GITIN 22 (23 Teves) - Dedicated l'Zecher Nishmas Nachum (Nathan) ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis, whose was Niftar on 23 Teves 5700, by his son Shlomo Dovid (Sid) Mosenkis.


TOSFOS DH "Atzitz"

תוס' ד"ה "עציץ"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a case where the pot and seedlings belonged to one person.)

ה"ה דהוה מצי לאשמועי' הכל בעציץ וזרעים של אחד


Implied Question: In fact, the Gemara could have stated that the case is where the pot and seedlings belong to one person. (Note: Why didn't it do that?)

אלא לרבותא נקט הכי דאע"ג דבעל עציץ קונה זרעים לא קנה אע"פ שהם בתוך העציץ שלו.


Answer: Rather, the Gemara wanted to include a case where even though the owner of the pot is acquiring he does not acquire the seedlings, even though they are in his pot.


TOSFOS DH "Hichzik"

תוס' ד"ה "החזיק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos inquires as to whether or not "Agav u'Kni" must be said.)

צריך עיון אם צריך לומר אגב וקני כמו בעלמא כדאמרי' בפ"ק דקידושין (דף כז.) או שמא הכא לא צריך דכיון דצריך עציץ לזרעים בטל אגב זרעים


Question: It requires inquiry whether or not the seller must say "Agav u'Kni" -- "on the side (of the land) and acquire," as is usually done, as stated in Kidushin (27a). Or, perhaps here this is not necessary, as being that the pot is required for the seedlings, it is as if it is secondary to the seedlings.

וכן גבי שטר כיון שהחזיק בקרקע נקנה השטר בכל מקום שהוא


Similarly, regarding a document, we say that once the buyer holds onto the land, he acquires the document wherever it is (without having to say "Agav u'Kni").

ושמא התם לא בעינן אגב משום דשטר אפסרא דארעא הוא.


Perhaps there we do not require a term "Agav" because the document is the "reigns of the land" (see Bava Basra 53b).


TOSFOS DH "Basar Nikvo"

תוס' ד"ה "בתר נקבו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Abaye's opinion in our Gemara can fit with an opinion he quoted in Chulin.)

למאן דאמר בהעור והרוטב (חולין קכח.) בדלעת הנטוע בעציץ שאינו נקוב ויצאה חוץ לעציץ הטמא בטומאתו והטהור בטהרתו


Implied Question: In Chulin (128a), there is an opinion that a gourd that is planted in a pot that does not have a hole and (some of) it went outside the pot, the part that is impure (and is in the pot) stays impure, and the part that is pure (hanging outside the pot and therefore considered connected to the ground) is pure.

ה"ה אם עציץ בחוצה לארץ ונופו נוטה לארץ דמהני יניקת הנוף לענין נוף גופיה וחייב במעשר


Similarly (according to this opinion), if the pot is outside Eretz Yisrael and the branches (or leafs etc.) are hanging over the ground, the branches that are hanging over the ground themselves are obligated in Ma'aser. (Note: The Maharsha explains that Tosfos is implying the following question. Abaye says that being that the part of the plant over the hole is being nurtured from Eretz Yisrael, the entire plant is obligated in Ma'aser. If this is so, why doesn't the Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) say that the pot without a hole should be entirely judged based on the branches that are being nurtured from the ground? If the sole source of its being nurtured is from the branches, the entire plant should be deemed pure!)

מכל מקום לא חשיבא יניקת הנוף כיניקת שורש דהא לא מטהרה יניקת הנוף מה שבתוך העציץ והכא מחייב נוף מחמת יניקת העיקר.


Answer: The fact that the branches gain nourishment from the ground underneath them is not the same as the roots gaining nourishment from the ground. This is apparent from the fact that the purity of the branches do not make what is in the pot pure (in the case in Chulin ibid.). Here, the branches are obligated because of the nourishment of the main part of the plant.


TOSFOS DH "u'vi'di'Ishrish"

תוס' ד"ה "ובדאשריש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara understands that this Mishnah is a pertinent source for the argument between Abaye and Rava.)

קס"ד דהא דקתני סיפא א"ר מאיר ומה אם ירצה העליון כו' שאין זה עיקר הטעם מדקתני נמי התם א"ר מאיר מאחר ששניהן יכולין למחות זה על זה רואין מהיכן ירק זה חי משמע דבסברא פליגי אי זה מהן עיקר


Explanation: The Gemara thinks at this point that when the second part of the Mishnah quotes Rebbi Meir as stating, "If the top person etc." it is not his main reasoning. This is evident from the Mishnah's statement, "Being that each can protest each other's actions, we have to analyze the source of its roots (which is the floor of the top person's garden)." This implies that they argue how to logically determine which is the main one (garden). (Note: This second reason is pertinent to our Gemara's argument regarding whether we look at the branches or hole as the main source of the plant.)

ואמרי' נמי התם בגמרא בפ' הבית והעלייה (ב"מ דף קיח:) ואזדו לטעמייהו אילן היוצא מן הגזע כו' ותנן נמי גבי ערלה כי האי גוונא


The Gemara in Bava Metzia (118b) states that this argument is based on another of their arguments regarding a tree that come out of roots etc., with a similar argument regarding Orlah.

ותימה דלא מייתי הכא מערלה.


Question: It is indeed difficult to understand why our Gemara does not quote the Mishnah in Orlah as relevant to our Gemara. (Note: This is a better match, as the first reason "If the top person etc." is not even applicable in that case.)


TOSFOS DH "Lo Al Niyar Machuk"

תוס' ד"ה "לא על נייר מחוק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case of the Mishnah.)

שהכתב על הנייר שאינו מחוק ועדיו על המחק אבל שניהם על המחק כשר כדאמרי' בריש גט פשוט (ב"ב קסד.) דאינו דומה נמחק פעם אחת לנמחק שתי פעמים.


Explanation: The case that is invalid is where the body of the Get is on a part of the paper where nothing was ever erased, and the signature of the witnesses is on the part where something was erased. However, if both the body of the Get and the signatures are on an erased area, the Get is valid. This is as the Gemara in Bava Basra (164a) states that a Get with one erasure is not similar to something that has two erasures (as the two erasures match, and it is clear there is no forgery). (Note: The Maharam Shif points out that Tosfos is arguing on Rashi's explanation in the Mishnah.)


TOSFOS DH "Shalosh Oros"

תוס' ד"ה "שלש עורות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why finished parchment is not mentioned by Ula.)

פי' בקונטרס דקלף גמור לא חשיב בהדייהו דלא שמיה עור


Explanation: Rashi explains that finished parchment was not counted as it is not called "skin."

ועוד אומר ר"י דלא מני בהדייהו קלף משום דבהדיא תנן ששיעורו כדי לכתוב פרשה קטנה שבתפילין


Explanation: The Ri adds that parchment is not included because the Mishnah explicitly says that the amount of parchment that must be used is the minimum amount used to write a small Parshah of Tefilin (and Ula does not have to tell us its measurement).

ואף על גב דשיעור חיפה דהוי כדי לעשות קמיע שנוי במשנה מ"מ לא הזכיר חיפה בהדיא במתני'.


Implied Question: The amount of Chifah, which is enough to make an amulet, is also stated in a Mishnah. (Note: Why, then, would Ula list Chifah but not Klaf according to the Ri?)

מ"מ לא הזכיר חיפה בהדיא במתני'.


Answer: The Mishnah there did not explicitly state it was discussing Chifah.


TOSFOS DH "Kdei Lichtov"

תוס' ד"ה "כדי לכתוב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how these amounts are determined.)

היינו כרבנן דמכשרי אדיפתרא ולהכי מייתי לה הכא


Observation: This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbanan who say that a Get can be written on Diftara. This is why this statement is brought here.

ואלו השיעורין אינן לפי חשיבות העור דיש שהוא חשוב ושיעורו גדול מן הגרוע ממנו אלא כל א' שיעורו במה שרגילין לעשות ממנו.


These amounts do not correspond to the importance of the leather, as there are types that are important but yet their amounts are bigger than a lesser quality skin. Rather, each amount corresponds to its purpose for which it is normally used.


TOSFOS DH "Ma'an Chachamim"

תוס' ד"ה "מאן חכמים"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what proof a woman must bring in order to allow her to remarry.)

פי' בקונטרס דאמר עדי מסירה עיקר והבאה להנשא צריכה להביא עדי מסירה


Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara is inquiring into who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the Get cause the Get to take effect, and that a woman who wants to get married must bring these witnesses to permit her to marry.

ודוקא הכא על דבר שיכול להזדייף אומר רש"י דצריכה עדי מסירה בשעה שבאת להנשא אבל בגיטין הכתובים בדבר שאינו יכול להזדייף יכולה להנשא ע"י עדי חתימה ואפילו לר' אלעזר


Only here, regarding a Get written on something that can be forged, does Rashi hold that she requires witnesses for the giving of the Get when she wants to remarry. However, Gitin that are written with something which cannot be forged can permit a woman to remarry based on the signed witnesses alone, even according to Rebbi Eliezer (who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the Get cause the Get to take effect).

כדתנן בפ' בתרא (לקמן פו.) ומייתי ליה בריש מכילתין שאין העדים חותמין על הגט אלא מפני תיקון העולם


This is as the Mishnah states later (86a), and it is quoted in the beginning of the Mesechta, that the only reason witnesses are signed on a Get is because of Tikun ha'Olam.

אבל מה שפי' בקונטרס דלר' מאיר אשה הבאה לינשא בגט הכתוב על דבר שיכול להזדייף אינה צריכה עדי מסירה ועדים החתומים בו אינה מביאה לפנינו אם יש מכירין חתימתן ואי הוה ביה תנאה וזייפתיה ליכא דידע משמע דאי הוי סהדי קמן הוה כשר


Explanation: However, Rashi's explains that according to Rebbi Meir, if a woman comes to get married with a Get that is written on something that can be forged does not need witnesses that the Get was given over. She does not have to bring the witnesses who signed themselves as long as there are people who recognize their signatures. If there was a condition in the Get and he forged it, nobody will know. This implies that if the witnesses (see Maharsha and Maharam Shif that Tosfos is referring to the witnesses of the giving of the Get) were before us, it would be kosher.

ואי אפשר לומר כן דלר' מאיר בעינן שיהא מוכח מתוכו כדמשמע בריש כל הגט (לקמן כד:) ובדבר שיכול להזדייף אין מוכיח מתוכו כלום.


Question: This is impossible. According to Rebbi Meir, the Get has to be clearly correct (based on the body of the Get itself), as is implied later (24b). If it is possible that it can be forged, it is not clearly correct.



TOSFOS DH "Aval b'Shetaros Lo"

תוס' ד"ה "אבל בשטרות לא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the opinions of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yochanan.)

פי' בקונטרס דקיימי לגוביינא ודילמא לא מפיק ליה עד זמן ארוך וישכחו עדי מסירה את הדבר וסמכינן אעדי חתימה והוא מזייף כתב העליון וחותם העדים עומד במקומו


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that a document is used to collect with, and the person might not collect for a long time during which the witnesses of the giving of the document might forget what happened. We would then rely on the witnesses who are signed on the document. The owner of the document might then proceed to forge what is written in the document, and he will leave the signature of the witnesses intact (as if they signed on what he forged above). (Note: This is why we do not rely on this for regular documents.)

ופירושו דחוק דלמה יש לנו לטעות ולסמוך על עדי חתימה בדבר שיכול לזייף


Implied Question: His explanation is difficult. Why would we think that we should rely on signed witnesses when the document could be forged?

ונראה לרבינו יצחק דטעמא משום דגזירת הכתוב הוא דלא מכשרי בשטרות אפילו לאלתר דבעינן ראוי לעמוד ימים רבים


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak explains that the reason is because the Pasuk states that this is invalid for regular documents (which have erasures) even if used right away, because it has to be able to stay for a long time.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו בשטרות דר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאפילו עד עשרה ימים מידכר דכירי


Rebbi Yochanan who says that this verification can even be used with regular documents holds that a person remembers these things, even for ten days.

והא דפריך והא כתיב למען יעמדו ימים רבים


Implied Question: The Gemara asks (on Rebbi Yochanan), "doesn't the Pasuk say "in order that it should stay for many days?" (Note: Why is the Gemara asking this question on Rebbi Yochanan who indeed says that it works, even for ten days?)

היינו משום דסלקא דעתין דקרא למעוטי שטרות קאתי דאי לאו הכי למאי אתא ומשני לעצה טובה אתא


Answer#1: This is because the Gemara thinks at this point that this Pasuk must be teaching us that regular documents are excluded from being proof after a long time. Otherwise, why would the Pasuk mention this? The Gemara concludes that this is simply good advice (to put away the documents for future proof).

ועוד י"ל דדוקא בגיטין קאמר רבי יוחנן דעד עשרה ימים דכירי אבל בשטרות שיש רוב תנאים לא דכירי ודוקא לאלתר מכשיר


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that Rebbi Yochanan only said that a person remembers regarding Gitin. However, regarding documents that have a lot of conditions he will not remember. Rebbi Yochanan therefore only permits this right away.

והשתא פריך שפיר והא בעינן ראוי לעמוד ימים רבים ואפילו לאלתר אין להכשיר


The Gemara's question is now understandable. "Don't we require "it should be fit to stay for many days?" This means that it should not even be valid right away!

וא"ת לר' אלעזר דאמר אבל בשטרות לא מאי שנא מאין עליו עדים דתנן בפ' בתרא (לקמן פו.) דלר' אלעזר גובה מנכסים משועבדים והיינו בשטרות כדפי' בקונטרס


Question: According to Rebbi Elazar who says that this method cannot be used for regular documents, how is it different from a case where there are no witnesses? The Mishnah states (86a) that according to Rebbi Elazar one can collect from property with a lien, meaning he can collect with a document that doesn't have witnesses, as explained by Rashi.

וי"ל דשאני אין עליו עדים כיון דכתוב על דבר שאינו יכול לזייף והעדים מכירין לעולם שטר המסור לפניהם ואם היו מזייפין שום דבר היה ניכר הזיוף


Answer: The case where there are no witnesses is different. It is written on something that cannot be forged. Witnesses recognize a document that is given over to them to inspect (and to testify that it was given over). If it would be forged, it would be apparent.

אבל עוד קשה דבהדיא תניא בפ"ק דקדושין (דף כו.) כתב לו על הנייר או על החרס שדי מכורה לך שדי נתונה לך הרי זו מכורה ונתונה אלמא מכשיר ר' אלעזר אף בשטרות דבר שיכול להזדייף


Question: However, there is another difficulty. The Beraisa clearly states in Kidushin (26a) that if someone writes on paper or earthenware, "My field is sold/given to you," it is sold/given. This implies that Rebbi Elazar holds that even a regular document that can be forged is valid.

וי"ל דהא דקאמר הכא אבל בשטרות לא ה"מ בשטרות העומדים לראייה אבל שטר מכר ומתנה שעשוי לקנות בו לפי שעה הוי כמו גיטא


Answer: When the Gemara here says that Rebbi Elazar holds such documents cannot be used, it merely refers to documents that are used for proof. Documents used to sell/give for the moment (just to enact the transaction) have the same law as a Get.

וי"מ דאין חילוק בין דבר שיכול להזדייף לאין יכול בעדי מסירה לר"א והכא הכי פירושו לא הכשיר ר"א כו' כלומר ר"א איירי ודאי בכל שטרות ולא הכשיר היינו דלא ס"ל כוותיה אלא בגיטין ולא בשטרות כדאמר רב בפ' בתרא (לקמן פו:) הלכה כר' אלעזר בגיטין ומפרש התם דר"א איירי אף בשטרות ורב סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא


Opinion: Some say that there is no difference between something that can be forged and something that cannot be forged, as long as there are witnesses that the document was given over according to Rebbi Elazar. Here, when the Gemara says that "Rebbi Elazar only verified as kosher etc.," it means that Rebbi Eliezer who is quoting Rebbi Elazar only holds that he is correct regarding Gitin, not regarding other documents. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav (86b) who says that the law follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin. The Gemara there indeed explains that Rebbi Elazar holds this is even applicable to documents. Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar in one thing (Gitin) and argues regarding another (regular documents).

ואין נראה דא"כ הוה ליה למינקט הכא כלישנא דנקט ר"א גופיה בפרק בתרא (גז"ש) הלכה כר"א בגיטין כיון דהך שמעתין ודפ' בתרא ענין אחד


Question#1: This does not appear to be correct. If this were true, it should have said in our Gemara the same thing that it says later (ibid.), namely that "the law follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin." This would be expected, as our Gemara and the Gemara there are regarding the same topic.

ועוד דהוה ליה לאיתויי התם פלוגתייהו דרבי יוחנן ור"א דהכא


Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara there should have quoted the argument quoted here between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Eliezer.

ועוד אמאי פריך אר' יוחנן טפי והכתיב למען יעמדו ימים רבים לכ"ע הוה ליה למיפרך דכולהו מודו דר"א לא פליג בין גיטין לשטרות.


Question#3: Additionally, why does the Gemara ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan that the Pasuk says "in order that it should stay for many days?" This question is according to everyone, as everyone agrees (according to this opinion) that Rebbi Elazar himself does not differentiate between Gitin and regular documents.


TOSFOS DH "v'Ha Lav Bnei Dei'ah Ninhu"

תוס' ד"ה "והא לאו בני דעה נינהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains whether the Gemara's question is according to Rebbi Meir or Rebbi Elazar.)

לר' אלעזר פריך דר' מאיר לא חייש בכתיבה לשמה ומשני כשגדול עומד על גביו


Opinion#1: The Gemara is asking its question according to Rebbi Elazar, as Rebbi Meir does not require that the Get be written Lishmah. The Gemara answers that when an adult is standing over him it is kosher.

והא דתנן בפ"ק דחולין וכולן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותן כו' ואמרי' בגמ' (שם יב:) מאן תנא דלא בעי כוונה לשחיטה כו'


Implied Question: The Mishnah states in Chulin that if anyone slaughters and others see them etc. The Gemara there (12b) explains that who is the Tana who says that intent is not required for slaughtering etc.? (Note: This implies that an adult standing over him does not turn him into someone who acts with proper intent. The slaughtering is seemingly kosher because intent is not necessary!)

התם מיירי כשאינו מלמדו לכוין לשחוט אלא ראיה בעלמא אבל הכא מיירי שגדול עומד על גביו ומלמדו ומזהירו לעשות לשמה


Answer: The Gemara there is discussing a case where he only sees him slaughtering, not where he teaches him to slaughter. However, here the Gemara is referring to a case where an adult is overseeing him and teaching him and ensuring that he writes the Get Lishmah.

ולהכי נמי בפ' מצות חליצה (יבמות קד:) ממעט מחליצה חרש וחרשת לפי שאינן בני קריאה וקטן משום דאיש כתוב בפרשה אבל מטעם דלאו בני כוונה נינהו לא פסיל להו אע"ג דאמר התם דחליצתו פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם משום דב"ד מזהירין אותן לעשות לשמה והוי כגדול עומד על גביו


This is also why the Gemara in Yevamos (104b) excludes a deaf man or woman from performing Chalitzah, as they cannot read. A minor is excluded because it says "A man" in the Pesukim regarding Chalitzah. However, the reason that they do not have intent is not a reason to invalidate them, despite the fact that the Gemara says there that the Chalitzah is invalid unless they both have intent. This is because Beis Din warns them to do the Chalitzah Lishmah, and it is like an adult is standing over them.

ומיהו הכא בגדול עומד על גביו כשר אפי' בשוטה משום דמוכחא מילתא דקא עביד לשמה שכותב שמו ושמה ושם עירו ושם עירה אבל לענין חליצה אמרו בתוספתא דיבמות (פי"א) דשוטה לאו בר חליצה הוא אע"פ שב"ד מלמדין אותו דלא מינכרא מילתא דעביד לשמה כמו גבי גט


However, regarding Gitin it is enough for an adult to oversee his writing of the Get, even if he is insane. This is because it is obvious that he is writing Lishmah, as he writes the name of the person, his wife, and the names of their cities. However, regarding Chalitzah the Tosefta says in Yevamos (11:9) that a person who is insane is not a candidate for Chalitzah. Even though Beis Din could teach him how to do Chalitzah, it is not as apparent that he is doing so Lishmah as by the writing of a Get.

וא"ת ואכתי הא לאו בני שליחות נינהו מאי מהני דגדול עומד על גביו


Question: Even so, they are not people who can be used as a messenger. How, then, can it help if an adult is standing over him?

וי"ל דלא בעינן שליחות בכתיבה דוכתב לאו אבעל קאי אלא אסופר


Answer: It is not necessary to have a halachic messenger for the writing of the Get. This is because the Pasuk "v'Kasav" -- "and he wrote" is not regarding the husband, but rather regarding the scribe.

והא דאמרינן לקמן (דף עא:) צריך שיאמר לסופר כתוב ולעדים חתומו


Implied Question: The Gemara later says (71b) that the husband must tell the scribe to write the Get and tell the witnesses to sign. (Note: This implies that the scribe indeed must be the halachic messenger of the husband!)

לאו משום שליחות אלא משום דכשלא צוה הבעל לא חשיב לשמה אלא חשיב סתמא ופסול דאשה לאו לגירושין קיימא כדאמרינן בריש זבחים (דף ב:)


Answer: This is not because they need to be halachic messengers. Rather, when the husband does not command the scribe to write the Get it is not considered as if it was written Lishmah, but rather that it was written without any specific intent. It is therefore invalid, as a woman is not normally designated for divorce, as stated in Zevachim (2b).

והא דאמר בריש כל הגט (לקמן כד:) ואי כתב רחמנא וכתב הוה אמינא למעוטי האי פירוש כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך דלאו איהו קא כתיב לה


Implied Question: The Gemara later (24b) states that if the Gemara would have said "v'Kasav" -- "and he wrote" I would have thought it excludes "this." "This" means that if a person wrote a Get to divorce his wife and changed his mind (the Get is invalid, and cannot be used for someone else's divorce). (Note: This implies that it is invalid because the husband who wants to use it never appointed the scribe to write the Get. It therefore seems that the scribe must be a halachic messenger of the husband!)

לא משום דהבעל צריך לכתוב אלא לפי שלא נכתב לגירושי דידהו אלא לאחר


Answer: It is not invalid because the husband has to write the Get. Rather, it is invalid because the Get was not written for his divorce, but rather for a different potential divorce.

והא דאמר לעיל (דף כ.) יכילנא למיפסל לכולהו גיטא מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב וכתב והכא איהי קא כתבה ליה


Implied Question: Rav Chisda said earlier (20a), "I can make all Gitin invalid." The Gemara asked how he could do this. The Gemara said, if it is because it says "v'Kasav," and she is the one who really writes the Get etc. (Note: She pays for the scribe, as instituted in Bava Basra (168a).)

התם אונתן סמיך דבעינן שיכתוב בציוויו ויתן והכא אפילו נכתב בציוויו לא יהיב לה מידי דשלה הוא


Answer: The Gemara there relies on the Pasuk of "(v'Kasav) v'Nasan," meaning that the Get has to be written because he commanded that it should be written, and he should give the Get. The Gemara is therefore entertaining that even if it is written because he commanded that it should be written, he cannot give her a valid Get as it belongs to her.

וא"ת והא לאו בני כריתות נינהו


Question: They (insane, minors, etc) are not people who can effect Krisus!

וי"ל דחשיבי בני כריתות הואיל ואם הגדיל הקטן ונשתפה השוטה הוו בני כריתות


Answer: They are considered people who effect Krisus, being that if the minor grows up and the insane person becomes sane they can effect Krisus.

אבל קשה דמשמע דלא פסיל עובד כוכבים אלא משום דלדעתא דנפשיה קא עביד ותיפוק ליה דלאו בני כריתות נינהו ומה צריך נמי לאיתויי ברייתא דעובד כוכבים פסול


Question: This is difficult. This implies that a Nochri is only invalid because he is writing because of himself. We should understand that he is invalid because he cannot effect Krisus! Why do we need to quote a Beraisa showing a Nochri is invalid? (Note: It is obvious!)

ונראה דלא שייך למיפסל משום דלאו בני כריתות נינהו במידי דלא בעי שליחות ולא לשם עדות דבמידי דשליחות הוא


Answer: It appears that we cannot invalidate (Nochrim) because they cannot effect Krisus, as Gitin do not require a messenger or testimony (Nochrim cannot halachically be a messenger or testify).

דאמרי' לקמן הכי דאין העבד נעשה שליח כו' או חתימה לר' מאיר שהיא לשם עדות פריך לעיל בפ"ק (ד' י:) גבי גיטין שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים והא לאו בני כריתות נינהו אבל כתיבה לר"א דלא לשום עדות ולא לשם שליחות הוא אין לפסול משום דלאו בני כריתות נינהו


The Gemara later says that a slave cannot be made into a messenger etc. and cannot sign a Get, which according to Rebbi Meir is for the sake of testimony. The Gemara earlier (10b) indeed asks regarding Gitin whose signatories are Nochrim, "but they are not people who can effect Krisus?" However, Nochrim merely writing the Get according to Rebbi Elazar, which does not involve testimony or being a messenger, cannot be deemed invalid by saying that they cannot effect Krisus.

דהא לא פסלי בפ"ב דע"ז (ד' כז.) מילה בעובד כוכבים משום דלאו בני מילה נינהו


This is similar to the fact that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (27a) does not say that a Nochri cannot perform a Bris because they are not included in Bris.

ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דמצינן למימר דסוגיא זו אליבא דר"מ


Opinion#2: Additionally, Rabeinu Yitzchak says that we could say that this Gemara is according to Rebbi Meir.

וס"ד דלר"מ נמי בעינן כתיבה לשמה מדרבנן דגזרי' כתיבה אטו חתימה ומוקי לה רב הונא בגדול עומד על גביו ומהני אפילו בשוטה טפי מבחליצה כיון דלא הוה אלא מדרבנן


One might think that according to Rebbi Meir the Get must be written Lishmah according to Rabbinic law. This would be because we would decree that the writing must be Lishmah, lest people will not even sign a Get Lishmah. Rav Huna establishes that this case is where an adult is standing over him, and it is therefore effective even (when written) by someone who is (halachically) insane, more than it is by Chalitzah, as this is only a Rabbinic law.

אבל לר' אלעזר דבעי כתיבה מדאורייתא לשמה לא מהני בשוטה גדול עומד על גביו כמו בחליצה


However, according to Rebbi Elazar who requires that the writing of the Get be done Lishmah according to Torah law, it will not help to have an adult standing over an insane person writing a Get like it will by Chalitzah.

ופריך רב נחמן מברייתא דקתני עובד כוכבים פסול ומשמע ליה דאתא כר' מאיר מדלא נקט לפסול אלא עובד כוכבים ומשני דעובד כוכבים לדעתיה דנפשיה הוא דקא עביד ופסול אפי' גדול עומד על גביו אפילו לרבי מאיר


(Note: In our Gemara) Rav Nachman asks from a Beraisa that says that a Nochri cannot write a Get. This implies that he holds like Rebbi Meir, as he only said that a Nochri should be invalid. The Gemara answers that a Nochri writes the Get for his own reasons and it is therefore invalid. This is even if an adult is standing over him and watching, and even according to Rebbi Meir.

הדר אמר רב נחמן כו' וברייתא דקתני עובד כוכבים פסול רבי אלעזר היא ונקט עובד כוכבים לרבותא דאע"פ שהוא בן דעת יותר וה"ה דחרש שוטה וקטן דפסולין אי בעינן שליחות


Rav Nachman then retracted. He said that the Beraisa which states that a Nochri is invalid is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. It states that a Nochri is invalid to tell us that even though he has more knowledge (than a minor etc., he cannot write a Get). Similarly, a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor cannot write a Get, as they are invalid if we require a halachic messenger to write a Get.

ואי לא בעינן שליחות נקט עובד כוכבים דפסול בכל ענין דאילו חרש שוטה וקטן כשרים בגדול עומד על גביו


If we would say that we do not need a halachic messenger to write a Get, the Beraisa would specifically be saying that a Nochri is always invalid. This is unlike a person who is a deaf, dumb, or minor who can write a Get when an adult is standing over them.

ומיהו שוטה ודאי פסול כמו בחליצה וכן משמע דאפילו לר' מאיר ס"ד דבעי כתיבה לשמה מדרבנן דהא לבתר דאוקי נמי מתניתין כר' מאיר פריך והא ודאי עובד כוכבים לדעתא דנפשיה קא עביד


However, a dumb (halachically insane) person is certainly invalid, just as he is invalid to perform Chalitzah. It is also implied that this would even be correct according to Rebbi Meir. One would think that the writing of the Get must be Lishmah mid'Rabbanan, as after we establish that the Mishnah is like Rebbi Meir, the Gemara asks, "A Nochri certainly acts with his own mindset!"

ועוד נראה דהשתא ס"ד דאפי' ר' מאיר בעי כתיבה לשמה מדאורייתא ובחתימה הוא דפליגי רבי מאיר סבר דוכתב דקרא קאי אחתימה נמי ור' אלעזר סבר דאכתיבה לחודה קאי


Opinion#3: Additionally (another possible explanation, see MAHARAM SHIF), it seems that the Gemara at this point thinks that even Rebbi Meir requires that the Get be written Lishmah mid'Oraisa. The only argument is regarding the signatures. Rebbi Meir understands that the Pasuk "v'Kasav" refers also to the signing. Rebbi Elazar holds that it refers only to the writing of the Get.

מדפריך רבא לרב נחמן וכתב לה לשמה מאי לאו כתיבת הגט כו' משמע דרבא היה בא להעמיד דברי רב הונא דאפילו כתיבה בעי ר' מאיר מוכתב ולפי זה פסול נמי כתיבה במחובר


This is apparent from Rava's question to Rav Nachman that the verse, "And he will write for her," must be indicating that the Get should be written Lishmah. This implies that Rava wanted to say that Rav Huna held that Rebbi Meir requires that even the writing of the Get (must be Lishmah) from the word "v'Kasav." According to this, writing a Get on something attached to the ground would also be invalid.

והא דתנן לעיל תלשו וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר


Implied Question: The Mishnah earlier said that if someone detached it (a Get that was written when it was still attached to the ground), had it signed, and gave it to her, it is kosher. (Note: We just said that Rebbi Meir would hold this is invalid.)

מיירי כששייר מקום התורף


Answer: This is referring to a case where the main part of the Get had been left blank (and only filled in after it was detached).

והשתא פריך והא לאו בני דעה נינהו לכו"ע ומסיק רב נחמן דברייתא דקתני עובד כוכבים פסול כר' אלעזר ומתניתין רבי מאיר דלא בעי כתיבה לשמה ונקט חרש שוטה וקטן והוא הדין עובד כוכבים


The Gemara now asks, "They are not people who have knowledge according to all opinions!" Rav Nachman concludes that the Beraisa which says that a Nochri cannot write a Get is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. However, our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir who does not require that the writing be done Lishmah. Accordingly, our Mishnah said that the Get can be written by a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor, and similarly it can be written by a Nochri.

אי נמי לא נקט עובד כוכבים משום דרישא אתיא נמי כר' אלעזר ולדידיה דוקא חש"ו כשרין בגדול עומד על גביו אבל סיפא דדייקינן מדפסיל עובד כוכבים לענין הבאה מכלל דלענין כתיבה כשר אתיא כרבי מאיר


Alternatively, the Mishnah did not state a Nochri (explicitly) because the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar as well. According to him, specifically a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor can write a Get when an adult is standing over him. However, from the end of the Mishnah we can deduce that if it is explicitly stated that a Nochri cannot bring a Get, this implies that he can write a Get according to Rebbi Meir.

ואתי שפיר דלא תיקשי אדדייק מדפסיל לעובד כוכבים לענין כו' אדרבה לידוק מדלא תני ליה ברישא דפסול


It is now understandable why one should not ask the following question: Rav Nachman deduces that if the Mishnah said a Nochri cannot bring a Get, this implies that he can write one (as it did not say anything about him in the first part of he Mishnah). On the contrary, we should deduce from the fact that (the first part of) the Mishnah did not include him as one of the people who can write a Get, that if he does it is invalid!

אלא משום דרישא אתיא נמי לר' אלעזר כמו לרבי מאיר


Rather (based on the explanation above this is understandable), it is because the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar as well, just as it is according to Rebbi Meir. (Note: Being that the first part of the Mishnah is according to him as well, we cannot deduce that a Nochri cannot write a Get because he wasn't mentioned as one of the people who can. The Mishnah did not take a side in that argument, as it is according to both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar.)

ופריך והא ודאי עובד כוכבים אדעתא דנפשיה קא עביד והוה ליה ליפסל לרבי מאיר לכל הפחות מדרבנן בגדול עומד על גביו.


The Gemara continues, a Nochri certainly writes based on his own knowledge. Accordingly, Rebbi Meir should say that such writing of a Get should be invalid, at least according to Rabbinic law, when an adult is standing over him.