1)

TOSFOS DH "v'Rabbanan" (starting bottom 2b)

תוס' ד"ה "ורבנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi regarding the suspicion of our Gemara.)

פירש בקונטרס

(a)

Implied Question: Why did the Rabbanan require the messenger to say that the Get was written and signed before him if there is really no suspicion the Get is unfit, even according to Rebbi Meir?

משום דאיכא דאשכח כתוב ועומד כגון שנכתב לשם א' מבני עירו ששמו כשמו ונמלך מלגרש

(b)

Explanation (#1): Rashi explains the Gemara's answer as stating that it is possible a person would find a Get that was written for someone in his city who happens to have the same name as him, and had decided not to go through with the Get.

וקשה דבהוחזק שני יוסף בן שמעון אפילו נכתב לשמו פסול לגרש בו לר' מאיר כדאמרינן בריש כל הגט (לקמן דף כד:) כתב לגרש בו את הגדולה לא יגרש בו את הקטנה

(c)

Question: This is difficult. When it is known that there are two people named Yosi ben Shimon in a particular city, it is unfit to use this document even when it was written for him according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir (24b). The Gemara there says that if a person had a Get written in order to divorce his older wife, he cannot use it to divorce his younger wife (of the same name).

וקאמר בגמ' קטנה הוא דלא מצי מגרש הא גדולה מגרש מוקי לה כר' אלעזר ולא כר"מ משום דבעינן שיהא מוכיח מתוך עדי החתימה הי מינייהו מגרשה

1.

The Gemara continues that he cannot divorce the younger wife, implying he could divorce the older wife. This must be according to Rebbi Eliezer and unlike Rebbi Meir, who says that it has to be apparent from the signing witnesses which wife he is divorcing.

ובסמוך בעי לאוקומי מתני' כר"מ ואפילו לרבי אלעזר צריך עדי מסירה שידעו שעשאו הבעל שליח וליכא

2.

The Gemara later tries to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds that such a Get is Pasul). Even according to Rebbi Elazar, witnesses who saw that the husband made him a messenger are required. (Accordingly, how could Rashi say that this is the suspicion of our Gemara? Such a Get would never be ruled as kosher!)

ואור"י דהא דאצרוך רבנן הכא היינו כדי שלא יערער הבעל ויאמר שכתבו הסופר כדי להתלמד והוא החתים עליו עדים שהוא לא היה בקי לשמה.

(d)

Explanation (#2): The Ri says that the requirement here is so that the husband should not claim later that the Get that he used was actually written by a new scribe who was merely practicing. The husband could claim that he innocently signed witnesses on the Get (which happened to have the same names as those of he and his wife), as he did not realize that the Get had to be written "for her."

2)

TOSFOS DH "Hai Kula"

תוס' ד"ה "האי קולא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a question asked in the Gemara in Yevamos (88a) is not applicable to our Gemara.)

בריש האשה רבה (יבמות דף פח.) גבי מתוך חומרא שהחמרת עליה בסופה דפריך לא לחמיר ולא ליקל ומשני משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן

(a)

Implied Question: In the beginning of Yevamos (88a) the Gemara asks, just because you placed a stringency at the end (that a woman who remarried and her husband comes back faces many unpleasant consequences), you were lenient in the beginning (to allow her to remarry with only one witness)? Do not be stringent nor lenient! The Gemara answers, being that she would otherwise have to stay unmarried, the Rabbanan were lenient.

לא שייך למיפרך האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא

1.

(In our Gemara,) it is not possible to ask a similar question that the stringency is canceling out the leniency.

דאי מצרכת לה תרי ובא בעלה מותרת לחזור כדאמרינן התם והשתא בחד תצא מזה ומזה דהתם זימנין דלא אפשר לתקן כשלא ראה אלא אחד שהיה מכיר שהוא בעלה ואפילו היו שם הרבה מי יביאם בכאן להעיד אבל כאן יכול לשלחו בשנים.

(b)

Answer: If you require two witnesses and the husband arrives, she can go back to him as the Gemara states there. With one witness, the Halachah is that she must leave both her "current" husband and her original husband. This is because there are times when there is nothing else to do, as only one person who knew her husband saw him die. Even if many people saw him die, who will force them to come here and testify? However, in a case of sending a Get, he has the ability to send it with two people who are going to Eretz Yisrael.

3)

TOSFOS DH "Chad Asi"

תוס' ד"ה "חד אתי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's statement that the husband's claim will "render the Get unfit." Is this literal?)

יש לפרש

(a)

Implied Question: What are the consequences of the husband's claim that there is something wrong with the Get?

דפסיל ליה ממש אע"ג דלא מהימן וליכא אלא לעז בעלמא מיפסל

(b)

Answer: It is possible to explain that the Get could indeed become totally unfit. Even though he is technically not believed and these are only rumors, it could become unfit.

וא"ת א"כ מאי ס"ד דמהני בפני נכתב כיון דאכתי איכא לעז

(c)

Question: Why, then, is there an assumption that saying that the Get was written before him should help, being that rumors spread by the husband could render the Get invalid?

וי"ל דס"ד דמהני דרוב פעמים לא יוציא שיסבור שלא יאמינוהו ומיהו אי מפיק ליה מיפסל

(d)

Answer: The Gemara assumes that it should be effective, as most times a husband will not claim this at all as he thinks that people will not believe him. However, if he does he can render the Get invalid.

ולמאי דס"ד הא דקתני אם יש עליו עוררין יתקיים בחותמיו קאי נמי אהמביא גט ממדה"י ומשני מידק דייק ולא אתי בעל לערער ואפי' אם יערער לא יאמינוהו וליכא לעז כלל

1.

We originally (before this statement of the Gemara) thought that the Mishnah's statement that "if there are people claiming the Get is fake that it should be verified by the signatures of the witnesses," is continuing the discussion regarding people who bring a Get from Chutz la'Aretz. The Gemara answered that the messenger makes sure that the Get is given willingly by the husband before he takes it, and that the husband will (almost certainly) not come to contest the Get. Even if he will contest it, he will not be believed and there will not be any rumors at all. (However, the Gemara is now changing course and saying that he could render the Get unfit.)

ומיהו אין נראה לר"י לפרש כן שיהא פסול משום לעז בעלמא כיון דקים לן שהוא כשר

(e)

Question (#1): However, it does not seem to the Ri that we should explain that the Get should actually be ruled unfit because of mere rumors, as before these rumors the Get was known to be valid.

ועוד מדלא תנן ברישא המביא גט ממדה"י אם יש עליו עוררין וכו' כדקתני בסיפא

(f)

Question (#2): Additionally, the first part of the Mishnah does not say, "one who brings a Get from overseas, if there are those who claim (that the Get is invalid)," as it wrote at the end of the Mishnah.

ונראה לפרש ופסיל ליה היינו שיאמינוהו ללעז אבל מ"מ הגט כשר.

(g)

Answer: It therefore seems that the explanation of, "and he will render it unfit" means he will establish rumors that people believe that the Get is unfit. However, the Get is ruled to be kosher.

4)

TOSFOS DH "Asi l'Ichlufei"

תוס' ד"ה "אתי לאיחלופי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a person must at least witness the first half of the Get being written, and why seeing only the second half is insufficient.)

וא"ת כיון דאין צריך לומר בפני נכתב אלא משום איחלופי אמאי פסיל בריש פ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) בפני נכתב חציו אחרון טפי מחציו ראשון

(a)

Question: Our Gemara says that the only reason that the messenger has to say that it was "written" before him is because people might mix this testimony with the regular verifying of documents which requires two witnesses (on every signature). If this is the case, why does the Gemara later (15a) say that if he only saw the last half of the being written that his testimony is invalid? Why should this be different than him saying that he saw the first half of the Get being written (if in any event this is not a crucial part of the testimony)?

וי"ל דבחציו ראשון יש בו שם האיש והאשה והזמן שהוא עיקר הגט מינכר מילתא ולא אתי לאיחלופי.

(b)

Answer: The first half of the Get contains the name of the man and woman, and the date (that the Get was written). Being that this is the main part of the Get, (a witness who says that he saw this being written makes it clear that he is testifying about the writing of the Get, and causes us not to mistaken this for a regular verification of documents (which requires two witnesses). (If he only testifies that he saw the second half of the Get being written, his statement is insignificant. We are essentially left with his statement "I saw it signed," which could lead us to confuse this type of testimony with the verification of documents.)

5)

TOSFOS DH "Hacha b'Fnei"

תוס' ד"ה "הכא בפני"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rabah holds one cannot use a form of testimony that Rava implies is invalid.)

אבל ידעתי אין מועיל

(a)

Observation: However, just saying that he knows that this is their signature does not help.

וטעמא דכשאמר בפ"נ ונחתם דייק טפי דמרע אנפשיה טובא כשאמר בפני נעשה הכל והוא לא ראה מכשיאמר ידעתי

1.

The reason is that when a messenger says that he saw the Get written and signed, he is more careful. He is putting himself in a much more difficult position if he has to say that he was present when the Get was written and signed than when he says that he knows these are the signatures of the witnesses.

וא"ת ואמאי לא מהני ידעתי לרבה כמו לרבא

(b)

Question: Why doesn't the messenger's statement that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses help according to Rabah like it does according to Rava?

על כרחך משום דלרבה הוי טעמא משום לשמה

(c)

Answer: It must be that according to Rabah the reason (that he has to say it was signed and witnessed in front of him) is to ascertain the Get was written "for her."

ואכתי תיקשי רבה מ"ט לא אמר כרבא דמפ' טעמא משום קיום ויועיל ידעתי וצריך בפני נכתב דלא אתי לאיחלופי

(d)

Question: Accordingly, it seems that the Gemara should still ask why Rabah does not say like Rava, who explains that the reason is due to verification of the witnesses signatures? Let the messenger state that he knows the signatures of the witnesses and that it was written before him! This would ensure that we would not mix up his testimony with the standard testimony of verifying a document (see previous Tosfos).

ואור"י דמכח מתני' דבריש פ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) דקתני אחד אומר בפני נכתב ושנים אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר משמע ליה לרבה דידענו לא מהני.

(e)

Answer: The Ri says that the Mishnah later (15a) states that if one person says that it was written before him and two people say that it was signed before them, the Get is valid. Rabah understands that this implies that simply "knowing" (the signatures) does not help (as the Mishnah could have given an example of witnesses merely "knowing" the signature of the witnesses on the Get).

6)

TOSFOS DH "Atu Ki Amri"

תוס' ד"ה "אטו כי אמרי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi whether or not Rava in fact holds that it is sufficient for the messenger to say "that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses" to fulfill the aspect of "it was signed before me.")

פי' בקונטרס הואיל ולדידיה טעמא משום קיומא מה לי בפני ומה לי יודע אני משמע שרוצה לומר דשליח מהימן כי אמר יודע אני

(a)

Explanation (Rashi): Rashi explains that since Rava holds that the point is to verify the signature of the document, who cares if he says that he saw it signed or that he knows that there are their signatures? This implies that the messenger is believed to say that he knows the signatures of the witnesses.

והא דנקט כי אמרי ידענו לשון רבים ולא אמר כי אמר ידעתי משום דאשלוחין דעלמא קאי

1.

This that the Gemara says, "they know" in a plural form and not in a singular form, is because it is discussing a case of regular messengers as well (but here the messenger is sufficient).

ולעיל לא בעי למימר ידעתי איכא בינייהו דלא בעי למינקט אלא הנהו דלמר צריך ולמר לא צריך

2.

Previously, the Gemara did not want to give this as a difference between them (Rabah and Rava), as the Gemara only wanted to establish a difference where one held something was needed and one held it wasn't (not how many witnesses are required).

אבל תימה הוא דבכל דוכתי נקט לרבא בפני נחתם לאו דוקא

(b)

Question (#1): However, this (explanation) is difficult, as Rava always states that saying that "it was signed before me" does not literally mean that it was signed before him (saying he knows it is their signatures is good enough).

ועוד אי בחד נמי מהני ידעתי היכי קאמר רבא ברפ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) אפילו הוא ואחר מעידין על חתימת עד שני פסול דאי לא הוה אלא האי שליח דמכיר שתי חתימות הוה כשר והשתא משום דבא אחד מהשוק לסייעו בחתימת שני יפסל

(c)

Question (#2): Additionally, if one witness (the messenger) is believed to say that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses, how could Rava say (15a) that even if he and someone else testify regarding the signature of the second witness, the Get is Pasul (not verified). If Rava held that the messenger can verify both signatures, the messenger himself should be enough! Does it make sense that an additional party who corroborates his testimony will not make the Get invalid?! Additionally, if one witness (the messenger) is believed to say that he knows that these are the signatures of the witnesses, how could Rava say (15a) that even if he and someone else testify regarding the signature of the second witness, the Get is Pasul (not verified). If Rava held that the messenger can verify both signatures, the messenger himself should be enough! Does it make sense that an additional party who corroborates his testimony will not make the Get invalid?!

אע"ג דבקונטרס פי' התם דהיינו הא דפריך ליה רב אשי מי איכא מידי דאילו מסיק איהו לכולי דיבורא כשר וכו' מ"מ אין סברא כלל שהיה רבא טועה בכך

1.

Even though Rashi explains there (15b) that this is essentially Rav Ashi's question on the Gemara there, "is there something where if someone finishes his entire statement it is kosher etc." However, it is impossible that Rava actually made a mistake by thinking that this would be understandable (that if one person says it is kosher it is, but if another person says it is kosher it is not).

ונראה דידעתי לא מהני אפילו לרבא עד שיאמר בפ"נ ונחתם משום דדייק טפי כדפירשנו והכי מפרש ר' משולם אטו כי אמרי ידענו שנים מעלמא שיקיימו גט זה מי לא מהימני והואיל ומהני בזה קיום דמהני בשאר שטרות אתי לאיחלופי.

(d)

Explanation (Rabeinu Meshulam): It seems that merely saying that he "knows" that these are the signatures of the witnesses does not help, even according to Rava. The messenger must actually say that he saw the Get written and signed. This is because this will ensure he will be careful (as he is invested in his statement, see previous Tosfos). Rabeinu Meshulam explains the Gemara in the following manner. If two people come and verify the Get, aren't they believed? Being that verification of the Get is an option in the manner that it is done by other legal documents, people will come to mix up the verification of other documents with the law of a messenger of a Get.

7)

TOSFOS DH "Kivan"

תוס' ד"ה "כיון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos answers what happened to the two questions of the Gemara that Rava did not address.)

וקושיא דאשה ובעל דבר לא חש לתרץ

(a)

Implied Question: The question (brought up as a logical difference in favor of Rabah) regarding a woman and the person themselves, Rava did not bother to answer.

דלא שכיח דמייתי גיטא וכי מייתי עד כשר אתי לאיחלופי.

(b)

Answer: This is because it is uncommon that she (or the husband) will bring her Get. If one kosher witness (saying that the Get was merely signed before him would bring the Get), this would lead people to confuse this with the verification of documents.

8)

TOSFOS DH "Ma'an Hai Tana"

תוס' ד"ה "מאן האי תנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Mishnah cannot be established as being authored by Rebbi Elazar.)

וא"ת למאי דמסקינן דרבה אית ליה דרבא נוקי מתני' כרבי אלעזר והוי בפני נכתב משום לשמה ובפני נחתם משום שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו

(a)

Question: According to our Gemara's conclusion that Rabah holds of Rava, our Mishnah should be established like Rebbi Elazar (and not Rebbi Yehudah, as Rav Ashi later states). This would mean that saying, "it was written before me" is mandatory to ensure the Get is written for her, and "it was signed before me" is because there are normally no witnesses to verify the Get.

ודוחק לומר דכולה הך סוגיא וגם רב אשי דאמר לקמן ר' יהודה היא איירי למאי דס"ד מעיקרא

1.

It is difficult to say that this entire Gemara, and the statement of Rav Ashi who later says that our Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah, is only based on what the Gemara originally thought (and is not according to the Gemara's conclusion).

וי"ל דרבה אף לפי המסקנא בעי חתימה לשמה כיון דידענו לא מהני דאי מהני לפי המסקנא תיקשי רבה מ"ט לא אמר כרבא

(b)

Answer: It is possible to answer that Rabah, even according to the Gemara's conclusion, holds that one needs that the signature should be "for her" once he says that simply "knowing" that these are the signatures of the witnesses is insufficient. If "knowing" would help according to the conclusion of the Gemara, the Gemara should ask why Rabah does not hold like Rava.

וליכא למימר הא דלא מהני ידענו היינו משום איחלופי

(c)

Implied Question: It is impossible to say that the reason "knowing" does not help is because this will cause people to confuse this type of testimony with the regular verification of documents.

דהא כיון דצריך לומר בפני נכתב משום לשמה לא אתי לאיחלופי.

(d)

Answer: Being that the witness here must add that he saw the Get written due to it having to have been written "for her," we will not mix up this type of testimony with verification of documents in general.

3b----------------------------------------3b

9)

TOSFOS DH "d'Tnan"

תוס' ד"ה "דתנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos analyzes who our Mishnah is according to and why.)

הך סוגיא ובסמוך נמי דמוקי רב אשי מתניתין כר' יהודה אתיא כריש לקיש דפ"ב (לקמן דף כא:) דמוקי מתניתין כר"מ דחתמו שנינו דמשמע חתימה ממש

(a)

Observation: This Gemara, and the Gemara later where Rav Ashi establishes that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Yehudah, is according to Reish Lakish (21b). Reish Lakish there establishes that the Mishnah taught, "they signed," meaning that they have to sign a real signature on the Get.

אבל רבי יוחנן ושמואל מוקי התם מתניתין כרבי אלעזר וחתמו אתורף קאי כלומר סיימו כמו תורה חתומה ניתנה דס"פ הניזקין (לקמן דף ס.)

1.

However, Rebbi Yochanan and Shmuel establish that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar. They understand that "Chasmu" - "they signed," means the area of the document where the names and date are listed (not the final signature of the document). In this context, "Chasmu" means that "they finished," as in the Gemara's statement (60a) that the Torah was given "Chasumah" - "finished."

ולשמואל ורבי יוחנן נמי יש להוכיח דר"מ לא בעי כתיבה לשמה כדמסיק בסמוך מדרב נחמן דאמר אומר היה ר"מ אפילו מצאו באשפה כו'

2.

According to Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan it is also possible to prove that Rebbi Meir does not require that the writing of the Get be for her. This is evident from the statement of Rav Nachman who said that Rebbi Meir said that even if a Get is found in the garbage, it can be kosher.

וא"ת והיכי מוכח מהכא דלא בעי כתיבה לשמה דילמא לכתחילה בעי כתיבה לשמה כדבעי לכתחלה בתלוש

(b)

Question: How is it obvious from here that the Get does not have to be written for her? Perhaps Lechatchilah it is necessary, just as one needs a Get to have been already detached from the ground when it was written?

וי"ל דאפילו אי לכתחילה בעי כתיבה לשמה לא מיתוקמא מתני' כוותיה כיון דדיעבד כשר לא היו מתקנין לומר בפ"נ ועוד דתנן בריש פ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) דאי לא אמר בפני נכתב פסול

(c)

Answer: Even if one would say that Lechatchilah the writing must be for her, it is not possible to establish the Mishnah in accordance with this opinion. Being that the Get is kosher b'Dieved if it is not for her, they would not have instituted that the messenger must say that it was written before him to ascertain that it was true (as the Get would in any event be kosher, at least b'Dieved).

ותימה לר"י דהכא משמע דלא מיתוקמא מתני' כר"מ משום דר"מ לא בעי כתיבה לשמה ולקמן (דף ה:) תניא בהדיא המביא גט ממדינת הים נתנו לה ולא אמר בפ"נ ובפני נחתם יוציא והולד ממזר דברי ר"מ ולרבא ניחא דבעי בפני נכתב דלא ליתי לאיחלופי

(d)

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Our Gemara implies that our Mishnah cannot be according to Rebbi Meir because Rebbi Meir does not require that the Get be written for her. Later (5b), the Beraisa explicitly states that if someone brings a Get from overseas, and gives it to the woman without saying that it was written and signed before him, any children that the woman subsequently has due to her remarriage because of this Get are ruled to be Mamzerim. This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. According to Rava this is understandable, as he requires that the messenger say it was written before him in order that this should not be mixed up with the typical verification of documents.

והא דאמר רב נחמן בסמוך דלר"מ מצאו באשפה כשר היינו כשהבעל עצמו נותנו לה או בא"י אבל שולח גט ממדינת הים צריך שיראה השליח כתיבת הגט שיוכל לומר בפני נכתב דלא ליתי לאיחלופי

1.

Rav Nachman's case that if the Get was found in the garbage it is kosher is if the husband himself gives the Get to her or he lives in Eretz Yisrael (and sends it to her in Eretz Yisrael with a messenger). However, if someone sends a Get with a messenger overseas, the messenger has to see the writing of the Get in order to say that he saw it written, so that this should not be confused with the typical verification of documents.

אבל לרבה קשה דלית ליה טעמא דאיחלופי אף לפי המסקנא דרבה אית ליה דרבא כדפירשנו.

2.

However, according to Rabah this is difficult. Rabah does not hold that there is any reason to think that this will be confused with typical verification of documents. This is even according to the Gemara's conclusion that Rabah agrees with Rava. (Rabah holds that the messenger's testimony that he saw it written is to ascertain the Get was written for her, not because confusion might arise between this and regular document verification. This is not enough reason to proclaim that the child should be a Mamzer in the absence of the messenger's statement.)

10)

TOSFOS DH "Sheloshah"

תוס' ד"ה "שלשה גיטין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rebbi Meir can possibly be the author of this Mishnah when he says that changing the way Chazal said to make a Get leads to having Mamzerim.)

איכא דמוקי בפ' בתרא (לקמן דף פו.) הך מתני' כר"מ

(a)

Observation: Some later (86a) say that this Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir.

אע"ג דאית ליה לר"מ כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין הולד ממזר

(b)

Implied Question: Rebbi Meir holds that whoever changes from the format chosen by the Chachamim regarding the giving of Gitin, causes the subsequent children from a remarriage after this Get to be labeled Mamzerim. (Accordingly, how is it possible that this Mishnah was authored by Rebbi Meir, if it says that the child is not a Mamzer despite the fact that the Get is unfit?)

אור"ת דהכא היינו טעמא דהולד כשר דכך היה המטבע שלא יפסל הולד בהנך שלשה

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that here the reason that the child is kosher (not a Mamzer) is because the law of the Chachamim that was instituted regarding these three things that although they should be adhered to, they will not cause any child to be a Mamzer if transgressed.

ואע"ג דר"מ סבר וכתב היינו וחתם מ"מ כשר הולד בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים

(d)

Implied Question: Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir holds that the word "and he will write ("to her" - "for her")" is referring to the signatures of witnesses, he still can hold that in the case where the Get was written in his handwriting without witnesses that he child is not a Mamzer.

דכיון שהבעל עצמו כתב אין לך חתימה גדולה מזו

(e)

Answer: Being that the husband himself wrote the document, there is no greater signature (meaning: verification) than this.

ואין בו אלא עד אחד

(f)

Question: One of the cases stated is when there is only one witness on the Get.

למ"ד בפ' בתרא (ג"ז שם) כתב ידו ועד שנינו שפיר אלא למ"ד כתב סופר ועד קשה ניחוש דשמא סופר כתבו להתלמד וזרקו לאשפה ובאתה האשה והחתימה עליו עד אחד ואין כאן שנים

1.

According to the opinion (ibid.) that his handwriting and one witness is valid, there is no problem (why a child who resulted from such a get should be kosher). However, according to the opinion that only the handwriting of the scribe plus the witness makes a Get valid (as this is like two witnesses), it seems difficult (to establish the case of one witness according to Rebbi Meir). Why don't we suspect that the scribe wrote the Get just for practice and proceeded to throw it away. The woman might have found it and signed one witness on it. This would mean that there certainly are not two witnesses on the Get (as the scribe was just practicing).

וי"ל שהסופרים חוששים למכשול ונזהרין בכך ומיהו אין רגילות להזהר לגמרי שתחשב כתיבת סופר כעד אחד.

(g)

Answer: Scribes are generally careful not to leave stumbling blocks for people, and they are therefore careful (not to leave their practice Gitin accessible to the public). However, they are not totally careful to the extent that the writing of the scribe should always be considered like a witness (unless the scribe says that he wrote the Get). (Note: It is still within the realm of possibility that the woman indeed might possibly have found it in the garbage.)

11)

TOSFOS DH "Kasav"

תוס' ד"ה "כתב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why a Get in a husband's handwriting is invalid.)

טעמא דפסול

(a)

Implied Question: Why is a Get in his handwriting invalid?

משום שיוכל לכתוב הזמן כמו שירצה והוי כאין בו זמן

(b)

Answer: The reason the Get is invalid is because he can write the date of the Get whenever he wants, making it is like a Get that has no date which is invalid.

וא"ת בשלמא למ"ד בפ"ב (לקמן דף יז.) דתקנו זמן בגיטין שלא יחפה על בת אחותו הכא בכתב ידו נמי איכא למיחש שמא יחפה

(c)

Question: This is understandable according to the opinion later (17a) that they established that the date must be recorded in Gitin in order that a person should not have pity on his niece (who is also his wife). (Note: If he finds out she was unfaithful, he would otherwise be able to write a Get that is dated before she was unfaithful, sparing her the death penalty.) Here, too, the Get being written in his handwriting does not alleviate the suspicion that he would be covering up for his wife.

אבל למאן דמפרש התם דתקינו זמן משום פירי קשה לר"י מה חשש יש בכתב ידו

1.

However, according to the opinion who explains there that the date on a Get was mandated in order to ensure that any Nichsei mi'Lug that is sold is only sold before the date on the Get (see Rashi 17a, DH "mi'Shum"), what suspicion is there when the Get is written in his handwriting?

ואם יש לחוש שיקדים זמן לטובת האשה אע"פ שבא לגרשה ולעשות עמה קנוניא שתגבה מלקוחות שמכר להם פירות בינתים מאותו הזמן הכתוב בגט עד עכשיו כמו שאנו חושדין את האשה גבי שובר כתובה בסוף שנים אוחזין (ב"מ דף יט.)

i.

One might think that we suspect that he will date the Get early, even though he is divorcing her, in order to conspire that she will collect from the unsuspecting buyers who bought the Nichsei mi'Lug from him between the date on the Get and the date it was actually given (and they will split the money).There indeed is a similar suspicion regarding a woman receiving a receipt for her Kesuvah (see Bava Metzia 19a).

א"כ לא נסמוך עליו לטרוף לקוחות מזמן הכתוב בו

ii.

If so, we should merely not trust such a Get to take away possessions from buyers of Nichsei mi'Lug based on the date in the Get (but the Get itself should be ruled to be kosher).

וי"ל דודאי אינו נאמן ולכך פסלוהו דלפעמים תפסיד האשה שלא כדין כשיכתוב הבעל יום שעומד בו ולא יקדים הזמן ואז היה לה לטרוף לקוחות מזמן הכתוב והיא לא תוכל לטרוף לפי שאנו חושדין אותו שהקדים הזמן ולכך פסלוהו

(d)

Answer #1: He is certainly not believed. Chazal therefore said the Get is unfit because sometimes the woman will also lose (and therefore it is not in her interests for the Get to be kosher, see Maharam). For example, if the husband writes the correct date (on a regular kosher Get), his ex-wife should be able to collect from buyers who bought Nichsei mi'Lug after the divorce. However, in this case we will not believe the date on the Get because we suspect that he dated it early. (Note: Accordingly, the woman will never be able to get back Nichsei mi'Lug wrongly sold by the husband.) They therefore said the Get is unfit.

דהשתא בדין לא תטרוף האשה מזמן הכתוב כיון שהגט פסול דדוקא בגט כשר גובה מיום הכתיבה

1.

Now the woman will not take away possessions from others because the Get is unfit, as only a kosher Get allows one to collect (Nichsei mi'Lug wrongly sold by the husband) from the day it was written.

ועי"ל דחיישינן דאחר הכתיבה מיד תתפוס הפירות ותאמר שכבר נתגרשה מזמן הכתוב בו.

(e)

Answer #2: We can additionally answer that we suspect that after the Get is written (but not yet given) she will seize her Nichsei mi'Lug, and claim that she was already divorced from the time stated in the Get (even though she was never given the Get by her husband). (Note: The Maharam, who understands Tosfos in this fashion, explains that a Get that is properly signed with witnesses, even before it is given, effectively means that the husband no longer has rights to his wife's Nichsei mi'Lug. Accordingly, if his wife would take the Get away before it is given and use it to seize Nichsei mi'Lug, she would be correct in doing so. However, if it is written in his handwriting but not given, her seizure would be incorrect.)

12)

TOSFOS DH "Yesh Bo Zeman v'Ain Bo"

תוס' ד"ה "יש בו זמן ואין בו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah stated a case where the Get was written in his handwriting with no witnesses, and a case where there was one witness.)

למ"ד כתב ידו ועד שנינו

(a)

Implied Question: According to the opinion that this case is when the Get was written in his handwriting and there was a witness to the document, (why bother to say both this case and the case where it was only written in his handwriting)? (Note: If in the case where there are no witnesses the Get is unkosher but the children are not Mamzerim, certainly where there is an added witness the same is true!)

תנא כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים לאשמועינן דאפ"ה הולד כשר וסיפא דאין בו אלא עד אחד איצטריך דאפ"ה לא תנשא לכתחילה.

(b)

Answer: The reason that the Mishnah stated the case where there were no witnesses was to say that even so the children are not Mamzerim. The reason for the second case where there was one witness is to say that she cannot marry Lechatchilah based on this Get.

13)

TOSFOS DH "Yesh Bo Zeman"

תוס' ד"ה "יש בו זמן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the case of the Mishnah was not that there was one witness without a date on the Get.)

נראה ה"ה דאין בו זמן

(a)

Implied Question: It seems that the same would be true if there was no date on the Get. (Note: If this is so, why didn't the Mishnah say a greater novelty, that a Get that has a witness but not a date prevents the children of the subsequent marriage from being proclaimed Mamzerim?)

אלא לאשמועינן אע"ג דיש בו זמן לא תינשא לכתחילה.

(b)

Answer: The reason why this case was said including a date on the Get is in order to tell us that even though it has a date she should not use it to get married again Lechatchilah.

14)

TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Elazar"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי אלעזר"

(SUMMARY: How do we see from here that Rebbi Elazar holds that witnesses do not have to sign on the Get?)

וא"ת דילמא דוקא כתב בכתב ידו או בעד אחד דאיירי ת"ק מכשיר ר"א

(a)

Question: It is possible that Rebbi Elazar only says that such a Get is kosher if it was written in his handwriting or with one witness, as the Tana Kama is only discussing these types of Gitin. (Note: What is the Gemara's proof from here that Rebbi Elazar holds that signing "Lishmah" is not necessary?)

וי"ל דהלשון אפילו אין עליו עדים משמע דאין עליו עדים כלל

(b)

Answer #1: The terminology "even if there are no witnesses" implies even if there are no witnesses at all.

ועוד דקתני דאין העדים חותמין על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם משמע דבעדי מסירה לחוד סגי

(c)

Answer #2: Additionally, Rebbi Elazar says, "witnesses only sign on a Get because of Tikun Olam." (Note: Rashi DH "Ela" explains that if the witnesses die the document will still be valid, as their signature can be verified by others.) This implies that witnesses for the giving over of the Get is truly enough to have a kosher Get.

ונראה לר"י דאף לכתחילה מכשיר ר' אלעזר בעדי מסירה כדפירש בקונטרס

(d)

Answer #3: The Ri understands that Rebbi Elazar holds that Lechatchilah a Get can be given even if there are only witnesses for the giving of the Get (and no witnesses sign on the Get).

מדקתני לקמן בפ"ב (דף כא:) אין כותבין על הנייר מחוק וחכמים מכשירין ואמר מאן חכמים ר"א דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי ומשמע מכשירין וכותבין

1.

This is evident from the Mishnah later (21b) where the Tana Kama says that one should not write a Get on paper that was erased. The Chachamim say that such a Get is kosher. The Gemara there asks, who is the Chachamim? It is Rebbi Elazar, who holds that the witnesses of the giving of the Get effect the Get. The implication is that such a Get is kosher, and can be written Lechatchilah.

והדתנן בהשולח (לקמן דף לד:) התקין ר"ג שיהו העדים חותמין על הגט

(e)

Implied Question: The Mishnah later (34b) says that Rabban Gamliel decreed that witnesses must sign on a Get. (Note: Accordingly, how could Rebbi Elazar ignore that decree?)

לא שצריך לעשות כן אלא תיקן שילמד להם לעשות כן שלא יצטרכו לעדי מסירה כשירצו להראות לראיה השטר והגט אבל אם באים לסמוך לכתחילה אעדי מסירה סומכין.

(f)

Answer: It must be that Rabban Gamliel did not mean that this is necessary, but rather he decreed that this should be taught as the way to organize a Get. This is in order that the people should not need the witnesses who saw the giving of the Get when they want to use the Get as proof (in any case that may arise). However, if people knowingly say that they will only rely on witnesses of the giving of the Get (and they do not care to have witnesses signed on the Get, Rebbi Elazar would say that) they are entitled to do so.

15)

TOSFOS DH "v'Goveh"

תוס' ד"ה "וגובה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not Rebbi Elazar means that all documents with witnesses who saw the giving of the document can be used to collect possessions with a lien.)

לשון שני פי' בקונטרס אם שטר מלוה הוא גובה מנכסים משועבדים

(a)

Explanation: The second explanation of Rashi is that if this is a loan document, one could collect from possessions with a lien (even though no witnesses are signed on the document).

וכן נראה לר"ת עיקר דאפילו בשאר שטרות גובה בעדי מסירה מנכסים משועבדים כדמשמע בפ' בתרא (לקמן דף פו:) דאמר רב הלכה כר"א בגיטין ובשאר שטרות לא והא קתני וגובה מנכסים משועבדים אלמא דר"א איירי נמי בשאר שטרות

(b)

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam agrees. This is implied in the Gemara later (86b), where Rav says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin. The Gemara asks, the Halachah does not follow him regarding other documents? Doesn't he say that one can collect from possessions with a lien? This clearly implies that Rebbi Elazar even holds this way regarding other documents.

וקשה דאמר בגט פשוט (ב"ב דף קעו.) הוחזק כתב ידו בב"ד מהו פי' מהו שיגבה ממשעבדי ומייתי מהך דגיטין דקתני וגובה מנכסים משועבדים ומשני שאני התם דאיכא כתובה משמע דדוקא בגט איירי ולא בשאר שטרות

(c)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bava Basra (176b) asks, what if his handwriting is known to the Beis Din? This means, could one collect from possessions with a lien based on such a document? The Gemara there continues to quote the above Gemara in Gitin (86b), where it says that one could collect from possessions with a lien. The Gemara there answers that the case in Gitin, "is different as there is a Kesuvah." This answer implies that this law only applies to Get, not other types of documents (where there is no Kesuvah).

ורשב"ם גרס התם שאני התם דמשעת כתיבה שיעבד נפשיה פירוש כשנכתב השטר נכתב כדי למוסרו בפני עדים שיהו עדי מסירה במקום עדי חתימה והוי קול כאילו עדים חתומים

(d)

Answer: The Rashbam there has the text, "is different, as from the time when it was written and on he indebted himself." This means, when the document was written it was done so in order to give it over in front of witnesses instead of having witnesses sign on the document. This creates the same amount of publicity (regarding the transaction) as if witnesses were signed on the document.

אבל לעיל איבעיא לן הוחזק כתב ידו בב"ד ומסר בינו לבין עצמו ולא נתכוין אלא להודאה ולא לעשות שטר שיהיה לו קול והתם לא יועיל אפילו איתחזק בב"ד

1.

However, when the Gemara earlier asked regarding someone whose handwriting is known to Beis Din, it was asking regarding someone who gave the document without witnesses. He only intended to admit in the document to whatever he wrote, and did not intend to write a document that would have automatic publicity. Accordingly, such a document will not help (to enable one to collect possessions with a lien), even if his handwriting was known to Beis Din. (Note: According to this explanation of the answer, there is no contradiction between the two Gemaros.)

ורבינו חננאל פי' דההיא דגט פשוט (שם דף קעו.) פליגא אההיא דהמגרש (לקמן דף פו:)

(e)

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Chananel explained the Gemara in Bava Basra (176a) as arguing on the Gemara in Gitin (86b).

ופסק רבינו חננאל שיש לסמוך אההיא דגט פשוט ולא מגבינן בעדי מסירה אלא מבני חרי

1.

Rabeinu Chananel rules that one should rely on the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.), and therefore should not collect when there are only witnesses regarding the giving of the document from possessions that do not have a lien.

והא דפריך סתמא דהש"ס בפירקין (דף יא.) גבי שטר פרסאה דמסרי באפי סהדי ישראל אי הכי ממשעבדי נמי ליגבי

(f)

Implied Question: The Gemara later (11a) asks regarding a Persian document that was given over in front of Jewish witnesses, why can't it be used to collect from possessions that have a lien? (Note: According to Rabeinu Chananel, we do not rule that even a Jewish document that only has witnesses of the giving over of the document can be used to collect from possessions with a lien. Why would the Gemara think that this document would be any different?)

לא קשה לפסק רבינו חננאל דמיירי בחתימי עליה סהדי עובדי כוכבים הדיוטות כדפי' בקונטרס ומשום הכי ס"ד דגבי ממשעבדי כיון דמסרי באפי סהדי ישראל חשיבי הנך הדיוטות כערכאות

(g)

Answer: This is not difficult according to Rabeinu Chananel's ruling. The Gemara there is discussing a document that has Nochri witnesses signed on it, as Rashi explained. Therefore, the Gemara entertains that possessions with a lien could be collected with this document. Being that the document was given over in front of Jewish witnesses, it is possible that these Nochrim should be considered like a Nochri court.

וגם מלשון הקונטרס מוכיח לקמן דלא גבי ממשעבדי אלא בעדי חתימה.

1.

Additionally, Rashi's terminology later in the Gemara implies that possessions with a lien can only be collected when witnesses are signed on a document.

16)

TOSFOS DH "v'Chi"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no question on our Gemara's train of thought from a Mishnah later (21b).

ופסול בדיעבד דבענין אחר לא מתוקמא מתניתין כוותיה כדפיר' לעיל

(a)

Explanation: The Get would even be unkosher b'Dieved, as otherwise it would not be possible to say the Mishnah is like Rebbi Meir as explained earlier (see the first Tosfos on this Amud).

ואם תאמר ומאי שנא ממחובר דאמר לעיל אין כותבין לכתחילה אבל בדיעבד כשר אפילו מדרבנן דמדאורייתא אין חילוק בין לכתחילה לדיעבד

(b)

Question: What is the difference between a Get that is connected to the ground when it is written (and later disconnected, signed, and given), where the Gemara stated that b'Dieved it is kosher even mid'Rabbanan? According to Torah law, there is clearly no difference between Lechatchilah and b'Dieved in this matter.

ויש לומר דהשתא מוקי ההיא מתניתין דמחובר כרבי אלעזר וחתמו אתורף קאי.

(c)

Answer: The Gemara is currently establishing that Mishnah according to Rebbi Elazar. When the Mishnah says "they signed," it means on the main part of the Get (see explanation on Tosfos 1) above at length).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF