GITIN 4 (5 Teves) - Dedicated in memory of Max (Meir Menachem ben Shlomo ha'Levi) Turkel, by his children Eddie and Lawrence and his wife Jean Turkel/Rafalowicz. Max was a warm and loving husband and father and is missed dearly by his family and friends. His Yahrzeit is 5 Teves

1)

TOSFOS DH "v'Chasmu"

תוס' ד"ה "וחתמו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that according to Rebbi Meir this is actually Lechatchilah, how this is proved by other Gemaros, and fits in to our Gemara.)

לכתחילה נמי כשר לחתום וליתן

(a)

Explanation: Lechatchilah, it is permitted to sign and give the Get.

דבפרק כל הגט (לקמן דף כו:) ובהכותב (כתובות דף פה.) מוכיח מדרב נחמן דהכא דלמיחזי כשיקרא לא חיישינן

(b)

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Gitin (26b), and Kesuvos (85a), where the Gemara proves from Rav Nachman that we are not worried that this will appear like a lie. (Note: This indicates that it can be used Lechatchilah, as it would seemingly not be a reason to say a Get is invalid b'Dieved.)

ועוד תנן בפרק כל הגט (לקמן דף כו.) הכותב טופסי גיטין צריך שיניח מקום האיש והאשה וקאמר בגמ' משום קטטה ור' מאיר היא או משום תקנת עגונות משמע במצאו באשפה דלא שייכי הני טעמי שרי אפילו לכתחילה

(c)

Proof #2: Additionally, the Mishnah in Gitin (26a) states that someone who writes forms for Gitin must leave space for the name of the man and woman. The Gemara writes that this is even according to Rebbi Meir, in order to prevent fights (that would transpire if a woman heard that a scribe was writing names identical to those of her and her husband, and she would think he is going to divorce her). Alternatively, the reason may be because of Takanas Agunos (this is explained different ways, see Gemara 26b). This implies that if it was just found in the garbage, where these reasons wouldn't apply, it would be permitted Lechatchilah to use such a Get.

ומאן דמפרש נמי התם משום תקנת סופר ורבי אלעזר היא משמע דלר"מ אין צריך להניח כלום ושרי לכתוב הכל

1.

The one who explains that the reason (that a scribe can write Gitin forms leaving out the names) is in order that the scribe should have Gitin available. This is according to Rebbi Eliezer (who holds that the giving over is the important part). This implies that according to Rebbi Meir, everything can be written.

והא דלא קאמר הכא חתמו ונתנו לה

(d)

Implied Question: Rav Nachman did not say here, "he should have the witnesses sign and he should give it to her (and it will be kosher, text of the Tosfos ha'Rosh)." (Note: Why not? The usage of the word "Kasher," and the usage of the Vav in "v'Chasmu v'Nasnu" implies that this is b'Dieved (see Tosfos ha'Rosh, which is slightly different than the Maharsha and Maharam Shif), while the law is actually Lechatchilah (as stated above)! )

אומר ר"ת משום דהוה משמע דלא סגי דלא עביד הכי

(e)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this would imply that it would not be good if he did not do this. (Note: Such strong language implies that he specifically must do so, as opposed to having a regular Get written.)

וא"ת ומאי שנא דבעי לר"מ לכתחילה כתיבה בתלוש למאן דמוקי מתניתין דמחובר כר' מאיר ושלא לשמה שרי אפילו לכתחילה

(f)

Question: What is the difference between the following two laws? Why would Rebbi Meir require the Get to be written Lechatchilah when it is detached from the ground, according to those who hold the Mishnah that one must do so is according to Rebbi Meir, but yet hold that the Get Lechatchilah does not have to be written "Lishmah?"

ואומר ר"ת דלגבי לשמה לא חיישינן אי מייתי גט לעדים שאינו כתוב לשמה שיחתמו גם הם שלא לשמה דכיון דידעי דצריך לשמה לא אתו למיטעי אבל במחובר אי כתב לה במחובר זימנין דמישתלי ואין נזכרין לתלוש וחתמי.

(g)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that regarding Lishmah, we do not suspect that if a Get was not written Lishmah that the witnesses will not sign Lishmah. Being that the witnesses know they must sign Lishmah, they will not make a mistake. However, if the Get is written when it is still connected to the ground, it is possible that the witnesses will forget that they are not supposed to sign when it is on the ground, and will end up signing when it is still attached.

2)

TOSFOS DH "Modeh"

תוס' ד"ה "מודה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how our Gemara can say that a Get that is not signed Lishmah is similar to a Get that is integrally problematic.)

תימה לר"י מה ענין שלא לשמה למזוייף מתוכו שחתומים בו קרובין או פסולים

(a)

Question: This is difficult to the Ri. What does not writing a Get Lishmah have to do with a Get that is integrally problematic, where relatives or people who are unfit signed as witnesses?

דהתם בדין מיפסיל משום דלמא אתי למיסמך עילוייהו להשיאה או להוציא ממון על פיהם אע"פ שהדבר אמת אין לעשות אלא בעדות כשר כדאמר בפ' ארבעה אחין (יבמות דף לא:) נינחיה גבי עדים זימנין דחזו בכתבא ומסהדי ורחמנא אמר מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם

1.

In a case where a Get is integrally problematic it is clearly Pasul (and should be noted as such), as someone might come to use it to allow her to marry or to take money away from someone based on this document. Even though it could be that the Get happened (in front of kosher witnesses), it can only be effected through kosher witnessing. This is as stated in Yevamos (31b,) that if we leave a document with the witnesses, they might use it to remind them of what happened. They might end up testifying about the matter after awhile (and use the document to refresh their memory). The Torah states that testimony must be, "from their mouths - and not from the mouths of their writings (and this testimony would violate that)."

אבל הכא שהעדים כשרים אלא שחתמו שלא לשמה מה תקלה יש בכך אם נסמוך עליהן

2.

However, here that the witnesses are kosher witnesses and they merely did not sign "Lishmah," what is wrong with relying on them?

וליכא למימר דאי שרינן בחתמו שלא לשמה יבא להכשיר זימנין דיחתמו תחלה ויכתבו גט על גבי חתימתן והתם ליכא עדות כלל דאם כן מטעם זה גם בשאר שטרות היה לנו להצריך חתימה לשמה

i.

It cannot be said that if they permit a document that was not signed Lishmah, witnesses will eventually sign first and then write a Get over their signatures, which would mean they essentially testified about nothing. If we would have such a suspicion, then every document would require that it be signed Lishmah.

ויש לומר דמ"מ איכא למיגזר חתימה אטו כתיבה דאם אין עושין חתימה לשמה גזרינן פן לא יכתבו גם הכתיבה לשמה.

(b)

Answer: There is still reason to decree that not signing a Get Lishmah should be Pasul, as it might lead to not writing a Get Lishmah.

3)

TOSFOS DH "Ha Mani"

תוס' ד"ה "הא מני"

(SUMMARY: Can our Tana really hold like Rebbi Yehudah?)

אע"ג דבריש פ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) תנא קמא דר' יהודה מצריך בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

(a)

Implied Question: In the beginning of the second Perek (15a), the Tana Kama who argues on Rebbi Yehudah requires that the person bringing the Get say that the Get was written and signed before him. (Note: The Maharam explains that Rebbi Yehudah does not require that this be said by one person (rather one can say they saw it written and one can say they saw it signed). How, then, can we say that our Mishnah is authored by a Tana who holds like Rebbi Yehudah if our Mishnah also states that this must be said by the person bringing the Get?)

בהא סבר לה כר"י.

(b)

Answer: In this matter he holds like Rebbi Yehudah. (Note: The Maharam understands that the Gemara is not saying that the Tana of our Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, but rather that the Tana of our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Yehudah. This is one of the many explanations said by the Acharonim in our Tosfos (see also Maharsha, Maharshal, and others).)

4)

TOSFOS DH "Ad she'Tehei"

תוס' ד"ה "עד שתהא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah also said, "and its signatures.")

וא"ת ולמה ליה למינקט וחתימתו כיון שהיתה כתיבה בתלוש אי אפשר לחתימתו שתהא במחובר

(a)

Question: Why does the Mishnah have to say that Rebbi Yehudah requires that the writing of the Get and its signature be when the Get is detached from the ground? If it is detached when the Get is written, it will obviously be detached when the witnesses sign!

