1)

(a)We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not (the Chachamim, who hold Divrei Shechiv-Mera Ki'Chesuvin v'chi'Mesurin Dami'). Like whom do the Tana Kama ('Biksho v'Lo Matz'o, Yachz'ro li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yakov ('Mes Meshale'ach, Yachz'ro l'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes') all hold?

(b)How do we know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar?

(c)Yesh Omrim ('le'Yorshei Mi she'Nishtalchu Elav') clearly holds like the Chachamim (of Rebbi Elazar). What is the reason of the Chachamim (who say 'Yachloku')?

(d)What if the Shechiv Mera recovers? Is he entitled to retract?

1)

(a)We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not (the Chachamim). The Tana Kama ('Biksho v'Lo Matz'o, Yachz'ro li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yakov ('Mes Meshale'ach, Yachz'ro l'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes') - all hold - like Rebbi Elazar.

(b)We know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar - because it is only in the event that the Meshale'ach dies that he obligates the Shali'ach to hand the Shtar to the heirs of the recipient; otherwise, he would have to return it to the Meshale'ach.

(c)Yesh Omrim ('le'Yorshei Mi she'Nishtalchu Elav') clearly holds like the Chachamim (of Rebbi Elazar). The Chachamim (who hold 'Yachloku') - are uncertain whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar or the Chachamim.

(d)In the event that the Shechiv Mera recovers - he is authorized to retract.

2)

(a)Like which of the above Tana'im does Rav Yosef rule?

(b)Was Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi actually a Nasi or was he just quoting the Nasi?

(c)How do we reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera Ki'Chesuvin v'chi'Mesurin Damu'?

(d)On what grounds must Rav Yosef then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachz'ru l'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachz'ru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after all)?

2)

(a)Rav Yosef rules - like Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi.

(b)Whether Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi was actually a Nasi or whether he was just quoting the Nasi - is a She'eilah which remains unanswered.

(c)We reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera Ki'Chesuvin v'chi'Mesurin Damu' - by establishing the Beraisa by a healthy person (like the original interpretation of the Machlokes).

(d)Rav Yosef must then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachz'ru l'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachz'ru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after all) - because, according to the original text, Rebbi Shimon would clash with the principle 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes'.

HADRAN ALACH 'HA'MEIVI KAMA'

PEREK HA'MEIVI GET (TINYANA)

3)

(a)What if the Shali'ach who brings a Get declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam', or vice-versa? Will the Get be Kosher?

(b)The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his presence but only half signed, or vice-versa. What does half signed mean?

(c)Neither will the Get be Kosher if one person declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and another 'be'Fanai Nichtam'. Is this necessarily because one of the two is not a Shali'ach? Would it be any different if he was?

3)

(a)If the Shali'ach who brings a Get declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam', or vice-versa - the Get is not valid.

(b)The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his presence but only half signed - (that he witnessed one of the witnesses signing on the Get, but not the other) or vice-versa.

(c)Neither will the Get be Kosher if one witness declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and a second witness, 'be'Fanai Nichtam'. This is not necessarily because one of the two is not a Shali'ach (though some will later explain it this way). It might also be because, since the Shalia'ch who testifies on the Kesivah does not testify on the Chasimah and vice-versa, we might confuse this with Kiyum Shtaros, and validate that too, with one witness.

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav and a third witness, b'Fanai Nichtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. Why is that?

(b)What will Rebbi Yehudah hold in the previous cases in the Mishnah?

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav and a third witness, b'Fanai Nichtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, since we require testimony both on the Kesivah and on the Chasimah, we will not confuse it with Kiyum Shtaros.

(b)In fact - Rebbi Yehudah argues in all the previous cases in the Mishnah too, for the same reason.

5)

(a)In light of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ... Tzarich Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nichtam', why does the Tana here find it necessary to invalidate the Get, should the Shali'ach fail to make the full declaration?

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Does it make any difference which half?

(c)What is the significance of the first line of the Get?

5)

(a)In spite of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ... Tzarich Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nichtam', the Tana here finds it necessary to invalidate the Get should the Shali'ach fail to make the full declaration - because 'Tzarich Lomar' implies l'Chatchilah, implying that b'Di'eved, if he failed to make the declaration, the Get is nevertheless Kosher.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Rav Ashi confines this to the second half of the Get, because as far as the first half is concerned, we have already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who validates the Get even if the Shali'ach only witnessed the writing of the first line.

(c)The first line of the Get comprises - the names of the man, the woman and the date.

6)

(a)What does Rav Chisda say in a case 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul', in the event that two witnesses then corroborate the signature of the second witness?

(b)Why is that?

(c)What did we learn in the first Perek regarding a Shali'ach who testifies on the witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nichtam)?

(d)Based on this, how does Rava reject Rav Chisda's ruling?

6)

(a)Rav Chisda maintains that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul' - even if two witnesses then corroborate the signature of the second witness ...

(b)... because we will then be trying to validate the Get using a combination of substantiating a Get and Takanas Chachamim, when in fact, Chazal required either the one or the other.

(c)We learned in the first Perek that if a Shali'ach testifies on the witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nichtam') - the Get is nevertheless Kosher.

(d)Based on this, Rava rejects Rav Chisda's ruling - because, if one witness is believed to corroborate the witnesses signature, then how can we possibly reject the testimony of two?

15b----------------------------------------15b

7)

(a)Rava concedes however, that if the Shali'ach himself testifies on the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul. Why is that?

(b)What is the case of Kiyum Shtaros to which Rava just referred?

(c)Why is it Pasul?

(d)How does Rav Ashi reject this ruling of Rava's?

(e)Which case is Pasul according to Rav Ashi, for the same reason that Rava invalidated his?

7)

(a)Rava concedes however, that if the Shali'ach himself testifies on the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul - because of its similarity to Kiyum Shtaros (of Mamon), which is Pasul under similar circumstances.

(b)The case of Kiyum Shtaros to which Rava just referred is - if the same witness who corroborates his own signature, also combines with another witness to corroborate the signature of his co-signatory ...

(c)... which is Pasul - because it transpires that three quarters of the money is being extracted through one witness, and a quarter through the other (whereas the Torah requires each witness to extract half the money).

(d)Rav Ashi rejects this ruling of Rava's however - because how can it be that if the Shali'ach were to testify all by himself, the Get would be Kosher, and now that a second witness testifies together with him, it will be Pasul.

(e)The case that is Pasul, according to Rav Ashi is - where the Shali'ach, after declaring 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u've'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo', concludes that he is the second witness who signed on the Shtar, which is Pasul because of the combination of two different methods, like Rava explained earlier.

8)

(a)In the case in our Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, b'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul', why can the Tana not be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness?

(b)Then what is the Tana coming to teach us? On whom does this present a problem?

(c)Why can the Tana not be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi as well?

(d)Then on what grounds do we incorporate both the cases of Rava and of Rav Ashi. Why do we not then confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case, which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as well as on Rav Chisda)?

8)

(a)In the case in our Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, b'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul', the Tana cannot be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness - because now that the Tana invalidates 'Echad Omer b'Fanai Nichtav v'Echad Omer b'Fanai Nichtam (where each witness testified on a complete Kesivah or a complete Chasimah) Pasul', it is obvious that this case will be Pasul too.

(b)Clearly, the Tana is coming to teach us - that even if he testified on the second signature, together with a second witness (like Rava) or if he claimed that he was the other witness (like Rav Ashi), it would be Pasul (to preclude a case where there are two witnesses on the second signature, which would be Kosher - a Kashya on Rav Chisda). Bear in mind the principle that either the Tana is telling us an intrinsic Chidush, or the Chidush lies in the inference).

(c)The Tana cannot be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi too - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta' (one always learns the smallest possible Chidush).

(d)The reason that we do not confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case, which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as well as on Rav Chisda) is - because in fact, Rava's case is no more of a Chidush than that of Rav Ashi, since in the equivalent case by other Shtaros, the Shtar is Pasul, as we explained above (in which case Rava's case and that of Rav Ashi are equal).

9)

(a)Rav Chisda will answer the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam'. What does he comment on that case?

(b)What does he then extrapolate with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u'be'Fanav Nichtam Chetzyo' (to answer the above Kashya)?

9)

(a)Rav Chisda will answer the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam'. He comments - that having told us that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, uve'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo' is Pasul (where at least he testifies on half of the Chasimah), then surely it is obvious that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam' is Pasul too. Clearly then, the Tana finds no problem in stating first the smaller Chidush and then the bigger one (even though in light of the latter Chidush, the former one is quite superfluous [a third principle known as 'Lo Zu Af Zu'...]).

(b)He extrapolates from there - that with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u'be'Fanav Nichtam Chetzyo' too, the Tana may well have inserted it, not to tell us the bigger Chidush (in which case he could have presented us with his case [that even when two witnesses testify on the other signature], it is Pasul), but to say that not only in this case is the Get Pasul ('Lo Zu', which does not need to be a Chidush at all, and from which one can nevertheless not make any inference), but it is even Pasul when one witness testifies on the entire Kesivah and one witness on the Chasimah ('Af Zu').

10)

(a)Rav Chisda now discusses 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah' (in connection with Shabbos). What does that mean?

(b)What ruling does he issue with regard to 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah'?

(c)What is Rav Chisda's reason?

(d)Mereimar disagrees. What is the Halachah?

10)

(a)Rav Chisda now discusses 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah' (in connection with Shabbos) - (when the five-Tefach wall of a pit [Gidud] extends five Tefachim above ground level).

(b)He rules that the two sets of five Tefachim do not combine to form a Kosher wall (regarding Shabbos) and one cannot therefore carry inside the pit ...

(c)... because Gidud and Mechitzah cannot combine.

(d)Mereimar disagrees. The Halachah is - like him (and one is permitted to carry in the pit).

11)

(a)Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves. Why can he not be referring to ...

1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shi'ur of) one Revi'is of water?

2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other?

3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other half?

(b)What do we mean when we refute the third Pircha with the words 'Lo Tzericha d'Ika Mashkeh Tofe'ach'?

(c)We query that however, from a Mishnah in Taharos. What does the Mishnah in Taharos say about 'Tofe'ach'?

(d)How do we reconcile our answer with the Mishnah in Taharos?

11)

(a)Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves. He cannot be referring to ...

1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shi'ur of) one Revi'is of water - because we have learned in a Mishnah in Yadayim that even two people may wash from one Revi'is (i.e. when the one places his hands underneath the other).

2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other - because we have learned in a Beraisa that this is permitted (even to dip one's hand into a river in this way).

3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other half - because Rebbi Yanai has already invalidated washing in this way.

(b)When we refute the third Pircha with the words 'Lo Tzericha d'Ika Mashkeh Tofe'ach', we mean - that Rebbi Yanai is speaking when the first half of the hand is already dry when he washes the second half, whereas we are talking about a case where it is still slightly wet.

(c)We query that however, from a Mishnah in Taharos - which specifically lists 'Tofe'ach' among those things that are not considered joined (regarding Tum'ah).

(d)And we answer - by establishing the Mishnah in Taharos when it is only slightly wet, whereas we are speaking about where the hand is wet enough to render what touches it sufficiently wet to make other things wet, in which case the water is considered joined.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF