the Edomites are better than 
          the Chaverim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But R. Chiya expounded 'Hash-m understood its 
          way, he knew its place' - Hash-m knew that Yisrael could 
          not endure the decrees of the Edomites, so He exiled them 
          to Bavel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was better to be in Bavel until the Chaverim 
          came.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one says 'it was written in front of me' 
          and two say 'it was signed in front of us', it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Ami, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is valid only 
          if the one saying 'it was written in front of me' was a 
          Shali'ach to give the Get, for then it is as if two 
          testify about the writing and two about the signing;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the one s saying 'it was written in front of us' 
               are the Sheluchim, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> He obligates two Sheluchim who bring a 
               Get to make a declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Asi - Reisha):</font></b> If two say 'it was written in 
          front of us' and one says 'it was signed in front of me', 
          it is Pasul,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah is Machshir (says that it is valid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Do you say that Chachamim disqualify even when both 
               who saw it written are holding the Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> Yes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (R. Ami, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even when the 
          one s saying 'it was signed in front of us' are the 
          Sheluchim, it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> He exempts two Sheluchim that bring a Get 
               from a declaration.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Asi - Reisha):</font></b> If two say 'it was written in 
          front of us' and one says 'it was signed in front of me', 
          it is Pasul,
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah is Machshir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Will you say that Chachamim disqualify only if the 
               one s who saw it written were not holding the Get, 
               but if they were holding it, it would be valid?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> Yes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Asi):</font></b> Another time, you said differently!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (R. Ami): This latter version is the correct one 
<br>          .
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DATE ON A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Get was written during the day and signed 
          the (same) day, or it was written at night and signed 
          during the day; or it was written at night and signed at 
          night, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If it was written during the day and signed at night, it 
          is Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon is Machshir. He disqualifies any document 
          written during the day and signed at night, except for a 
          Get of divorce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why was it enacted to put the date on 
          a Get (of divorce)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> This is lest a woman commit 
          adultery, and her husband save her from execution by 
          giving her a dateless Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since Beis Din would not know whether the Bi'ah was 
               before or after the divorce, they could not kill 
               her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Sometimes a man would have compassion to save a wife 
               who betrayed him, e.g. if she was his niece.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The date is to enable her to 
          prove from when the Peros (yield) of her property belong 
          to her, i.e. the day he finished writing the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. 
          Yochanan?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE DESCENDANTS OF ESAV</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that after a Persian harassed Rabah bar bar Chanah, he pleaded to Hash-m, 'Let us be either under your protection or under the protection of the descendants of Esav (the Edomites)!' The Gemara infers from Rabah's appeal that the Edomites are better than the Persians. The Gemara questions this from the statement of Rebbi Chiya who taught that Hash-m knew that the Jewish people would not be able to endure the decrees of the Edomites, so He exiled them to Bavel. Rebbi Chiya's statement clearly implies that the residents of Bavel (the Persians) are more tolerable than the Edomites. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Chiya's statement refers to Bavel <i>before</i> the Persians arrived there. Before the Persians came to Bavel, the residents of Bavel indeed were more tolerable than the Edomites. The Edomites, however, are more tolerable than the Persians. 
</p><p>
If the Edomites are intolerable, as Rebbi Chiya taught, why did Rabah bar bar Chanah ask Hash-m to place the Jewish people under their protection? Why did he ask for something intolerable? (<b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> answers that there is one advantage in being under the rule of the descendants of Esav. In Yitzchak's blessing to Yakov, he says, 'And when you will have dominion, you will throw off his yoke from upon your neck' (Bereishis 27:40). As Rashi there explains, when the Jewish people are lax in their fulfillment of the Torah, the descendants of Esav have power over them. When, however, the Jewish people fulfill the Torah, the descendants of Esav have no control over them.
</p><p>
For this reason, Rabah bar bar Chanah prayed that if Hash-m does not place the Jewish people under His protection, He should place them under the protection of the descendants of Esav. Under their protection, the Jewish people will at least enjoy tranquility when they are fulfilling the Torah. Rashi (DH Rachmana) adds that they even give respect to the Jewish people.
</p><p>
Rebbi Chiya, who spoke of how intolerable the descendants of Esav would be, referred to the time of the Galus, when the Jewish people were exiled from their land. At that time, the Jewish people had failed to properly fulfill the Torah, and thus the Bnei Esav indeed would be intolerable to them, and thus Hash-m sent them to Bavel instead. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE DATE IN A GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses the law in the case of an inaccurate date written in a Get. The Gemara opens by inquiring why the Chachamim instituted that the date be written in a Get in the first place.
</p><p>
How does the Gemara know that the Chachamim instituted that the date be written in a Get? Perhaps the Mishnah discusses the law when the <i>wrong</i> date is written in a Get (because the wrong date is worse than no date at all), but there is no requirement to write the date in the Get in the first place. 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAN</b> explains that the Mishnah indeed makes no indication that a Get without a date is invalid, for a Get with no date poses no problems. Beis Din does not rely on such a Get to force the husband to pay for the Peros which he took from his wife's property before the divorce, because the Get makes no mention of when the divorce occurred. In contrast, when an incorrect date is written in the Get, Beis Din, unaware of the falsehood, relies on the date and allows the woman to collect the value of her Peros from the land which the husband sold to purchasers after that date, and thus the husband will suffer a loss unlawfully.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question, which assumes that the date must be written in a Get, is based on the Mishnah later in Gitin (86a) which states that a Get without a date is invalid.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> understands that the Gemara's question indeed is based on the Mishnah here. The Ritva asserts that if the Chachamim had enacted no specific requirement that the date be written in a Get, a Get with an incorrect date would <i>not</i> be invalid (although it would be improper to use such a misleading Get).
</p><p>
<b>RAV CHAIM KAMIL</b> zt'l explains the difference between these two views as follows. The Ran understands that the date is part of the Shtar, and the witnesses who sign at the bottom are testifying about the date as well. If the date is incorrect, the witnesses are testifying falsely. When part of the testimony of witnesses is unacceptable, the entire testimony is canceled. Accordingly, no specific enactment to include the date in a Get is necessary in order to disqualify the Get. It is invalid simply because of the principle, 'Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah Batlah Kulah.' 
</p><p>
In contrast, the Ritva understands that the date is <i>not</i> an integral part of the Shtar, and thus the witnesses who sign the Shtar are <i>not</i> testifying about the date. Accordingly, without a specific enactment to include the date in a Get, the Get would be valid even when the date is incorrect. The fact that the Mishnah here disqualifies a Get with the wrong date clearly indicates that there is a specific requirement to write the date in a Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Adultery is not common. (Chachamim decree only 
          about what is common.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't R. Yochanan answer like Reish 
          Lakish?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that the husband eats the Peros until 
          the Get is given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Reish Lakish, we understand why R. 
          Shimon is Machshir even if the Get was signed the next 
          night (so the date is one day too early. He holds that 
          the husband forfeits Peros from when he writes the Get, 
          even if not yet signed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But according to R. Yochanan, what is R. Shimon's 
               reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yochanan admits R. Shimon holds that the date 
          on a Get is due to Peros. He argues  about Chachamim's 
          opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Yochanan, we understand the 
          argument of R. Shimon and Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Reish Lakish, what do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon holds from the writing of the Get until 
          it is signed, she gets the Peros. Chachamim say that he 
          gets them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Elsewhere, R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish 
          hold opposite to their positions here!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> A wife receives the Peros of her 
               property from the day her husband writes a Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Peros are hers from the day he 
               gives it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must switch the opinions (in these latter 
          teachings to match their opinions above. Ba'al ha'Itur - 
          we switch the opinions in the above teachings.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CASES IN WHICH THE ENACTMENT DOES NOT HELP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> Three types of Gitin are 
          Pasul, but if a woman remarried based on the Get, 
          children from the new marriage are Kesherim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (One of the three is a Get without a date.) What did 
               the enactment to put a date on the Get accomplish?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> L'Chatchilah, she may not remarry 
          with such a Get. (Therefore, scribes and witnesses will 
          not write or sign it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he will cut off the date and give her the 
          Get, the enactment does not help! (Beis Din cannot kill 
          her due to the Safek!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We are not concerned for such swindlers (they are 
          very rare).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Get does not specify the day, only which 
          Shemitah cycle (within the Yovel cycle), or the year, or 
          the month, or the week, the enactment does not help! (If 
          the adultery was during that period, we do not know which 
          came first, so we cannot kill her!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she was Mezanah in the previous period, she 
          will be killed. She receives Peros from the beginning of 
          the next period;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even when the day is specified on the Get, we do not 
               know if it was in the morning or afternoon! We must 
               say, the date enables us to kill her if she was 
               Mezanah on a previous day, and she receives the 
               Peros from the beginning of the next period.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, when the Get specifies only the Shemitah 
               cycle, or year... it helps for previous or 
               subsequent Shemitah cycles, years...
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) REBBI YOCHANAN'S REASON FOR THE 'TAKANAH' OF 'ZMAN'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Reish Lakish maintains that the reason why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in a Get is the concern for Peros. <b>RASHI</b> explains that without a date in the Get, the husband will continue to sell the Peros of the wife's property after the divorce, and when his wife demands compensation he will claim that he sold the Peros <i>before</i> the divorce. Writing the date in the Get removes any doubt about when the divorce occurred.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> disagree with Rashi's explanation. He asserts that if the woman is concerned that her ex-husband will take the Peros of her property after the Get was given to her, she should simply go to Beis Din on the day of the divorce and have Beis Din notarize the date.
</p><p>
Tosfos explains instead that the concern of Peros is based on the fact that a man loses the rights to his wife's Peros from the time the Get is signed. Beis Din needs to know the date on which the Get was signed in order to ensure that the woman knows exactly when she her ex-husband no longer has any claim to her Peros.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains why Rebbi Yochanan does not agree with this reasoning. He maintains that the husband has the rights to the Peros until the moment he actually gives the Get.
</p><p>
The Gemara's explanation of Rebbi Yochanan's view is unclear. Why is the fact that he maintains that the husband has the rights to the Peros until the giving of the Get grounds to argue with Reish Lakish?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the date written in the Get does not inform Beis Din about the day on which the Get was <i>given</i>, and thus Beis Din does not know the exact date on which the husband lost his rights to the Peros. Accordingly, the Chachamim would not have required that the date be written in the Get for the purpose of knowing exactly when the husband is no longer entitled to the Peros. This is why Rebbi Yochanan gives a different reason for the enactment of writing the date in a Get.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> disagrees with Rashi and asserts that even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that Beis Din relies on the date of the Get to know when the woman may keep the Peros. This is because Beis Din may assume that the Get was given on the day it was written.
</p><p>
Tosfos explains that according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no necessity to enact that the date be written in a Get. If the woman wants to have proof about when she received the Get, she simple should have Beis Din give her an authorized note affirming the date of the receipt of the Get. Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan needs another reason for why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in a Get. 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> has an entirely different understanding of the Chachamim's enactment to write the date in a Get. He explains that without any requirement to write the date, a man might decide to divorce his wife, write a Get, but then decide not to give it to his wife because he sees a ripe crop to harvest in her property. He will reap the harvest, sell the Peros, and then give her the Get. In order to avoid such improper conduct, the Chachamim enacted that the Get must be include the date on which it was written. This enactment prevents the man from gaining (at the woman's expense) by delaying the giving of the Get.
</p><p>
According to the Ran's explanation, it is obvious why Rebbi Yochanan does not agree that the enactment to write the date in a Get is because of Peros. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the husband is entitled to the Peros until he gives the Get, and not until he <i>writes</i> the Get. Including the date of the writing of the Get would not prevent the husband from delaying the giving of the Get in order to profit from the Peros. Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan must give another reason for why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in the Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET WITH AN IMPROPER DATE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> If a man wrote a Get, but held onto 
          it, hoping to appease his wife, the enactment does not 
          help! (The Get could save her from being killed, if she 
          sinned after it was written but before it was given!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We are not concerned for such a rare case. 
          Normally, one does not bring punishments upon himself 
          earlier than necessary (write a Get before he is sure 
          that he will give it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> A Get from abroad might be given six 
          months after it was written (the date precedes the 
          divorce). How does the enactment help?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> People talk about a Get from abroad 
          (people would remember when it was given).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A divorcee must wait three months before 
          remarrying (lest she become pregnant and we will not know 
          who is the father). When do the three months begin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> It is from the day the Get is given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> It is from the date on the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Shmuel - Rav Noson bar Hoshaya):</font></b> If two 
          women in the same Chatzer (courtyard) were divorced on 
          the same day, can we permit one immediately (if her Get 
          was written three months ago), and forbid the other? This 
          will astound people!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> The dates on the Gitin explain the 
          difference.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa (#1) supports Rav; and another (#2) supports 
          Shmuel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If a man sent a Get to his wife, and the 
          Shali'ach took three months to give it, she must wait 
          three months after receiving the Get to remarry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Normally, one may not give an old Get, i.e. it is 
               dated before the divorce.) Here, this is permitted, 
               because she was not alone with her husband after it 
               was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If a man gave a Get to a Shali'ach and told 
          him to wait three months before giving it, she may marry 
          immediately after receiving the Get. We are not concerned 
          for an old Get because she was not alone with her husband 
          after it was written.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Kahana, Rav Papi and Rav Ashi ruled in actual cases 
          that she counts three months from the day it was written. 
          Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua ruled that she 
          counts from the day it was given.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, she counts from the day it was written.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN SHEMITAH CANCELS THE KESUVAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When does Shemitah cancel the obligation to pay 
          the Kesuvah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> If she collected part of it and was 
          Zokef the rest (established it to be a debt that he owes 
          her. Then, the rest is cancelled);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> It is even if she collected part 
          without being Zokef the rest, or if she was Zokef the 
          entire Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa (#1) supports Rav; and another (#2) supports 
          Shmuel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A Kesuvah is not cancelled in Shemitah 
               unless she collected part of it and was Zokef the 
               rest. One of these is not enough.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> The following are cancelled in 
               Shemitah only if there was Zekifah: the fines for 
               one who rapes or entices a virgin; or falsely claims 
               that he found that his Kalah was not a virgin, and a 
               Kesuvah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Zekifah is when Beis Din rules about them.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET SIGNED AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Kesuvah is like an act of Beis Din;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like acts of Beis Din may be written during the 
               day and signed at night, also the Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Kesuvah of Chiya, Rav's son, was written during the 
          day and signed at night. Rav was present and did not say 
          anything.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This shows that Rav agrees with Shmuel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> They were engaged in the Kesuvah the 
               entire time. (Shmuel permits even if they were 
               engaged in other matters. Perhaps Rav would not.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer bar R. Tzadok):</font></b> A Get 
                    (signed the night after it was written) is 
                    Pasul only if they were not engaged in it in 
                    the interim. If they were engaged in it the 
                    entire time, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> The Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon holds that once a man seeks to divorce 
          his wife, he no longer receives the Peros of her 
          property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> R. Shimon is Machshir the Get if it was 
          signed that night. If it was signed (after this) during 
          the next 10 days, it is Pasul. We are concerned lest he 
          appeased her. (R. Tam - perhaps he was Mevatel the Get. 
          Rashi - perhaps they had Bi'ah. This disqualifies a Get, 
          lest she conceive, and people will assume that he 
          divorced her on the date on the Get, and say that the 
          child was conceived out of wedlock.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WAITING THREE MONTHS FROM THE TIME THE GET WAS WRITTEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to count the three months of 'Havchanah.' 'Havchanah' refers to the requirement for a divorced (or widowed) woman to wait three months before she remarries. The reason why she may not remarry before three months have passed is that she might be pregnant from her former husband, and if she marries before three months have passed the identity of the father of the child will be in doubt.
</p><p>
Rav maintains that the three-month period is counted from the day on which the Get is <i>given</i>, and Shmuel maintains that it is counted from the day on which the Get is <i>written</i>.
</p><p>
The Gemara points out that according to Shmuel, if the Get was written a month before it was given, the woman must wait only two months from the time it was given before she may remarry. According to Rav, she must wait three months from the time it was given. 
</p><p>
Apparently, Shmuel's ruling is the lenient one. Shmuel maintains that as long as the Get was <i>written</i>, there is no concern that the woman became pregnant. Is there any case in which Shmuel's opinion manifests itself as a stringency?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b> Hy'd (quoted in <b>OHALEI YITZCHAK</b>) points out that Shmuel's ruling may also lead to a stringency. The Gemara earlier teaches that when an unspecific, general date is written in a Get (such as the year alone), the Get is valid. However, for purposes of 'Havchanah' such a date causes a problem according to Shmuel. The date written in the Get represents a range from the beginning of the year until the end of the year. According to Shmuel, in such a case the woman must wait three months from the latest day on which the Get might have been written, which is the last day of the date range. In contrast, according to Rav she counts three months from the day on which the Get was given. In this case, Shmuel's ruling is the stringent one.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHEN DOES THE SHEMITAH YEAR CANCEL THE DEBT OF A KESUVAH?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses what must be done in order for the Shemitah year to cancel a man's obligation to pay the Kesuvah. Rav maintains that once the woman has collected part of the Kesuvah ('Pegimah') <i>and</i> established the remainder as a debt owed to her ('Zekifah'), the Shemitah year cancels the debt and he need not pay the rest. Shmuel maintains that as long as she merely collected part of the Kesuvah (without establishing the rest as a debt) or she made the entire Kesuvah a debt (and did not collect any part of it), the Shemitah year cancels the debt.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH mishe'Tifgom) explains how 'Pegimah' works to give a Kesuvah the status of an ordinary debt. When a man and woman are married, her Kesuvah is not standing for collection, and thus it is not considered a debt which Shemitah can cancel. When a Kesuvah is paid in part, it becomes evident that the Kesuvah is standing for collection, and thus it is considered a debt which Shemitah can cancel.
</p><p>
Rashi (DH v'Tizkof) gives another reason for why a Kesuvah does not have the status of an ordinary debt. A Kesuvah is a 'Ma'aseh Beis Din,' a legal agreement established by Beis Din which is not subject to cancellation by Shemitah because it is considered as though it has been collected already. 
</p><p>
According to Rashi's second explanation, how does 'Zekifah,' establishing the Kesuvah as a debt, alter the Kesuvah's status as a 'Ma'aseh Beis Din' such that Shemitah cancels it? How does accepting upon oneself the Kesuvah as a debt remove the stronger obligation of 'Ma'aseh Beis Din'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV ELYA MOSHKOVSKY</b> answers that this is exactly the function of 'Zekifah.' When one accepts upon himself a new obligation to pay an old one, it is as though he 'pays back' the old obligation with the new one. Accordingly, the Ma'aseh Beis Din has been paid back already with the acceptance of the new obligation. Since the new obligation is not a 'Ma'aseh Beis Din,' Shemitah cancels it. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Shimon is Machshir even if it was 
          signed during the next 10 days. Had he appeased her, 
          people would know about this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> If Reuven told 10 people 'write a Get to 
          my wife', he intends that two should be witnesses, and 
          merely made a condition that the others must sign on it 
          (but they are not witnesses);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> He intends that all 10 be witnesses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He did not say 'all of you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven told 10 people 'write 
               a Get to my wife', one writes, and two sign. (Reish 
               Lakish would not argue in this case!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, he said 'all of you.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In any case, all must sign. What difference 
          does it make whether or not they are witnesses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> If two of them signed that day, and the rest 
          during the next 10 days:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the rest only sign to fulfill a Tanai 
               (stipulation), the Get is valid. If all are 
               witnesses, the Get is Pasul (according to Reish 
               Lakish).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> If one of the 10 was found to be a relative 
          (of the husband or wife or one of the other nine) or a 
          Pasul witness:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the rest only sign to fulfill a Tanai, the Get is 
               valid. If all are witnesses, the Get is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even if the rest sign for a Tanai, if the Pasul 
               witness was among the first two to sign, some are 
               Machshir the Get, and some disqualify:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Some are Machshir, for he merely fulfils a 
                    Tanai;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  Some disqualify, lest people come to confuse 
                    this with other documents (in which the first 
                    two signatures are witnesses. People might 
                    think that relatives may sign documents.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Reuven told 10 people 'write a 
          Get to my wife.' Two of them signed that day, and the 
          rest during the next 10 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehoshua ben Levi:</font></b> In pressed circumstances, we may 
          rely on R. Shimon's opinion.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) A GET SIGNED DAYS AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (17a) states that a Get written during the day and signed at night is invalid (according to the Chachamim). Reish Lakish explains that the Get is invalid because of the concern for Peros; since the husband loses his right to the Peros of the woman's property only from the moment the Get is <i>signed</i> ('Chasimah'), and the date written in the Get is the date on which the Get was <i>written</i> ('Kesivah'), the woman might collect unlawfully from buyers who bought the Peros from the husband between the writing and the giving of the Get. Rebbi Shimon argues and maintains that such a Get is valid, because he maintains that the husband loses his right to the Peros from the time the Get is <i>written</i>. Accordingly, the woman rightfully may collect the Peros from buyers who purchased the Peros from the husband between the writing and the giving of the Get.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that according to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Chachamim in a case in which the writing and signing of the Get were done days apart. In such a case, the Get is invalid because of 'Shema Piyes.' <b>RASHI</b> explains that if the signing of the Get was delayed for so long, the husband might have appeased her in the interim and by having relations with her he will render the Get a Get Yashan.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> challenges Rashi's explanation. If Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Chachamim in a case in which the writing and signing were separated by several days, presumably the reason why the Get is invalid is the same reason why the Chachamim invalidate a Get written during the day and signed at night. Since the Chachamim invalidate the Get in that case because of Peros, Rebbi Shimon also invalidates the Get, signed several days after it was written, because of Peros. Why does Rashi give an entirely different explanation?
</p><p>
Moreover, according to Rashi's explanation, Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Chachamim in this case that the Get is entirely invalid because it is considered a Get Yashan. However, a Get Yashan is invalid only l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved a woman may remarry based on a Get Yashan!
</p><p>
The Rashba rejects Rashi's explanation and writes instead that the reason why Rebbi Shimon agrees that the Get is invalid when several days separate between its writing and its giving is that perhaps in the interim the husband annulled the Get, and then he annulled the annulment. In such a case the Get cannot remove the right from the husband to the Peros of the wife's property from the time of its writing. Only when the writing is followed immediately by the giving does the writing of the Get remove the husband's right to the Peros.
</p><p>
How will Rashi answer the questions of the Rashba?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV SHABSI YAGEL</b> points out that Rashi actually may mean to say the same thing as the Rashba. Rashi understands that Rebbi Shimon invalidates the Get because of the concern for Peros, but he maintains that Bitul of the Get is <i>not</i> the reason why Rebbi Shimon agrees in this case that the husband does not lose the right to the Peros from the time of the Get's writing. As long as the Get was given eventually, the husband lost the right to the Peros from the time of the writing. 
</p><p>
Rashi writes that Rebbi Shimon agrees in this case because the Get became a Get Yashan. A Get Yashan is unable to remove the husband's right to the Peros, because one is not supposed to use such a Get. A Get which one is not supposed to use does not have the power to remove the husband's right to the Peros at the time of its writing. It removes his right to the Peros only when it is actually given. According to Rashi's understanding of Rebbi Shimon, the concern that the Get is a Get Yashan indeed invalidates the Get even b'Di'eved with regard to removing the husband's right to the Peros. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GET SIGNED AFTER IT WAS WRITTEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Reish Lakish said that R. Shimon permits only 
          when they sign that night. If they sign (after this) 
          during the next 10 days, it is Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Yehoshua ben Levi explains R. Shimon like R. 
          Yochanan does (that if they sign within 10 days, it is 
          valid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan says that only two are witnesses, 
          and the rest may sign at any time!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding that, he holds like Reish Lakish.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT MAY BE USED TO WRITE A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We may write with anything, e.g. with ink, 
          yellow dye, red lead, sap, vitriol or anything that 
          lasts;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We may not write with drinks, fruit juice or 
               anything that does not last.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We may write on anything, e.g. on an olive leaf, on a 
          cow's horn or a slave's hand (and he must give to her the 
          cow or slave);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi ha'Glili says, we may not write on something 
               living, nor on food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What does 'anything that lasts' come 
          to include?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It alludes to the law of R. Chanina's Beraisa, 
          that if he wrote with rainwater (alternatively - water in 
          which gall-nuts were soaked) or with gall-nuts, the Get 
          is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya - Beraisa):</font></b> If he wrote with lead, coals, or 
          vitriol, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish):</font></b> If one writes with black 
          ink over red dye on Shabbos, he is liable for writing and 
          for erasing;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If he writes with black ink over black ink, or red dye 
          over red dye, he is exempt;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If one writes with red dye over black ink, some say that 
          he is liable, and some say exempt:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some say that he is liable, for he erases (covers) 
               what was written;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Some exempt, for he ruins the writing.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WITNESSES WHO DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SIGN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> If witnesses do not know how to 
          sign their names, may we write their names in red dye, 
          and they will write over this in blank ink?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> No.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> You taught us that regarding 
          Shabbos, the top writing is considered writing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Should we rely on our estimation in 
          practice?! (What we said regarding Shabbos was not taught 
          to be followed in practice, now that we lack Korbanos and 
          Misas Beis Din.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do we do if witnesses do not know how to 
          sign their names?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> We scratch outlines of the letters of 
          their names on a blank paper, and they fill in the 
          outlines with ink.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> We write their names with lead, and 
          they write over our writing.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Chiya taught that writing with lead is 
               a valid writing! (Therefore, writing on top of this 
               is not called writing!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Scratching the paper with lead is not valid 
               writing. Writing with water in which lead was soaked 
               is valid (Rashi; Tosfos Rid explains oppositely.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (R. Avahu):</font></b> We write their names with Mei Milin 
          (water in which gall-nuts or acorns were soaked), and 
          they write over our writing).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> R. Chanina taught that writing with Mei 
               Milin is a valid writing (so writing on top of this 
               is not called writing)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Chanina discusses writing on paper that 
               was not treated with gall-nuts. R. Avahu discusses 
               when the paper was treated with gall-nuts;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  In the latter case, the writing is Pasul, for 
                    Mei Milin does not show on paper treated with 
                    gall-nuts (since they are virtually the same 
                    color).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rav Papa):</font></b> We write their names in saliva.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred in which Rav Papa used saliva to 
               enable Papa Tura'ah to sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  All these leniencies are only for Gitin, but not by other 
          documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Someone helped the witnesses sign a monetary 
               document in such a way, and Rav Kahana 
               excommunicated him.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WRITING ON TOP OF 'SIKRA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan about having witnesses sign a Get when those witnesses do not know how to write. May Beis Din write the witnesses' names with Sikra and then instruct the witnesses to sign on top with ink. Since writing with ink on top of Sikra is considered a valid act of writing with regard to Shabbos, is it also considered a valid act of writing for a Get? Rebbi Yochanan answered that only with regard to Shabbos did he rule stringently that there is a concern that it is a valid act of writing. He did not rule leniently that it is a valid act of writing with regard to a Get.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Dayo) points out that ink written on top of <i>ink</i> certainly is not a valid form of writing for a Get. He questions this from the Gemara later (20a) which says that if one signed a Get without proper intent (she'Lo Lishmah), he may sign again over his signature and make his signature Lishmah. Why is the second signature valid if ink on top of ink is not considered an act of writing? Tosfos answers that ink on top of ink is not considered an act of writing only when the second writing adds nothing to the validity of the Get. When the second writing adds validity to the Get (such as when the second writing is Lishmah), it is considered a valid act of writing.
</p><p>
How does Tosfos understand the Gemara here? The Gemara suggests that Sikra be used to make rudimentary signatures for the witnesses to write over with ink, so that their signatures will be considered a proper writing. Why does the Gemara say that such an act is <i>not</i> considered writing? The initial writing with Sikra is not a testimony at all, and thus it should be no different from a writing done she'Lo Lishmah, in which case a writing of Lishmah on top is considered a writing and the Get is valid! (Acharonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> answers that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not agree with the ruling of the Gemara later. They maintain that a Ksav on top of a Ksav is <i>not</i> a valid Ksav even when the second Ksav adds some element of validity to the Get.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>KARNEI RE'EM</b> explains that a signature written Lishmah on top of a signature written she'Lo Lishmah is a valid act of writing and testimony, but it is an 'Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah' -- it is a form of testimony which is not subject to disproof through Hazamah. This means that if the signatory is discovered to have been somewhere else at the time he claims that he signed the Get (and thus he could not have been a witness to it), his signature does not constitute false testimony; rather, there is <i>no</i> signature or testimony on the Get. 
</p><p>
If such a signature does not add any element of validity to the Get, it is considered a Ksav on top of a Ksav, which is not a Ksav at all. Since it is not a testimony which is subject to Hazamah, it is not considered a valid testimony at all. 
</p><p>
(c) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> answers that the Gemara later is discussing the writing of the Get. One of the Torah laws of writing a Get is that it must be written Lishmah. To fulfill this requirement, a second writing performed over the first suffices. In contrast, the Gemara here refers to the signing of a Get. Mid'Oraisa, the signing of a Get does not need to be Lishmah, according to the opinion that 'Edei Mesirah Kartei.' The signatures are necessary only to attest that what is written in the Get is true. The requirement that the signatures be Lishmah is mid'Rabanan. Accordingly, a second signature done Lishmah on top of a first signature that was not done Lishmah does not fulfill the Rabanan's requirement of Lishmah to make the Get valid.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV ELYASHIV</b> shlit'a answers that Tosfos' principle -- that when the second Ksav adds some element of validity to the Get, the second Ksav is valid -- applies only when the first Ksav was a Ksav <i>lacking</i> validity. A new Ksav can validate the first Ksav by adding the necessary element of Lishmah. However, when the first Ksav is not considered a Ksav at all -- such as where Beis Din fashioned the signatures of the witnesses -- the second writing is not considered a writing at all.
</p><p>
(e) <b>RAV CHAIM KAMIL</b> zt'l (quoted in <b>OHALEI YITZCHAK</b>) answers that the second Ksav is a valid Ksav only in the case of the Kesivah of a Get. Since the Get must be written Lishmah, a new writing which is Lishmah is considered a higher level of writing and makes the Get valid. Since the Get must be written Lishmah, a second Kesivah which adds the element of Lishmah is considered a new, valid writing. 
</p><p>
In contrast, the signature on a Get is needed only to attest to what is written in the Get. The requirement that the Chasimah must be Lishmah is merely due to the requirement that the <i>testimony</i> be Lishmah. Accordingly, a second act of signing Lishmah does not establish a new level of writing, but only a higher lever of testimony. Therefore, the addition of Lishmah in the Chasimah is not considered a new writing to make the Get valid. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav - Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses do not know how 
          to sign their names, we scratch outlines of the letters 
          of their names on a blank paper, and they put ink within 
          the outlines;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this is only for Gitei 
               Nashim. For Gitin of freedom and other documents, 
               witnesses may sign only if they know how to read and 
               sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Shimon mention being able to read? 
          The first Tana did not discuss this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows: 
          If witnesses do not know how to read, we read the 
          document aloud for them. If they do not know how to 
          sign...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this is only for Gitei 
               Nashim. For Gitin of freedom and other documents, 
               witnesses may sign only if they know how to read and 
               sign.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Shimon holds that we are lenient about 
          Gitin of women, to avoid Igun (lest women be unable to 
          remarry because there were not witnesses who knew how to 
          sign).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Gamda, citing Rava):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. 
          Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does he mean that the Halachah follows 
          Chachamim? Someone helped the witnesses sign a monetary 
          document in this way, and Rav Kahana excommunicated him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon regarding 
          reading, i.e. if the witnesses can sign but cannot read, 
          we read the document aloud for them, even by other 
          documents.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOCUMENTS IN OTHER LANGUAGES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah was paining himself to read a document.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ula:</font></b> Why struggle? R. Elazar is the greatest Chacham of 
          Eretz Yisrael, and they read documents in front of him, 
          and he signs. Rav Nachman asks a judge's scribe to read 
          before him, and then he signs;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Relying on one person reading) is permitted only if 
               a judge's scribe reads, but not any scribe. It is 
               permitted only for a Chacham like Rav Nachman (who 
               was appointed by the Reish Galusa (Exilarch), who 
               was his father-in-law).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  When a Persian document written by the Nochri courts 
          would come in front of Rav Papa, he would ask two Nochrim 
          to read it in front of him, in different rooms. They did 
          not know why he wanted them to read it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> After this he would accept the document, and use it 
               to collect even from Meshubadim (property that the 
               borrower sold).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We use a Persian document signed by 
          Yisre'elim to collect even from Meshubadim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The witnesses do not know how to read it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, they know.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We require writing that cannot be (erased and) 
          forged!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The paper was treated with gall-nuts. (Therefore, 
          the writing cannot be erased.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The last line of the document must summarize 
          the document!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what is Rav Ashi's Chidush? A Mishnah 
          teaches that a document may be in any language!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Get was written in Hebrew, and the 
               witnesses signed in Yevanis, or vice-versa, it is 
               valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we only allow this 
          for Gitin, like the Mishnah discusses. Rav Ashi teaches 
          that we allow it for all documents.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>CASES IN WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED LEST A GET WAS GIVEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If a man gave to his wife a blank paper, and 
          said 'here is your Get', she is divorced. We are 
          concerned lest he wrote it with Mei Milin (later, it 
          disappears).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A man told his wife, 'here is your 
          Get.' She took it and destroyed it. Her husband then said 
          that it was an invalid monetary document. She is 
          divorced; her husband is not believed to forbid her to 
          remarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> She may remarry only because the paper 
               had writing on it. If not, she would be forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel said that she is divorced only when we 
          check the paper with a special dye that makes the writing 
          reappear. If it does not reappear, she is not divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When she received it, the writing was not 
          there!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Shmuel said that we are concerned. (She is 
          doubtfully divorced. Perhaps the writing had not fully 
          faded, and the Get was still legible when she received 
          it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravina):</font></b> The Edei Mesirah must read the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A man told his wife, 'here is your 
          Get.' She took it and destroyed it. Her husband then said 
          that it was an invalid monetary document. She is 
          divorced; her husband is not believed to forbid her to 
          remarry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the witnesses must read the Get, how could he 
               claim it was a invalid monetary document?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> After the witnesses read it, he stuck it up his 
          sleeve, and then gave it to her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we are concerned lest he 
               switched it and gave her a different paper. The 
               Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  A man threw a Get to his wife among barrels. Only a 
          Mezuzah was found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> A Mezuzah is not generally found among 
          barrels. Surely, he threw a Mezuzah there. She is 
          certainly not divorced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, if two or three Mezuzos were found, just 
               like the others were there from before, perhaps all 
               were there from before. We are concerned lest he 
               threw her a Get, and mice took it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  A man entered a Beis ha'Keneses, took a Sefer Torah, gave 
          it to his wife, and said that it is her Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Yosef:</font></b> Is there any reason to be concerned (lest this 
          is a Get)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he wrote a Get in Mei Milin in 
               the margin, and now we cannot see it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> A Sefer Torah is treated with gall-nuts. 
               Such writing would never have been legible on the 
               parchment.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A GET WRITTEN WITH INVISIBLE INK</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Shmuel rules that when a man gives a blank piece of paper to his wife and says, 'This is your Get,' she is divorced because 'we are concerned that it was written with Mei Milin.' The Gemara questions Shmuel's ruling from a Beraisa which states that if one gives a document with writing on it to his wife and says, 'This is your Get,' and afterwards he claims that it was not a Get but another type of contract, she still is divorced. This implies that if he gave her a document with <i>no</i> writing on it, she would <i>not</i> be divorced, in contrast to Shmuel's view.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that in Shmuel's case, Beis Din examined the document after it was given and treated it with 'Maya d'Nara' which revealed that the text of a Get indeed was written on the parchment with Mei Milin, which had become absorbed into the parchment. The Gemara asks that if this is the case, why does Shmuel say that she is divorced? Perhaps the words of the Get were absorbed already at the time the Get was given, and she should <i>not</i> be divorced! The Gemara answers that Shmuel himself said only 'Chaishinan,' it is treated like a Get out of doubt, but the woman is not definitely divorced. 
</p><p>
If, as the Gemara explains in its conclusion, Shmuel ruled that the woman's divorce is only a doubtful one, why does the Gemara need to say that Beis Din examined the document? Even without an examination it is logical to be concerned that the document contained the text of a Get! 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Tosfos (DH u'Shmuel) explains that the Gemara indeed no longer needs to rely on its previous assertion that Beis Din examines the document. Once the Gemara says that Shmuel ruled that the woman is divorced only out of doubt, it no longer needs to say that Beis Din examined the document. The Gemara earlier required an examination only because it originally understood that Shmuel meant that she is definitely divorced (Vadai Gerushin).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> challenges Tosfos' explanation. According to Tosfos, since the Gemara is giving a new answer and no longer relies on its previous answer, the Gemara should add the words, '<i>Ela</i> Shmuel Nami' -- '<i>rather</i>, Shmuel also said only that we are concerned that it might be a Get.' The Gemara's omission of the word 'Ela' implies that the Gemara still needs its earlier answer, that Beis Din examines the Get, and only in such a case does Shmuel rule that she is divorced out of doubt.
</p><p>
The Rashba, therefore, concludes that if Beis Din did not examine the Get, there is <i>no</i> concern whatsoever for Gerushin, and she is not divorced even out of doubt. Since no writing was seen on the Get, no doubt even begins, and thus there is no basis to be stringent out of doubt. 
</p><p>
(c) <b>REBBI AVIKA EIGER</b> is bothered by a different point. The Gemara originally challenges Shmuel's ruling from the Beraisa which implies that when no writing was seen on the parchment given as a Get, the parchment is <i>not</i> assumed to be a Get written with Mei Milin. This implies that if the husband's word (that the document is a Get) <i>would</i> be believed, the Get would take effect beyond a doubt and there would be no concern that the letters were absorbed into the parchment already at the time of the Gerushin.
</p><p>
Why, then, when the Gemara proposes that Shmuel refers to a case in which Beis Din examined the parchment and found that the Get was written with Mei Milin, does the Gemara ask that perhaps the letters were absorbed into the parchment at the time of the Gerushin? Why does the Gemara earlier not consider this a serious concern, but now it does consider this a serious concern?
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva Eiger suggests an answer as follows. From the beginning of its discussion, the Gemara understands that if a Get is written on this document, even it if is presently invisible (because the letters were absorbed into the parchment) the Get is valid. The Gemara's only question was that the Beraisa implies that the husband is not believed to testify that a Get is written on the parchment.
</p><p>
This assumption, that the 'invisible' Get is valid, changes in the next stage of the Gemara. Once the Gemara determines that Shmuel's ruling refers to a case in which we know that the parchment contains a Get, the word 'Chaishinin' does not make sense. The Gerushin <i>certainly</i> should take effect, and not merely take effect out of doubt! In order to understand Shmuel's words, the Gemara explains that the words of the Get must be visible at the time of the Gerushin. 'Chaishinin' means that there is a concern that the words were visible at that time. The Gemara questions whether this is true or not, and it answers that Shmuel's ruling was only 'Chaishinin,' she is divorced mi'Safek and has a status of a Safek Megureshes.
</p><p>
Rebbi Akiva Eiger adds that according to the Gemara's conclusion, the original assumption remains intact: the words of the Get need not be visible at the time of the Gerushin. Shmuel refers to a case in which Beis Din did not examine the Get (and thus he says 'Chaishinin'); his ruling is not contradicted by the Beraisa because the Beraisa refers to Vadai Gerushin while Shmuel refers to Safek Gerushin. For the Gerushin to take effect beyond a doubt, Beis Din indeed would need to examine it, but for the Gerushin to take effect out of <i>doubt</i> no examination is necessary (as Tosfos writes). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>REQUIREMENTS OF A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We should be concerned lest the expressions 
          of divorce in the Torah can work like a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> A Get must be written Lishmah (with intent to 
          divorce that particular woman. A Sefer Torah was not 
          written Lishmah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> We should be concerned lest the husband 
          bribed the scribe from the beginning to write that part 
          of the Torah Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> A Get must contain the names of the husband 
          and wife and their cities. A Sefer Torah lacks these.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the law is obvious. What is Rav Yosef's 
          Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He teaches that Mei Milim is not valid writing on 
          parchment treated with gall-nuts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a Get was not written Lishmah, and the 
          scribe traces over the letters, intending to make it 
          Lishmah, R. Yehudah and Chachamim argue about whether or 
          not this works.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> A scribe was writing a Sefer 
               Torah. The next word to write was Hashem's name. He 
               thought that he needs to write 'Yehudah'. He 
               mistakenly omitted the 'Daled'. (The letters of 
               Hashem's name were written properly, but without the 
               required intent for Hashem's name). He may trace the 
               quill over the letters, to give Kedushah to the 
               name;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, this is not an ideal writing of 
               Hashem's name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> Perhaps Chachamim said so 
          only regarding a Sefer Torah, for one should beautify 
          Mitzvos; but they would agree that one can fix a Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Chisda:</font></b> I can show that all Gitin are Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> How can he?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Torah says 'he will write', and (the 
               practice is that) she pays the scribe.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps Chachamim enacted that the money 
               she pays belongs to the husband (so the scribe is 
               his Shali'ach)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rather, the Torah says 'he will give', and Gitin 
          are not worth even a Perutah (the minimal Shi'ur of 
          monetary value, so it is not) considered giving.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps the Torah requires only giving a Get, 
          even if it has no value!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Support (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael):</font></b> A Get written 
               on Isurei Hana'ah (something we may not benefit 
               from) is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael - Rav Ashi - 
          Mishnah):</font></b> One may write a Get on an olive leaf.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> An olive leaf is not worth a Perutah, but many 
          leaves together are worth a Perutah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Isurei Hana'ah have no value at all!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> A Get written on Isurei Hana'ah is 
          valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Levi taught this in Rebbi's name, and the audience 
               was unreceptive. Levi taught this in the name of 
               Chachamim, the audience was receptive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This shows that this is the Halachah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS CONSIDERED WRITING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'He will write' - he may not engrave.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Engraving is not considered writing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If a slave has a Get of freedom 
          written (engraved) on a board or tablet, he is free;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He does not go free if the Get is embroidered on a 
               cap or ornament (alternatively - mat).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> If he engraves the letters themselves 
          (the shapes normally written), it is considered writing, 
          but not if he carves out the (shapes of the) insides (and 
          surrounding area) of the letters (leaving the shapes of 
          the letters raised).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Engraving the insides of the letters is not 
          considered writing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> The writing (of the Tzitz, the 
          Kohen Gadol's headplate) was not sunken in, rather 
          raised, like gold Dinarim (coins).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The writing on gold Dinarim is made by compressing 
               the insides of the letters!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The writing was like gold Dinarim in one way, and 
          unlike it in one way;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The writing was raised; like gold Dinarim. The 
               letters were engraved on the Tzitz, unlike gold 
               Dinarim, in which the insides are compressed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Does a die for stamping coins only 
          compress the background of the writing, or does it also 
          cause the writing to rise?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It only compresses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> The writing was not sunken in, rather 
          raised, like gold Dinarim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You cannot say that coins are stamped by 
               compressing. The letters (of the Tzitz) must be 
               written!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET WRITTEN ON AN OBJECT OF 'ISUREI HANA'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara states that a Get written on an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah is valid. Although the Torah requires that the man 'give' the Get to the woman, and something which is Asur b'Hana'ah has no value and thus there is nothing to 'give,' the Torah does not require that something of value be given but merely that the man give the Get to the woman. 
</p><p>
(a) The Gemara later (20b) teaches that when a man gives a Get to his wife and says that the paper on which the Get is written should remain his, the Get does <i>not</i> take effect. The woman must acquire the Get in order to become divorced. Since once cannot acquire an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah, why is a Get written on an object which is Asur b'Hana'ah a valid Get?
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara earlier says that if the woman pays the fee to the scribe who writes the Get, the Get is not valid. Only because the Chachamim utilized their power of 'Hefker Beis Din Hefker' and transferred the ownership of the money to the husband is the Get valid. The Poskim infer from there that the husband must own the Get (see <b>RAN</b> there). How, then, can a man divorce his wife with a Get written on an object of Isurei Hana'ah if he does not have ownership of that object?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY</b> shlit'a explains that when a man gives a Get to his wife and says that the paper on which the Get is written should remain his, he retains the right to take the paper back. Consequently, his act of 'giving' the Get is not an absolute 'Nesinah.' In contrast, the husband has no claim of ownership on an object of Isurei Hana'ah. Although the woman also does not have ownership of such an object, the fact that the man has no claim to it is enough to make his act of giving the Get a valid 'Nesinah.'
</p><p>
(b) Similarly, the requirement that the Get must belong to the husband means that it should not belong to anyone else. In the case of the scribe's fee, the Chachamim must transfer the money to the husband so that the Get will be his exclusively, and neither the woman nor the scribe will have any ownership over it.
</p><p>
However, the husband does <i>not</i> need to have monetary ownership of the Get. As long as no one else has ownership of it, it is valid. Therefore, even an object of Isurei Hana'ah may be used for a Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The writing was like gold Dinarim in one way, and 
          unlike it in one way;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The writing was raised; like gold Dinarim. The 
               letters were engraved on the Tzitz by pounding from 
               the other side, unlike gold Dinarim, in which the 
               area around the writing was compressed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>GIVING THE GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If a man wrote a Get on a gold plate, 
          and told his wife 'take your Get. It is also payment of 
          your Kesuvah', what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It is considered payment of the 
          Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If he said 'receive your Get, and the 
          rest (the part not under the letters of the Get) should 
          count towards payment of the Kesuvah', his words are 
          fulfilled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only because the Get contains more than just 
               the area under the letters. If not, the Get would be 
               invalid (since it was given solely for payment, not 
               l'Shem giving a Get)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, even if the Get contains only what is under 
          the letters, it is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa teaches that even when there is excess, 
               it counts towards paying the Kesuvah only when the 
               husband stipulates.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The excess is the margin of the Get. (If he 
               does not stipulate, it is considered part of the 
               Get.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this is your Get, but the paper 
          is mine', she is not divorced. If he said 'this is your 
          Get, on condition that you return the paper to me', she 
          is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Rav Papa): If he says that he keeps the margin 
          between the lines, or between the words, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This should be Pasul, for it is as if he gives 
          her separate strips. A single Get must be given!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the letters reach from one line (or 
          word) to the next (e.g. a Lamed extends up in between 
          words on the line above), so what she keeps is connected.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> A slave was established to 
          belong to Reuven. A Get is written on the slave, and he 
          is now by Reuven's wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we assume that Reuven gave the slave to his wife?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps the slave himself fled to his wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> In any case, it should be Pasul. The 
          writing can be erased, and hence forged!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does Rava understand our Mishnah, 
               which says that a Get may be written on a slave's 
               hand!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Elazar. Edei 
               Chasimah Karsei, even though it can be forged! (The 
               witnesses who saw it given would not recognize if 
               the document was changed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Culmination of question:</font></b> Rami bar Chama's question 
               applies only when there are no witnesses who saw him 
               give her the slave. How will he answer Rava's 
               question?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Get was tattooed on the slave's hand.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (to Question k:1):</font></b> Rava can explain the 
               Mishnah like this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the answer to Rami bar Chama's 
          question?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Reish Lakish taught that possession of animals 
          does not prove ownership (perhaps they walked away from 
          their real owner. Here, also, perhaps the slave came to 
          her on his own!)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A WOMAN KNOW THAT HER HUSBAND MUST OWN THE GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> If we know that a woman owned 
          a tablet, and her Get is now written on it, and she holds 
          it, do we say that she knew to be Makneh (transfer 
          ownership of) it to her husband when he wrote the Get, or 
          not?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Bava):</font></b> There 
          was a village near Yerushalayim in which an elder used to 
          lend to everyone. He would write the documents himself, 
          and witnesses would sign. Chachamim permitted this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The document must belong to the one who 
               gives or puts a lien on his property (the borrower)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We assume that he knew to be Makneh the 
               document to the borrower. (Similarly, a wife knows 
               to be Makneh the tablet to her husband.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> That is no proof. An elder knows the 
          law, but perhaps a woman does not!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A GET CUT INTO PIECES </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the validity of the Get in a case in which a man gives his wife a Get but stipulates that the blank parts of the Get, between the lines and between the words, should remain his. The Gemara's question may be understood based on the words of <b>RASHI</b> earlier, who explains that if a man gives a Get on condition that the paper on which the Get is written remains his, the Get is not valid because the letters are 'Porchos b'Avir,' suspended in the air. Do the letters of the text of the Get need only the paper on which they are actually written, or do they also need the blank parts surrounding them?
</p><p>
The Gemara then suggests that the Get should be invalid for a different reason. Since the margins and blank areas of the paper remain the husband's, he eventually will cut them out, rendering the Get a collection of small pieces of paper. Such a Get is invalid because of the verse which requires that a Get be 'one 'Sefer' and not two or three Sefarim.' The Gemara explains that the question still applies in the case of a Get whose text is 'Me'urah,' mixed. In such a case, cutting away the blank parts will not separate the Get into multiple parts.
</p><p>
In what way can the blank sections be eliminated without cutting the Get into multiple pieces? <b>RASHI</b> explains that the long letters touch the tops of the letters beneath them.
</p><p>
The Acharonim (see <b>MAHARAM</b> and <b>RASHASH</b>) ask that although Rashi explains how the Get would remain intact when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each line, he does not explain how the Get would remain intact when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each word. Since no successive words touch each other, a cut can be made from the top of the document to the bottom (on a slant at some points), cutting the Get into multiple pieces.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARAM</b> writes that the Gemara's conclusion is that when the husband keeps for himself the parchment between each word, the Get indeed is invalid. The Gemara's question applies only to a case in which he keeps the parchment between each line.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHASH</b> answers that the Gemara's question ('Bein Shitah l'Shitah, Bein Teivah l'Teivah') includes two separate questions. The case of 'Bein Shitah l'Shitah' refers to when the husband keeps for himself only the space between the lines, but not the space between the words. It is with regard to this case that the Gemara asks that without the blank spaces between the lines, the Get is not one 'Sefer.' The Gemara answers, 'd'Me'urah' -- the long letters reach the space between the words on the line above. Since the husband did not keep for himself the space between the words, all of the Get is a contiguous document. 
</p><p>
With regard to the Gemara's second question ('Bein Teivah l'Teivah'), the fact that long letters reach the space between the lines is enough to make the Get one inseparable piece, since the husband did not keep the space between the lines to himself.
</p><p>
(c) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> writes that even if the Gemara refers to a case in which the husband keeps for himself both the space between the lines and the space between the words, the Gemara's question applies only to the space between the lines. Since the space between the words is necessary to give the words the status of 'Mukaf Gevil,' this space is necessary for the Get to be valid and thus it cannot be considered as though it has been cut off, and the Get cannot be considered to be cut into pieces. 
</p><p>
(d) According to the <b>RIVAM</b> (see following Insight), there is no difficulty whatsoever. Both the words and the lines may be attached with a small part of a letter. This is what the Gemara means when it answers 'd'Me'urah.' (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) DOES A GET NEED 'MUKAF GEVIL'?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the validity of the Get in a case in which a man gives his wife a Get but stipulates that the blank parts of the Get, between the lines and between the words, should remain his.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that the Get should be invalid because if the margins and blank areas of the paper remain the husband's, he eventually will cut them out, rendering the Get a collection of small pieces of paper. Such a Get is invalid because of the verse which requires that a Get be 'one 'Sefer' and not two or three Sefarim.' The Gemara explains that the question still applies in the case of a Get whose text is 'Me'urah,' mixed. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the long letters touch the tops of the letters beneath them. In such a case, cutting away the blank parts will not separate the Get into multiple parts. (See previous Insight.)
</p><p>
The Rishonim here address the question of whether a Get is valid when some of its letters touch each other.
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Lo Tzericha) quotes the <b>RIVAM</b> who proves from the Gemara here (which answers that a Get whose text is 'Me'urah' is valid) that a Get is valid when letters touch each other, in contrast to a Sefer Torah which is not valid when letters touch each other (because the letters of a Sefer Torah must be 'Mukaf Gevil').
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> refutes the Rivam's proof. He explains that 'Me'urah' does not mean that the letters touch each other. Rather, it means that the long letters protrude into, but do not touch, the open parts of the letters below (and the tall letters protrude into the open parts of the letters above). For example, the bottom of the Nun-Sofis protrudes into the open part of the Tes below it, and the top of the Lamed protrudes into the open part of the Heh above it.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>NIMUKEI YOSEF</b> also refutes the Rivam's proof. He explains, however, that the long letters reach <i>between</i> the words below (or above) them. He does not accept the Ri's explanation because he maintains that when part of a letter protrudes into the open part of another letter, the form of the second letter is lost. A letter must have nothing protruding into its hollow parts, for if it does it loses its form as a letter. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A WOMAN KNOW THAT HER HUSBAND MUST OWN THE 'GET'? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If an Arev (guarantor) signed 
          below the witnesses, the lender may collect from the 
          Arev's Bnei Chorin (property that he still owns), but not 
          from property he sold. (We assume that the lender knows 
          to be Makneh the document to the Arev when he signs!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> That is no proof. Perhaps a man 
          knows to be Makneh the document, but a woman does not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> A woman can write her own 
          Get, and a man can write the receipt for paying his 
          wife's Kesuvah, because only signatures are Mekayem a 
          document.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>GIVING A 'GET' ALONG WITH A SLAVE OR PLOT OF LAND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> A man wrote a Get, and put it in his slave's 
          hand. He then wrote a document giving his slave for a 
          gift, and gave it to his wife. She acquires the slave and 
          is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Regarding acquisitions) 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 he gave her the slave when the 
               slave was standing still.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rava himself taught that whenever a 
               moving Chatzer does not acquire, it does not acquire 
               even if it is stationary!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, the slave is tied up (he cannot 
          move).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> If a man wrote a Get, and put it in his Chatzer, 
          and wrote a gift document giving the yard to his wife, 
          she acquires the yard and is divorced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Rava needed to teach both cases;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only about the slave, one might have 
               thought that regarding a Chatzer, Chachamim decreed 
               that she is not divorced, lest people think she is 
               divorced even when he puts the Get in another man's 
               Chatzer, and that man gives or sells her the 
               Chatzer. (This is invalid, since her husband did not 
               give the Get to her.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only the case of the Chatzer, one 
               might have thought that regarding a slave, Chachamim 
               decreed that she is not divorced, lest people think 
               she is divorced even when he puts the Get in the 
               hand of a slave who is not tied up.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rava taught both cases, to teach that Chachamim 
                    did not decree in either case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> The Torah said that he puts the Get in 
          her hand. We learn that alternatively, he can put it in 
          her Chatzer. Just like she is divorced through (the Get 
          being put in) her hand with or against her will, she 
          should be divorced through her Chatzer with or against 
          her will!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Receiving the Chatzer for a gift (with the Get in 
               it) is only if she wants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Simi bar Ashi):</font></b> She can make a 
               Shali'ach (agent) to receive her Get, and this works 
               only if she wants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> We do not learn Shelichus from 
               her hand, rather, from 'v'Shilchah (he will send 
               her)', so Shelichus need not resemble her hand!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> In one case, Shelichus works 
               against her will. A man can receive the Get of his 
               minor daughter against her will!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ON WHAT THE 'GET' MAY BE WRITTEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> On an olive leaf...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We understand that when he writes on a slave's hand, he 
          must give the whole slave. We may not cut off his hand!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ABAYE'S QUESTION, RAV SIMI'S ANSWER, AND ABAYE'S REBUTAL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava rules that one may give his wife a Get by placing the Get into his own Chatzer (courtyard) and then transferring ownership of the Chatzer to his wife.
</p><p>
Abaye asks that since the Kinyan of Chatzer is derive from the Kinyan of Yad, it must be similar to Yad. Just as Kinyan Yad works both with and without the consent of the woman, Kinyan Chatzer works both with and without her consent. Such a Kinyan is effective when the Chatzer belongs to her at the moment the Get is placed into it. 
</p><p>
However, in Rava's case, the divorce should not take effect, because the woman cannot be forced to become the owner of the Chatzer. Even if she willingly accepts the Chatzer, at that moment the Chatzer is not similar to Yad since its acquisition requires her consent, and thus it should not function to acquire the Get for her.
</p><p>
Abaye's words need explanation. Once she acquires the Chatzer, she indeed should become Megureshes against her will. The Gerushin takes place either a moment after, or at the same moment, she acquires the Chatzer. It should not matter that at the time the Get was placed into the Chatzer the Gerushin could not take effect against her will. The Chatzer is now hers and thus it should be able to acquire the Get for her against her will.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV SHIMON SHKOP</b> (quoted in <b>OHALEI YITZCHAK</b>) explains that the requirement that a Chatzer be similar to Yad in order to effect a Kinyan means that just as the woman plays no role in the giving of the Get when it is placed into her hand, she must play no role in the giving of the Get when it is placed into her Chatzer. In Rava's case, however, the woman plays a role in the giving of the Get; in order to acquire the Get, the woman must consent to the transfer of ownership of the Chatzer. Consequently, she is assisting in the act of Nesinah.
</p><p>
Rav Simi asks that Rava's case is comparable to the case of a Shali'ach l'Kabalah. When a woman appoints a Shali'ach to receive her Get on her behalf, the appointment of the Shali'ach obviously needs the woman's consent, and nevertheless she becomes divorced when her husband places the Get into the hand of the Shali'ach.
</p><p>
Rav Simi's question is problematic. Although the appointment of the Shali'ach clearly needs the woman's consent, once the Shali'ach has been appointed the woman's consent is no longer necessary. Accordingly, her Shali'ach should be like a Chatzer which belonged to her before the Get was placed into it. In such a case, everyone agrees that she acquires the Get through Kinyan Chatzer. What is Rav Simi's proof against Rava?
</p><p>
Rav Shimon explains that Rav Simi understands that a human Shali'ach differs from a Chatzer or Yad. A woman's Chatzer or Yad belongs to her independent of its role in acquiring a Get. As long as the Chatzer belongs to her (like her Yad), it may acquire the Get for her without her involvement. Her consent plays no role in the giving of the Get. In contrast, a Shali'ach is appointed solely for the purpose of accepting the Get. Accordingly, the acceptance of the Get by the Shali'ach is a direct result of her involvement in the Nesinah. The fact that the Gerushin still takes effect proves that the Nesinah is valid even when her consent is necessary. If the requirement for 'v'Nasan b'Yadah' is fulfilled even when her consent is necessary (such as in the case of a Shali'ach l'Kabalah) and the Get is valid, the Get also should be valid in Rava's case.
</p><p>
Abaye responds that no proof may be cited from the case of a Shali'ach l'Kabalah, because the Shali'ach's ability to accept the Get is based on a different verse altogether and is not comparable to Chatzer.
</p><p>
Moreover, once a Shali'ach is appointed, he no longer needs the consent of the woman. This is evident from the fact that a father may accept a Get on behalf of his young daughter. The Torah appoints him as her Shali'ach even though she does not have the intellectual maturity (Da'as) to consent.
</p><p>
Finally, although the initial appointment of the Shali'ach was made through the woman's consent, the Shali'ach should be no different from a Chatzer acquired before the Get was placed into it. The Shali'ach's present acceptance of the Get is not connected to the woman's original consent to appoint a Shali'ach. Accordingly, no proof may be cited from the case of a Shali'ach to Rava's case, in which the woman's consent is necessary for the giving of the Get and the act of giving might not fulfill the requirement of 'v'Nasan b'Yadah.' 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When he writes on the horn of a cow, why must 
          he give the whole cow? He can off the horn and give the 
          horn!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It says 'he will write...he will give' - the Get 
          must be ready to give once it is written.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he cuts it off in between, it is Pasul, for it 
               was detached between the writing and giving.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yosi ha'Glili says...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yosi ha'Glili's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps a Get must be a 
          'Sefer'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rejection 'And he will write for her' includes 
               writing on anything.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why did the Torah specify 'Sefer'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Just like a Sefer is not alive and is not a 
               food, a Get may not be written on something alive or 
               on a food.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Had the Torah said 'in a Sefer', we would 
               agree. However, it says 'Sefer'. This refers to 
               Sefiras (telling) the matter (i.e. that he severs 
               his connection to his wife).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from 'and he will 
          write'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that one divorces through writing, 
          not through money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that we equate divorce to 
               Kidushin, and just like money can be Mekadesh, it 
               can divorce. The verse teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi ha'Glili learns this from 'a Sefer of Kerisus 
          (cutting)' - only a Sefer cuts.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Chachamim learn from 'Sefer Kerisus' that the Get must 
          cut them off from each other;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If he wrote 'you are divorced on 
               condition that you will never drink wine', or 'that 
               you will never go to your father's house', this is 
               not Kerisus (it is invalid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the condition is only for 30 days, it is Kerisus, 
               and it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi ha'Glili learns this from the plural 'Kerisus', 
          as opposed to 'Kares'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Chachamim hold that the plural does not warrant teaching 
          another law.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'GET' WRITTEN WHILE ATTACHED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We do not write a Get on something attached to 
          the ground. If one wrote it attached, detached it, had 
          witnesses sign it and gave it to her, it is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, it is valid only if it was written and 
          signed while detached.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah ben Beseirah says, we do not write on a 
          parchment that has already been erased; nor on a hide 
          that has been salted and treated only with flour, but not 
          with gall-nuts, because erasures on such parchments are 
          not recognizable;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Chachamim permit this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'if he wrote it 
          attached (it is Kosher)'? The Reisha says that we do not 
          write a Get on something attached! (Ran - writing on 
          something attached is Pasul mid'Oraisa, so we cannot say 
          that it is merely l'Chatchilah to write on something 
          detached.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah, R. Elazar, Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> 
          The Toref (his and her names, and the date) must be 
          written detached. If the Tofes (the standard part that is 
          the same on every Get) was written attached, the Get is 
          still valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei 
               Mesirah Karsei. (A Get need not be signed. 'He will 
               write a Get for her' refers to the Toref (the part 
               that must be 'for her', i.e. Lishmah. A Get may not 
               be detached between the writing of the Toref and the 
               giving.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah means that we may not write the Tofes 
               while attached, lest we write the Toref attached. If 
               the Tofes was written attached, then the Get was 
               detached and the Toref was written and the Get was 
               given, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The Mishnah explicitly says 
          that if it was signed after it was detached, it is valid. 
          The Mishnah is like R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah 
          Karsei (a Get is empowered by the witnesses who signed 
          it. 'He will write the Get' means 'he will have witnesses 
          sign the Get.' Since detaching did not separate between 
          the signing and giving, it is valid.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah means that we may not write the Toref 
               while attached, lest we sign the Get attached. If 
               the Toref was written attached, then the Get was 
               detached and it was signed and given, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If a Get was written on the earthenware of a flowerpot 
          with a hole, it is valid. He gives to her the flowerpot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a Get was written on a leaf of a plant 
          growing in a flowerpot with a hole, it is valid;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> It is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye says that it is valid. He gives to her the 
               entire flowerpot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava says that it is Pasul. This is a decree, lest 
               he break off the leaf and give the leaf to her. 
               (This is Pasul, for the detaching separates between 
               the writing and the giving.)
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) CUTTING A GET OFF OF THE OBJECT TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (19a) states that one may write a Get on the horn of a cow, but he must give the entire cow to his wife; he may not cut off the horn and give it to her. The verse states, 'v'Kasav v'Nasan,' which implies that the giving of the Get must immediately follow the writing of the Get, and the two acts may not be interrupted by an act of severing the Get from the object to which it is attached.
</p><p>
The Rishonim disagree about whether the act of cutting (which may not interrupt between the writing and giving of the Get) refers only to an act of cutting an object from its source of life (such as cutting a horn from the head of a cow, or a branch from a tree), or even to any act of cutting one object from another (such as cutting a Get written on a section of a large piece of paper from the rest of the paper). 
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU SHMUEL</b> and others (see <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Yatza) maintain that only a Get written on a living creature or on an object attached the ground is considered to 'lack cutting' and thus may not be cut off after being written.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVAM</b> and <b>RABEINU TAM</b> maintain that even a Get written on an inanimate object, such as a piece of paper, may be said to 'lack cutting.' 
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> seems to contradict himself on this issue. The Gemara later says that a Get written on an earthenware vessel is valid as long as the man gives the entire vessel to his wife. Rashi there (DH d'Shakil) explains that there is no concern that he might break off the part of the vessel on which the Get is written, because he does not wish to ruin his vessel. Rashi clearly understands that even when a Get is written on an object which is not attached to the ground, it may not be cut off.
</p><p>
Rashi on the following Gemara, however, writes otherwise. Abaye and Rava disagree about the law in a case in which one writes a Get on the leaf of a plant which is in a perforated earthenware pot. Rava invalidates the Get because of the concern that the man might cut off the leaf and give it to his wife. Rashi there (22a, DH Shema) explains that since the plant is in a perforated pot, the cutting of the leaf invalidates the Get, since the plant is considered attached to the ground (Mechubar l'Karka). Rashi there clearly understands that cutting off a Get is problematic only when it is written on an object attached to the ground. How are these two comments of Rashi to be reconciled?
</p><p>
The <b>KEHILOS YAKOV</b> answers that Rashi follows the view of <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> (formerly printed under the name of the Ritva on Maseches Gitin), who explains that for a Get to 'lack cutting,' an unimportant part must need to be cut from the important part. This applies in all cases, including the case of a Get written on a pot, a Get written on a leaf, and a Get written on the horn of a cow.
</p><p>
In contrast, when a Get is written on a small piece of a large paper, it is not considered to 'lack cutting.' Although the unnecessary part is larger, it is not inherently more important than the part on which the Get is written.
</p><p>
Rashi's intent may be understood in a similar vein. When one breaks a piece of a pot, the piece is not a pot itself but a broken potsherd ('Chaspa'). Since it certainly is less important that the pot itself, the act of cutting is considered significant and the Get is considered to 'lack cutting' while it is attached to the pot (as Rashi explains in DH d'Shakil). In contrast, when one cuts off a leaf from a plant in a non-perforated pot, the leaf retains all of its properties. The Get written on the leaf is not considered to 'lack cutting' when it is attached to the plant. Only when the plant is attached to the ground is the Get considered to 'lack cutting,' since the leaf, when cut, will die (see Rashi to 22a, DH Shema).
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'GET' ON SOMETHING GROWING IN A FLOWERPOT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  If Reuven owns a flowerpot and Shimon owns what is 
          growing in it, and Reuven sells the pot to Shimon, Shimon 
          can acquire it through Meshichah (taking it to his 
          property);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Shimon sells what is growing inside to Reuven, 
               Reuven can acquire only through Chazakah on the 
               vegetation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Reuven owns a flowerpot and what is growing in it, and 
          he sells both to Shimon, Shimon can acquire both by 
          making Chazakah on the vegetation;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Property without Acharayus (a lender 
               cannot collect from it if the borrower sold it, i.e. 
               Metaltelim) can be acquired along with property with 
               Acharayus (a lender can collect from it even after 
               it was sold, i.e. land), through (a Kinyan on the 
               land, i.e.) money, a document, or Chazakah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Shimon makes a Chazakah on the flowerpot, he does 
               not acquire anything, unless he makes Chazakah on 
               the vegetation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If the hole of a flowerpot is in Eretz Yisrael, 
          and the foliage is in Chutz La'aretz, we follow the hole. 
          (It is as if the plant is growing in Eretz Yisrael 
          regarding Ma'aser and other agricultural laws.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> We follow the foliage. (It is as if it is growing 
          in Chutz La'aretz.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  They argue only if the plant did not take root in the 
          ground (through the hole. If it did, Rava would agree 
          with Abaye.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> There is no necessity to say this. Tana'im 
          argue about whether we follow the roots or the foliage! 
          (Rava could hold like the Tana who follows the foliage 
          even when it took root!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If Reuven owns a garden on a 
               hill, and Shimon owns a garden at the bottom, and 
               vegetables are growing on the incline (the side of 
               the hill), they belong to Reuven;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, they belong to Shimon (even though 
               they are rooted in Reuven's hill)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah itself explains their reasons (they 
          do not argue about following the roots or the foliage):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, if Reuven would remove his soil, 
               nothing would grow (so the vegetables are due to 
               him);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, if Shimon would fill his airspace 
               with soil, nothing would grow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> The following Tana'im follow the foliage. 
          (Rava could hold like them!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If a tree is partially in Eretz 
               Yisrael, and partially in Chutz La'aretz, part of 
               every fruit is obligated in Ma'aseros, and part is 
               exempt;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the fruits that grow in 
               Eretz Yisrael are fully obligated. Those that grow 
               in Chutz La'aretz are fully exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Some of the foliage is in Eretz Yisrael, 
               and the rest in Chutz La'aretz (It does not matter 
               whether the roots are totally in Eretz Yisrael or 
               totally in Chutz La'aretz.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, also the roots are partially in Eretz 
          Yisrael, and partially in Chutz La'aretz. (If all the 
          roots were in one place, all would follow them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If we follow the roots, R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
          should admit that each fruit is partially obligated and 
          partially exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rocky ground separates the two sides. The 
          nourishment derived from the roots in Eretz Yisrael does 
          not pass to the side in Chutz La'aretz (and vice-versa).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what is Rebbi's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Both sides of the tree enter the trunk, and there 
          the nourishment from both sides is mixed together;
          1.Rebbi holds that the nourishment mixes even above 
               ground. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it does not 
               mix.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PARCHMENT FOR WRITING A 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah ben Beseira):</font></b> (We do not write on a 
          parchment that has already been erased...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Asi):</font></b> There are three hides: Matzah, Chifah 
          and Diftara.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Matzah is a hide that was not salted or treated with 
          flour or gall-nuts;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What law is special to Matzah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> One who transfers 
               (from a private domain) to a public domain (or 
               carries four Amos in a public domain) a Matzah hide 
               large enough to wrap a small weight is liable for 
               transgressing Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the size of this weight?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is the smallest weight of Pumbadisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Cheifah is a hide that has been salted but not treated 
          with flour or gall-nuts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Cheifah hide is large to write an 
               amulet, and one transfers it to (or carries it four 
               Amos in) a public domain, he is liable for 
               transgressing Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Diftara is a hide that has been salted, and treated only 
          with flour, but not with gall-nuts.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Diftara hide is large to write a 
               Get, and one transfers it to (or carries it in) a 
               public domain, he is liable for transgressing 
               Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Chachamim permit (erasable parchments).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Who are these Chachamim?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET WRITTEN ON ERASABLE PAPER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Tana Kama of the Mishnah (21b) states that one may not write a Get on erasable paper ('Neyar Machuk,' or paper from which words have already been erased), or on any other item from which the writing may easily be erased with no evidence of any erasure. The Chachamim disagree and permit such a Get. The Gemara explains that the dispute in the Mishnah is based on the familiar dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar about which set of witnesses on a Get is the primary set which makes the Get effective. The Tana Kama follows the view of Rebbi Meir who rules that the Edei Chasimah, the witnesses who sign the Get, make the Get take effect, and therefore a Get written on erasable paper is Pasul. The Chachamim, who permit such a Get, follow the view of Rebbi Elazar who rules that the main witnesses are the Edei Mesirah, those who see the Get being given over.
</p><p>
How, though, does the dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar apply to the Halachah of the Mishnah?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that according to Rebbi Elazar, every Get must have Edei Mesirah, and any woman who wants to remarry based on a Get she received from her previous husband must bring the Edei Mesirah to prove that it is a valid Get. Since the Edei Mesirah read the Get at the time it was given, the woman will not be able to alter what was written in the Get without the witnesses noticing the change. In contrast, according to Rebbi Meir, when a woman wants to remarry, she validates her Get through authenticating the signatures of the Edei Chasimah (either by comparing the signatures with the same signatures on other documents, or by bringing witnesses who recognize the signatures, without necessarily bringing the signatories themselves). Hence, according to Rebbi Meir, a Get written on erasable paper is not acceptable because the woman might erase a conditional clause in the Get and leave the signatures of the Edei Chasimah in place.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation is difficult to understand for a number of reasons.
</p><p>
(a) Why does Rashi write that according to Rebbi Elazar, a woman may not remarry unless she brings the Edei Mesirah? The Mishnah later (86a, cited by the Gemara on 3b) states that according to Rebbi Elazar witnesses sign the Get 'because of Tikun ha'Olam.' The Gemara (36a) explains that this means that the Rabanan instituted that Edei Chasimah sign a Get so that in the event that the Edei Mesirah die or move abroad and are unavailable, the woman will be able to remarry based on the Edei Chasimah. Hence, even according to Rebbi Elazar a woman <i>is</i> permitted to be Mekayem the Get through the Edei Chasimah!
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (22a, DH Man) explains that Rashi must mean that when a Get is written on erasable paper and is able to be forged, Rebbi Elazar will require Edei Mesirah (because she must bring witnesses who actually read the Get, in order to prove that she did not erase anything in it), but not in the case of a normal Get.
</p><p>
However, this does not seem to be what Rashi means. Rashi says that 'according to the opinion who maintains Edei Mesirah [Kartei],' when the woman wants to remarry [with such a Get] she must bring the Edei Mesirah. The same requirement, however, should apply according to the opinion that Edei Chasimah Kartei -- she should not be permitted to remarry without bringing the Edei Mesirah (if there were any) or the actual Edei Chasimah who read the Get! Moreover, according to Rashi, why does Rebbi Meir prohibit such a Get more than Rebbi Elazar? Just as Rebbi Elazar permits it by requiring personal testimony about the contents of the Get, Rebbi Meir should permit it by requiring personal testimony about the contents of the Get, by bringing the Edei Chasimah themselves. (<b>TIFERES YAKOV</b>, <b>TORAS GITIN</b> EH 124:2, <b>DIBROS MOSHE</b>)
</p><p>
It seems, therefore, that Rashi means that Rebbi Elazar <i>always</i> requires the woman to bring Edei Mesirah in order to remarry. It is assumed that a Get written on erasable paper will be treated like any other Get, and thus Rebbi Elazar is not concerned that the woman will erase something (since she must bring Edei Mesirah). Rebbi Meir, however, invalidates the Get, lest the Beis Din accept the normal manner of Kiyum for the Get -- <i>without</i> the testimony of the Edei Chasimah themselves. However, as mentioned above, this seems to contradict the Mishnah (86a) which says that Rebbi Elazar permits the Kiyum of the Get through the Edei Chasimah.
</p><p>
(b) Rashi explains that the reason why such a Get is Pasul according to Rebbi Meir is that the woman might erase a conditional clause (a Tenai) that was written in the Get. Rashi writes the same thing elsewhere as well (such as on the Mishnah, 21b, DH Neyar Machuk, and on 20b, DH l'Hizdayef, in the case of a Get written on the hand of an Eved, which is also an erasable item). 
</p><p>
Why is Rashi concerned only that the woman will erase a clause in the Get? Perhaps a woman or her husband will <i>lose</i> the Get, and another woman will find it and erase all of the details in it and write in her own details instead. (See the Gemara on 24b which presents such a concern when two couples in the same city have the same names.) 
</p><p>
In fact, if the Rabanan would permit a Get written on erasable paper, how can Beis Din ever know that the witnesses who signed it actually signed a Get in the first place? Perhaps they signed another type of Shtar, such as a Shtar Milveh (loan) or a Shtar Mechirah (sale) which someone gave to this woman, and she erased the entire Shtar and wrote a Get in its place! Rashi should say that Rebbi Meir prohibits a Get written on erasable paper because the woman might erase an entire Shtar, and not just because she might erase a single clause in the Get! (In fact, when the <b>BARTENURA</b> explains the Mishnah, he says that she might erase the Get 'and write what she wants,' i.e. she might rewrite the Get with the names she wishes.)
</p><p>
(c) The Mishnah (2a) teaches that when a woman presents a Get in Eretz Yisrael, Beis Din does not doubt the authenticity of the Get unless the husband challenges it. (See Tosfos 2a, beginning of DH v'Im Yesh, who writes that this Takanah d'Rabanan was enacted because of Agunos.) It is clear that this Halachah applies even according to Rebbi Elazar (since Rebbi Elazar also requires 'b'Fanai Nichtav' everywhere outside of Eretz Yisrael). 
</p><p>
Why, then, does Rebbi Elazar permit a Get written on erasable paper? Perhaps the woman will erase a clause in the Get and then remarry based on the Get <i>without</i> bringing Edei Mesirah, because her husband did not contest the Get (since he did not know that she altered it)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>DIBROS MOSHE</b> explains that Rashi maintains that according to Rebbi Elazar, even after the Takanah was enacted that witnesses sign the Get, the Rabanan still require, l'Chatchilah, that the Edei Mesirah themselves be Mekayem the Get. It is only after the Edei Mesirah have died (or are unavailable for other reasons) that Beis Din accepts the Edei Chasimah to be Mekayem the Get.
</p><p>
Still, however, why does Rebbi Elazar accept a Get written on erasable paper? Perhaps the woman will wait for the Edei Mesirah to die, and then erase a clause in the Get, and the Beis Din will be Mekayem the Get through recognition of the signatures without bringing in the Edei Chasimah themselves to testify!
</p><p>
Perhaps under such circumstances, when the Edei Mesirah die Beis Din will not accept a Get written on erasable paper (without witnesses who saw the original Get). This might be what Tosfos means when he says that Rashi requires only the testimony of the Edei Mesirah when the Get is written on erasable paper; in the case of a normal Get, the Edei Chasimah are used to validate the Get if the Edei Mesirah have died. According to Rebbi Meir, Beis Din does not rely on forcing the woman to bring the Edei Mesirah or Edei Chasimah themselves to validate a Get written on erasable paper, since Rebbi Meir <i>never</i> requires her to bring the witnesses themselves in the case of a normal Get, and one might confuse this Get with a normal Get. According to Rebbi Elazar, however, a normal Get requires that the woman bring the Edei Mesirah themselves, like a Get written on erasable paper. The only difference between the two is when the Edei Mesirah have died; since that is a relatively unusual case, Rebbi Elazar maintains that there is no Gezeirah lest one confuse a Get written on erasable paper where the Edei Mesirah died with a normal Get. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps there is no concern that a Get written on erasable paper was once a Shtar Milveh or a Shtar Mechirah that was erased and rewritten, because a normal Shtar may not be written on erasable paper. No Shtar would be written on erasable paper with the signatures of witnesses other than a Get. (Although <b>TOSFOS</b> on 22a, DH Lo, and other Rishonim cite the Gemara in Bava Basra (164a) which permits collecting money with a Shtar written on erasable paper since there is a noticeable difference between paper that has been erased once and paper that has been erased twice, Rashi here clearly argues. Rashi writes that if the woman erases a clause it will not be recognizable that anything was erased. Perhaps Rashi understands that the 'Neyar Machuk' of the Mishnah is a different type of erasable paper on which it cannot be discerned whether or not the contents have been erased a second time (for example, the writing on the paper was erased already multiple times, such that one cannot tell the difference between the third and fourth times). On such a paper, one may not write any Shtar other than a Get. As the Acharonim point out, Rashi may explain the way he does in order to avoid the questions which <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in the Mishnayos) raises on Tosfos' explanation.) 
</p><p>
The reason why there is no concern that the Get was written for somebody else, lost, and then found by this woman who then erased it and wrote what she wanted, might be that it was written on paper that was clearly her husband's (such as his stationery), similar to the erasable Get written on the hand of the husband's Eved (on 20b), which clearly came from the husband. (If he has more than one wife, she would have to bring testimony that this document was indeed given to her and not to her co-wife.)
</p><p>
Therefore, the only concern is that although the Get was given to this wife, perhaps she erased a clause that was written in it.
</p><p>
(c) Although the woman does not need to bring Edei Mesirah to validate the Get before the husband challenges its authenticity, there is no concern that she will erase a clause in the Get and get married before the husband challenges the Get because she will be afraid that the husband will later challenge the Get and successfully invalidate it, thereby making her forbidden to both men and rendering her children from the second marriage Mamzerim. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Elazar):</font></b> They hold like R. Eliezer, who says 
          that Edei Mesirah Karsei (so we do not care whether or 
          not it is forgeable).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Eliezer only permits this if the 
          witnesses testify immediately about the giving of the 
          Get. If they come within the next 10 days, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We are concerned lest there was a Tanai 
               (stipulation) written in the Get, and it was later 
               erased and the witnesses forgot it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even if witnesses come within the next 10 
          days, it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there were a Tanai, the witnesses would remember 
               it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> R. Eliezer permits only Gitin (on forgeable 
          parchment), but not monetary documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding monetary documents it says 'you will put 
               them in an earthenware Kli, in order that they will 
               last a long time.' (They must be unforgeable, so 
               they will be valid for a long time, even after the 
               witnesses forget what was written.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Eliezer permits even monetary 
          documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It says 'in order that they will last a long 
          time'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That is merely good counsel (to put them in an 
          earthenware Kli).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ANYONE CAN WRITE A 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone can write a Get, even a deaf person, 
          lunatic or minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A woman can write her own Get. A husband can write the 
          receipt (in which his wife admits that she received the 
          Kesuvah), since Kiyum of a document is only through its 
          signatures.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why is the Get of a deaf person, 
          lunatic or minor valid? They lack Da'as (understanding)!
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY SOMEONE WITHOUT 'DA'AS' CAN WRITE A 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> The case is, an adult supervises 
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Would adult supervision enable a 
          Nochri to write a Get?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You cannot say that it does. A Beraisa disqualifies 
               him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> A Nochri is different. He writes for his own 
          motive. (A deaf person, lunatic or minor writes according 
          to what the adult tells him.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rav Nachman):</font></b> I erred. The Seifa (on this 
          Amud) says that a Nochri cannot be a Shali'ach to give a 
          Get. This implies that he can write one .
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A Beraisa disqualifies him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> That Beraisa is like R. Elazar, who says that 
          Edei Mesirah Karsei, and the Get must be written Lishmah 
          (for the sake of the woman being divorced);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Clearly, a Nochri writes for whomever he wants, and 
               it is not Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to question 3:c (22b) - Rav Nachman):</font></b> (The 
          Mishnah is like R. Meir.) R. Meir holds that even if a 
          Get was found in the trash, if it was signed and given, 
          it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> 'He will write for her' - 
          Lishmah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This refers to writing the text of the 
               Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> No, it refers to the witnesses' 
          signatures. (They must sign Lishmah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> Any Get written without 
          intent for a particular woman is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It means that any Get signed 
          without intent for a particular woman is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3 (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> When he writes it, it is as 
          if he writes it Lishmah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This means that when he writes the Toref 
               Lishmah, it is as if he writes the Tofes Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> No. It means that when witnesses 
          sign the Get Lishmah, it is as if he wrote it Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to all three questions - Rav Nachman):</font></b> These 
          Beraisos are like R. Elazar (who requires a Get to be 
          written Lishmah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (to question 3:c (22b) - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> A deaf 
          person, lunatic or minor may write the Tofes, but one 
          with Da'as must write the Toref. The Mishnah is like R. 
          Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zrika, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. 
          Meir. It teaches that a Get need not be Lishmah at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Rabah bar bar Chanah cited R. Yochanan to 
          say that the Mishnah is like R. Elazar!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Resolution:</font></b> Amora'im argue about R. Yochanan's opinion.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO CAN BE A 'SHALI'ACH' TO GIVE A 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Anyone may be a Shali'ach to bring (i.e. give) 
          a Get, except for a deaf person, lunatic, minor, a blind 
          person, or a Nochri.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a minor was appointed (to be a Shali'ach), and became 
          an adult (and then gave it), or if a deaf, blind or 
          insane person was appointed, and he became healthy, or if 
          a Nochri was appointed and he converted, the Get is 
          Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a healthy adult was appointed, and he became deaf, 
          blind or insane, and he became healthy again (and then 
          gave it), the Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The rule is, whenever the Shali'ach had Da'as when 
               appointed and when he gave it, it is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> We understand why a deaf person, lunatic and 
          minor are Pasul. They lack Da'as.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand why a Nochri is Pasul. Divorce does 
               not apply to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why can't a blind person be a Shali'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He doesn't know who gave it to 
          him, and to whom he gives it. (Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef 
          were blind.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If a blind person cannot recognize 
          people, how is a blind man permitted to have Bi'ah with 
          his wife (perhaps it is another man's wife)? How is 
          anyone permitted to have Bi'ah at night (when he cannot 
          see)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> You must say, he can recognize people through their 
               voices. Therefore, he could recognize the giver and 
               receiver of a Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a Get from 
          Chutz La'aretz. The Shali'ach must say 'it was written 
          and signed in front of me', and a blind person cannot say 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If so, if a seeing person was made a 
          Shali'ach, and became blind, he should be able to give 
          the Get!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> That is correct!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If a seeing person was 
          appointed, became blind, and became healthy again, the 
          Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Had he not returned to health, it would 
               be Pasul!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Really, even if he remained blind it 
          is valid. The Mishnah said that he returned to health for 
          parallel structure with the case of going insane, in 
          which it is valid only if he returned to sanity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Ashi - Reisha):</font></b> Whenever the Shali'ach had 
          Da'as when appointed and when he gives it, it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It does not say that the Shali'ach must be Kosher 
               (qualified) when appointed and when he gives it. 
               This shows that it is valid even if he is blind when 
               he gives it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN SLAVES BE 'SHELUCHIM'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Can a slave be a Shali'ach to receive a Get of 
          divorce?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Ami):</font></b> The Mishnah disqualifies only a 
          Nochri. This implies that a slave can be a Shali'ach.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A GET WRITTEN BY A 'CHERESH, SHOTEH, V'KATAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (22b) teaches that a Get written by a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan is valid. The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that a Get written by a Nochri is not valid. The Gemara asks what the difference is between a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan who have no Da'as and thus cannot write a Get, and a Nochri who -- even though he has Da'as -- has no connection to the concept of Kerisus? One who has either a lack of Da'as or a lack of connection to Kerisus should not be able to write a Get.
</p><p>
Rav Huna (see Chart) explains that the Mishnah refers to a situation in which an adult Jew is standing over the Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan and is instructing him to write it Lishmah ('Gadol Omed Al Gabav'). This suffices to make the writing of the Get considered Lishmah when a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan writes the Get because they can have intention to write it Lishmah when someone instructs them to do so. However, a Nochri does not accept instructions from another person who stands over him and he writes the Get without intention of Lishmah, and thus the Get is Pasul. 
</p><p>
Rav Nachman (see Chart) disagrees and explains the Mishnah differently. He explains that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir who does not require Kesivah Lishmah, and thus the Mishnah permits even a Nochri to write a Get. The Beraisa which disqualifies a Get written by a Nochri follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar who requires Kesivah Lishmah. Therefore, a Nochri may not write a Get (even if there is a Gadol Omed Al Gabav), while a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan <i>may</i> write a Get when there is a Gadol Omed Al Gabav (Rashi, DH v'Ha Vadai). 
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a third explanation for the Mishnah which permits a Get written by a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan. Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar who requires Kesivah Lishmah. Nevertheless, a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan is permitted to write a Get when he writes only the <i>Tofes</i> of the Get (the standard text, and not the Toref, the specific details).
</p><p>
According to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, why does the Beraisa state that a Nochri may not write a Get? Since the Tofes of the Get does not need to be written Lishmah or written by a 'Bar Kerisus,' even a Nochri should be permitted to write the Tofes of the Get! One might suggest that the Beraisa refers to the writing of the Toref, and when it disqualifies a Nochri it means that a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan also may not write that part of the Get. The Mishnah, in contrast, refers to the writing of the Tofes and permits that writing to be done not only by a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan but also by a Nochri.
</p><p>
However, this answer does not seem a viable, because the Gemara seems to take for granted that the Beraisa permits <i>only</i> a Nochri to write a Get and not a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara asks, according to Rav Huna, why a Nochri may not write a Get while a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan may write a Get, and the Gemara does not answer that the Beraisa disqualifies a Nochri when there is no Gadol Omed Al Gabav while the Mishnah allows a Cheresh, Shoteh, Katan, or Nochri when there <i>is</i> a Gadol Omed Al Gabav. Obviously, the Gemara understands that the Beraisa distinguishes between a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan, and a Nochri. How, then, does Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel -- who explains that the Mishnah refers to the Tofes -- understand the Beraisa which permits a Nochri to write a Get? (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Beraisa may refer to a Nochri who writes the <i>Toref</i> with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav. The writing of a Nochri is not valid because he does not accept instructions from another person. In contrast, when a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan writes the Toref with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, the Get is valid. That is, even Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel -- who explains that the Mishnah refers to the writing of the Tofes -- agrees that there is another instance in which a Get written by a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan is valid, and that is when he writes the Toref with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav. (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel explain that the Mishnah refers to the writing of the <i>Tofes</i>? He should say, like Rav Huna, that the Mishnah refers to the writing of the <i>Toref</i> with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav!
</p><p>
Perhaps Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel considers that approach too forced, since the Mishnah makes no mention of any additional conditions necessary (such as Gadol Omed Al Gabav) for the Get to be acceptable when written by a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan. If a Gadol Omed Al Gabav would be necessary, the Mishnah would mention it lest we mistakenly permit a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan to write a Get without a Gadol Omed Al Gabav.
</p><p>
The Beraisa, on the other hand, which discusses a Nochri, refers to the <i>prohibition</i> of a Nochri to write a Get. Therefore, the Beraisa may intend to say that <i>even</i> with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, a Nochri cannot write the Get; he cannot write a Get under <i>any</i> conditions. The Beraisa refers to the Toref as well as the Tofes. A Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan, however, are permitted to write the Toref under certain circumstances (such as Gadol Omed Al Gabav). 
</p><p>
This answer, however, depends on a Machlokes Rishonim with regard to whether or not Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel agrees with Rav Huna's ruling. This answer is appropriate only according to the way the <b>RAN</b> explains the <b>RIF</b> (which might also be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b>, DH Makom ha'Toref, as the <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> suggests; see, however, <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> EH 123:1), who maintains that Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel <i>agrees</i> that Gadol Omed Al Gabav also helps even for the writing of the Toref.
</p><p>
(b) A similar answer to this question may be suggested based on the view of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 3:15) and the <b>RIF</b> (according to the straightforward reading of his words, see Ran ibid.). They rule that according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan may write the Tofes <i>only</i> with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav. (That is, they require both conditions: a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, and that the Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan writes only the Tofes.) Accordingly, the Beraisa which says that a Nochri may not write a Get indeed may refer to the Tofes, and it disqualifies a Nochri since even the Tofes requires a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, and a Nochri does not follow the instructions of a Gadol Omed Al Gabav.
</p><p>
(c) However, the <b>RAN</b> himself prefers the view that Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel permits <i>only</i> the writing of the Tofes by a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan, even without a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, and he does not permit a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan to write the Toref even <i>with</i> a Gadol Omed Al Gabav. (Rav Huna, in direct contrast, permits a Cheresh, Shoteh, or Katan to write only with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, but he does not permit them to write -- even the Tofes -- without a Gadol Omed Al Gabav.) According to this opinion, why does the Beraisa prohibit a Nochri from writing a Get, and permit a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan to write a Get, according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel? 
</p><p>
The answer may be that Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel maintains that even <i>Rebbi Meir</i> requires that the Kesivah be done Lishmah, mid'Rabanan (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 22b, DH v'Ha Lav). He argues with Rav Nachman who maintains that Rebbi Meir permits l'Chatchilah even the use of a Get that was found in the garbage. The Beraisa which permits a Nochri to write a Get may follow the view of Rebbi Meir, who maintains that the Toref must be written Lishmah only mid'Rabanan. Since the requirement is only mid'Rabanan, having a Gadol Omed Al Gabav suffices to make it Lishmah. In contrast, the Mishnah does not permit a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan to write the Toref even with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav, because it follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar who maintains that the Toref must be written Lishmah <i>mid'Oraisa</i>, and thus a Gadol Omed Al Gabav does not suffice. (Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel does not explain that the Mishnah discusses the Toref and permits a Cheresh, Shoteh, and Katan with a Gadol Omed Al Gabav according to Rebbi Meir, because the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Elazar.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) A BLIND SHALI'ACH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that a blind person may not serve as a Shali'ach to deliver a Get since he is unable to see the writing of the Get and thus he cannot say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.'
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (6a), however, states that even one who merely hears the sound of the quill as the Get is written may testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Why may a blind person not say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' and testify that he heard the Get being written Lishmah? (<b>TOSFOS</b> to 6a, DH Afilu)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:3) answers that even if the blind person hears the writing of the Get, he cannot know that the Get that was given over is the same Get that he heard being written, since he cannot see it. Therefore, a blind person may not deliver a Get and testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
(b) The Rosh in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b> writes that a blind person may not testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav' because his words have the appearance of false testimony, since they imply that he actually saw the writing of the Get. He cannot say, 'I <i>heard</i> the Get being written and signed Lishmah,' since the enactment of the Chachamim requires that the Shali'ach specifically say the words 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.' (There is no concern that the Get he delivers is not the same one that was written Lishmah. Since it is known that the husband intended to send a valid Get to his wife, there is no reason to assume that he discarded the one that he wrote Lishmah and sent one that was not written Lishmah.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Asi):</font></b> He cannot be a Shali'ach, since 
          Kidushin and divorce do not apply to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> If his only disqualification is 
          that Kidushin and divorce do not apply to him, this 
          implies that he can be a Shali'ach for something that 
          applies to him. However, Terumah applies to Nochrim and 
          Kusim, yet they cannot be Sheluchim to separate Terumah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Nochri or Kusi separated Terumah on 
               his own produce, it is Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Nochri separated Terumah on the 
               produce of a Yisrael, even if he was authorized to 
               do so, it does not become Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is because it says 'also you' 
               (regarding Terumah, the source for Shelichus). The 
               Shali'ach must resemble the one who appoints him, 
               i.e. he must also be a Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai):</font></b> No, the Shali'ach must resemble 
          the one who appoints him, i.e. he must also be in the 
          covenant of circumcision.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Aba, citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> A slave cannot be 
          a Shali'ach to receive a Get of divorce, since Kidushin 
          and divorce do not apply to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is true, even though a Beraisa teaches that if 
               one told his slave 'you remain a slave, and your 
               child is free', if she was pregnant, she acquires 
               freedom on behalf of the fetus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should these depend on one another? (A 
          slave can receive a Get of freedom, but he cannot be a 
          Shali'ach to receive a Get of divorce, because Kidushin 
          and divorce do not apply to him!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> R. Yochanan taught (that 
          a slave cannot be a Shali'ach to receive a Get of 
          divorce, and) also the following (and said the Beraisa 
          does not refute it):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A slave can receive a Get of freedom on behalf of a 
               slave of a different master, but not for a slave of 
               his master.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If one told his slave... she 
               acquires freedom on behalf of the fetus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer - part 1 (R. Zeira or R. Shmuel bar R. 
               Yitzchak):</font></b> The Beraisa is like Rebbi, who says that 
               if one who frees half his slave, this takes effect;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer - part 2 (the other of these two giants of 
               the generation):</font></b> Rebbi holds that a fetus is 
               considered part of his mother. Freeing the fetus is 
               like freeing a limb of the mother.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WOMEN SUSPECTED OF LYING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following relatives of a woman (Sarah) are 
          suspected to hate her: her mother-in-law; the daughter of 
          her mother-in-law; her co-wife; her husband's brother's 
          wife; and her husband's daughter (from another woman). 
          Any of these is not believed to say that Sarah's husband 
          died. Perhaps she lies, intending that Sarah will remarry 
          and suffer severe fines. Such relatives are believed to 
          bring a Get to Sarah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why are they believed about a Get, but not 
               to say that the husband died?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Get she holds proves that she is not 
               lying.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A woman can bring her own Get, as long as she says 'it 
          was written and signed in front of me.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa) Contradiction:</font></b> Just like these 
          relatives are not believed to say that her husband died, 
          they are not believed to bring her Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses a Get 
          brought within Eretz Yisrael. Since the Shali'ach does 
          not need to make a declaration, the relative is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa discusses a Get brought from Chutz 
               La'aretz. Since the Shali'ach must say 'it was 
               written and signed in front of me', the relative is 
               not believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Just the opposite! Regarding a Get 
          brought within Eretz Yisrael, if the husband comes and 
          denies having sent the Get, we will suspect that is true 
          (since no declaration was made). The relative should not 
          be believed, perhaps she wants to make Sarah blunder.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Get brought from Chutz La'aretz, since 
               the Shali'ach must say 'it was written and signed in 
               front of me', the husband will not be heeded if he 
               denies having sent the Get. The relative should be 
               believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #1 (for Abaye - Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> 
          A Kal va'Chomer teaches that a woman is believed to bring 
          her own Get:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The relatives who are not believed to say that 
               Sarah's husband died, are believed to bring Sarah's 
               Get. Sarah herself is believed to say that her 
               husband died, all the more so she should be believed 
               to bring her own Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since the source for Sarah to bring her own Get is 
               from a suspected relative, and the relative would 
               have to say 'it was written and signed in front of 
               me', Sarah herself must say this, too.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #2 (for Abaye - Rav Ashi - Mishnah):</font></b> A woman can 
          bring her own Get, as long as she says 'it was written 
          and signed in front of me.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that the Mishnah discusses a Get from 
               Chutz La'aretz.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) FREEING AN INDENTURED FETUS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that when an Eved receives a Get Shichrur in which the master writes that he frees only half of the Eved, at the moment the Eved receives it half of him becomes free. Similarly, when a Shifchah (maidservant) receives a Get Shichrur in which the master specifies that he frees only the fetus she is carrying and not the Shifchah herself, at the moment she receives it the fetus becomes free.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Kidushin (23a) teaches that when an Eved receives a Get Shichrur, he acquires the document only through the mechanism of 'Gito v'Yado Ba'im k'Echad.' Since an Eved is unable to acquire anything (even his Get Shichrur) while he is an Eved, the only way he can become free by receiving a Get Shichrur is if 'the Get Shichrur and his freedom (literally 'hand') come simultaneously.'
</p><p>
However, if a master frees only the fetus of his Shifchah without freeing the Shifchah herself, the hand which receives the Get does not become free even after the Get is received. Since 'Gito v'Yado Ba'im k'Echad' does not apply in such a case, why does the fetus obtain its freedom? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, DH v'Na'aseh)
<br>1.44
<br><b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Aval Lo) explains that since the Get involves the Eved's emancipation, the concept of 'Gito v'Yado Ba'im k'Echad' applies. Perhaps Rashi means that although the Get Shichrur does not cause the freedom of the particular hand (the Shifchah's) which receives it, since it causes the freedom of <i>part</i> of the body (the fetus) the hand is able to acquire the Shichrur for that part of the body. The hand serves not only itself but every part of the body. In the case of the fetus, the hand of the Shifchah serves in the capacity of a hand for the fetus, and thus the hand indeed becomes free at the moment the fetus itself becomes free. This also seems to be the intention of the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RAN</b>.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> cites the Yerushalmi which maintains that when one frees half of his Eved, he may do so only by giving the Get Shichrur to <i>another person</i> to acquire it on behalf of the Eved (since the hand of the Eved does not become completely free upon receiving the Get Shichrur). The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that this is also the intention of the Gemara which says that if the master gives a Get Shichrur for the fetus, the mother acquires it on behalf of the fetus. Although she does not acquire the Get Shichrur itself (since she cannot acquire anything), she acquires the <i>freedom</i> on behalf of her fetus when the Get Shichrur is given to someone else. (The fetus is considered a part of her that has come into the world and not a separate individual that is 'Lo Ba l'Olam' which cannot be freed.)
</p><p>
The Gemara in Temurah (25b) disagrees with the Yerushalmi and maintains that when a master frees half of his Eved, half of the Eved goes free because of 'Gito v'Yado Ba'im k'Echad,' even without having someone else acquire the Get Shichrur on behalf of the Eved. The Rosh, however, suggests that with regard to a fetus, for which 'Gito v'Yado Ba'im k'Echad' does not apply (because no part of the hand which receives the Get Shichrur becomes freed), the Bavli agrees with the Yerushalmi that the fetus goes free only when someone else acquires the Get Shichrur on its behalf.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WOMAN MAY BRING HER OWN 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Will Rav Yosef say that the previous Mishnah 
          discusses a Get from Chutz La'aretz, and also the end of 
          our Mishnah, but the Reisha discusses a Get within Eretz 
          Yisrael?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes. It says (in the Reisha) 'the written Get 
          proves that she is not lying.' It does not say 'the Get 
          and her declaration prove.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A woman can bring her own Get...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She is already divorced once she receives the 
          Get! (Why is a declaration needed?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> Her husband told her 'you are 
          divorced only when you come in front of Ploni's Beis 
          Din.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Still, once she gets there, she is divorced 
          from her initial reception of the Get. She is not a 
          Shali'ach. Why is a declaration needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach):</font></b> He told her 'when you 
          get there, put the Get on the ground and take it.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> That is like (a standard case of) telling her 
          to take her Get from the ground (i.e. when the husband 
          put it on the ground);
<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'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> He told her to be a Shali'ach to give the Get. 
          When she gets there, she should become a Shali'ach to 
          receive the Get, and take it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> She cannot fulfill her mission until she 
          herself acts on her own behalf. Such an appointment is 
          invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4:</font></b> Rather, he told her to be a Shali'ach to give 
          the Get. When she gets there, she should appoint a 
          Shali'ach to receive the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that a woman can 
          appoint a Shali'ach to receive her Get from the Shali'ach 
          of her husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that she cannot appoint a 
               Shali'ach to receive her Get from her husband's 
               Shali'ach, how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The reason she cannot appoint is because 
          (presumably) the husband considers this to be a disgrace, 
          and did not authorize his Shali'ach to give the Get to 
          her Shali'ach. Here, he said this is what he wants her to 
          do!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that the reason she 
          cannot appoint is because the husband considers this to 
          be a disgrace;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to the opinion that Chachamim 
               decreed to invalidate it, because it resembles 
               purchasing a Chatzer in which the husband put the 
               Get (which is invalid), how can we answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5:</font></b> Rather, he told her to be a Shali'ach to give 
          the Get. When she gets there, she should appoint a 
          Shali'ach to give the Get back to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #6:</font></b> He told her to be a Shali'ach to give the Get. 
          When she gets there, she should make the declaration, and 
          appoint Beis Din to be a Shali'ach to give the Get back 
          to her.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK KOL HA'GET</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'GET' THAT IS NOT 'LISHMAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Any Get that was not written for a particular 
          woman is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a man overheard scribes dictating the words of a Get 
          as they wrote it, and the names on the Get were the same 
          as his and his wife's names, this is Pasul (for him to 
          use).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Even further, if Reuven wrote a Get for his wife, then 
          decided not to divorce her, and found another man in his 
          city with the same name, and their wives had the same 
          names, the latter man may not use it.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A WOMAN WHO DELIVERS HER OWN GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (23b) teaches that when a woman brings her own get from Medinas ha'Yam, she must say 'b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam.' The Gemara concludes that there are only two possible situations in which a woman needs to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when she brings her own Get. Both situations involve the husband giving the Get to his wife and telling her that it should not take effect until she reaches a certain place. The Gemara's first possible situation is that the husband also tells her that when she reaches that place, she should appoint another person as a Shali'ach l'Holachah to take the Get from her and to give it back to her (at which point it will take effect). The second possible situation is that the husband tells her that when she reaches the place where the Get will take effect, she should say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in front of Beis Din and have the Beis Din appoint a Shali'ach who will give her the Get.
</p><p>
What is the difference between these two cases? In both cases, the woman gives the Get to another Shali'ach who gives it back to her. What difference does it make if <i>she</i> appoints the Shali'ach or if <i>Beis Din</i> appoints the Shali'ach?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Eimar) explains that in the second case, the only reason why Beis Din is necessary is to witness the woman say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.'
</p><p>
According to the Gemara's first case, the woman does not need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' when she appoints a second Shali'ach to take the Get from her, since the second Shali'ach is not required to testify about the validity of the Get.
</p><p>
In an ordinary case of a Shali'ach who delivers a Get, when the Shali'ach gives the Get to a second Shali'ach, he must do so in Beis Din and say 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' and Beis Din then appoints the second Shali'ach to deliver the Get. At the time the second Shali'ach delivers the Get, he is required to say merely, 'I was appointed by Beis Din' (29b).
</p><p>
In the case of the Gemara here, however, if the woman who receives the Get is able to testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav,' there is no need for the Shali'ach who gives her the Get to testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' Rather, the woman herself may testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the time she receives the Get. Therefore, when the woman herself serves as the original Shali'ach l'Holachah, she may appoint a second Shali'ach without Beis Din.
</p><p>
(b) The other Rishonim do not accept the explanation of Tosfos. They argue that the woman cannot testify 'b'Fanai Nichtav' at the time the second Shali'ach gives her the Get, since she is no longer the Shali'ach of the husband. The Chachamim gave only a <i>Shali'ach</i> the trustworthiness to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav.' (Tosfos apparently understands that the Chachamim accept the testimony of any participant in the act of delivery of the Get, since that participant says 'b'Fanai Nichtav' in front of Beis Din and is thus careful to verify the facts which he relates. See Gemara, beginning of 3a, and Tosfos to 5b, DH v'Yitlenu.)
</p><p>
The other Rishonim give the opposite explanation of Tosfos. According to the <i>first</i> case of the Gemara, the woman <i>does</i> need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' (in front of Beis Din) at the time she gives the Get to the second Shali'ach. However, the second Shali'ach does <i>not</i> need to say 'b'Fanai Nichtav' or 'I am a Shali'ach of Beis Din' when he delivers the Get to the woman. Since he does not need to be a Shali'ach of Beis Din, the woman may appoint him as a Shali'ach.
</p><p>
According to the second case of the Gemara, the second Shali'ach <i>does</i> need to say, 'I am a Shali'ach of Beis Din,' and therefore he must be appointed by Beis Din and not by the woman herself.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Even further, if Reuven had two wives with the same name, 
          and wrote a Get for the older wife, he cannot use it to 
          divorce the younger wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  Even further, if Reuven told a scribe to write a Get for 
          one of his wives, and later he will decide which one , he 
          cannot use it to divorce either wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> In the second case, he wrote a Get for 
          his wife, then decided not to divorce her. How does this 
          differ from the first case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> In the first case discusses scribes 
          that often write for practice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Mishnah says that scribes were 
          dictating (i.e. to apprentices). It does not say that 
          they read the words (each one , what he was writing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the second case a bigger Chidush?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> In the first case, the 
          Get was not written for divorce. In the second case, the 
          Get was written for divorce. Even so, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The third case disqualifies even when the Get was 
               written for that man to divorce his wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The fourth case teaches that even when the Get was 
               written to divorce this wife (just he did not 
               specify which one at the time of writing), it is 
               Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source to disqualify all of these?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Had the Torah written only 'he will give a Sefer 
          Kerisus in her hand', one might have thought that only 
          the first case is Pasul, since it was not written to cut; 
          but if one wrote it to divorce his wife, another man with 
          the same name could use it. 'He will write (a Sefer 
          Kerisus)' teaches that this is not so;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had the Torah written only this, one might have 
               thought that the second case is Pasul, since that 
               man did not write it, but if a man wrote it to 
               divorce one wife, he could use it to divorce another 
               wife! 'For her' teaches that it must be written for 
               her sake.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does the last case teach?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There is no Breirah. (One cannot specify 
               later for whom the Get was written.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man wrote it to divorce his older wife, 
          he cannot use it to divorce the younger one .
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> It is Pasul only to divorce the younger wife, 
          but it can be used to divorce the older wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> This teaches that if two men in the same city 
          have identical names, either may present a loan document 
          and force the borrower to pay him. (The borrower cannot 
          claim 'perhaps I owe your namesake.')
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> If this is a valid inference, from the 
          Reisha (if he found another man in his city with his 
          name... the second man cannot use it) we should infer 
          that the second man cannot use it, but the first man can. 
          (This would teach that if two men in the same city have 
          identical names, a lender can present a loan document 
          against one of them to pay him.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> However, we hold that if two men in the same city 
               have identical names, no one may present a loan 
               document to force one of them to pay him! (The 
               'borrower' can claim, I do not owe you, the other 
               man with my name owes you)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> You must say that in the Mishnah, there are 
               witnesses who saw the Get given (and know which man 
               gave it), and the Mishnah is like R. Elazar;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Also in the third case, witnesses saw the Get 
                    given (and know which wife it was given for), 
                    and the Mishnah is like R. Elazar!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF SUCH A 'GET' WAS GIVEN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> If any of the Gitin in the Mishnah was given, she 
          becomes forbidden to Kohanim, except for the first case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> Even if the first case, she is disqualified 
          from Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with another teaching of Shmuel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Wherever Chachamim called a Get 'Pasul', 
               it does not permit her to remarry, but it 
               disqualifies her from Kehunah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Wherever Chachamim called a Chalitzah 'Pasul', it 
               does not permit her to remarry, but it disqualifies 
               her from doing Yibum.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHICH HUSBAND WROTE THE GET</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Abaye explains that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, one of the husbands may give a Get to his wife only with Edei Mesirah present 'and according to Rebbi Elazar.' Without Edei Mesirah present the Get is not valid, since we must suspect that it was written by the second husband (with the same name) and not by the husband of the wife who is holding the Get. Edei Mesirah make the Get valid because they testify that they saw this woman's husband give her the Get.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that the Get is valid with Edei Mesirah 'and according to Rebbi Elazar'? Even according to Rebbi Meir, the Get should be valid if the woman can bring Edei Mesirah or other witnesses who testify that her husband wrote the Get!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in a number of places (DH b'Edei Mesirah; 2b, DH v'Rabanan; 22a, DH Man Chachamim; Kesuvos 94a, DH Leima) proves from the Gemara here that according to the opinion that Edei Chasimah Kartei, the proof that this woman's husband is the one who wrote the Get must come from the signatures of the Edei Chasimah themselves. Even if other witnesses are brought to testify that the husband wrote the Get, the Get is not valid since it is not 'Muchach mi'Tocho'; the details about the validity of the Get cannot be proven from the signatures signed on the Get. Therefore, the Gemara maintains that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, neither man may write a Get for his wife (according to Rebbi Meir) unless the Get itself contains some indication as to which husband wrote the Get.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> disagrees with the assumption of Tosfos. Rashi maintains that even according to Rebbi Meir who says Edei Chasimah Kartei, other witnesses may be brought to prove which husband wrote the Get (or to testify about any of the other important details of the Get). 
</p><p>
For this reason, Rashi earlier (2b, DH v'Rabanan) writes that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, the husbands <i>may</i> divorce their wives without writing more specific identifying details in the Get.
</p><p>
Similarly, Rashi implies (22b, DH Rebbi Elazar) that if a Get is written on erasable paper ('Neyar Machuk,' material on which erasures cannot be discerned), when the woman brings external proof (such as the Edei Mesirah, or the Edei Chasimah themselves) to testify that nothing was erased from the Get, the Get should be valid (if the Rabanan had not invalidated it due to a Gezeirah; see Insights to 22b).
</p><p>
Similarly, Rashi here does not quote the words of the Gemara, 'v'Rebbi Elazar Hi' (the Get is valid only according to Rebbi Elazar). It seems that Rashi understands that the Gemara mentions Rebbi Elazar only because according to Rebbi Elazar there are always Edei Mesirah, and thus it will be easy to validate the Get (as Rashi writes on 20b, DH v'Rebbi Elazar Hi). Nevertheless, Rebbi Meir will agree that if the Get happens to have been given in front of Edei Mesirah and those witnesses are brought to Beis Din to testify that the husband wrote the Get, the Get is valid. (Rashi maintains that according to Rebbi Meir, Edei Mesirah are not required, in contrast to the view of Rabeinu Tam cited by Tosfos to 4a, DH d'Kaima Lan.)
</p><p>
Strong support may be cited for Rashi's opinion from the Gemara later (26a) which discusses at length the validity of a Get which was lost and then found. The Gemara deals with the question of whether or not there is a concern that another man in the same city with the same name wrote the Get. It is clear, however, that the man who <i>did</i> write the Get may use it to divorce his wife. According to Tosfos, the Sugya there follows exclusively the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, although it makes no mention of him at all (as noted by <b>TOSFOS</b> to 27a, DH Kan). According to Rashi, however, the Sugya there certainly follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir as well.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>INVALID 'GITIN' AND 'CHALITZOS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> Chalitzah done with the left foot or at 
          night does not permit her to remarry, but it disqualifies 
          her from doing Yibum;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chalitzah of a minor Yavam or with a sock does not permit 
          her to remarry, and does not disqualify her from doing 
          Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ze'iri and Rav Asi):</font></b> Only the Get in the last clause 
          disqualifies from Kehunah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even the last case does not disqualify 
          her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  This is consistent with another teaching of R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> Brothers who divide an 
               inheritance (of land) are considered like buyers. 
               Every Yovel, they return the portions they received, 
               and divide the property again. (If he held that Yesh 
               Breirah, he would say that each brother inherited 
               the portion destined for him, and they need not 
               divide again in Yovel.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan needed to teach that Ein Breirah in both 
          cases.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he taught that Ein Breirah only regarding a Get, 
               one might have thought that this is because it says 
               'for her', i.e. Lishmah, but the Torah requires only 
               a sale to return in Yovel, and not inheritances;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only about inheritance, one might have 
               thought that this is only a stringency (and we are 
               also stringent about a Get to say that it 
               disqualifies from Kehunah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, one might have thought that 
               inheritances return in Yovel in order to return to 
               the original status (undivided), even though there 
               is Breirah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DIFFERENT KINDS OF 'BREIRAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Hoshaya):</font></b> If a man told a scribe to write a 
          Get for whichever of his wives will leave the door first, 
          is this valid?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah - Mishnah):</font></b> Even further, if Reuven 
          told a scribe to write a Get for one of his wives, and 
          later he will decide which one , he cannot use it to 
          divorce either wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that Ein Breirah. Such a Get is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Hoshaya - Mishnah):</font></b> If a man told his 
          children 'I slaughter the Korban Pesach on behalf of 
          whichever of you comes first to Yerushalayim', once the 
          first child enters, he acquires his portion, and his 
          siblings acquire through him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> You cannot ask from there! R. 
          Yochanan said that the father was only training them to 
          be zealous in Mitzvos. (Really, the father gave a share 
          directly to each child at the time of slaughter)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> Once the first child enters, he 
          acquires his portion, and his siblings acquire through 
          him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this if they already owned their 
               shares at the time of slaughter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If they did not, how could they acquire 
               their shares later?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One may be appointed on (acquire a 
                    share of) a Korban Pesach, or withdraw from it, 
                    until it is slaughtered.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> A case occurred, and the daughters 
          came to Yerushalayim before the sons. The daughters were 
          zealous, and the sons were lowly. (This shows that the 
          intent was to make them zealous. It does not say that the 
          daughters acquired!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> I do not understand! Rav Hoshaya asked 
          a case of Breirah in which one made a Get contingent on 
          what others will do (which wife will leave first). Rav 
          Yehudah answered from a case of Breirah contingent on the 
          man's own will (which wife he will decide to divorce)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Further, Rav Hoshaya challenged the answer from a 
               case contingent on the will of others!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps no one distinguishes between 
          Breirah contingent on his own will and Breirah contingent 
          on others' will!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> R. Yehudah holds that Yesh 
          Breirah when it is contingent on the will of others, but 
          not when it is contingent on his own will!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one bought (100 Lugim of) 
               wine from Kusim (and cannot separate the tithes 
               before drinking), he says 'the two Lugim that I will 
               separate later should be Terumah. The 10 Lugim (that 
               I will separate) are Ma'aser Rishon; and nine Lugim 
               are Ma'aser Sheni.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'BEREIRAH' CONTINGENT UPON WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DOES</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara suggests that even according to the opinion that maintains 'Yesh Bereirah' (see Background), there is a difference between a case of Bereirah in which when one effects a change of status conditional on what someone else does ('Toleh b'Da'as Acherim'), and a case of Bereirah in which one effects a change of status conditional on what he does himself ('Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo'). What is the logic to distinguish between the two cases?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Amar Abaye) explains that when a person makes the change of status conditional on what he does himself, the fact that he makes such a condition demonstrates that he has not really made up his mind what he will do and that he intends to decide at a later point. At the moment he stipulates the condition, he has left his options open ('Pose'ach Al Shtei Se'ifim'). Therefore, when he later chooses to act one way or the other, his act cannot be said to reveal that he originally intended to make the change in status take effect in this manner (since originally he was clearly undecided). In contrast, when he makes it conditional on what <i>another</i> person will do, when the other person acts in one way or the other, his action determines what the person's original intention was.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation here is consistent with the way he explains Bereirah in general. Rashi explains in many places (see Rashi here, 24b, DH l'Eizo; Chulin 14a, DH Osrin; Gitin 73b, DH u'Meshani) that 'Ein Bereirah' means that the change which the person wants to effect <i>does</i> occur, but the way in which it transpires remains unclear. 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 takes effect, but the details which depended on the future event remain in doubt even after the future event occurs. In this case, a <i>Kohen</i> is permitted to eat both pomegranates because one of them is Terumah and the other is Chulin, and neither one is Tevel.
</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> 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 73:2, Zevachim 3:1, and Chulin 14:3.)
</p><p>
The opinion that rules 'Yesh Bereirah' maintains that an act which occurs in the future <i>can</i> determine -- at the time the condition was stipulated -- what was <i>destined</i> to happen in the future. However, the Gemara here suggests that if a person makes the present change of status contingent upon his <i>own</i> future actions, what he eventually decides to do cannot determine what his original intention was since he demonstrated at the time of the condition that his intention was still undetermined.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (here and in Eruvin 36b) asks a strong question on Rashi's explanation. The Gemara cites as an example of 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' the case of a person who buys a barrel of wine from Kusim. The buyer has no containers available with which to separate Terumah and Ma'aser from the wine, and yet he needs to drink from the wine right away. Rebbi Meir rules that he may declare that the wine which he will separate later when he finds containers should be Terumah now. He does not separate the Terumah and Ma'aser now because he does not want the Terumah and Ma'aser to become mixed with the rest of the wine in the barrel which he wants to drink, and <i>not</i> because he wants to 'leave his options open.' Why, then, should this case of Bereirah be less effective than Bereirah which is contingent upon someone else's future actions ('Toleh b'Da'as Acherim')? The <b>RASHASH</b>, <b>TIFERES YAKOV</b>, and others suggest tenuous answers to this question. 
</p><p>
(<b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> phrases the difference between 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' and 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' somewhat differently from Rashi. His words imply that even if nothing in the person's statement shows that he is 'leaving his options open,' nevertheless Bereirah should not apply in a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo.' His reasoning is that we assume that something was predetermined to happen in a particular way only when it happens <i>by itself</i>, independent of the actions of man. If an event which occurs in the future evolves through the actions of man, since man has free choice the outcome of his actions are never 'predetermined.' In effect, the Gemara is distinguishing between a future event which does not depend upon human intervention and one which does depend upon human intervention. Although this explanation answers the Tosfos ha'Rosh's question from the case of Bereirah with regard to separating Terumah (since the person's future act of separating Terumah certainly involves human intervention), it does not seem to explain why Kidushin performed 'Al Menas she'Yirtzeh Aba' is in the category of 'Toleh b'Da'as <i>Acherim</i>,' since that case obviously involves human intervention. This question may be the reason why Rashi phrases the difference between 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' and 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' the way he does. The Tosfos ha'Rosh's question on Rashi's explanation, however. remains to be answered.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi means that since, normally, when one is 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' it means that the person is still undecided, therefore the Rabanan instituted that we say 'Ein Bereirah' (l'Chumra) in <i>any</i> case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo,' even in a case such as that of a person who purchases a barrel of wine and does not have containers with which to separate Terumah and Ma'aser, where the person does <i>not</i> show that he is undecided about what he wants to separate as Terumah and Ma'aser. (This conforms to the implication of the wording at the end of the Beraisa which discusses separating Terumah -- cited at the top of 26a -- 'do you not <i>admit to us</i> that there should be a Gezeirah to invalidate the Terumah in this case....' This wording implies that those who argue with Rebbi Meir and rule that the Terumah is not valid maintain that Bereirah does not apply <i>mid'Rabanan</i>.)
</p><p>
(b) Most Rishonim explain that 'Ein Bereirah' means that one cannot effect a Kinyan, or a change of status, now based on the outcome of an event in the future. A Kinyan must take effect completely at the time that the Ma'aseh Kinyan is performed. If one attempts to make a change of status dependent upon a future event, it will not take effect <i>at all</i> (see <b>RAN</b>, Nedarim 45b). This is in contrast to the view of Rashi (as mentioned above) who maintains that the change <i>does</i> take effect but it is unknown in which way it takes effect. According to the view that maintains 'Yesh Bereirah,' a person <i>can</i> effect a change of status now which depends upon a future event, and that future event will determine retroactively whether or not the change of status took place.
</p><p>
According to these Rishonim, there seems to be no logical reason to distinguish between 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' and 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' in the way that Rashi suggests, since these Rishonim maintain that when a person makes his present action dependent upon a future event, he makes it dependent upon what <i>actually will occur</i> in the future, and not upon what is <i>destined</i> -- <i>at the present moment</i> -- to occur in the future.
</p><p>
The difference between 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' and 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' would seem to be that Bereirah operates only when it is necessary, such as when a person makes a change of status dependent upon a different person's future act. However, when a person makes a change of status dependent upon his own future act, Bereirah does not work, since it is in his power to decide <i>now</i> what he will do later, and it is in his power to make the change take effect now and not be contingent upon a future act. (This understanding, however. does not seem to resolve the question which the Tosfos ha'Rosh poses on Rashi's explanation.)
</p><p>
A possible difference between the approach of Rashi and the approach of the other Rishonim with regard to 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' may exist in a case in which a person stipulates that a change of status is contingent upon what a person who is present decides to do at a later time. According to Rashi, this is comparable to 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo,' since the person upon whom the change of status is contingent obviously is undecided and wants to decide at a future time what to do. According to the other Rishonim, since the one who is making the condition cannot decide what the other person will do, it should be considered a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim.'
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He is Meichal (Rashi - redeems the Ma'aser Sheni; 
               Tosfos - mixes the wine) and may drink immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, he must 
               separate the tithes before drinking.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> This shows that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Breirah 
               when it is contingent on his own will. The following 
               shows that he holds that Yesh Breirah when it is 
               contingent on the will of others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> (If a man gave a Get, to 
               take effect immediately, if he will later die from 
               his sickness,) in the meantime, we consider his wife 
               to be fully married. When he dies (of the sickness), 
               the Get takes effect retroactively.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> Also R. Shimon holds that 
          Yesh Breirah when it is contingent on the will of others, 
          but not when it is contingent on his own will!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa of tithing wine shows that he holds that 
               Ein Breirah when it is contingent on his own will. 
               The following shows that he holds that Yesh Breirah 
               when it is contingent on others' will:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man told a woman 'I will have Bi'ah 
               with you now, to make Kidushin on condition that my 
               father agrees', even if his father does not agree, 
               she is Mekudeshes;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Shimon bar Yehudah says, R. Shimon says that 
                    she is Mekudeshes only if his father agrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to both questions - Rava):</font></b> Both R. Yehudah and R. 
          Shimon hold that Yesh Breirah, even when it is contingent 
          on his own will;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa says why they do not allow relying on 
               Breirah to tithe wine, lest the barrel break before 
               he separates the tithes, and retroactively, he drank 
               Tevel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir is not concerned lest the barrel break.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'BEREIRAH' AND A 'TENAI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that when one makes a Kinyan or change of status dependent upon a future event, it is called 'Bereirah' and, according to some Tana'im, the Kinyan does not take effect because 'Ein Bereirah.' The Gemara in Eruvin (36b) gives an example of a case of Bereirah: a person makes an Eruv Techumin with a stipulation that if a certain Chacham comes to one side of the town, his Eruv Techumin should take effect on that side, and if the Chacham comes to the other side, his Eruv should take effect on that side.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara consider this a case of Bereirah? Perhaps when one stipulates, 'If the Chacham comes to the east, my Eruv is to the east,' the Eruv is valid because it involves no more than a normal case of a 'Tenai' (a 'yes' or 'no' condition). It is comparable to a case in which a man says to his wife, 'If you do this act, this Get will be valid, and if you do not do this act, the Get will not be valid.'
</p><p>
The same question applies to the Gemara's case of a man who betroths a woman conditionally and makes the Kidushin dependent on the woman's father consenting to the marriage. This case also seems to be no more than an ordinary condition in the Kidushin. Why is it a case of Bereirah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH ul'Chi Mayis) writes that a condition, a Tenai, works only because the ability to fulfill the condition is in the hands of one of the parties involved, and it was the person's intention that the condition be fulfilled at the time that he stipulated the Tenai. (That is, because he plans to fulfill it and he wants the transaction to be consummated, the event that is contingent upon the completion of the Tenai takes effect <i>immediately</i>, even before the Tenai is executed. If the Tenai ends up un-fulfilled, then the event is <i>uprooted</i> retroactively. It is not possible to cause an event to <i>take effect</i> retroactively.)
</p><p>
This is not how the condition works in the case of Eruv Techumin (in Eruvin) or in the case of one who betroths a woman on condition that her father consents. The fulfillment of the condition (that the Chacham comes to one side, or that the father consents) is not in the hands of the person who makes the statement. Since the Eruv, or the Kidushin, depends on an act that is not in the person's hands to fulfill, it is considered a case of Bereirah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> here disagrees with Rashi. He explains that a case of a Tenai exists when there are only two possibilities: either the event will occur or it will not occur. In contrast, when an event can occur in one of several ways it is not a case of Tenai. Rather, it is a question of Bereirah. The case of the Eruv that is dependent on the Chacham's arrival can occur in one of two ways (he could arrive in the east or in the west). Therefore, it involves Bereirah. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> here disagrees with Rashi and explains that a Tenai is when there are two possibilities -- either the event will occur or it will not occur. On the other hand, when trying to make something happen which can occur in one of several ways, it is not a case of Tenai but a question of Bereirah. The case of the Eruv dependent on the Chacham coming to one of two sides is such a case. The event -- the Eruv taking effect -- will happen in one of two places, and it is the arrival of the Chacham which will determine where the Eruv will take effect. The Ramban writes that the case of Kidushin is an exception; although there is only one Kinyan involved (the Kidushin of the woman), since it is dependent not on an action but on a person's decision (the father's consent), it is considered a case of Bereirah. (See also <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b>)
</p><p>
One still may ask, however, why is the case of the Chacham a case of Bereirah? Perhaps the person's stipulation involves two completely separate conditions. The first condition is that if the Chacham comes to the east, then the Eruv will be to the east, and if he does not come to the east, then the Eruv will not be to the east. The second condition is that if the Chacham comes to the west, then the Eruv will be to the west, and if he does not come to the west, then the Eruv will not be to the west. (See <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b>, Ma'arachah #4 to Eruvin 38a. <b>TOSFOS</b> (end of Yoma 56a) in fact asks this question on the explanation of the Ramban.)
</p><p>
Apparently, the Ramban maintains that the establishment of the two Eruvei Techumin cannot be viewed as two independent events. Rather, one event takes place (an Eruv is made), and there are two possibilities as to how it will take place (to the east or to the west). The reason for this is that one cannot make two Eruvim to be Koneh Shevisah in two places (since a person lives in only one place at a time). Therefore, when the person adds that if the Chacham comes to the other side then his Eruv will be to that side, it is viewed as an addendum to his first condition. (See also Insights to Eruvin 36:2 and Yoma 56:1.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WRITING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THEY ARE NEEDED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> One who writes Tofsim of Gitin (the part that 
          is the same for anyone) must leave blank the names of the 
          husband and wife, and the date (until the husband tells 
          him to write);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One who writes Tofsim of loan documents must leave blank 
          the names of the lender and borrower, the amount of the 
          loan, and the date;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  One who writes Tofsim of sale documents must leave blank 
          the names of the buyer and seller, the price, the field 
          and the date;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is an enactment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, all of these cases are Pasul;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar says, all are valid, except for Gitin, for it 
          says 'he will write for her' - Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> On a Get, he must also postpone 
          writing 'you are permitted to any man';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is like R. Elazar, who says that Edei 
               Mesirah Karsei, and a Get must be Lishmah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah needed to teach that all three Mishnayos 
          (21b, 22b and ours) are like R. Elazar:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had he taught only about the first Mishnah, we would 
               have thought only that is like R. Elazar, to resolve 
               the contradiction between the Reisha (we do not 
               write a Get on something attached) and the Seifa (if 
               he wrote it attached);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We might have thought that the second Mishnah, 
                    which says that (a deaf person, lunatic or 
                    minor can write a Get, because), a Get is 
                    Mekuyam only through its signatures, is like R. 
                    Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had Rav Yehudah taught only that that Mishnah is 
               like R. Elazar, one might have thought that our 
               Mishnah is not like R. Elazar, since R. Elazar 
               argues in the end of our Mishnah. Rav Yehudah 
               teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This is an enactment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is this enactment?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yonason):</font></b> It is an enactment to help 
          scribes. The Mishnah is like R. Elazar, who says that 
          Edei Mesirah Karsei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Really, we should decree to require even the Tofes 
               to be written Lishmah (lest the Toref be written `Lo 
               Lishmah). Chachamim were lenient, to enable scribes 
               to start writing Gitin before the husband requests 
               one .
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says that all are Pasul. He decrees that 
               the Tofes of a Get must be written Lishmah, lest the 
               Toref be Lo Lishmah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He decrees this about other documents as well, 
                    due to Gitin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says that all are valid, except for Gitin. 
               He decrees that the Tofes must be written Lishmah, 
               due to the Toref;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  He does not decree about other documents due to 
                    Gitin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> (Tofsim Lo Lishmah are valid, 
          except for Gitin,) for it says 'he will write for her.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The verse requires only the Toref to be 
          Lishmah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah means, because it says 'he will write 
          (the Toref) for her', Lishmah. (This is why R. Elazar 
          decrees that even the Tofes must be Lishmah.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE DATE IN THE GET OF AN ARUSAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that even a Get written for an Arusah must have a proper date, and not a date which precedes the date on which the Get actually takes effect. 
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Get of an Arusah needs an accurate date. According to Rebbi Yochanan (who says that the date must be written in a Get in order to prevent a man from saving his wife from capital punishment if she committed adultery by writing a Get and claiming that it was delivered earlier than the true date of the divorce), a predated Get of an Arusah is invalid for the same reason why a predated Get of a Nesu'ah is invalid. However, according to Reish Lakish (who says that the date must be written in a Get in order to prevent the wife from collecting the Peros that the husband sold during the marriage by claiming that her husband sold them after the divorce), why should a predated Get of an Arusah be invalid? The husband of an Arusah has no right to use or sell the Peros of the property of his Arusah! 
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that a predated Get is invalid in this case because of 'Takanas ha'Vlad.' As <b>RASHI</b> explains, the Chachamim were concerned that a husband who writes a Get during Erusin might write a date from the Erusin, and he will give the Get to his wife only after the Nisu'in and after they conceive a child. People will think that the child was born out of wedlock because the day they figure the child was conceived is <i>later</i> than the date written in the Get, when, in truth, the child was conceived before the divorce took effect.
</p><p>
There are a number of problems with the Gemara's answer.
</p><p>
(a) If a concern for such a rumor exists, why does Reish Lakish not say that <i>every</i> predated Get (Get Mukdam) is invalid because of the concern that people will think that the child was born out of wedlock (and not merely because of the Peros concern)?
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara apparently concludes that in the case of an Arusah, the Chachamim were concerned that the husband will write a date in the Get during Erusin and only give the Get after Nisu'in. However, if this was their concern, why does the Gemara say only that people will spread rumors about the child? There is also the concern that the wife will steal the Peros, as she will be able to collect any Peros the husband rightfully sold <i>after they were married</i> (with Nisu'in) based on the false (predated) date written in the Get!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) In response to the first question, the <b>RAMBAN</b> explains that the Chachamim would not have invalidated a predated Get (b'Di'eved) just because people might spread rumors about the child's legitimacy, as the Gemara says later (86a). This concern is only a reason to require a proper date in the Get <i>l'Chatchilah</i>. In contrast, the concern that the wife might unlawfully collect Peros from the buyers due to a predated Get provided grounds for the Chachamim to invalidate the Get even <i>b'Di'eved</i>.
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim offer a number of answers to the second question.
</p><p>
1. <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hacha Nami) explains that the Get of an Arusah specifically mentions that the woman is only an Arusah. If the woman receives the Get only after she is married (with Nisu'in), people know that the time written in the Get must not be the date on which it was given, because it is common knowledge that she was divorced from Nisu'in and not during Erusin. Therefore, if she attempts to collect Peros (from the buyers who purchased them from the husband after her Nisu'in) on the basis of the earlier date written in the Get, the buyers most likely will be informed that the date is not accurate. They will easily foil her intentions and bring testimony that she was married with Nisu'in before the Get was given.
</p><p>
In contrast, with regard to rumors about the legitimacy of the child, the Chachamim were stringent. People have no personal interest in legitimizing the child, and perhaps they will not be aware of the 'common knowledge' that the woman was once married and that the date written in the Get is not the date on which the Get was given.
</p><p>
Tosfos asks, however, that according to this explanation a Get Mukdam of an Arusah effectively contains no proof of the date on which the Get was actually <i>given</i>. Consequently, Reish Lakish should invalidate it because the <i>husband</i> might unlawfully sell the Peros even after the signing of the Get (at which time he loses the rights to the Peros; see Gemara, 17b), and the wife will not be able to prove that he is a thief since the date on which the Get was signed is not written in the Get. Tosfos leaves this question unanswered.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> answers that in this case, even according to Reish Lakish the husband does not lose the rights to the Peros until the time that he <i>gives</i> the Get (and not from the time the Get is signed). Since the Get was delivered after the date written in the Get, the witnesses (Edei Mesirah) will spread the word that the date is not reliable, and the woman will not be able to collect Peros unlawfully from the buyers based on the date written in the Get. (See Tosfos to 17b, DH Ad, who discusses the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan.)
</p><p>
The Rosh does not explain clearly why the husband retains the Peros until the giving (Nesinah) of the Get in this case, in contrast to a normal Get. The <b>TAZ</b> (EH 132:1) suggests that the reason why the man normally loses Peros from the time of the Chasimah according to Reish Lakish is that the husband has made a decision to divorce her (see end of 18a, according to Rebbi Shimon), and from that point on he loses his rights to the Peros. In this case, since the husband married her after he wrote the Get, he obviously did not decide to divorce her at the time of the writing, and therefore he does not lose the Peros until he actually utilizes the Get.
</p><p>
Alternatively, perhaps the Rosh means that the husband loses the Peros from the time of the Nesinah because the day of the giving of this Get probably was the same day as it was signed. The husband presumably had the Get signed on the same day that it was delivered because 'a person does not hasten his grief' ('Lo Makdim Inish Pur'anusa l'Nafshei') by having a Get signed before he plans to give it (Gitin 18a). Therefore, the wife may bring the Get to Beis Din as soon as she receives it in order to prove on what day the Chasimah and Nesinah took place, which was the moment at which the husband lost his rights to the Peros (as Tosfos writes on 17b, DH Ad She'as). 
</p><p>
There is an obvious question on this logic. Why does Reish Lakish require that the date be written in <i>any</i> Get, if we always assume that the Get was signed on the same day on which it was delivered? The date of delivery can be confirmed even when no date is written in the Get; the woman simply brings the Get to Beis Din on the day of its delivery to prove that all Peros belong to her from now on.
</p><p>
The Rosh may understand that Reish Lakish requires that the date be written in the Get because there are times at which a husband sends a Get to his wife with a Shali'ach and it takes time for the Get to arrive in the woman's hands, even though the husband <i>sent</i> it on the day it was signed. In order to prove on what day the Get was signed, the husband must write the date in the Get. Since the date must be written in a Get delivered by a Shali'ach, the Chachamim required that the date be written in all Gitin.
</p><p>
However, in the case of the Gemara here, the husband who wrote a Get for his wife while she was an Arusah obviously was present with his wife at the time he wrote the Get. He had no need for a Shali'ach; if, after the Nisu'in, he would decide to divorce her, he would simply have the Get signed by two witnesses and deliver it himself.
</p><p>
(Perhaps the reason why Tosfos does not accept this approach is that he maintains that Reish Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan and rules that a man <i>is</i> suspected of holding on to a Get after the Chasimah and delivering it much later. Therefore, there is no basis to assume that the day of this Get's Nesinah was also the day on which it was written.) 
</p><p>
2. The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that there is no concern that the husband will give this Get to his wife after the Nisu'in (and after he sells the Peros), because no witness would agree to sign a Get for a Nesu'ah when the Get specifies that the wife is an Arusah. (Even if a witness might not notice the early date, he certainly will notice that the Get mentions that she is an Arusah.)
</p><p>
The Rashba does not explain the reason the Gemara gives for why one may not predate the Get of an Arusah (the concern that people will say that the Get preceded the conception of her child, 'Gitah Kodem li'Vnah'). If the Get is signed only during Erusin and not after the Nisu'in, she indeed should <i>not</i> be pregnant! The </p><center><font color='ff0000'><b>Acharonim (see <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES GITIN</b> and others) explain that the Rashba means that the Chachamim are more cautious to prevent rumors about the legitimacy of the child than they are to protect the buyers who purchase the Peros.</b></font></center><p> Therefore, only with regard to preventing rumors about the legitimacy of her child is there a concern that witnesses signed the Get even after the Nisu'in. (See below.)
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains, like the Rashba, that witnesses certainly will not agree to sign a Get -- which says that the woman is an Arusah -- for the divorce of a Nesu'ah. However, there <i>is</i> a concern that witnesses might sign the Get on the <i>day</i> of the Nisu'in. They will think that doing so will not cause anyone to lose the Peros; even if the Get is predated, it will not prevent the husband from selling the Peros later on the same day (after the divorce), since he could claim that he sold the Peros before the Get was given without being contradicted by the date written therein. However, there <i>is</i> a concern that the Get appears to have preceded the conception of the child, since he might have had relations with her, and the date written in the Get is from the Erusin, long before the beginning of the pregnancy.
</p><p>
The Ramban adds that even if witnesses do not agree to sign the Get of an Arusah after the Nisu'in, they might sign it on the <i>day</i> of the Nisu'in but <i>before</i> the Nisu'in takes place (the date written in the Get, however, is a much earlier date). The husband might then present it to her later that day, after he has married her with Nisu'in and had relations with her. This seems to be the intention of <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> as well, and this also might be the intention of the Rashba (mentioned above, unlike the interpretation of the Acharonim cited above).
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction:</font></b> R. Elazar contradicts himself! (Rav 
               Yehudah said that the first Tana is R. Elazar. He 
               does not require the Tofes to be Lishmah!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. 
               Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to question (i) - R. Shabsi):</font></b> The enactment is 
          to avoid quarrels. It is like R. Meir, who says that Edei 
          Chasimah Karsei;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Really, even the Toref should not need to be written 
               Lishmah. It is an enactment not to write the Toref 
               until the husband requests a Get, lest a woman hear 
               a scribe writing a Get with her name. She will think 
               that her husband requested the Get, and will quarrel 
               with her husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The enactment is to prevent Igun 
          (a situation in which a woman cannot remarry).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Some explain this like R. Meir, and some explain it like 
          R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  Some explain this like R. Meir, who says that Edei 
          Chasimah Karsei. Really, even the Toref should not need 
          to be written Lishmah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We require the scribe to delay writing the Toref 
               until requested, for sometimes a man gets angry, and 
               if a Get is already written he will divorce her 
               immediately, and she may have difficulty remarrying.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Some explain this like R. Elazar, who says that Edei 
          Mesirah Karsei. Really, we should require even the Tofes 
          to be written Lishmah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We allow scribes to write Tofsim before the husband 
               requests, for sometimes the husband is going abroad 
               and wants to divorce his wife, but he does not have 
               time to wait for a full Get to be written;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the scribe did not have Tofsim ready, the husband 
               would leave without divorcing her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DATE ON A 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> (He must delay writing) the date.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The Mishnah does not specify, so presumably this applies 
          whether he divorces her from Eirusin or from Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, from Nisu'in, the date is needed, 
          whether the reason for the date is to prevent the husband 
          from (fraudulently) saving her from being killed for 
          adultery, or to prevent him from taking Peros of her 
          property that he is not entitled to.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Get is from Eirusin, we understand why the 
               date is needed according to the opinion that the 
               date is to prevent saving her from being killed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that it is to prevent him 
               from stealing her Peros, why is the date needed? A 
               husband has no rights to Peros before Nisu'in!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Amram):</font></b> Ula said that it is an enactment on 
          behalf of the child. I did not understand this answer at 
          first.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man said 'write a Get to my Arusah. 
               After Nisu'in, I will divorce her', the Get is 
               Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ula):</font></b> This is a decree, lest people will say that 
               he divorced her before she became pregnant from him. 
               (Since the Get mentions that she is an Arusah, 
               people will assume that he divorced her before 
               Nisu'in.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Amram):</font></b> Similarly, they decreed to put the date 
               even on a Get written for an Arusah, lest (he will 
               give it after Nisu'in and) people will think that 
               she became pregnant from him after the divorce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ze'iri):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is this even for other documents (we permit 
          writing the Tofes in advance)?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papi taught that if a Kiyum (validation) of a 
               document was written before the witnesses verified 
               the signatures, the Kiyum is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The reason is, it appears false (a Kiyum says that 
               the witnesses (already) confirmed the signatures). 
               Similarly, writing a monetary document without the 
               request of the borrower or seller appears false!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Papi's law is wrong.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> According to R. Meir, if a man finds 
               a Get (with his name and his wife's name) in the 
               trash, if he had it signed and gave it, it is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim argue with R. Meir only about Gitei 
               Nashim, since they must be written Lishmah. They 
               agree about monetary documents.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Asi):</font></b> If a document was written for a loan, 
                    the loan was paid, and the borrower borrowed 
                    the same sum again from the lender, the 
                    original document is Pasul for the second loan. 
                    Its power to obligate the borrower to pay was 
                    nullified when the first loan was paid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If not for the fact that its power was Batel, 
                    the document could be used again. We are not 
                    concerned that it looks false (it was written 
                    for a different loan)!
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A LOST 'GET'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man (a Shali'ach) was carrying a Get and 
          lost it:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he finds it immediately, it is Kosher (we assume 
               that it is the same one ). If not, it is Pasul.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he found it in a Chafisah or Deluskema (kinds of 
               pouches) and recognizes it, it is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Contradiction (Mishnah #1):</font></b> If one finds Gitei 
          Nashim or freedom, gift documents or receipts, he should 
          not return them to the recipient. Perhaps the giver 
          reconsidered and never gave the document.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If the giver says to return it, we do, 
               even if it was found long after it was lost!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses where caravans 
          are common. Mishnah #1 discusses where they are not 
          common;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even where caravans are common, we are concerned 
               only if we know that another person in the city has 
               the same name like the husband.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> If we would not say this, Rabah would contradict 
          himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Get was found in Rav Huna's Beis Din. It said 'in 
               the city of Shviri, on the Rachis River...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Huna):</font></b> Are we concerned lest there is 
               another city called Shviri? (If we are, we cannot 
               return the Get, lest a man from the other Shviri 
               lost it!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah - Mishnah #2):</font></b> If one finds any 
               document of Beis Din (such as this Get, which was 
               Mekuyam by Beis Din), he returns it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> There is much traffic in Rav Huna's Beis 
               Din, yet Rabah concluded that we return it! We must 
               say that he says to return it only when we do not 
               know that there is another husband (or city) of the 
               same name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  A Get was found in the flax district of Pumbadisa. Rabah 
          ruled like he taught, that it should be returned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> It was found where they soak flax 
               (caravans are not common). He said to return it, 
               even though it was established that another man in 
               the city had the same name.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> It was found where they sell flax 
               (caravans are common). He said to return it only 
               because it was not established that another man had 
               the same name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira - Mishnah):</font></b> If a man was carrying a 
          Get and lost it, it is Kosher only if he finds it 
          immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one finds a Get in the 
               market:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the husband admits that he gave it, we 
                    return it to the woman. If he does not admit, 
                    we do not return it to either one .
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: ONE WHO FINDS A GET</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (27a) teaches that if a Shali'ach loses a Get and then finds it, the Get is valid only when he finds it immediately after he lost it. Rabah states that the Mishnah refers to a place where there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' (frequent internal travel), and thus if the Get was not found immediately one must assume that the Get that was found is not the Get that was lost. The Gemara adds that the Mishnah refers to a place in which 'Huchzeku Shnei Yosef ben Shimon' -- it is known for certain that there are two people with the same name in that city. If, however, only one of the two conditions is present, there is no concern that someone else with the same name lost an identical Get.
</p><p>
Rebbi Zeira, according to one version of his statement, explains the Mishnah as Rabah does, that both conditions are necessary -- 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and 'Huchzeku.' According to a different version of his statement, Rebbi Zeira says that even when only the condition of 'Shayaros Metzuyos' is present, there is a concern that another person lost the Get, even though it is not 'Huchzeku Shnei Yosef ben Shimon' in that place.
</p><p>
Rabah and Rebbi Zeira give this explanation for the Mishnah in order to explain why the Mishnah in Bava Metzia (which the Gemara here cites) says that when a person loses a Get there is no concern that the Get he finds belongs to someone else.
</p><p>
Rebbi Yirmeyah and Rav Ashi, however, give different answers for why the Mishnah in Bava Metzia is not concerned that the lost Get belongs to someone else. They explain that the Mishnah there refers to specific circumstances, such as when the witnesses on the Get testify that they signed on only one such Get, or there is a Siman Muvhak on the Get. 
</p><p>
What is the Halachah? When a Get was lost and a Get with the same details was found, is it assumed that the Get that was found is a different Get and not the one that was lost only in a place where it is 'Huchzeku,' or even in a place where it is not 'Huchzeku'? It is clear that when neither condition is present (there are no 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and it is not 'Huchzeku'), the Get may be returned to the person who lost it. This is clear from the Mishnah in Bava Metzia which says that every 'Ma'aseh Beis Din' (deed or document of Beis Din) may be returned to the person who claims to have lost it (even though a significant amount of time passed from the time it was lost), as <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kol) explains based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia. However, is the presence of 'Shayaros Metzuyos' alone enough to prevent the return of the Get, or is the presence of both conditions necessary to prevent the return of the Get?
</p><p>
The Gemara continues and explains what is considered 'l'Altar' ('immediately'). The Mishnah says that when a Get is found 'immediately' there is never a concern that it is a different Get. Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel (28a) says that in order to permit the finder to give back the Get to the Shali'ach, the Get must have been found before anyone else walked and tarried where the Get was found. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel says that the Halachah is that the Get must be found before another person even passes by that place, even without tarrying. 
</p><p>
What is the Halachah with regard to what is considered 'immediately'?
</p><p>
(a) The Rishonim differ with regard to when a Get that was lost may be returned.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RAN</b> cites the <b>BEHAG</b> and <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> who rule leniently and write that only when there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and it is 'Huchzeku' is there a concern that the Get which was found is a different Get from the one which was lost. Their ruling is based on the reasoning that 'Ma'aseh Rav' -- the fact that the Gemara says that Rabah acted in practice in accordance with his ruling that both conditions are necessary shows that the Halachah follows this opinion. Moreover, Rebbi Yirmeyah and Rav Ashi -- who give other reasons to explain why the Mishnah in Bava Metzia permits the return of the Get even after a long time has passed -- do not necessarily argue with Rabah and say that 'Shayaros Metzuyos' alone prevents the return of the Get. They may merely be suggesting other scenarios in which the Get may be returned (other than a situation in which it is not 'Huchzeku').
</p><p>
2. However, the <b>RIF</b> in Bava Metzia (18b) rules stringently. Even when there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and the place is not 'Huchzeku,' the Get may not be returned. He infers from the words of Rebbi Yirmeyah and Rav Ashi that they disagree with Rabah and maintain that even if the condition of 'Shayaros Metzuyos' alone is present (and not the condition of 'Huchzeku'), the Get may not be returned.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> maintains that if the Get may not be returned in a case where there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' but not 'Huchzeku,' then certainly the Get should not be returned in a case where there is 'Huchzeku' alone without 'Shayaros Metzuyos.' However, the <b>RAN</b> raises the possibility that perhaps the presence of 'Huchzeku' without 'Shayaros Metzuyos' is <i>less</i> of a reason to prevent giving back the Get. Hence, despite the presence of 'Huchzeku,' there is no concern that the Get belongs to someone else. The Ran's opinion seems to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 3:9) as well. 
</p><p>
3. The <b>RIF</b> in Yevamos (115b) seems to rule <i>leniently</i>, that there is <i>no</i> concern that there are two people with the same names in a place where it is not 'Huchzeku.' The Rif there rules that in a case where witnesses testify that a man with a certain name from a certain town passed away, there is no concern that there are two people with that name in that place and that the witnesses are testifying about the other man. Beis Din permits the man's wife to remarry based on such testimony.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> (end of 3:3) explains that the Rif is lenient in the case in Yevamos, where witnesses testify about the death of a woman's husband, because of the concern for preventing the woman from becoming an Agunah (the Chachamim were lenient in a number of ways with regard to testimony about the death of a woman's husband). However, in the case of a Get that was lost, the Rif is not lenient because the husband simply can write a second Get for his wife.
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim also differ with regard to the amount of time that must past after the Get was lost in order to be concerned that the Get that was found is not the same Get that was lost.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RIF</b> (according to the understanding of the <b>ROSH</b>) rules stringently and writes that as long as someone passed through the place where the Get was dropped, there is a concern that the Get that was found is a different Get. 
</p><p>
2. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (according to the understanding of the <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b>) also rules that there is a concern that it is a different Get if a person passed there, but only if there are both 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and 'Huchzeku Shnei Yosef ben Shimon.' However, if there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and it is not 'Huchzeku,' then the Get may be returned, but only when a person passed there but did not tarry there. When a person passed there and tarried there, there is a concern that the Get that was found belongs to a different person.
</p><p>
The <b>RAN</b> suggests that this might also be the intention of the <b>RIF</b>.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>BEIS YOSEF</b> (EH 132:4) rules that even when there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' without 'Huchzeku,' there is a concern that the Get that was found is not the Get that was lost. When a Get was found in a place where there are no 'Shayaros Metzuyos' but where there are known to be two men with the same name, the Beis Yosef cites both opinions, that of the Ran (that the Get may be returned) and that of the Rosh (that the Get may not be returned).
</p><p>
With regard to the amount of time that may pass before the return of the Get is disallowed, the Beis Yosef cites both the opinion of the Rambam (that even if enough time passed such that a person passed there and did not stop there, and there are 'Shayaros Metzuyos' and it is 'Huchzeku,' the Get may not be returned), and the opinion of the Rosh (that when a person passed there and did not stop, if even one condition is present, either 'Shayaros Metzuyos' or 'Huchzeku,' the Get may not be returned).
</p><p>
The <b>TUR</b> (cited by the <b>TAZ</b>) quotes the ruling of the Rosh, that with regard to witnesses who testify about the death of a woman's husband there is no concern that there are two men by that name, due to the Chachamim's desire to prevent a situation of Agunah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the husband admits that he gave it, we return it, 
               even if it was found a long time later!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where 
          caravans are common. The Beraisa discusses a place where 
          they are not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> R. Zeira says not to return (when caravans 
          are common) only when we know that another man has the 
          same name. He holds like Rabah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> R. Zeira says not to return (when caravans 
          are common) even if we do not know that another man has 
          the same name. He argues with Rabah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (We assume that Rabah, who answered Question 
<br>      <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>, also asked the question.) We understand why Rabah 
          prefered to ask a contradiction between Mishnayos to R. 
          Zeira's question, a contradiction between a Mishnah and a 
          Beraisa;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why didn't R. Zeira ask Rabah's question?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Mishnah #1 does not say that we return it even 
          after a long time. (It says only that we do not return it 
          because we are concerned lest it was never given. Rabah 
          inferred that this is the only concern, even if it was 
          found much later). Perhaps really, even if the giver says 
          to return it, we return it only if it was found 
          immediately!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Beraisa says explicitly that if the husband 
               admits, we return it. If it meant only if it was 
               found immediately, it would have said so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER ANSWERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to questions (b) and (e) - R. Yirmeyah):</font></b> A Get 
          may be returned after a long time if the witnesses say 
          that they signed on only one Get for a man with this 
          name.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, obviously we return it! What do the 
          Mishnah and Beraisa teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that we are concerned that 
          this was a different Get, and the names of the couple and 
          of the witnesses happened to coincide. They teach that we 
          are not concerned for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> (The Get may be returned after a 
          long time if) the Shali'ach who lost the Get tells us 
          that there is a hole near a certain letter in the Get, 
          which is an exceptional Siman (sign that it is his).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Had he said only that it has a hole, which is 
          a mediocre Siman, we would not return it (if it was found 
          later).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Ashi is unsure if the Torah authorizes returning 
               an Aveidah based on a (mediocre) Siman, or if this 
               is only (a monetary enactment) mid'Rabanan. 
               (Therefore, to return a Get, which permits an Eshes 
               Ish, he requires an exceptional Siman, which surely 
               the Torah accepts.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis Medrash. He 
          said 'I can give a Siman. Also, I can recognize the Get.' 
          They returned it to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rabah bar bar Chanah:</font></b> I do not know if they returned it 
          to me because of my Siman, and they hold that Simanim 
          work mid'Oraisa, or because I recognized it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Only a Chacham is believed to say that he recognizes 
               his Aveidah. A commoner is not believed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'GET' FOUND LATER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If the Get was not found immediately, it is 
          Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> What is considered not immediately?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Nasan):</font></b> It is enough time passed for a 
          caravan to pass and to camp.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> Immediately is when one 
          was watching to see that no one else passed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Some say):</font></b> Immediately is when one was 
          watching to see that no one delayed there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rebbi):</font></b> Not immediately is the time to write a 
          Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #5 (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> It is the time to read a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #6 (Others say):</font></b> It is the time to write it and 
          read it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Even if the Get was found later, we may testify that it 
          is the same Get if there are Simanim, e.g. there is a 
          hole next to a particular letter.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We cannot testify based on Simanim that apply to 
               many Gitin, e.g. it is long or short.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  If it was found tied to a wallet or ring, or if it was 
          found among his garments in his house, even after a long 
          time, it is valid.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'GET' FOUND LATER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah is, if no person delayed 
          where the Get was lost (this is considered immediately).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The Halachah is, if no one passed 
          there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't each just say which Tana he follows?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Other Amora'im have a different version of which 
          Tana said which period of time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he found it in a Chafisah or Deluskema (and 
          recognizes it, it is Kosher).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is a Chafisah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> It is a small leather bag.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is a Deluskema?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a sack.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY WE ASSUME THAT ONE IS STILL ALIVE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven made a Shali'ach to give a Get, 
          (even) if Reuven was old or sick, the Shali'ach gives the 
          Get. We rely on the Chazakah that Reuven is still alive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen eats Terumah even when 
          her husband goes abroad. We rely on the Chazakah that he 
          is still alive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If Shimon sent a Chatas from abroad, we rely on the 
          Chazakah that he is still alive, and we offer it on the 
          Mizbe'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rava):</font></b> This is only if Reuven was less than 80 
          years old, and only moderately sick;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if he was at least 80, or was Goses (a dying 
               person who probably will not survive), we are 
               concerned lest he died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven made a Shali'ach to 
          give a Get, (even) if Reuven was 100 years old, the 
          Shali'ach gives the Get. We rely on the Chazakah that 
          Reuven is still alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> Rava is refuted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> Rava is not refuted. Perhaps we are 
               concerned that one in his 80's may die any day; but 
               once one lived to 100 we are not concerned (we see 
               that he is extraordinary).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> (Even) if Reuven was old or 
          sick, the Shali'ach gives the Get. We rely on the 
          Chazakah that Reuven is still alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen told his wife 
               'this is your Get; it should take effect a moment 
               before I die', the moment she takes the Get, she is 
               forbidden to eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> Regarding Terumah, we can be stringent 
          and require her to eat Chulin. In the Mishnah, if we 
          would be concerned lest the husband already died, and not 
          allow her to receive the Get, we will make women Agunos 
          (unable to remarry)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Regarding Terumah itself, sometimes we are 
          concerned for death, and sometimes not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A Bas Yisrael married to a Kohen may eat 
               Terumah (even) when he goes abroad. We rely on the 
               Chazakah that he is still alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Kohen told his wife 
               'this is your Get; it should take effect a moment 
               before I die', the moment she takes the Get, she is 
               forbidden to eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Yitzchak):</font></b> Regarding 
          Terumah we are not concerned lest he died. The case of 
          the Beraisa is different, since she is forbidden to eat 
          (for a moment) even in her husband's lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Papa):</font></b> If she dies first, she will never 
          be forbidden!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Our Mishnah is R. Meir, who is not 
          concerned lest someone die; the Beraisa is R. Yehudah, 
          who is concerned:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> If one bought (100 Lugim of) 
               wine from Kusim (and cannot separate the tithes 
               before drinking), he says 'the two Lugim that I will 
               separate later should be Terumah. The 10 Lugim (that 
               I will separate) are Ma'aser Rishon; and nine Lugim 
               are Ma'aser Sheni.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He is Meichal (Rashi - redeems the Ma'aser Sheni; 
               Tosfos - mixes the wine) and may drink immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah, R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, he must 
               separate the tithes before drinking.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They do not allow relying on Breirah to tithe 
                    wine for the reason stated in the Beraisa, lest 
                    the barrel break before he separates the 
                    tithes, and he drank Tevel retroactively. The 
                    concern that the barrel will break resembles 
                    the concern lest he die.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE GET OF A DEAD MAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that when an elderly man sends a Get to his wife via a Shali'ach, the Shali'ach may give the Get to his wife and there is no concern that the husband died while the Shali'ach was en route.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Nosno) explains that the husband is assumed to be alive when the Get is given because of a Chazakah that since he was alive until now, he is assumed to be alive now as well. There is no concern that the husband died and that the Shelichus that he made became annulled.
</p><p>
Rashi implies that if the husband would have died, the reason why the Get would be have been invalid is that the Shelichus would have been annulled. Why does Rashi not write that the Get would have been invalid simply because a man cannot divorce his wife after he dies ('Ein Get l'Achar Misah'), as the <b>TOSFOS RID</b> and <b>ME'IRI</b> write? In fact, Rashi himself gives the reason of 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah' in Kesuvos (2b) with regard to a man who writes in a Get that he wants the Get to take effect only after twelve months, and then he dies within those twelve months. Rashi there (DH Mes) explains that such a Get is not valid because a dead man cannot divorce his wife. This is the way the Gemara there itself explains -- a Get that is supposed to take effect only after the husband dies is not valid because 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah.' (<b>HAGAHOS CHAVOS YA'IR</b> #5 on the Rif)
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the Tosfos Rid here and the Gemara in Kesuvos write that the reason the Get is not valid after death is because a dead person cannot give a divorce? Even if a dead person <i>could</i> give a divorce, the Get should not be valid since a woman is Konah herself through the death of her husband and is no longer in her husband's domain! It is like giving a Get to a woman who is not married. In fact, Rashi uses this argument to explain why a Get Shichrur is not valid in the case of an owner of an Eved who sends a Get to his Eved with a Shali'ach, and the owner dies before the Get reaches the Eved. The reason the Get Shichrur is not valid is that the Eved no longer belongs to him; the Eved now belongs to the master's heirs (Rashi to Gitin 9b and 13a, DH Lo Yitnu).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>DIBROS MOSHE</b> explains the words of Rashi as follows. <b>TOSFOS</b> (13a, DH Lo Yitnu) asks why the Mishnah (13a) needs to teach that when a man sends a Get to his wife and dies before it reaches her, the Get is not valid, when another Mishnah (72a) already teaches that a Get cannot take effect after the husband's death.
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the Mishnah there (13a) wants to teach that even if the husband appointed a Shali'ach to deliver the Get to his wife, the Shali'ach cannot give the Get after the husband dies. Had the Mishnah not taught this, one might have thought that if a man writes a Get with the stipulation that it should take effect only after twelve months have passed, and he dies within those twelve months, the Get is not valid because the husband cannot divorce his wife after he is dead. However, if he appointed a Shali'ach to give the Get to his wife, perhaps the Get should be valid. A Shali'ach is in the place of the husband with regard to the Get, and since the Shali'ach is still alive perhaps it is considered as though the husband is still alive and thus he may give the Get. The Mishnah therefore teaches that even a Shali'ach may not give a Get after the death of the husband.
</p><p>
Why, though, may the Shali'ach not give the Get after the husband dies? Is it because the Shali'ach is considered to be like the husband only with regard to the ability to make the Kinyan and not with regard to any other matter (see <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b>, Hilchos Gerushin 2:15, and <b>LEKACH TOV</b> #1), or is it because the Shelichus automatically becomes annulled at the death of the husband?
</p><p>
The Tosfos Rid (and perhaps also Tosfos on 13a) follows the first approach. Rashi here follows the second approach; the reason why the Get is not valid is that once the husband dies, the Shali'ach is no longer considered to be a Shali'ach. Had he still had the status of a Shali'ach, the Get would have been valid even after the death of the husband.
</p><p>
Rashi's source for this explanation is the Gemara later (29b), where Mar bar Rav Ashi implies that the death of the husband causes an annulment of the Shelichus (see Hagahos Chavos Ya'ir there). 
</p><p>
The Gemara in Kesuvos (2b), on the other hand, refers to a Get which is supposed to take effect after twelve months, and the husband dies before that time arrives. Since there is no Shali'ach involved in that case, the Get does not take effect simply because of 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah,' a dead man cannot divorce his wife.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara (and Rashi) need to explain that a dead person cannot divorce his wife? The Gemara (and Rashi) should say simply that after the man's death, the woman is no longer his wife and a Get cannot take effect! The <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> (188:2) and <b><b><b>OR</b></b> SAME'ACH</b> (loc. cit.) explain that when a man dies childless, the Kidushin of the dead husband remains in effect insofar that it causes his wife to be obligated to perform Yibum or Chalitzah with his brother. Accordingly, after his death, his wife is <i>not</i> a 'Penuyah' (a completely unmarried woman), but rather an element of the original Kidushin remains and, consequently, the Get still should take effect if not for the principle that a dead man cannot divorce his wife.
</p><p>
(The Dibros Moshe suggests that perhaps even when there is no Yavam, such as when the husband has children at the time he dies, some remnant of the Ishus and Kidushin still remain after his death. (See also <b>SHA'AREI YOSHER</b>.) However, the Mishnah in Kidushin (2a) states that the woman is Konah herself after her husband's death, and thus it is not clear that a Get is able to affect whatever Ishus remains after the husband's death.)
</p><p>
What remains to be explained is why Rashi writes (on 13a) that when a master sends a Get Shichrur to his Eved with a Shali'ach and then the master dies, the Shichrur is not valid because the Eved has already left the master's domain. Why does Rashi not explain there as he explains here, that when the master dies the Shali'ach is no longer a Shali'ach? Consequently, he cannot give the Get to the Eved because he is not the master's Shali'ach.
</p><p>
The Dibros Moshe suggests that perhaps the Shelichus would remain in effect after the death of the master because the heirs presumably want to fulfill their father's desire to free the Eved and thus they leave the Shelichus in force. However, if this is true, then the words of Rashi's do not explain why the Get Shichrur does not take effect; even if the heirs now own the Eved, the Shichrur should take effect because <i>they</i> are freeing the Eved. If, on the other hand, it cannot take effect because the Get Shichrur states that the <i>father</i> is freeing the Eved (and the father, who is dead, is no longer the Eved's owner), then even if the heirs want to re-appoint the Shelichus, the present Get Shichrur cannot take effect. 
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi prefers to give the more basic of the two reasons to explain why the Get Shichrur does not take effect. Rashi writes that the Eved has left the domain of the owner, because this reasoning explains not only why the Get Shichrur cannot take effect after the owner dies, but it also why the Get Shichrur cannot take effect even when the owner sells the Eved before the Get reaches the Eved, even though the Shelichus of the Shali'ach still remains in force. The other reason which Rashi gives (in the Sugya here) -- that the Shelichus becomes annulled -- applies only when the Meshale'ach dies but under no other circumstances. (In contrast, a [living] Meshale'ach's willful retraction of the Shelichus constitutes an entirely different reason for why the Get does not take effect.) 
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> We are not concerned lest the husband 
          already died. We are concerned lest he will die. (In the 
          Beraisa she is forbidden lest he die in the next moment, 
          and she is already divorced.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah):</font></b> The Tana'im argue 
               about whether or not we are concerned lest the 
               barrel break. This resembles the concern that the 
               husband will die!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Yehudah of Diskarta):</font></b> R. Meir is less 
               concerned about the barrel breaking than about 
               death, because one can appoint a guard to watch the 
               barrel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Rav Mesharshiya):</font></b> Who will ensure that 
               the guard will watch it properly?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, we are not concerned that the 
          husband already died; Tana'im argue about whether or not 
          we are concerned that he will die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one sent a Chatas from abroad...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The owner of a Chatas must personally come to 
          do Semichah (press on the animal's neck)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The case is, a woman sent it 
          (women do not do Semichah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The case is, he sent Chatas ha'Of 
          (Semichah does not apply to birds).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  It was necessary to teach all three clauses of the 
          Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a Get, one might have 
               thought that we rely on the Chazakah because we 
               cannot be stringent (lest it cause Igun), but we 
               would be stringent about Terumah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about Terumah, one might have 
               thought that we rely on the Chazakah because 
               sometimes we cannot be stringent (if his wife is 
               poor and cannot afford Chulin), but we would be 
               stringent about a Chatas, lest the owner died and 
               the Korban is Pasul. The owner can bring it himself!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>PEOPLE ABOUT WHOM WE ARE CONCERNED LEST THEY DIED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Eliezer ben Parta said that in three cases 
          we assume that a man is still alive. Chachamim agreed to 
          all of them:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Someone in a besieged city;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Someone in a sinking ship;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Someone being taken for judgment in a capital case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  However, if one was in a city breached by the enemy, or 
          was on a ship that sank, or was taken to be executed, we 
          are stringent to suspect that he may be alive or dead.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Version #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This applies only to a 
          Beis Din of Yisrael. If a court of Nochrim passed 
          sentence, they surely will kill him. (Therefore, if 
          someone was taken to be executed, we would presume that 
          he is dead.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Courts of Nochrim take bribes. He is 
          not sure to die!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> They do not take bribes after the 
          verdict has been signed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If two witnesses say that Ploni was 
          sentenced to die, and they name the Beis Din and 
          witnesses who convicted him, we kill Ploni. (We are not 
          concerned lest the verdict was overturned!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Perhaps the case of one who fled is different.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If one heard a Beis Din of Yisrael say that 
          Ploni 'Mes' or 'Neherag' (this will be explained), we 
          permit his wife to remarry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he heard Nochri executioners saying this, we do 
               not permit her to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do 'Mes' and 'Neherag' mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He already died, or was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, his wife should be permitted to 
               remarry even if a Nochri executioner said this!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If anyone mentions a person's death l'Fi Tumo 
                    (unaware of the implications), we rely on this 
                    to permit his wife to remarry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, Ploni's sentence is that Beis Din will 
          cause his death, or will directly kill him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In such a case, regarding a Beis Din of Yisrael, we 
               permit his wife to remarry. This shows that we are 
               sure that he was killed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, it means that he already died or was 
          killed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, if anyone says l'Fi Tumo that Ploni died, 
               we rely on this to permit his wife to remarry. We do 
               not rely on the words of a Nochri executioner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because Nochrim pride themselves that they 
               judged properly, and are prone to lie!
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A CHAZAKAH THAT THE HUSBAND IS STILL ALIVE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (28a) teaches that if a Kohen travels abroad, his wife may continue to eat Terumah, and there is no fear that her husband died and that she may no longer eat Terumah. The Gemara asks that the Mishnah seems to contradict a Beraisa which teaches that when a person gives a Get to his wife on condition that it will take effect a moment before his death, if he is a Kohen and his wife is a Bas Yisrael she may no longer eat Terumah from that moment out of concern that her husband might die the next moment (and the Get will have taken effect the previous moment). Rava answers that there is no concern that a person <i>died</i> (as the Mishnah implies), but there <i>is</i> a concern that a person <i>will</i> die (as the Beraisa implies). Since there is a concern that the Kohen will die the next moment, his wife (to whom he gave the conditional Get) may not eat Terumah. In contrast, the woman who receives a Get from the Kohen's Shali'ach may rely on the Get and she is fully divorced, because there is no concern that her husband died.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that Rava's logic is that the husband's Chezkas Chayim is able to clarify the Safek about whether or not the husband is alive at the moment the Shali'ach gives the Get. Since he was alive until this moment, he presumably alive now as well. In contrast, the Chezkas Chayim cannot determine that he <i>will</i> be alive in the future (in the following moment), since the Chazakah can determine only a present status and not a future one. Therefore, we must suspect that the husband might die in the following moment, and if the husband stipulated that the Get should take effect the moment before he dies, we must suspect that she is divorced at the present moment. 
</p><p>
Why is it so obvious to Rashi that a Chazakah cannot determine a future status (that is, whether the husband is <i>going</i> to die and, consequently, whether the woman is divorced at present)? Although the husband's Chezkas Chayim might not apply, other Chazakos exist which should apply to determine the present status of the woman. She should be permitted to eat Terumah because of her Chezkas Eshes Ish which states that since until now she was married, she is assumed to be married at the present moment as well. In addition, she has a Chezkas Muteres l'Terumah, which states that since until now she was permitted to eat Terumah, she presumably is still permitted to eat Terumah! Since these Chazakos affect the present status of the woman, they should be applicable even in the case where it is not known whether the husband will die the next moment, and she should be permitted to eat Terumah. (<b>SHA'AREI YOSHER</b> 2:9; <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b>, Hosafos to Yevamos 69b.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (28a, with regard to a different question) explains that when a person writes a Get with a condition that it should take effect at the moment before he dies, the Chezkas Eshes Ish and the Chezkas Muteres b'Terumah lose their power to determine the woman's status with regard to eating Terumah, because the Chazakos have been 'weakened' by the fact that the husband definitely wrote and gave a Get to his wife. Although there is a doubt about whether the Get took effect, nevertheless the fact that a Get <i>was</i> given provides strong grounds to suspect that she is no longer married (weakening the Chezkas Eshes Ish) and that she is no longer Muteres b'Terumah (weakening the Chezkas Muteres b'Terumah). The husband's Chezkas Chayim, in contrast, is not weakened by the fact that the husband is eventually going to die, since he might not die during his wife's lifetime (as the Gemara says on 28a). 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHA'AREI YOSHER</b> argues that the fact that the husband gave a Get to his wife is not enough to weaken the Chezkas Eshes Ish on a d'Oraisa level.
</p><p>
He suggests, therefore, that a Chazakah can determine what happened only when what happened is directly influenced by that Chazakah. For example, in the case of the Gemara here, the Chezkas Chayim can prove that the husband is not dead, since the fact that until now he was alive has direct bearing on whether he is now dead.
</p><p>
In contrast, the Chazakos that a woman is married, and that she is permitted to eat Terumah, do not have direct bearing on whether the husband is going to die the next moment. The only reason they are related to the question of how long he will live in this case is that the husband stipulated that the Get which he gave to his wife depends upon the length of his life. Since the connection between the woman's Chazakah and the man's lifespan is only incidental, the Chazakah that she is his wife cannot address the question of whether or not he will continue to live.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN WE ASSUME THAT SOMEONE WAS EXECUTED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> This applies only to a court of 
          Nochrim. Regarding a Beis Din of Yisrael, once they 
          passed sentence, surely they will kill him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> A Beis Din of Yisrael may find a reason 
          to declare him innocent!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is not common to find that he is 
          innocent after there was already a verdict that he was 
          guilty. We are not concerned for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> If two witnesses say 
          that Ploni was sentenced to die, and they name the Beis 
          Din and witnesses who convicted him, we kill Ploni.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the case of one who fled is different.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If someone heard a Beis Din of Yisrael say 
          that Ploni 'Mes' or 'Neherag', we permit his wife to 
          remarry;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he heard Nochri executioners saying this, we do 
               not permit her to remarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do 'Mes' and 'Neherag' mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He already died, or was killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If so, his wife should be permitted to 
               remarry even if a Nochri executioner said this!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If anyone mentions a person's death l'Fi Tumo, 
                    we rely on this to permit his wife to remarry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, it means that Ploni's sentence is that 
          Beis Din will cause his death, or will directly kill him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In such a case, regarding a Beis Din of Yisrael, we 
               permit his wife to remarry - this shows, we are sure 
               he was killed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Really, it means that he already died or was 
          killed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, if anyone says l'Fi Tumo that Ploni died, 
               we rely on this to permit his wife to remarry. We do 
               not rely on the words of a Nochri executioner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because Nochrim pride themselves that they 
               judged properly, and are prone to lie!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </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):</font></b> If Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get 
          within Eretz Yisrael, and Shimon got sick, Shimon can 
          appoint a Shali'ach to give the Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven told Shimon to receive something from his 
               wife when he gives the Get, Shimon may not make a 
               Shali'ach. We assume that Reuven does not want his 
               deposit to be in the hands of others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Kahana):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses when the 
          Shali'ach got sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious. The Mishnah says so 
          explicitly!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the law applies even 
          if he did not get sick, and the Mishnah just gives a 
          normal case. Rav Kahana teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What did Reuven tell Shimon?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'take this Get', even if Shimon did not 
               get sick, he may make another Shali'ach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he said 'you take this Get', even if Shimon got 
               sick, he cannot make another Shali'ach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If the Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, even 
               if Shimon got sick, he cannot make another 
               Shali'ach!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven told Shimon 'take this Get 
                    to my wife', Shimon may make another Shali'ach. 
                    If he said 'you take this Get', Shimon cannot 
                    make another Shali'ach;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, in either case, he 
                    cannot make another Shali'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> In our Mishnah, Reuven said 'take this Get.' 
          The Beraisa discusses when Shimon got sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> In our Mishnah, Reuven said 'you take this 
          Get.' The Beraisa discusses when Shimon is healthy. The 
          law is different when he falls sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> Our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. The 
          Beraisa discusses when Shimon is healthy. The law is 
          different when he falls sick.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get 
          within Eretz Yisrael, and Shimon got sick, Shimon can 
          appoint a Shali'ach to give the Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Mishnah #1):</font></b> If Reuven told two people 
          'give a Get to my wife', or he told three people 'write 
          and give a Get to my wife', they themselves must write 
          and give. They cannot appoint someone else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> In Mishnah #1, they cannot make 
          another Shali'ach because the husband is insistent that 
          they do it themselves. He does not want word to spread 
          that he does not know to write a Get himself.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In our Mishnah, the husband does not care whether or 
               not his Shali'ach gives the Get personally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> In Mishnah #1, they cannot make another 
          Shali'ach, because Mili cannot be transferred from one 
          Shali'ach to another. (Rishonim argue about whether Mili 
          is a Shelichus in which no object was given to the 
          Shali'ach, or a Shelichus that does not finish the 
          matter, or a Shelichus that depends on the will of 
          others. In our Mishnah, the Shali'ach received a Get to 
          divorce her, and he can do so against her will, so all 
          agree that it is not Mili.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the practical difference between 
          Abaye's answer and Rava's?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> They argue about if Reuven asked Sheluchim to 
          write a document to give a gift;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye holds like Rav, who says this is unlike asking 
               them to write and give a Get; (The giver is not 
               expected to write the document himself. There is no 
               embarrassment if someone else writes it, so they may 
               make another Shali'ach.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava holds like Shmuel, who says it is like asking 
               to write a Get. (Also this is Mili. They cannot 
               appoint another Shali'ach.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'take my object from her (when you 
          give the Get)'...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> In our Mishnah, Rebbi taught that one who 
          borrows or rents an object may not lend or rent it to 
          someone else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Everyone knows that! Rather, Rebbi taught 
          that sometimes, this disqualifies the Get (if the 
          Shali'ach makes another Shali'ach to give the Get and 
          take the object);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is as if he told his Shali'ach 'divorce her only 
               in the house', and the Shali'ach divorced her in the 
               attic, or 'divorce her only using the right hand', 
               and he divorced her using the left hand.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  Reish Lakish and R. Yochanan agree that if she gave to 
          him the object before he gave the Get, the Get is valid.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE CONCERN OF 'SHEMA PIYES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara introduces a concern which should prohibit a Shali'ach from delivering a Get. This concern is 'Shema Piyes' -- perhaps the husband appeased his wife (and no longer wants to divorce her). The Gemara states that because of this concern, when a man instructs a Shali'ach to deliver a Get to his wife after thirty days have passed, or to deliver 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. One way to know for certain that the husband did not appease his wife is by having the husband stipulate that he trusts his wife to testify whether or not he appeased her. Another way to know for certain that the husband did not appease his wife is when his wife is only an Arusah (and thus they were not together).
</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, which renders 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 precede the date of conception of a child born during the marriage, and this people will assume that the child was born out of wedlock.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (18b, DH Shema Piyes) questions Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(a) 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 will the date of the child's conception, why is the Shali'ach permitted to deliver the Get when the husband announces that he trusts his wife's testimony about 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>
(b) 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 to a case in which the husband gives a Get stipulating that it should take effect in twelve months if he does not return before the twelve months pass? 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 the condition which the husband stipulated (that the Get will take effect only if he does not return within twelve months) was not fulfilled (since he returned within twelve months)!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> there asks another question on Rashi from a Beraisa later (76b) which teaches that in a case of a Get which 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,' that he appeased her.
</p><p>
The Beraisa clearly implies that although there is no reason to be concern that the Get is a Get Yashan, there <i>is</i> a concern that the husband appeased his wife! It is clear from the Gemara there that the concern for Get Yashan and the concern for 'Shema Piyes' are two completely different matters, in contrast to Rashi's explanation here.
</p><p>
Rashi there (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 the date in the get predates the conception of their child. However, Beis Din <i>should</i> 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 invalidating the Get by saying that the Get he sent from Medinas ha'Yam is forged, they were also concerned that the husband should not be able to say that the Get is a Get Yashan. Hence, it is clear why there is 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 reason to fear that he will claim that the Get is a Get Yashan.
</p><p>
Tosfos himself (18b) in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> suggests that this is Rashi's intention.
</p><p>
(Although one opinion in the Gemara (79b) states 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, Rashi there (DH Im Nisgarshah) explains that she may get married on the basis of the Get Yashan only when her husband has left to Medinas ha'Yam and she cannot get another Get from him. The concern in the case of the Gemara 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>
(b) Apparently, Rashi understands that when the husband stipulates that the Get will take effect only 'if I do not return within twelve months,' he 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. Accordingly, the Get <i>could</i> take effect after twelve months if not for the concern 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>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue when he told his Shali'ach 'take the 
               object, then give the Get', and the Shali'ach gave 
               the Get before she gave the object.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even if the original Shali'ach did this, 
          the Get is Pasul, and all the more so, if the Shali'ach 
          made a second Shali'ach (Rashi - and the second Shali'ach 
          gave the Get before getting the object; Tosfos - even if 
          the second Shali'ach gave the Get after getting the 
          object).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Even if the second Shali'ach did this, 
          the Get is valid, all the more so, if the first Shali'ach 
          did so. (The husband was not particular about the order 
          of giving and receiving.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'SHELUCHIM' OF 'SHELUCHIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Shali'ach to bring a Get from abroad got 
          sick, he makes a second Shali'ach in front of a Beis Din, 
          and says 'it was written and signed in front of me.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The last Shali'ach need not make a declaration when 
               he gives the Get. He merely says 'I am a Shali'ach 
               of Beis Din.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Version #1 Question (Rabanan):</font></b> Can the second 
          Shali'ach can make another Shali'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Avimi):</font></b> That is obvious! The Mishnah says 'the 
          last Shali'ach (need not make a declaration).' This shows 
          that the second Shali'ach can make another Shali'ach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Avimi):</font></b> Rather, ask the following. When 
               the second Shali'ach appoints a third Shali'ach, 
               must he do this in Beis Din?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabanan):</font></b> Clearly, he must! The Mishnah says 
               'the last Shali'ach says 'I am a Shali'ach of Beis 
               Din''
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) Question (Rabanan):</font></b> 
          When the second Shali'ach appoints a third Shali'ach, 
          must he do this in Beis Din?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Avimi):</font></b> Rather, you should ask whether the 
               second Shali'ach can make a third Shali'ach!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabanan):</font></b> Clearly, he can! The Mishnah says, 
               the last Shali'ach (need not make a declaration), we 
               see that he can make another Shali'ach!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We are unsure only about whether this must be 
                    done in Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Avimi):</font></b> That is obvious! The Mishnah says 'the 
          last Shali'ach must say 'I am a Shali'ach of Beis Din.'' 
          This shows that he must be appointed in Beis Din. (end of 
          Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> A Shali'ach to give a Get within Eretz Yisrael 
          can make several Sheluchim (i.e. he can make a second 
          Shali'ach, who can make a third...).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If the first Shali'ach dies, the later 
          Sheluchim cease to be Sheluchim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> My father said this in his 
          youth (i.e. it is wrong);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the husband would die, the mission is void. All 
               are Sheluchim of the husband;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, as long as the husband is alive, they are 
               all valid Sheluchim!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONLY ONE WHO CAN DIVORCE CAN MAKE ANOTHER 'SHALI'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Reuven appointed Shimon to give 
          a Get to Reuven's wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> I do not recognize your wife!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> Give the Get to Aba bar Minyomi. He knows my 
               wife, and he will give it to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Shimon did not find Aba. He found R. Avahu, R. Chanina 
          ben Papa, and R. Yitzchak Nafcha. They told him to make 
          his declaration and give to them the Get, and they will 
          give it to Aba.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Safra:</font></b> Shimon was not a Shali'ach to divorce! He 
               does not stand in place of the husband, so he cannot 
               make a Shali'ach for other than what Reuven told him 
               to!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The other three Chachamim were embarrassed that they 
               did not think of this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rava):</font></b> Rav Safra outsmarted three ordained 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He did not outsmart them! Reuven 
          did not say that only Aba can divorce her. Shimon also 
          had the power to divorce her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rav Safra seemingly outwitted three 
          ordained Chachamim, but in truth, he was wrong.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Rav Ashi): What was his mistake?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Reuven did not say that only Aba can divorce her. 
          Shimon also had the power to divorce her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Reuven made Shimon a Shali'ach to divorce his wife after 
          30 days. During the 30 days, a problem arose, and Shimon 
          would not be able to give the Get after 30 days.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> The Mishnah allows a Shali'ach who fell sick 
               to make another Shali'ach because he cannot do his 
               mission himself. The same applies here!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Make your declaration. After 30 days we will 
               appoint a Shali'ach to give the Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan:</font></b> Right now, Shimon is not authorized to 
               divorce!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> Since he is authorized to divorce after 30 
               days, it is as if he is authorized to divorce now.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> We should be concerned lest Reuven 
               appeased his wife (like in a Mishnah)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven told his wife this is your 
                    Get. It takes effect now, on condition that I 
                    do not return within 12 months', and he died 
                    within 12 months, the Get is valid.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest Reuven 
                    appeased his wife (and nullified the Get)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> The case is, he 
                    said that she is believed to say that he did 
                    not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Rava was embarrassed (for having overlooked this).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Later, it became known that Reuven had not made 
               Nisu'in.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> We are concerned lest a man appease a 
                    wife fully married to him. We have no source to 
                    be concerned lest he appease an Arusah!
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'BEIS' 'DIN'S' APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER 'SHALI'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> When Beis Din appoints another 
          Shali'ach, must this be in front of the previous 
          Shali'ach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> They need not appoint in front of the 
          previous Shali'ach.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael ruled like Rava.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES ONES INVALIDATE A 'GET'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Reuven told his wife 'this Get 
          should take effect if I do not return in 30 days.' He was 
          returning; the ferry to cross the river was not 
          available. He shouted 'see, I am returning!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shmuel:</font></b> This is not considered returning. The Get takes 
          effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Reuven told his wife 'this Get 
          should take effect if I do not appease you within 30 
          days.' He tried appeasing her; she was not appeased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He did not give to her a chest 
          full of coins (i.e. he did not try hard enough to appease 
          her. The Get takes effect.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Must he give to her a chest full 
          of coins?! He stipulated only to make a reasonable 
          attempt to appease her. He did this. She is the one who 
          refuses to be appeased!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Version #2 is like the opinion that Yesh Ones 
               b'Gitin. (If one gave a Get on condition, and was 
               unable to fulfill it due to an unexpected reason 
               beyond his control, it is as if he fulfilled it, and 
               the Get is void.) Version #1 is like the opinion 
               that Ein Ones b'Gitin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH TITHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven lent money to Shimon, who is a Kohen, 
          Levi or Oni (poor person). He stipulated that he will 
          keep the Terumah or Ma'aser or Ma'aser Oni that he would 
          have given to Shimon, and deduct its value from the loan. 
          He may do this, and assume that Shimon is still alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He need not be concerned that Shimon died, or (if he 
               was poor) that he became rich.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he hears that Shimon died, he must ask Shimon's 
               heirs for permission to continue the deal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If the loan was made in front of Beis Din, he need 
               not ask the heirs for permission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is this even if Shimon never received the 
          tithes? (Reuven is obligated to give them!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> The case is, Reuven always gives his 
          Terumah or Ma'aser to Shimon. Once Reuven separates it, 
          it automatically belongs to Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> The case is, Reuven asks Yehudah to 
          acquire the tithes on behalf of Shimon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Ula):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Yosi, who says 
          that Chachamim enacted that it is as if one acquired, 
          even though (mid'Oraisa) he did not acquire.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel and Ula did not answer like Rav, for the 
               Mishnah does not explicitly say that it discusses a 
               Kohen or Levi to whom Reuven always gives;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav and Ula did not answer like Shmuel, for the 
               Mishnah does not explicitly say that someone else 
               acquires on their behalf.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rav and Shmuel did not answer like Ula, for they do 
               not want to establish our Mishnah like an 
               individual's opinion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven lent money to Shimon, on condition 
          that Reuven will keep the tithes due to Shimon and deduct 
          their value from the loan, he may do this, and presume 
          that Shimon is still alive.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He may stipulate that the tithes will be purchased 
               at the lower price (if the price goes down). This is 
               not interest.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shemitah does not cancel this loan. If he wants to 
               cancel the deal, he cannot.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If Reuven despaired (he thought that the tithes on 
               his crops would not equal the value of the debt), he 
               cannot continue to keep the tithes as payment for 
               the loan, for it is as if the loan was lost.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that he may stipulate that the 
          tithes will be purchased at the lower price. This is 
          obvious! (Anyone who pays in advance may do so!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa teaches that even if he did not 
          explicitly stipulate, it is as if he did.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is it not a problem of interest?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Even though Reuven could gain (if the price goes 
          down), since he could also lose, i.e. if the tithes will 
          not equal the value of the loan, it is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shemitah does not cancel this loan because Reuven 
               was not able to ask Shimon to pay back.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If he wants to cancel the deal, he cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> This applies only to Reuven. Shimon can 
          cancel the deal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a buyer gave coins to the seller, but 
               the buyer did not yet drag the merchandise, the 
               seller can retract the deal. (It is as if Shimon 
               acquired them, and Reuven did not do Meshichah to 
               take them back.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven despaired, he cannot continue to 
          keep the tithes as payment for the loan, since it is as 
          if the loan was lost.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is a Chidush when the grain withered after 
          having grown on the stalk, and he despaired;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that since it grew on the 
               stalk, it will surely grow, and his despair does not 
               take effect. The Beraisa teaches that this is not 
               so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF THE BORROWER DIED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> If Reuven lent money to 
          a Kohen or Levi in Beis Din, and the Kohen or Levi died, 
          Reuven may continue to keep Terumah or Ma'aser and deduct 
          their value from the loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It is as if the deal continues with other Kohanim or 
               Leviyim (Rashi - the borrower's heirs).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he lent to Shimon (an Oni), and Shimon died, Reuven 
          may continue to keep Ma'aser Oni and deduct its value 
          from the loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We consider it as if other Aniyim of Yisrael agree 
               to continue the deal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Achai says, we consider it as if other Aniyim of 
               the world agree to continue the deal.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the difference between the two 
               opinions?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN INVOLUNTARY FULFILLMENT OF A CONDITION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses situations in which a man gives a Get to his wife and states that it should take effect only if a certain condition is fulfilled. The husband then fulfills that condition involuntarily, with no intention to do so. 
</p><p>
The Gemara first mentions a case in which a man gave a Get to his wife and stated that it should take effect only if he does not return within thirty days. At the end of thirty days, when he attempted to return he became stranded on the other side of the river because the river ferry did not arrive. He yelled from across the river that he had returned. Shmuel ruled that the Get takes effect because the husband indeed did not return within thirty days and thus the condition was fulfilled. Although his lack of return (the fulfillment of the condition) occurred involuntarily, against his will, there is a principle that 'Ein Ones b'Gitin,' the involuntary fulfillment of a condition is considered fulfillment of the condition with regard to a Get (in a case where it is common for a person to be detained in such a manner; see Rashi).
</p><p>
The Gemara relates another incident involving a man and wife who became involved in a quarrel. The man gave a Get to his wife and stated that it should take effect only on condition that he does not appease her within thirty days. He attempted to make peace with her, but she was unwilling to be appeased. The Gemara says that if the Halachah is 'Ein Ones b'Gitin,' the Get should take effect because the condition (of not appeasing his wife) was fulfilled, albeit involuntarily. Although it was not his fault that he was unable to fulfill the condition, the Get nevertheless takes effect because 'Ein Ones b'Gitin.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> writes that in the second case, the husband gave the Get on condition that if he does not appease his wife within thirty days, it should take effect <i>retroactively</i> from the time he gave it to her. How does Rashi know that the husband stipulated that the Get should take effect <i>retroactively</i> if the condition is fulfilled? Perhaps the husband meant only that it should take effect after thirty days have passed. Moreover, even if Rashi has some source that the husband intended that the Get should take effect retroactively, why does Rashi not give the same explanation in the first case of the Gemara? In the case of a husband who gives a Get to his wife and states that it should take effect only if he does not return within thirty days, Rashi should explain that the Get takes effect retroactively if the husband does not return within thirty days. (<b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara later (34a) asks an obvious question on the law in the case of the man who could not cross the river to return to his wife within thirty days: Why is the husband unable to annul the Get by simply saying that 'the Get is hereby annulled'? Since the husband clearly does not want the Get to take effect (after all, he is yelling that he has returned), and since the Get has not yet taken effect, it should be within the ability of the husband to annul the Get so that it not take effect.
</p><p>
The Gemara there answers that if the husband would say explicitly that he annuls the Get, indeed it would be annulled. In this case, the husband attempted to make the Get ineffective by claiming that he did not fulfill the condition (of not returning within thirty days). He was mistaken in that regard, and he has no claim to invalidate the Get for that reason.
</p><p>
However, the same question may be asked on the law in the second case the Gemara mentions. In the case of the husband who failed to appease his wife, why does the Gemara rule that the Get takes effect? The Beis Din should have told the husband to go and annul the Get as soon as he saw that he was unable to appease his wife. In that case, the husband was not trying to claim that the Get should be invalid only because he did not fulfill the condition.
</p><p>
Rashi therefore explains that the Get in the second case was written to take effect retroactively. Accordingly, the husband did not have the ability to annul it since, when it takes effect, it takes effect from the time he gave it (which was long before his attempt to annul it).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They argue about whether or not we may rely 
               on poor Kusim of the city. (R. Eliezer ben Yakov 
               forbids, for he holds that their conversion was 
               invalid. R. Achai permits, for he holds that their 
               conversion was valid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If Shimon became rich, Reuven may no longer keep the 
          tithes. Shimon need not pay back the remainder of the 
          loan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Chachamim enacted that Reuven can continue 
          keeping tithes if Shimon died. Why didn't they enact 
          similarly, in case he becomes rich?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Death is common. An Oni rarely becomes rich.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> This is like people say, if you hear 
               about a death, believe it. If you hear that one 
               became rich, do not believe it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he hears that Shimon died, he must ask 
          Shimon's heirs for permission to continue the deal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses heirs who 
          inherited.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Are there heirs who do not inherit?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> He means that they inherited 
               land, not (only) money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yonason):</font></b> Reuven can withhold tithes only up to the 
          value of the land that Shimon left over.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even if Shimon left over land the size of 
          a needle, Reuven may withhold the full balance of the 
          loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like we learned from a ruling of Abaye, that 
               one may repeatedly collect (parts of) a debt from 
               the same piece of land. (Therefore, any debt can be 
               collected from even a tiny piece of land.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>A YISRAEL HOLDING 'MA'ASER'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven (a Yisrael) told Shimon (a Levi) 'I 
          have Ma'aser of yours' we are not concerned for the 
          Terumas Ma'aser contained inside;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'I have one Kor of Ma'aser of yours', we 
               are concerned for the Terumas Ma'aser inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> If Reuven tells Shimon 'I have Ma'aser 
          of yours. Let me buy it (and Reuven gives him money)', we 
          are not concerned lest Shimon declared the Ma'aser to be 
          Terumas Ma'aser to exempt other Ma'aser of Shimon;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'I have one Kor of Ma'aser of yours. Let 
               me buy it', we are concerned lest Shimon declared 
               the Ma'aser to be Terumas Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Does the Beraisa discuss Resha'im, i.e. that 
          Shimon would take the money after he declared the Ma'aser 
          to be Terumas Ma'aser (and it must be given to a Kohen)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Mesharshiya brei d'Rav Idi):</font></b> If Reuven 
          tells Shimon 'I have Ma'aser of your father. Let me buy 
          it', we are not concerned lest Shimon's father declared 
          the Ma'aser to be Terumas Ma'aser to exempt other 
          Ma'aser;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'I have one Kor of Ma'aser of your 
               father, let me buy it', we are concerned lest 
               Shimon's father declared the Ma'aser to be Terumas 
               Ma'aser.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> We do not suspect Chaverim (trustworthy 
          people) to separate Terumah not near the produce being 
          exempted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If Reuven tells Shimon 'my father 
          told me that he has Ma'aser of yours or of your father', 
          we are concerned that Terumas Ma'aser has not been 
          separated from it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he said 'my father told me that he has one Kor of 
               Ma'aser of yours or of your father', we assume that 
               Terumas Ma'aser has been separated;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since the quantity was known, Reuven's father 
               certainly tithed it so it will be permitted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> May a Yisrael separate Terumas Ma'aser?! (The 
          Ma'aser is not his!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! The Beraisa is like Aba Elazar ben Gamla:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Aba Elazar ben Gamla):</font></b> 'Your Terumos will 
               be considered to you' - the verse discusses two 
               Terumos, Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Just like Terumah Gedolah is separated by estimation 
               and by thought alone, also Terumas Ma'aser;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Just like a landowner may separate Terumah Gedolah 
               on his own produce, he may also separate Terumas 
               Ma'aser
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO COLLECTS A DEBT FROM A POOR PERSON BY KEEPING 'MA'ASER ANI'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa records a dispute about the law in the case of a person who keeps the Ma'aser Ani he separated from his produce as payment for a loan that he made to a poor person in the presence of Beis Din. The Tana Kama rules that he must separate Ma'aser from his produce 'b'Chezkas Aniyei Yisrael (Jewish poor people)' and then he may keep it for himself. Rebbi Achi disagrees and rules that he must separate it 'b'Chezkas Aniyei Olam (the poor people of the world).' The Gemara explains that the practical difference between the two opinions is whether one may separate the Ma'aser for poor Kusim or whether he must separate it only for poor Jews.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (Aniyei Kusim) explains that according to the Tana Kama, if there are no poor Jews in the city but only poor Kusim, one may not separate the Ma'aser Ani for the Kusim because they are not considered Jews and are not entitled to Ma'aser Ani. Rather, he should separate the Ma'aser Ani for the Jewish poor wherever they might be.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ika Beinaihu) disagrees with Rashi. He asks that according to Rashi, what practical difference is the Gemara expressing? According to Rashi, even if there are only Kusim in the city, the Ma'aser Ani still is fit for poor Jews elsewhere in the world, and thus even the Tana Kama agrees that the owner could separate, and collect his loan from, Ma'aser Ani in a place where there are only poor Kusim and no poor Jews.
</p><p>
Tosfos' question may be expressed in a more basic manner. According to Rashi, why does the person need to separate Ma'aser Ani for the sake of ('b'Chezkas') <i>any</i> Aniyim altogether? The Beraisa cannot mean that <i>every</i> time a person separates Ma'aser Ani, he must separate it 'b'Chezkas Aniyei Yisrael' according to the Tana Kama, because if that were so the Beraisa would not have taught this requirement with regard to the specific case of the repayment of a loan, but it would have taught this requirement with regard to all cases of separating Ma'aser Ani. Accordingly, even when a person collects his loan from Ma'aser Ani, he simply should separate Ma'aser Ani and it will automatically become the property of Aniyim, and then he may collect it as payment for his loan because of the enactment of Beis Din (see Rashi, DH 30a DH Eino Tzarich).
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The enactment of Beis Din, as Rashi explains, makes all of the Aniyim in the world responsible for the loan of every other Ani, since it is in their best interest that people be interested in loaning them money with the knowledge that they may collect the loan from Ma'aser Ani. Therefore, the lender has the right to collect his loan from the collective money of the Aniyim, even though he did not lend money to them collectively.
</p><p>
However, there is another factor involved when one collects Ma'aser Ani as repayment for a loan before he actually gives the Ma'aser Ani to an Ani. As Rashi explains (30a, DH v'Af Al Gav), besides the monetary issue there is a Halachic issue: the Torah requires that a person do an act of 'Nesinah' (giving) and <i>give</i> his Terumah to a Kohen and his Ma'aser Ani to a poor person. If he keeps the Ma'aser Ani for himself as repayment for his loan, he does not fulfill the act of giving it to an Ani (even if he is entitled to keep it for himself).
</p><p>
In the case of a landowner who lent money to an Ani outside of Beis Din, when the owner transfers ownership of the Ma'aser Ani to an Ani by way of a third party ('Mezakeh Al Yedei Acher'), by way of 'Makarei Kehunah,' or by ay of 'Asah she'Einah Zocheh k'Zocheh,' he not only gains the monetary right to collect his debt from Ma'aser Ani, he also fulfills the Mitzvah of Nesinah, since the Ani acquired the Ma'aser Ani before the owner claimed it as repayment for his loan. However, in a case in which the owner keeps for himself the Ma'aser Ani for a loan made in front of Beis Din, the Gemara does not specify that the owner must be Mezakeh the rights to the Ma'aser Ani to any particular person before he retains it as payment for the loan. In such a case, how does he fulfill the Mitzvah of Nesinah?
</p><p>
Because of this question, Rashi explains that when the Beraisa states that he must separate the Ma'aser Ani 'b'Chezkas Aniyim' (or separate Terumah 'b'Chezkas Shevet Levi'), it means that he must indeed be Mezakeh the Ma'aser Ani to Aniyim before he collects it for his loan, even though the loan was made in front of Beis Din. When Rashi writes that the owner separates the Ma'aser for the needs of the Aniyim of the city, he means that the owner must be Mezakeh to them 'Al Yedei Acher,' or they must be 'Makarei Kehunah,' or that he must designate them to be the ones who are 'she'Eino Zocheh k'Zocheh.' Support for this understanding is found in Rashi earlier (30a, DH Oso ha'Shevet), where Rashi explains that when a person lends money to a Kohen or Levi in front of Beis Din and the borrower dies, the lender separates Terumah or Ma'aser for the closest Kohen- or Levi-relative of the borrower. He does not simply collect from the Terumah or Ma'aser without first specifying to whom the Terumah or Ma'aser belongs.
</p><p>
This approach also answers the question of Tosfos, who asks that according to Rashi the practical difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Achi exists where a person separates Ma'aser Ani for Aniyim who are Kusim. According to the Tana Kama, he has not collected properly from the Ma'aser Ani. Tosfos, however, maintains that when one loans to an Ani in front of Beis Din, he is not required to be Mezakeh the Ma'aser to the Ani before he collects his loan from it; the Rabanan exempted him even from the Mitzvah of Nesinah. (<b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>)
</p><p>
However, according to this explanation, why does Rashi not state explicitly that the practical difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Achi is that according to the Tana Kama, one who separates Ma'aser for Aniyei Kusim may <i>not</i> collect the loan from the Ma'aser? Why does Rashi write that the practical difference is that where there are no Jewish Aniyim in the city, one must separate Ma'aser Ani for outsiders instead of for local Aniyim (Kusim)?
</p><p>
The answer might be that even when a person separates Ma'aser Ani for a Kusi, the Kusi does not become the owner of the Ma'aser Ani since a Kusi has no rights to receive (and own) Ma'aser Ani (according to the Tana Kama who maintains 'Gerei Arayos Hem'). The Ma'aser cannot become the property of the Kusi through 'Makarim' or through 'Asu she'Eino Zocheh k'Zocheh,' or even through 'Mezakeh Al Yedei Acher' (since the Torah prohibits one from giving Ma'aser Ani to a Kusi who is an Ani). The Ma'aser Ani still belongs to the Aniyim of Yisrael, and therefore the owner <i>may</i> collect from it in accordance with the Takanas Chachamim. The only thing he has done wrong is that he has forfeited the Mitzvah of Nesinah, since he did not give the Ma'aser Ani to an Ani before he collected from it. This is why Rashi explains that the practical difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Achi involves only how to separate the Ma'aser Ani <i>l'Chatchilah</i> before collecting from it.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) MA'ASER OF A LEVI IN THE HANDS OF A YISRAEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that if a Yisrael tells a Levi that he is holding Ma'aser on behalf of the Levi and he wishes to purchase it from the Levi, and he pays the Levi for it, the Yisrael may use the Ma'aser for his own personal use. He does not have to be concerned that the Levi made it into Terumas Ma'aser (after the sale) and may be eaten only by Kohanim.
</p><p>
However, if the Yisrael tells the Levi how much Ma'aser he is holding for him and then he purchases it, he may not eat the Ma'aser. He must take into account the possibility that the Levi made it Terumas Ma'aser. <b>RASHI</b> explains that the concern is that the Levi made it into Terumas Ma'aser after the sale.
</p><p>
How can the Levi make the produce into Terumas Ma'aser after he sells it? After he sells it, he no longer has any rights over it! Rashi explains that the sale was not binding since the Yisrael cannot acquire it from the Levi before the Levi himself acquires it through Meshichah or some other formal act of Kinyan. However, this explanation seems self-contradictory. If the Levi did not yet formally acquire the Ma'aser, then just as he cannot sell it to the Yisrael, he also cannot make it into Terumas Ma'aser!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RAMBAN</b> explains in the name of the Yerushalmi that when the Yisrael tells the Levi that he is holding Ma'aser on behalf of the Levi, it is as if he gives the Levi permission to use that Ma'aser for separating Terumas Ma'aser. The <b>RASHBA</b> adds that since one who promises to give his friend a small gift (Matanah Mu'etes) may not retract it (Bava Metzia 49a), from the moment that a Yisrael says that he is going to give the Tovas Hana'ah to the Levi (i.e. he is going to use his right of Tovas Hana'ah to give the Ma'aser to this specific Levi), it is as if he has given permission to the Levi to separate Terumas Ma'aser (because we assume that the Levi eventually will receive this Ma'aser, as Rashi there writes in DH Mishum Hachi).
</p><p>
The Acharonim ask, however, that aside from the issue of ownership of Ma'aser (i.e. the Ma'aser must be given to Leviyim because it is the property of Shevet Levi), there is also a Mitzvah d'Oraisa for a Yisrael to <i>give</i> ('Nesinah') the Ma'aser to a specific Levi (as mentioned in the previous Insight). When the Yisrael merely promises to give the Levi this Ma'aser but has not yet given it, how has he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Nesinah? When the Levi separates Terumas Ma'aser from that Ma'aser, he is merely utilizing the owner's permission to separate Terumas Ma'aser from what still belongs to the owner; the Levi himself, though, has not yet received the Ma'aser!
</p><p>
1. The <b>BI'UR</b> on the <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> suggests that the Yisrael indeed does not fulfill the Mitzvah of Nesinah in this situation. 
</p><p>
</p><center><font color='ff0000'><b>2.</b></font></center><p> The <b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES GITIN</b> suggests that as long as the owner gives the Levi the right to use the Ma'aser, he is considered to have performed Nesinah. The Levi does not actually have to own the Ma'aser. (According to this logic, when a person retains Ma'aser as payment for a loan made to a Levi, he should also fulfill the Mitzvah of Nesinah since the Levi benefits from it by paying off his debt with that Ma'aser. However, this is not consistent with the explanation given in the previous Insight with regard to a person who lends money to an Ani in front of Beis Din.)
</p><p>
3. Perhaps the question is not a question in the first place. The Yisrael, who now has Terumas Ma'aser in his possession, <i>still</i> can give the Ma'aser to the Levi even after the Levi has made it into Terumas Ma'aser (and he may allow the Levi to give it then to the Kohen of his choice) and he thereby fulfills the Mitzvah of Nesinah. (Perhaps he fulfills the Mitzvah of Nesinah even by giving it <i>directly</i> to a Kohen at the Levi's request, through the mechanism of 'Arev'; see Kidushin 7a.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>LEAVING PRODUCE FROM WHICH TO TAKE TITHES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If one designated produce or money, intending 
          that he can declare some of this produce (or money) to be 
          Terumah or Ma'aser (or the redemption of Ma'aser Sheni) 
          when he wants, he may do so. He may assume that the fruit 
          or money is intact.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar says, if he finds that the fruit or money was 
          lost, he must be concerned for 24 hours (if he relied on 
          it to tithe or redeem produce or Ma'aser Sheni, perhaps 
          the fruit or money was already lost, and the tithing or 
          redemption was invalid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we must check wine (from which we want 
          to declare tithes) at three times to ensure that it has 
          not spoiled - when the east wind blows after Sukos; when 
          unripe grapes appear on the vines; when unripe grapes 
          start filling up with liquid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> For which 24 hours (are we concerned)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> We are concerned for the last 24 
          hours before checking and finding that the fruit or money 
          was lost.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar ben Antigonus):</font></b> For the 24 hours 
          after designating the fruit or money (we assume that it 
          was intact. After that, we are in doubt.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF TERUMAH GEDOLAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Aba Elazar ben Gamla states that from the verse's comparison of the laws of Terumah Gedolah with the laws of Terumas Ma'aser, we derive that just as Terumah Gedolah may be separated by estimating the amount (one-fiftieth) which one must separate, so, too, Terumas Ma'aser (one-tenth) may be separated by estimate , and one is not required to make an exact measurement.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the one-fiftieth of one's produce which the Rabanan required to be separated as Terumah Gedolah may be separated based on an estimate, because even if one mistakenly separates too little he still fulfills the Torah requirement. The Torah requires that only a single grain of wheat be separated. 
</p><p>
Aba Elazar ben Gamla's teaching is difficult to understand. He derives from the verse the Torah law that one may rely on an estimate when one separates Terumah Gedolah. However, if, as Rashi explains, mid'Oraisa even one grain of wheat suffices for Terumah Gedolah, there is no basis for estimating the Shi'ur of Terumah Gedolah, as there is no minimum Shi'ur that must be estimated! Why does he say that 'just as the Torah permits estimating for Terumah Gedolah, it permits estimating for Terumas Ma'aser'? Terumah Gedolah has no Shi'ur, and thus estimating is irrelevant, while Terumas Ma'aser, in contrast, has a minimum Shi'ur mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rashi seems to understand that mid'Oraisa, l'Chatchilah a person must separate a certain amount of his produce as Terumah, and it does not suffice to separate just one grain l'Chatchilah. Only b'Di'eved does a single grain exempt the rest of the produce. It is not logical that the Torah would permit one to separate a single grain l'Chatchilah as Terumah, because the purpose of Terumah is to provide sustenance for the Kohanim; if everyone would give the Kohanim only one grain, they would receive no significant form of sustenance. It must be that the Torah requires that a larger Shi'ur be separated l'Chatchilah, but since the Torah does not specify that Shi'ur, it must be that the Torah empowered the Chachamim with the authority to determine an appropriate Shi'ur. The Shi'ur which the Chachamim establish will be considered a Shi'ur mid'Oraisa. (See Chagigah 18a; <b>RAN</b> to Yoma 73a; <b>TOSFOS</b> to Yoma 79b, DH Lomar Lach.) Therefore, although it was the Chachamim who established that the Shi'ur of Terumah is one-fiftieth, that Shi'ur is considered a Shi'ur mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
(<b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> also question the usage of the word 'estimate' with regard to Terumah Gedolah. They suggest that the word 'estimate' does not apply to Terumah but only to Terumas Ma'aser, and Aba Elazar is merely deriving that just as one may add as much as he wants to Terumah Gedolah, he may add as much as he wants to Terumas Ma'aser. Rashi avoids their question by explaining that there is a Shi'ur mid'Oraisa for Terumah Gedolah, which one must separate l'Chatchilah.)
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> If he finds that the 
          fruit or money was lost, he must be concerned for 24 
          hours.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like the opinion that we are concerned for 
               the last 24 hours.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to R. Elazar ben Antigonus, it should say 
               that we are concerned until 24 hours after 
               designation!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This is left difficult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> This is the opinion of R. Elazar (ben 
          Shamu'a).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar (ben Pedas)):</font></b> Chachamim argue with R. Elazar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Mikveh was measured and found to be 
               deficient, any food that touched people or Kelim 
               that immersed in the Mikveh is retroactively Tamei.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is whether it is in a public or private domain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It is clear from the Mishnah that Chachamim 
          argue! Why did R. Elazar need to teach this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that Chachamim meant that 
          the foods are retroactively Tamei for 24 hours. R. Elazar 
          teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> At three times we check...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> (The Mishnah discusses) when the east wind 
          blows after Sukos, i.e. after the autumn equinox.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We sell grain at three times: 
          before seeding, at the time of seeding, and in the two 
          weeks before Pesach;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We sell wine at three times - in the two weeks 
               before Pesach, in the two weeks before Shavu'os, and 
               in the two weeks before Sukos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We sell oil after Shavu'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> For what law is this relevant?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> This is for partnerships (one partner may 
          sell at these times, even if the other partner does not 
          want to).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> After the last time, when are they sold?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> They are sold at any time.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WINDS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the meaning of 'an east wind 
          Charishis'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> When the east wind blows, it makes 
          furrows in the water (from the word Charishah (plowing)).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> This does not explain 'the sun shone 
          intensely on Yonah's head and he grew faint'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> When the east wind blows, it is 
          Macharish (silences) all the other winds (negates their 
          cooling effects).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Tachlifa bar Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Your clothing is 
          warm, when the land is silent from the south' - your 
          clothing is warm when the south wind has been silenced.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The east wind silences the other winds.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Huna and Rav Chisda were sitting; Geneiva passed by. 
          One of them suggested rising to honor him, for he is 
          learned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The other:</font></b> Should we stand up for one who instigates 
               arguments?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Geneiva):</font></b> Four winds blow every day. The north wind 
          accompanies all of them. If not for the north wind, the 
          world could not endure at all.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The east wind is the harshest. An angel called 
               'Netz' restrains it. If not, it would destroy the 
               entire world!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The east wind can make a woman miscarry.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It even causes pearls in the sea to rot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It even causes semen in the womb to spoil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> All three opinions learned 
          from 'it is Yafri (this will be explained) between 
          brothers; an east wind of Hash-m arises from the 
          wilderness and dries up the source...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'It dries up the source' refers to the womb;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'It destroys his spring' refers to semen in the 
               womb;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'It despoils a storehouse of cherished Kelim' refers 
               to pearls of the sea.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the meaning of 'it is Yafri'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> Even the handle of a shovel Rafya 
          (becomes soft, in the east wind).
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EAST WIND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It softens even a peg in the wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Acha bar Yakov):</font></b> It softens even a reed 
          woven into a wicker basket.
<b>PEREK HA'SHOLE'ACH</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS ONE WHO CANCELS A GET SINCERE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get to 
          Reuven's wife, and Reuven found Shimon and told him that 
          the Get is void, or Reuven sent Ploni to tell this to 
          Shimon, the Get is void;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If Reuven told his wife, himself or via a Shali'ach, that 
          the Get is void, it is void.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she already received the Get, Reuven cannot 
               invalidate it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  At first, a man who wanted to invalidate a Get would 
          assemble a Beis Din and tell them that it is void. R. 
          Gamliel enacted not to do so, for Tikun ha'Olam (for the 
          betterment of the world).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> The Mishnah does not say that Reuven caught up 
          to Shimon, rather, he chanced upon him. Still, we say 
          that the Get is Pasul; Reuven did not say this merely to 
          pain his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must the Mishnah also teach about when 
          Reuven sent Ploni to tell Shimon that the Get is void?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that the second Shali'ach 
          (to invalidate the Get) is no stronger than the first 
          Shali'ach, and the Get remains valid. We hear, this is 
          not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must the Mishnah teach about when Reuven 
          told his wife before she received it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that only when he tells 
          Shimon, then we say that the Get is truly void, but when 
          he tells his wife, surely he intends only to pain her, 
          not to invalidate it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We hear, this is not so (in either case it is void).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why must the Mishnah teach about when Reuven 
          sent a Shali'ach tell his wife?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that Reuven himself would 
          not toil to find his wife and tell her, just to pain her; 
          but he is not concerned for the exertion of a Shali'ach, 
          and would send a Shali'ach just to pain her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. (In either 
               case it is void.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she already received the Get, Reuven cannot 
          invalidate it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case is, we know that he was pursuing Shimon 
          to invalidate it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One might have thought that this reveals that 
               retroactively, the Get is void. The Mishnah teaches 
               that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPRESSIONS OF CANCELLING A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven said 'it is Batel (void)' or 'I do 
          not want it', his words take effect (he invalidates it). 
          If he said 'it is Pasul (invalid)' or 'it is not a Get', 
          his words have no effect. (This connotes it was already 
          Pasul; this is false.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> 'It is Batel' means that he invalidates it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah bar Avuha taught that if one received a 
          gift and then said 'the gift is Mevuteles (voided)' or 
          'it should be void' or 'I do not want it', his words do 
          not take effect. If he said 'it is Beteilah (void)' or 
          'it is not a gift', his words take effect!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that 'Batel' implies that it was void 
               from the beginning!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> 'Batel' can connote from the beginning, 
          or it should be void.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ANNULMENT OF A GET IN TRANSIT </b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah discusses a case in which a man appoints a Shali'ach to deliver a Get to his wife, and the Shali'ach is delayed. The husband meets the Shali'ach before the Shali'ach gives the Get to the woman, and he tells the Shali'ach that the Get is annulled. Alternatively, the husband rushes to his wife before the Shali'ach reaches her, and he tells his wife that the Get is annulled. In such a case, the Get indeed is annulled. Even if the Shali'ach hands the Get to the woman, she is not divorced.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the Mishnah does not need to teach that the Get is annulled when the husband runs after the Shali'ach to tell him that he annulled the Get. Rather, the Mishnah needs to teach that even when the husband meets with the Shali'ach unexpectedly and tells him that the Get is annulled, the Get indeed is annulled. One might have thought that in such a situation the Get is <i>not</i> annulled and that the husband merely intends 'to cause her pain' ('l'Tzi'urah Ka Mechaven') and he has no intent to annul the Get. The Mishnah teaches that he indeed intends to annul the Get.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that one might have thought that the husband simply wants to cause distress to his wife by delaying the Get for a month or two since, had he genuinely sought to annul the Get, he would have deliberately run after the Shali'ach to annul the Get (instead of annulling the Get when he coincidentally met up with the Shali'ach).
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> is puzzled by Rashi's words. What difference does it make if the husband simply wants to delay the Get for a month or two, or if he wants to annul the Get completely? Even if he merely wants to delay the Get for a month or two, at the end of that time the Get cannot be given unless the husband re-appoints the Shali'ach to give the Get! Hence, even if the husband intends to cause pain to his wife, he <i>also</i> intends to annul the Get because, effectively, there is no difference between annulling the Get completely and delaying it for a few months. In either case, the Get cannot be given until the husband re-appoints the Shali'ach. Why, then, according to Rashi, would one have thought that the Get is not annulled because the husband did not run after the Shali'ach?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> first suggests that Rashi might understand that the Gemara here follows the view of Rav Sheshes (32b) who maintains that when a man annuls the Get he sent to his wife, he cannot re-use it later to divorce her -- 'Eino Chozer u'Megaresh Bo.' One might have thought that the husband simply intends to cause pain to his wife and he does not intend to annul the Get, and, therefore, the <i>same</i> Get may be re-used later when the husband changes his mind and decides to divorce her. The Mishnah therefore teaches that the Get indeed is annulled and cannot be re-used.
</p><p>
However, as the Rashba asks, the Gemara there explicitly rules that one <i>may</i> re-use a Get after it was annulled! It is unlikely that Rashi would explain the Mishnah here according to the non-Halachic opinion.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (on Mishnayos) suggests a number of differences between a case in which the husband intends to give the Get later and a case in which he intends to annul the Get entirely. He points out that if the husband intends to delay the giving of the Get for a few months, he has not retracted the appointment of the Shali'ach. The Shali'ach is still his appointee, but he merely does not know it at the time and must wait for explicit permission from the husband to give the Get.
</p><p>
This difference has a number of Halachic implications, including several leniencies in cases where the husband intends only to delay the giving of the Get. One leniency is that, normally, the husband must appoint his Shali'ach in the presence of witnesses. In the case of the Mishnah, since the Shali'ach was already appointed in the presence of witnesses and the Shelichus was never annulled (since the husband's intention was to delay the Get), the husband may tell the Shali'ach at a later date to deliver the Get without formally appointing him again as a Shali'ach. Another leniency is in a case where -- after the husband tells the Shali'ach not to deliver the Get -- the Shali'ach gives the Get to another person and tells him that 'if the husband ever asks me again at a later time to deliver the Get, I want you to deliver it for me.' If the husband does not annul the original Shelichus but merely delays the giving of the Get, then the second Shali'ach may give the Get to the woman. However, if the husband annuls the Shelichus entirely, then the second Shali'ach has no authority to deliver the Get since he was not appointed as a Shali'ach by the husband.
</p><p>
A question may be asked on both the explanation of the Rashba and that of Rebbi Akiva Eiger. Rashi writes that what makes us assume that the husband does not want to annul the Get but merely to delay it for a few months is the fact that he did not deliberately pursue the Shali'ach, but he simply met up with him by chance. If he had intended to annul the Get, he should have annulled the Shelichus of the Shali'ach. According to the Rashba's and Rebbi Akiva Eiger's understanding of Rashi, even when the husband does not want to annul the Get, he also does not want the Get to be given for another few months, and thus he still should have run after the Shali'ach to tell him not to give the Get for another few months.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TORAS GITIN</b> explains that Rashi does not mean to say that the husband wants the Get to take effect if it is delivered now. Rather, the husband simply wants to cause the Shali'ach (and the woman) uncertainty and doubt as to whether the Get took effect or not. Since he did not run after the Shali'ach, one might assume that he did not truly intend to annul the Get, but rather he wanted the Get to take effect when it is delivered, and he merely wanted to cause the woman to be uncertain about whether or not the Get took effect at the moment she received it and to refrain from getting remarried, out of doubt, for a few months. If the husband had intended <i>never</i> to tell the woman whether or not the Get took effect, then he would have simply annulled the Get since, anyway, he is effectively preventing her from getting married with this Get.
</p><p>
Rashi therefore writes that the husband intends to notify his wife, after a few months, that the Get took effect, and he wants the Shali'ach to deliver the Get now. He just wants the woman to remain in a state of confusion.
</p><p>
The Rashba explains the Gemara differently. The Rashba is not satisfied with the explanation that the husband wants the Get to be delivered even though the Shali'ach does not know that he wants it delivered. If the Shali'ach thinks that the husband does not want it delivered, he will not deliver the Get in the first place, and thus the husband effectively has annulled the Get! The Rashba explains instead that the husband was simply trying to surprise the Shali'ach momentarily, but after thinking about it the Shali'ach and the wife will immediately understand that the husband did not intend to retract the Get.
</p><p>
In what way does this pain the wife if, by the time she receives the Get, she knows that she is divorced and may remarry? The Rashba emends the Girsa in the Gemara to '<i>l'Tze'urei</i> Ka Mechaven' -- the husband intends to pain <i>him</i>, the <i>Shali'ach</i>, for delaying the delivery of the Get so long that the husband happened to meet him (see Rashi DH v'Afilu).
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Get, he means the latter, for this works 
               (to stop the divorce). Regarding a gift, he means 
               the former, for that works (to undo the gift).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> A Shali'ach to give a gift is like a Shali'ach 
          to give a Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This teaches that if the sender says 'Holech (bring)', he 
          does not mean that the Shali'ach should acquire on behalf 
          of the recipient.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> If the husband says only 'Batel' 
          (without 'it is'), what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Sheshes, or a Beraisa):</font></b> If one said 'this Get will 
          not work', or 'it will not permit/abandon/send/or 
          divorce', or 'it should be a shard' or 'like a shard 
          (i.e. worthless)', he words take effect;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  If he said 'this Get does not work', 'it does not 
          permit/abandon/send/or divorce', or 'it is a shard/like a 
          shard', his words do not take effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he said 'behold, it is a shard', what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> This is like 'behold, this is Hekdesh or 
          Hefker' (now he makes it Hefker or Hekdesh. Similarly, 
          now he makes the Get like a shard, and this takes 
          effect.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW DOES BITUL WORK?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Reuven appointed Shimon to give a Get, and 
          cancelled it, can Reuven later use the Get?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Yes, he can.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> He cannot.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Rav Nachman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan said that if a woman accepted 
          Kidushin to take effect after 30 days, she can retract. 
          The Halachah follows R. Yochanan! (Here also, the Get 
          should become void!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, her initial acceptance was mere words, so 
          her latter words nullify her initial words;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, the husband nullifies the appointment of the 
               Shali'ach. A Get itself (which is more than mere 
               words) does not become void!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> At first, a man would assemble a Beis Din (to 
          nullify a Get).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> In front of how many men must he nullify it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> It must be in front of (at 
          least) two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> It must be in front of three.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes says three, because the Mishnah says 
               that he would assemble a Beis Din.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman holds that two people are also 
               considered a Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> 'I hand over (my loans) 
          to you judges, Ploni and Ploni (the judges on a Beis Din 
          for Pruzbul).
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MANY MEN MAKE A BEIS DIN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Tana is not a peddler, who 
          announces everything that he has! (The Tana did not 
          bother to allude to the third judge.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> The judges sign below, 
          or the witnesses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah equates the judges to the 
               witnesses. Just like two witnesses suffice, also two 
               judges suffice.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The Mishnah does not equate 
          them. The law of each is different.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah mention both witnesses and 
          judges?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This teaches that that even if the text of the 
          Pruzbul mentions judges, and they sign below like 
          witnesses, or vice-versa, it is valid.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CANCELLING A SHALI'ACH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> For Tikun ha'Olam...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is so Mamzerim will not 
          result.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> It is so women will not be 
          Agunos (unable to remarry, if the husband can easily 
          nullify a Get he sent).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan holds like Rav Nachman, that he 
               nullifies in front of two. Therefore, news of the 
               Bitul does not spread. She will remarry, unaware 
               that her Get was void, and her children will be 
               Mamzerim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Reish Lakish holds like Rav Sheshes, that he 
               nullifies in front of three. Therefore, word of the 
               Bitul spreads, and she will not remarry. The only 
               problem is Igun.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If the husband nullified the Get in 
          front of a Beis Din, it is void;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he cannot nullify it or make 
          new Tanayim. If he could, Beis Din's enactments would be 
          weak!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Can it be that mid'Oraisa she is married, and 
          we permit her to remarry because we are concerned for the 
          strength of Beis Din?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! Anyone who is Mekadesh a woman does so 
          according to the will of Chachamim. Chachamim said that 
          if one annuls a Get in front of Beis Din, the Kidushin is 
          void!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> This is reasonable if he was Mekadesh 
          her with money. (It turns out that the money was a gift.) 
          If he Mekudeshes her through Bi'ah, how can Chachamim say 
          that she is not Mekudeshes?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Bi'ah was Zenus (extramarital 
          relations).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If Reuven told 10 people to write a 
          Get to his wife, he can cancel the appointment of any of 
          them individually;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can only cancel their 
          appointment when they are all together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> They argue about whether or not a testimony 
          (in our case - appointment) that is partially cancelled 
          is totally cancelled.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE AUTHORITY OF THE RABANAN TO UPROOT A MARRIAGE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that the Rabanan have the authority, in certain situations, to end a marriage by uprooting the Kidushin retroactively. The Gemara here discusses the case of a man who sends a Get to his wife and then annuls the Get after the Shali'ach has departed, without informing the Shali'ach of the annulment. Although the Get is not valid when the Shali'ach gives it to the woman, the Rabanan instituted that the Get takes effect. What authority do the Rabanan have to make the Get valid when, mid'Oraisa, it is not valid? The Gemara explains that the Rabanan utilized their authority to uproot the Kidushin (retroactively) -- 'Afke'inhu Rabanan l'Kidushei Minei.'
</p><p>
(Another case is described in Kesuvos 3a: a man gives a Get to his wife on condition that he does not return from abroad, and then circumstances beyond his control prevent his return. Although mid'Oraisa the Get is not valid (since a fulfillment of a condition against one's will is not considered a fulfillment of the condition), the Rabanan instituted that the Get takes effect (for the reasons the Gemara there describes).)
</p><p>
How does this mechanism of uprooting the Kidushin work? When the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin, is it considered as though the man and woman were never married? If it indeed works this way, it should be possible to remove the status of a Mamzer from a child born to a married woman through rape or an adulterous relationship. By uprooting the Kidushin retroactively (such as by having her husband send her a Get with a Shali'ach and then annul the Get), the child's status as a Mamzer should be able to be removed. In the same manner, a man should be able to save his wife from being punished with Misah when she willfully committed adultery. (<b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Afke'inhu)
</p><p>
Furthermore, the <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> points out that if the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin retroactively, if the brother of the husband later marries the woman (who is forbidden to him as 'Eshes Achiv'), the Kidushin should take effect mid'Oraisa (and she should require a Get if she wants to leave him) since she is not his 'Eshes Achiv.' Is this indeed the Halachah?
</p><p>
Another question is that if the Rabanan are able to remove Kidushin in such a manner, then why do they not use it in a broader context -- such as to permit Agunos to remarry? For example, in a case in which a husband drowns at sea ('Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof') and there is no positive testimony that he is dead, the Halachah is that his wife may never remarry. The Rabanan should permit her to remarry by exercising their authority to uproot the Kidushin retroactively! (See also Insights to Kesuvos 3:1.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that it is true that where the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin, a child who is a Mamzer due to the presence of the Kidushin becomes legitimate, and the woman becomes exempt from punishment for committing adultery (and, presumably, if she marries the brother of her husband, the Kidushin with him will take effect). However, a person cannot intentionally take advantage of this power of the Rabanan to correct the status of a Mamzer. In such a case -- where a man intentionally sends a Get to his wife with a Shali'ach and then annuls the Get in order to save his wife from punishment or to make his wife's illegitimate children legitimate -- the Rabanan do <i>not</i> uproot the Kidushin. They uproot the Kidushin only when a man annuls the Get innocently, with no ulterior motives.
</p><p>
Why do the Rabanan not exercise their authority to uproot Kidushin in order to permit Agunos to remarry? The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the Rabanan exercise this power only where there is some form of Get that was already given. Although the Get itself is not valid, the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin based on the giving of that Get.
</p><p>
This also seems to be the intention of <b>RASHI</b> here who repeatedly writes that the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin 'when a Get is given.' (Rashi in Shabbos (155b) writes that the reason the Rabanan permitted a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness is because of the principle of 'Afke'inhu.' Here, Rashi explains why the Rabanan do not apply 'Afke'inhu' to permit Agunos in other situations. Rashi is explaining that in the case of a single witness who testifies that the husband died, there is at least some sort of testimony that he died, and thus there is a basis for the Rabanan to uproot the Kidushin. According to Rashi, wherever there is some form of Get or some form of testimony of death, the Rabanan may apply 'Afke'inhu.')
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RE'AH</b> write that although the Rabanan uprooted the Kidushin d'Oraisa, they nevertheless established in its place a Kidushin d'Rabanan. Therefore, the child born to the woman from another man will still be a Mamzer d'Rabanan, and the relatives of the husband will be prohibited to the woman mid'Rabanan. Similarly, she will be prohibited mid'Rabanan to marry a Kohen.
</p><p>
(c) The Rishonim here (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>) and in Kesuvos (3a) quote the <b>RASHBAM</b> (see also <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> here) who suggests that when a condition of the Get is fulfilled against the husband's will, and when a husband annuls a Get after having sent it with a Shali'ach, the Kidushin is not uprooted retroactively, but rather it is uprooted <i>from now on</i> -- 'mi'Kan ul'Haba.' (See also <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> who quotes the words of the Rashbam as found in a marginal note in a manuscript of Rashi's commentary.) 
</p><p>
The Rashbam explains that the Gemara means that the Rabanan have the right to uproot the Kidushin retroactively, and if they do so, all of the Be'ilos retroactively become Be'ilos of Z'nus. Since nobody wants his Be'ilos to become Be'ilos Z'nus, when he gives a Get with a condition he has in mind that even if the condition is fulfilled later against his will he still wants the Get to be valid. Similarly, when a man annuls a Get, since he knows that the Rabanan will make his Be'ilos into Be'ilos Z'nus if the Get is annulled, he does not really want to annul the Get.
</p><p>
The Ramban asks that according to this understanding, in a case in which a woman is only betrothed (with Erusin) and her husband gives her a Get on condition or annuls a Get that he sent with a Shali'ach, the Kidushin <i>should</i> be uprooted retroactively since the man has not had relations with his wife and thus has no fear that his Be'ilos will be made into Be'ilos Z'nus. The Ramban answers that even though there was no Be'ilah, the husband has in mind that the Get should take effect even if the condition is fulfilled against his will, because he knows that his intention will not prevent the Get from taking effect (since the Kidushin will still be uprooted against his will). Therefore, he intends for the Get to take effect under any circumstance.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI</b> cites a fourth explanation in the name of 'all of my teachers.' This explanation is found in <b>PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM</b> to Bava Basra (48b). He explains that all Kidushin nowadays is only mid'Rabanan in any case, and that is why the Rabanan are able to uproot it from now on. Rabeinu Gershom asserts that Kidushei Kesef (and Kidushei Shtar) are mid'Rabanan, while Kidushei Bi'ah -- which is mid'Oraisa -- cannot make a Kidushin d'Oraisa nowadays since the Rabanan prohibited one from being Mekadesh a woman with Bi'ah (Kidushin 12b). The Rabanan went further and said that since everyone is 'Mekadesh Al Da'as d'Rabanan,' no act of Kidushei Bi'ah works mid'Oraisa nowadays (it makes only a Kidushin d'Rabanan).
</p><p>
(Once the Rabanan instituted that one may be Mekadesh a woman with Kidushei Kesef, it became an act of effrontery to be Mekadesh a woman with Bi'ah. Therefore, when the Rabanan instituted Kidushei Kesef, they also instituted that a person may not be Mekadesh with Bi'ah and they annulled that form of Kidushin, based on the premise that when a person gets married he does so according to the will of the Rabanan.)
</p><p>
Rashi and the other Rishonim challenge the explanation of Rabeinu Gershom.
</p><p>
1. Rabeinu Gershom's assertion that Kidushei Kesef and Kidushei Shtar are mid'Rabanan contradicts the Gemara (Kidushin 2a) which clearly derives Kidushei Kesef from a Gezeirah Shavah in the Torah.
</p><p>
Apparently, Rabeinu Gershom understands that the Gezeirah Shavah is not an actual Gezeirah Shavah mid'Oraisa, but only an Asmachta. (The same applies to Kidushei Shtar, which is derived through a comparison with Get (Kidushin 9b). Rabeinu Gershom understands that comparison as only an Asmachta.)
</p><p>
2. Rashi asks that a Ne'arah Me'urasah is defined as a woman who was assumed to be a Besulah at the time of the Nisu'in but was found to have had relations with another man while she was an Arusah. The Torah punishes such a woman with Sekilah. How can the Torah consider her to be a Besulah at the time of Nisu'in if, mid'Oraisa, there is no such thing as Kidushei Kesef or Kidushei Shtar? The only way she could have become an Arusah mid'Oraisa is through Kidushei Bi'ah, in which case she would not be a Besulah and thus it is not possible for there to be a case of Ne'arah Me'urasah!
</p><p>
Rabeinu Gershom apparently is not bothered by this question because he understands that the Kidushin mid'Oraisa could be done with an act of Bi'ah <i>she'Lo k'Darkah</i>. Such a Bi'ah serves to make the woman an Arusah, but it does not make her a Be'ulah and she remains a Besulah. (See at length the Gemara in Kidushin 9b. Although the Gemara there rejects this possibility, perhaps Rabeinu Gershom understands that the Sugyos are arguing.)
</p><p>
Rabeinu Gershom apparently was not bothered by this question, because we could say that the Kidushin was done with a Bi'ah <i>she'Lo k'Darkah</i>. Such a Bi'ah serves to make the woman an Arusah, but it does not make her a Be'ulah and she remains a Besulah. (See in full the Gemara in Kidushin 9b. Even though the Gemara there rejects this possibility, perhaps Rabeinu Gershom understands that the Sugyos are arguing.)
</p><p>
3. Rashi in Kesuvos asks that according to Rabeinu Gershom, a woman who gets married with Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to leave her husband without a Get. Rabeinu Gershom apparently understands that although the Rabanan removed the Kidushin d'Oraisa, they nevertheless substituted in its place a Kidushin d'Rabanan which requires a Get.
</p><p>
4. Finally, Rashi here asks that if Kidushin through Bi'ah is Kidushin d'Oraisa, how can the Rabanan enact a prohibition (against performing Kidushin through Bi'ah) and prevent the Kidushin from taking effect?
</p><p>
Rabeinu Gershom apparently understands that it is possible for the Rabanan to make a prohibition which prevents a change of status from taking effect mid'Oraisa. <b>TOSFOS</b> in Sukah (3a) mentions such a concept with regard to a person who sits in a Sukah in a manner which the Rabanan prohibited. In the case of one who performs Kidushin with Bi'ah, it is possible that the Rabanan prevented the Kidushin from taking effect in the following way: The reason why the act of Bi'ah accomplishes Kidushin is that it demonstrates Ishus; it is an act through which the man and woman conduct themselves in the manner of husband and wife. By conducting themselves as though they are married, the marriage takes effect. When the Rabanan prohibited Kidushei Bi'ah, the act of Bi'ah became an act of Z'nus and not an act of Ishus. Since it no longer demonstrates the conduct of husband and wife, it cannot effect Kidushin.
</p><p>


lvr: 36
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rebbi says, the remainder of the testimony stands. 
               If the other Sheluchim (whom he did not cancel) 
               write and give a Get, it is valid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, the entire testimony is void. If the 
               other Sheluchim write and give a Get, they and she 
               will not know that it is Pasul.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> All agree that if part is cancelled, the 
          remainder stands;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon holds that any matter done in front of 10 
               people can be undone only in front of 10.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>LIKE WHOM IS THE HALACHAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he says 'all of you (write and give a Get to 
          my wife)', what is the law? (Does R. Shimon hold that he 
          can cancel this in front of one of them?)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If R. Shimon holds that if a part of a testimony is 
               cancelled, all is cancelled, there is no concern. 
               The other Sheluchim know that they cannot give the 
               Get themselves.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he holds that a matter done in front of 10 people 
               can be undone only in front of 10, he can cancel the 
               Shelichus only when all are together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If he told two people 'give a 
          Get to my wife,' he can cancel either individually;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can cancel them only 
               together.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since both must sign the Get, it is as if he said 
               'all (i.e. both) of you', and R. Shimon argues even 
               in this case!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If the Beraisa discussed writing 
          the Get, this reasoning would be correct. However, the 
          Beraisa discusses giving the Get, which even one person 
          can do.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Seifa):</font></b> If he appointed each Shali'ach 
          individually, he can cancel either individually.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We understand this if it discusses Sheluchim to give 
               a Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if it discusses Sheluchim to write a Get, their 
               testimonies do not combine!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Testimonies of witnesses combine 
                    only if they saw the matter together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Shimon rules like R. Yehoshua ben 
          Korchah (who says that testimonies combine even if they 
          did not see the matter together).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah):</font></b> In these two arguments of Rebbi 
          and R. Shimon, in one , R. Aba ruled like Rebbi, and in 
          the other, like R. Shimon. I do not know which was which.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We can determine which one from the 
          following.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A case occurred in which Rebbi ruled like Chachamim 
               (who are not concerned for the strength of Beis 
               Din).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Parta:</font></b> If you rule this way, Beis Din has no 
               strength!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi reversed his decision.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Since even Rebbi agreed that we are concerned for 
               the strength of Beis Din, regarding annulment of a 
               Get in front of Beis Din, surely R. Aba ruled like 
               R. Shimon;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Regarding 10 who were appointed to write and 
                    give a Get, he must have ruled like Rebbi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Oshaya of Usha also rules like Rebbi in one case, like 
          R. Shimon in the other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> There were five elders in 
               front of R. Oshaya. A man came, and R. Oshaya ruled 
               that he must divorce his wife. The man authorized 
               the elders to write and give a Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Oshaya told the elders to hide, so the man would 
               not be able to cancel their mission.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If R. Oshaya held like Rebbi (about canceling a 
                    Get in front of a Beis Din), even if the elders 
                    hid, the man could cancel the Get!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b>  If R. Oshaya held like R. Shimon (that one who 
                    appointed 10 Sheluchim can cancel them only 
                    together), why did he tell the elders to hide? 
                    It suffices that they separate!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> He holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel 
               about the former law, and like Rebbi about the 
               latter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rebbi in both cases.
<br>


lvr: 36
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE WE CONCERNED FOR THE STRENGTH OF BEIS DIN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Nachman is concerned for the strength of 
          Beis Din!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> If orphans come to 
               divide their father's property, Beis Din appoints a 
               guardian for them and they select a nice portion for 
               them. When the orphans grow up, they can demand a 
               new division;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman himself):</font></b> They cannot demand a new 
               division. If they could, Beis Din would be weak!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Regarding money, Rav Nachman says that Beis Din 
          gave strength to their enactments, but not regarding 
          Isurim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>GILUY DA'AS TO CANCEL A GET</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Gidal bar Re'ilai sent a Get to his wife. She was weaving 
          when the Shali'ach came. She told him to return the next 
          day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When Gidal heard about this, he said 'blessed is 
               Hash-m, Who is good and does good'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Abaye:</font></b> He blessed Hash-m, but he did not cancel the 
               Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> The Berachah shows that he wanted to cancel 
               the Get, and it is cancelled!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> They argue about whether or not Giluy Da'as (showing 
               desire to cancel a Get) cancels the Get.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Rava says that it does; Abaye says it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> We can infer that Rav Sheshes holds that Giluy 
          Da'as cancels a Get;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Sheshes forced a man to (make Sheluchim to) 
               divorce his wife. The man (lied and) told the 
               Sheluchim that Rav Sheshes told them to cancel the 
               Get. Rav Sheshes required them to write another Get. 
               (There was a Giluy Da'as, so the first Get was 
               cancelled.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Sheshes cannot cancel another 
          man's Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rather, the man cancelled his own Get. He said this 
               in Rav Sheshes' name, so they would not whip him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We can infer that Rav Yehudah holds that Giluy 
          Da'as does not cancel a Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yehudah forced the son-in-law of R. Yirmeyah 
               Bira'ah to divorce his wife. The man cancelled the 
               Get. He forced him again and again, and he cancelled 
               it each time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The last time, he told the Sheluchim to stuff gourds 
               in their ears (so they will not hear him cancel it).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Even though they see him pursuing them to 
                    cancel it, the Get is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> (This is not a Giluy Da'as.) It is not 
          clear why he runs. Perhaps he wants them to give it 
          quickly!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> We can infer that Shmuel holds that Giluy Da'as 
          does not cancel a Get.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man told his wife 'this Get should take effect if 
               I do not return in 30 days.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The man was returning; the ferry to cross the river 
               was not available. He shouted 'see, I am returning!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> This is not called returning. The Get takes 
               effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> The man did not intend to cancel the 
          Get. He intended to fulfill his Tanai (stipulation, which 
          would prevent the Get from taking effect), but he failed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  A man told his Arusah 'this Get should take effect if I 
          do not make Nisu'in within 30 days.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> On day 30, the man exclaimed 'I exerted to make the 
               Nisu'in (but I was unable)!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is there any reason to say that she is not 
          divorced?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He was Anus (factors beyond his control 
               prevented him from fulfilling his Tanai).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Ones does not invalidate a Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> There was a Giluy Da'as.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Abaye and Rava argue about this. (Abaye 
               holds that it does not cancel the Get. And Rava, who 
               says that it does, holds that desire to fulfill the 
               condition does not help.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  A man told his Arusah 'this Get should take effect if I 
          do not make Nisu'in by Rosh Chodesh Adar.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When Rosh Chodesh Adar came, he said 'I meant Rosh 
               Chodesh Nisan!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is there any reason to say that she is not 
          divorced?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He was Anus (he erred).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Ones does not invalidate a Get!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> There was a Giluy Da'as.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Abaye and Rava argue about this. (Both 
               agree that such a Giluy Da'as does not help.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Rav Nachman, who permits canceling a 
          Get in front of two people;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Rav Nachman, who says that the 
          Halachah follows Rebbi in both cases;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MULTIPLE NAMES OF THE HUSBAND OR WIFE IN A GET</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that, originally, when a man had two different names in two different places of residence, a Get he gave would include only the name he was called in the city in which the Get was written. Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken instituted that a man writes in the Get his name 'and every other name that he has' ('Ish Ploni v'Chol Shum she'Yesh Lo').
</p><p>
In practice, how are any extra names of the husband or wife supposed to be included in a Get?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>BEHAG</b> cited by Tosfos (DH v'Chol Shum) writes that the Takanah was to write in every single Get the man's (or woman's) name and then write the words, 'and every other name that he (she) has' -- even when the man or woman is not known to have any other names. (When the Gemara says that the requirement of the Mishnah applies only when we <i>know</i> that the husband has other names, it means that the Get is <i>invalid</i> when this line is omitted <i>only</i> when we know that the husband has other names. However, l'Chatchilah, we always must include this line. (<b>MAHARSHA</b>))
</p><p>
How does this solve the problem of multiple names? The Mishnah's concern is that we will not be able to identify the husband -- based on the name written in the Get -- in a city in which he is called by a different name. If every Get includes the words 'and every other name that he has,' the concern remains; we still will not be able to identify the husband. (<b>CHASAM SOFER</b>)
</p><p>
The Acharonim explain that since these words point toward the possibility that the husband might have other names, people will consider that possibility more seriously and investigate the matter and identify the husband.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> rejects the view of the Behag. If every Get includes the words 'and every other name that he has,' then when the husband does <i>not</i> have any other names it will look like the Get is not his since it describes a man who <i>does</i> have other names. Rabeinu Tam therefore concludes that the other names of the husband are mentioned in the Get only when it is known that he has other names. Since those names are known, the actual names (and not just the words 'and every other name that he has') are written in the Get. He cites support for this from the Gemara later (35a) which discusses a Get in which the two names of the husband were written explicitly in the Get.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Hu) and the <b>RASHBA</b>, however, conclude that Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken required that all of the names of the husband be written in the Get only when the husband is called by one name in the place where the Get is written and by a different name in the place where the Get is given to the woman. The Takanah did not apply to a man who is called by a second name in the same city in which his first name is used. The Rashba writes that in such a case, the second name need not be included in the Get, even l'Chatchilah.
</p><p>
The Yerushalmi, however, cited by Tosfos, states that l'Chatchilah the second name must be included in the Get even if it is used in the same city as the first name. Tosfos suggests a compromise: if the two names are similar to each other, then only one name needs to be written l'Chatchilah. However, if the two names are not similar, both names must be written l'Chatchilah. 
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> (DH v'Hu d'Ischazek, DH Megureshes, and DH Miryam) seems to make a compromise between the opinions of Rabeinu Tam and the Behag. If a man has two names which are equally well known, both names must be written in the Get, as the Gemara (35a) implies.
</p><p>
However, the wording of the Mishnah and the Gemara imply that in certain cases it suffices to write 'and every other name that he has.' In fact, this is implicit in the Gemara's original assumption, that even if we do not know that the husband has another name, we must mention in the Get the possibility of other names; since we do not know the other names, the Gemara obviously assumes that it suffices to write 'and every other name that he has' (see Rashba).
</p><p>
Rashi therefore maintains that if one name is more popular than the other (in the place in which the Get is written), the less popular name does not need to be written explicitly but can be written simply as 'and every other name that he has.' This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMAH</b>. 
</p><p>
In a similar vein, the <b>ROSH</b> writes that if a person is known to the non-Jews in his neighborhood by a secularized version of his Hebrew name which sounds similar to his Hebrew name, the secular name does not need to be written in the Get explicitly. It suffices to write 'and every other name that he has.'
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The Poskim (EH 129) rule like Tosfos, that all other names that a person has must be written in the Get explicitly. If he has a second name which is used exclusively in the place where the Get will be given, and the first name is used exclusively in the place where the Get is written, the Get is <i>invalid</i> if one of the names is omitted. However, if both names are used in the same place, then omitting one of them does not invalidate the Get.
</p><p>
The Poskim add, based on the <b>MAHARIK</b> (#166), that depending on how similar the two names are to each other, sometimes the term 'd'Miskeri' ('... who is called such and such') is uses, and sometimes 'ha'Mechunah' ('... who is nicknamed such and such'). When the names are similar, the term 'd'Miskeri' is used. When they are not similar, the term 'ha'Mechunah' is used.
</p><p>
By what criteria are names considered similar to each other? The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> writes that when the second name is derived from the first, the word 'd'Miskeri' is used (such as when the person's name is Yehudah, and he is called Leon or Leib, which means 'lion,' a name derived from the verse 'Gur Aryeh Yehudah' (Bereishis 49:9), or the second name is a vernacular translation of the Hebrew name, such as a person named Aryeh who is called by its (French) translation, Leon). When the second name is unrelated to the first name, the term 'ha'Mechunah' is used.
</p><p>
The <b>REMA</b> disagrees. He writes that as long as both names are Hebrew, the term 'd'Miskeri' is used even when the names are unrelated to each other. The only time 'ha'Mechunah' is used is when one name is Hebrew and the other is foreign.
</p><p>