וי"ל דמשכחת לה שכתבו על אילן תלוש ואח"כ נטעו והשריש וחתמו.

(b)

Answer: It is possible to find a case where the Get would have been written on an uprooted tree, which was then planted and took root before the witnesses signed the Get.

5)

Tosfos DH "d'Kaima Lan"

תוס' ד"ה "דקיימא לן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos expounds on how witnesses of the giving over of a Get are absolutely required.)

משום דמיירי הכא בגיטין נקט גיטין אבל הלכה כמותו אף בשאר שטרות

(a)

Explanation: Being that the Gemara is talking about Gitin, it said Gitin. However, the Halachah is in fact like Rebbi Elazar even regarding other documents.

אע"ג דכל אמוראי דלקמן (דף פו:) סברי כר' אלעזר דוקא בגיטין קיימא לן כשמואל בדיני דפליג לקמן (שם) אדרב וקאמר אף בשאר שטרות

(b)

Proof #1: Even though all of the Amoraim later (86b) hold like Rebbi Elazar only regarding Gitin, we rule like Shmuel who argues there on Rav that even regarding other documents the Halachah follows Rebbi Elazar.

ועוד בפ' זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כח:) גבי מתנתא דהוו חתימי עלה תרי גיסי קאמר רב יוסף זיל אקנייה בעדי מסירה כר' אלעזר

(c)

Proof #2: Additionally, in Sanhedrin (28b) regarding a document describing a present that was given, which contained two brothers-in-law, Rav Yosef said, "Go effect the Kinyan with witnesses who will see the giving, as per the opinion of Rebbi Elazar."

ופריך ליה אביי והאמר ר' אבא מודה ר' אלעזר במזוייף מתוכו שהוא פסול משמע דרב יוסף ואביי דהוו בתראי סברי כר' אלעזר

1.

Abaye asked, "didn't Rebbi Aba say that Rebbi Elazar admitted that a document that is integrally problematic is unfit?" This implies that Rav Yosef and Abaye, who were late Amoraim, agree that the law follows Rebbi Elazar. (Note: They would agree that if there was no integral problem with the document that the transaction could be effected with witnesses of the giving of the document alone.)

ובפירקין נמי אמר ר' אבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי

(d)

Proof #3: In our Gemara as well, Rebbi Aba says that if a Persian document was given over in front of Jewish witnesses, it can be used to collect from possessions that do not have a lien.

ולפיכך צריך ליזהר שיהו עדי מסירה בשעת נתינת הגט דאינהו כרתי דאי ליכא שם עדי מסירה אינה מגורשת אע"ג דאיכא עדי חתימה

(e)

Opinion: Therefore, it is extremely important to be careful to have witnesses of the giving over of a Get, as they are the one's who effect the Get. If there are no such witnesses, she is not divorced, even if witnesses sign on the Get (and the Get was given, just not in front of witnesses).

ולא מהני עדי חתימה אלא שאם ימותו עדי מסירה או ילכו להם למדינת הים שתינשא ע"י עדי חתימה דמסתמא בהכשר נעשה כדאמרינן בהשולח (לקמן דף לו.) לא צריכא אלא לר' אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה דזימנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי דאזלי למדינת הים

1.

Witnesses who sign on the document only help in a situation where the witnesses of the giving of the Get died or moved overseas. They enable her to remarry, as we assume that the Get was done correctly. This is as stated later (36a), that according to Rebbi Elazar who says that witnesses of the giving of the document effect the transaction, the reason that the Rabbanan established witnesses to sign on the Get was lest the witnesses of the giving of the Get die, or go overseas.

וכן משמע בפ' בתרא (לקמן דף פו:) גבי שנים ששלחו שני גיטין ושמותיהן שוין (ונתערבו) נותן שתיהן לזו ושתיהן לזו וקאמר בגמ' דלא כר' אלעזר משום דלא ידעי עדי מסירה בהי מינייהו מיגרשא אבל לר"מ ניחא

2.

This is also implied later (86b) when the Mishnah discusses a case of two people that each sent a Get to their wives, and the couples had identical names. The Gitin got mixed up on the way to their destination. The Mishnah says that each Get should be given to each wife. The Gemara comments that this is unlike the position of Rebbi Elazar, as the witnesses of the giving of the Get cannot know which Get actually effected the divorce. However, according to Rebbi Meir this is not difficult.

וצריך לומר דבמשולשין איירי דבעי לר"מ שיהא מוכח מתוכו כדאמרינן בריש כל הגט (לקמן דף כד:) גבי כתב לגרש את הגדולה

i.

The case must be (according to Rebbi Meir) where the names of the men include their grandfather (see Mishnah in Bava Basra 172a). This is in order that the document itself should contain enough evidence for whom the document is for (even if we do not presently recognize whom it is was for, i.e. we don't know their grandfather's names). This is as stated later (24b), regarding someone who wanted to divorce his older wife (that he cannot use it to divorce his younger wife with the same name).

ואי לר' אלעזר סגי בעדי חתימה אמאי לא אתיא כר' אלעזר דל עדי מסירה מהכא בעדי חתימה סגי אלא משמע דלעולם בעי ר' אלעזר עדי מסירה

ii.

If according to Rebbi Elazar witnesses who signed the Get would be sufficient, why doesn't the Gemara there (86b) say that the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar? Even if there would be no witnesses of the giving of the Get, Rebbi Elazar would say that the witnesses of the signing are sufficient! It must therefore be that Rebbi Elazar holds that witnesses of the giving of the Get are required (not merely an option).

ועוד דרגיל ר"ת לומר דאפילו לר"מ בעי עדים בשעת נתינת הגט דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים

(f)

Opinion: Additionally, Rabeinu Tam used to say that even according to Rebbi Meir witnesses are required when the Get is given, as there is no matter regarding Arayos that is effected with less than two witnesses (see Tosfos above 2b, DH "Havei Davar").

וכן שטר מתנת קרקע או שטר מכר שהוא לקנין קרקע ואינו לראיה אין מועיל כלום לר' אלעזר אם ידוע שלא נתנו בפני עדים

1.

Additionally, a document regarding a present of land or a sale document for acquiring land, not just for proof of purchase, does not help at all according to Rebbi Elazar if it is known that it was not given over in front of witnesses.

מיהו יש לחלק דלענין ממון דמהניא הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים סגי בעדי חתימה במקום הודאת בעל דין אבל בקידושין וגרושין לא מהניא הודאת בעל דין משום דמחייב לאחרים דבקידושין אסר לה אקרובים ובגרושין אסר לה אכהן.

2.

Regarding monetary matters, where if someone admits to owing money it is as if one hundred witnesses testify to that effect, the signature of witnesses can take the place of his admittance. However, regarding marriage and divorce admittance does not help, as it makes others obligated as well. If he says he married her he forbids her to marry his relatives, and if he says he divorced her he prohibits her from marrying a Kohen.

6)

TOSFOS DH "u'Mar Savar"

תוס' ד"ה "ומר סבר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies Rebbi Elazar's position.)

וטעמא דרבי אליעזר לא משום דקסבר דמובלעות נמי לא שכיחי אלא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים כדמשמע בסמוך.

(a)

Explanation: Rebbi Elazar's reasoning is not because he holds that the people from the towns swallowed between the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael are not commonly found in Eretz Yisrael, but rather so as not to differentiate (within this decree) between different places outside of Eretz Yisrael.

4b----------------------------------------4b

7)

TOSFOS DH "Tnan"

תוס' ד"ה "תנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask from the part of the Mishnah.)

ומרישא דמתניתין המביא גט ממדינת הים דמשמע דוקא ממדה"י לא"י לא מצי למיפרך

(a)

Implied Question: From the first part of the Mishnah that states, "one who brings a Get from overseas," which implies specifically that this law only applies to one who brings a Get from overseas to Eretz Yisrael (not to another country that is overseas), the Gemara was unable to ask.

דלעולם באותה מדינה במדינת הים נמי צריך ונקט הכי לאפוקי רקם וחגר.

(b)

Answer: This is because one indeed has to say this (when bringing a Get to another country overseas). The only reason the first part of the Mishnah used this terminology was to exclude places like Rekem and Cheger (not other countries overseas, see Mishnah 2a).

8)

TOSFOS DH "Ela"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא אימא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah stated, "from country to country.")

וא"ת ואמאי נקט ממדינה למדינה ניתני המביא גט באותה מדינה במדינת הים צריך כו' הא בארץ ישראל אין צריך באותה מדינה וה"ה ממדינה למדינה דלרבה אין חילוק בין אותה מדינה ובין ממדינה למדינה

(a)

Question: Why did the Mishnah say, "from country to country (overseas)?" It should have merely stated, "one who brings a Get in the same country overseas has to (say etc.)?" This would imply correctly that in Eretz Yisrael it is not necessary when bringing a Get to say this. One would not need to say this when going from one country (province) to another in Eretz Yisrael either, as according to Rabah there is no difference between that country and a country to another country (within "overseas" or Eretz Yisrael).

וי"ל דנקט הכי לאשמועינן דלא נימא דממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל צריך נמי משום קיום כרבא קמ"ל דאין צריך דטעמא לאו משום קיום

(b)

Answer #1: It said this to teach that we should not think that one would have to say this when going from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael. One might otherwise think it would have to be said because of the difficulty inherent in verifying the document, and ascribe this to the position of Rava. The Mishnah therefore makes a point of saying, "from country to country (overseas)," to show that the reasoning is not based on the position of Rava (and to show that within Eretz Yisrael there is never a problem).

אי נמי משום דשכיחי עולי רגלים כדמסיק.

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, the reason that there is no problem within Eretz Yisrael is because it is common to have people traveling to Yerushalayim there on the Regalim, as our Gemara later concludes.

9)

TOSFOS DH "Ee mei'Hahee"

תוס' ד"ה "אי מההיא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this question is keying on the first part of the Mishnah, and how the Gemara's terminology fits with this explanation.)

פירש בקונטרס

(a)

Implied Question: Which part of the Mishnah is the Gemara referring to?

אי מדיוקא דרישא

(b)

Answer: Rashi explains this question is referring to the implication of the first part of the Mishnah (that one only has to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. when bringing a Get from overseas to another place overseas, not when bringing a Get from Eretz Yisrael to another place in Eretz Yisrael).

ופי' כן משום דאסיפא לא הוי מצי למימר הני מילי דיעבד דהא בהדיא קתני אין צריך דמשמע לכתחילה

(c)

Proof: He could not have said that our Gemara's statement that we might have thought this is only acceptable b'Dieved is referring to the latter part of the Mishnah, as the Mishnah explicitly says, "it is not necessary," implying that this is Lechatchilah.

ומיהו לשון אי מההיא לא משמע הכי

(d)

Question: However, the Gemara's terminology (when asking the question), "if it would be from there" does not imply that it is asking a question from the first part of the Mishnah. (Note: When the Gemara says, "there," it implies the source presently being discussed, namely the second part of our Mishnah.)

ונראה דיש ליישב דהכא שייך למיתני א"צ בדיעבד כלומר אין צריך ליטלו הימנה כשלא אמר בפני נכתב ובפ"נ דאמר לקמן כיצד יעשה יטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתן לה בפני שנים ויאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם

(e)

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that the term, "it is not necessary," could imply b'Dieved (not Lechatchilah, as was previously stated). It could imply that it is not necessary for him to take back the Get from her when he does not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. (and give it again while first saying b'Fanay Nechtav, see 5b).

אבל קשה דאמרינן בריש פ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) המביא גט ממדינת הים ואמר בפני נכתב אבל לא בפני נחתם כו' פסול ופריך בגמ' תנינא חדא זימנא המביא כו' ומשני אי מההיא הוה אמינא צריך ואי לא אמר כשר

(f)

Question: However, this is difficult. The Mishnah later states (15a) that if someone brings a Get from overseas and only says b'Fanay Nechtav and not b'Fanay Nechtam, the Get is Pasul. The Gemara asks, we already learned this (from our Mishnah (2a)! The Gemara answers, if that that would be our source we would think that it is necessary to say b'Fanay Nechtav and b'Fanay Nechtam, but if one does not it is kosher b'Dieved.

והיכי הוה מצי למימר הכי הא אמרינן הכא דאי לא תנא אלא חד בבא הוה אמינא בא"י לכתחילה צריך מכלל דבמדינת הים אפילו בדיעבד נמי צריך

1.

How could the Gemara say we would think this? Our Gemara says that we would think (if we only had the first part of the Mishnah) that within Eretz Yisrael one must say b'Fanay Nechtav. This implies that if someone brings a Get from "overseas" the lack of b'Fanay Nechtav would mean the Get is totally Pasul!

וי"ל דמאחר דתנא הכא תרי בבי לאשמועינן דארץ ישראל אפילו לכתחילה אין צריך אם כן מהשתא מצינן למימר דהא דצריך במדינת הים היינו לכתחילה אבל בדיעבד כשר להכי איצטריך מתניתין דפ"ב

(g)

Answer: Being that the Mishnah (2a) here has two cases which aim to teach that within Eretz Yisrael b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is not necessary at all, this implies that bringing a Get from overseas to Eretz Yisrael without saying b'Fanay Nechtav is only a matter of Lechatchilah. This is why the Mishnah (15a) had to explicitly say that not saying both makes the Get Pasul, even b'Dieved.

ועוד נראה לר"י דהכי פירושא הני מילי דיעבד שלא ראה כתיבת הגט וחתימתו דיכול ליתנו לה בא"י אבל לכתחילה צריך שיראה כתיבת הגט וחתימתו כדי שיוכל לומר בפני נכתב קמ"ל דלא צריך

(h)

Answer #2(to d): Additionally, the Ri says that this is the explanation of our Gemara's statement that "this is b'Dieved." It is b'Dieved when he did not see the writing of the Get and the signature, as he can still give the Get in Eretz Yisrael. However, Lechatchilah he should see both the writing and giving of the Get in order that he can say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. (in Eretz Yisrael as well). The Mishnah (2a) therefore teaches us that this is not necessary.

ובמדינת הים אם לא ראה כתיבת הגט וחתימתו אין יכול להביאו וליתנו לה ואם הביא ונתנו ה"א דכשר אי לא מתניתין דפ"ב והשתא מיתרצה נמי פירכא קמייתא.

1.

If he did not see the writing of the Get and the signatures overseas, he cannot go and bring it to the woman. If he did, however, I might think it is kosher without the Mishnah later (15a). This also answers the first question.

10)

TOSFOS DH "Kivan"

תוס' ד"ה "כיון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is a procedural difference between registering protests and verifying signatures on a Get in the same area.)

ואע"ג דלענין מחאה שלא בפניו אמרינן בחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף לח:) סתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמי ולא הוי מחאה

(a)

Implied Question: Regarding protests that are not done in front of the person occupying the land, the Gemara says in Bava Basra (38b) that the areas of Yehudah and Galil are considered to always be in a "state of closure" and it is therefore not a valid protest. (Note: The implication of a "state of closure" means that there are not frequent travelers between the two areas. This means that if one protests in Yehudah in front of two people that someone else is unjustly occupying land he owns in Galil, the protest is not valid as we assume that it will not reach the Galil. Accordingly, how can our Gemara say that there are frequent travelers within Eretz Yisrael and there is therefore never a need to say b'Fanay Nechtav?)

היינו משום שאין המחזיק דרכו לחזר אם עשו מחאה אבל הכא שמחזרת אחר עדים המכירים חתימת העדים מצויין לקיימו

(b)

Answer: The reason that the protest is invalid is because the person occupying the land won't go back (to the other country) just because someone protested his ownership. However, being that the woman will make a concerted effort to find witnesses who recognize the signature of the witnesses on her Get, it is considered that the witnesses are able to verify the Get.

ואם תאמר דלקמן (דף ו.) משמע איפכא גבי בני מחוזא דניידי ומצרכי בפני נכתב משכונה לשכונה אטו במחוזא מי לא הוה מחאה

(c)

Question: The Gemara later (6a) implies otherwise. The Gemara discusses the people of Mechuza who constantly wander. Their Gitin indeed require b'Fanay Nechtav etc. even from one neighborhood to another. Would it be possible to say that in Mechuza therefore one could not lodge a valid protest?

וי"ל דהתם אפילו ימחה בפני בני אדם שהולכין להם שלא יאמרו למחזיק מכל מקום דרך הליכתם יאמרו לאחרים וחברך חברא אית ליה כדאמרינן התם אבל לענין קיום כיון דניידי לא ימצא קיום כשיצטרך להם.

(d)

Answer: There, even if he will protest before people that are "on the go" and will not necessarily relate his protest to the occupier, they will still tell others they meet on the road. This will lead to one friend telling his friend, and the protest will end up getting back to the occupier (he might even make the protest when he arrives home briefly, see Maharam Shif). However, regarding validating the Get, being that they are always traveling to different places, they will probably not find the right people to verify the Get when they need to do so. (Note: Being that they are a community of travelers, they do not even recognize each other's signatures, as their need for people's signatures occurs more on the road, where they live much of their lives, than at home.)

11)

TOSFOS DH "v'Amar R' Yitzchak"

תוס' ד"ה "ואמר ר' יצחק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that we could have figured out that this happened in Eretz Yisrael even if it would not have been spelled out by R' Yitzchak.)

בלא ר' יצחק נמי יש להוכיח דבארץ ישראל היתה

(a)

Observation: Without R' Yitzchak it is also possible to prove that this occurred in Eretz Yisrael.

דבחוצה לארץ באותה הגמוניא נמי צריך לרבה כיון דאין בקיאין לשמה.

1.

This is because outside of Eretz Yisrael the messenger would have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. even within the same kingdom, as Rabah holds that this requirement is due to the people not being experts in writing a Get Lishmah (see 2b).

12)

Tosfos DH "she'Hayu Makpidin"

תוס' ד"ה "שהיו מקפידין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos why b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is required between two kingdoms in one city.)

וחירום דידהו

(a)

Implied Question: (Note: The Gemara earlier said that although it was uncommon that there were travelers between Yehudah and Galil, b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is not necessary when bringing a Get from Yehudah to Galil (and visa versa). Accordingly, why would these two kingdoms in one city be any different?)

הוי טפי מחירום דיהודה וגליל.

(b)

Answer: Their "state of closure" (no traveling between the two areas) was more severe than the lack of travel between Yehudah and Galil. (Note: This is why they were indeed required to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. when going from one place to the other.)

13)

Tosfos DH "Rabah"

תוס' ד"ה "רבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why b'Fanay Nechtav is necessary in this case according to Rabah.)

וא"ת אמאי צריך לרבה בפני נכתב מהגמוניא להגמוניא והא רבה לא חייש לאיחלופי כיון דידענו לא מהני

(a)

Question: Why does Rabah require saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc. between these two kingdoms? Rabah does not suspect that people will mix up this process with the standard verifying of documents (see 3a), as saying that we know this is the signature of the witnesses does not help.

וי"ל דמתחילה לא היו מתקנין בפני נכתב משום איחלופי אבל כיון דתקינו משום לשמה במדינת הים תקנו שיאמר בכל מקום אף בארץ ישראל.

(b)

Answer: Originally, they would not have established b'Fanay Nechtav because of this suspicion (3a). However, being that they established that it should be said in order to ascertain that the Get was written Lishmah when coming from overseas (according to Rabah), they also established that it should be said (in this case) in Eretz Yisrael.

14)

Tosfos DH "Ela Mai"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא מאי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not previously ask, "what is the difference between these two answers?")

לעיל כי משני כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי לא הוה מצי למיבעי מאי בינייהו

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara previously, when it answered that because there are people who are Oleh Regel it is common to find people to verify the Get, could not have asked what is the difference between these two answers. (Note: Why not? The other was because there were Batei Din that were permanent fixtures where people commonly traveled).)

דאכתי איכא בינייהו מקומות דלא קביעי בתי דינין או שמקפידין זה על זה

(b)

Answer: This is because there are still places where the Batei Din were not permanent, or they were stringent not to allow people from one place to come to another place.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF