GITIN 23 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

GITIN 23 - dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Reb Aharon Dovid ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld (Muncasz/Israel/New York), who passed away on 3 Av 5761, by his daughter Diane Koenigsberg and family. May his love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael be preserved in all of his descendants.


TOSFOS DH "Ela mei'Ata"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא מעתה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Nachman's question.)

פי' בשלמא בלא עומד על גביו ניחא דקסבר רב נחמן דאיכא היכרא דכותבין לשמה ע"פ הבעל אבל בעובד כוכבים ליכא היכרא דלשמה בהכי אבל למאי דאוקמא בגדול עומד על גביו אפי' עובד כוכבים נמי


Explanation: It is understandable if this law would not be when an adult was standing over them. Rav Nachman holds that it would be recognizable that they are writing Lishmah based the husband's instruction. However, by a Nochri there would be no such recognition that he is writing Lishmah. However, if the Gemara establishes that an adult watching over him is sufficient, it should also be sufficient for a Nochri!

אלא ודאי בלא גדול עומד על גביו מיירי וא"כ הדרא קושיא לדוכתין דהא לאו בני דעה נינהו.


Rather, the case is certainly when there is no adult overseeing the writing. If so, the question remains that it should not be valid as they have no knowledge.


TOSFOS DH "Oved Kochavim"

תוס' ד"ה "עובד כוכבים"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Milah is different than Get regarding whether or not it is done Lishmah.)

תימה לר"י דבפ' אין מעמידין (ע"ז דף כז.) בעי רבי יהודה מילה לשמה ואפ"ה קתני ימול ארמאי ולא אמר דלדעתיה דנפשיה קא עביד


Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. In Avodah Zarah (27a), Rebbi Yehudah requires that Milah be done Lishmah, and even so he holds that a Nochri can perform a Milah. He does not maintain that a Nochri only does things based on his own knowledge!

ואומר ר"י דהא דאמר דלדעתיה דנפשיה עביד היינו שעושה סתם וגבי גט סתם לאו לשמה קאי כדאמר בריש זבחים (דף ב:) משום דסתם אשה לאו לגירושין עומדת אבל מילה סתמא לשמה קיימא כדאמר בזבחים סתמן לשמן קיימי.


Answer: The Ri says that when Rav Nachman says he does things based on his own knowledge, he means that he does things without intent. A Get is not presumed to be Lishmah, as the Gemara says in the beginning of Zevachim (2b) that a regular married woman is not "supposed" to be divorced. However, Milah is presumed Lishmah, similar to the Gemara's statement there (ibid.) regarding Korbanos that they are presumed to be brought Lishmah.


TOSFOS DH "Aima she'Nechtam"

תוס' ד"ה "אימא שנחתם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara's answer is valid.)

אע"ג דסיפא קתני יתר על כן כו' ומוקי לה בגמרא כר"א


Implied Question: The second part of the Mishnah states that "Moreover etc." and the Gemara says it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. (Note: The first part of the Mishnah clearly indicates it is talking about the writing, not signing, of the Get (unlike our answer).)

מ"מ מה שיכול לדחוק ולהעמיד כר"מ מעמיד משום דקי"ל דסתם מתני' ר"מ היא


Answer: Even so, whatever can be established (even in a slightly difficult fashion) according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir is established as such, because we hold that a Mishnah without an author is according to Rebbi Meir.

וא"ת והיכי קאמר שנחתם והא קתני כיצד שמע קול סופרים מקרין ובגמ' מפרש בסופרים העשויין להתלמד


Question: How can we say that it was signed? Doesn't the Mishnah later say, "What is the case? If one heard the voice of scribes calling out etc." The Gemara explains that it is referring to scribes who are writing Gitin for their training. (Note: If so, it is not talking about signing at all!)

וי"ל דדרך סופרים לכתוב ולחתום גט כדי להתלמד.


Answer: It is normal for scribes to write and (have witnesses) sign a Get in order to learn exactly how it is done.



תוס' ד"ה "והוא ששייר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this line in the Gemara.)

אמאי דאקשי לעיל והא לאו בני דעה נינהו אתא לשנויי.


Explanation: Rav Yehudah is answering the Gemara's question earlier, "(Note: How can they write a Get?) They are not people with knowledge!"


TOSFOS DH "Oved Kochavim Nami"

תוס' ד"ה "עובד כוכבים נמי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara gave this answer instead of another answer.)

הוה מצי למימר משום דבעינן שלוחכם בני ברית


Implied Question: It could have said "because we require that your messengers must be of the covenant." (Note: Why didn't it?)

אלא ניחא ליה למימר האי טעמא דשייך אף בעבד.


Answer: Rather, it was better for the Gemara to say this reason, as it applies even by a (kenani) slave.


TOSFOS DH "mi'Mi Notlo"

תוס' ד"ה "ממי נוטלו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not this disqualifies someone who does not personally recognize the husband and his wife.)

מכאן משמע דצריך שיכיר השליח שזהו הבעל וזו היא אשתו


Explanation: Our Gemara implies that the messenger must recognize the husband, and that the woman being divorced is his wife.

ושמא יש לחלק דדוקא סומא שיכול להטעותו ויש לחוש יותר שמא יטעוהו.


Perhaps we can differentiate that this applies specifically to a blind person who can be tricked. There is (also) more reason to suspect that people will trick him.


TOSFOS DH "Hu ha'Din"

תוס' ד"ה "הוא הדין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara does not contradict a Gemara in Bava Basra.)

והא דאמר ביש נוחלין (ב"ב דף קכח.) היה יודע לו עדות עד שלא נסתמא ונסתמא פסול לעדות


Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Basra (128a) that if a person knew testimony for someone and then became blind, he is unfit for testimony. (Note: How, then, can our Gemara say he is fit for testimony?)

שאני הכא דגבי גט אפי' אשה נאמנת


Answer: Our Gemara is different, as even a woman can testify regarding a Get.

תדע דאפילו סומא מעיקרא קאמר הכא אלא סומא אמאי לא.


Proof: You should know (that this is true, as) our Gemara even states regarding a person who was originally blind, "But why not a blind person?"



TOSFOS DH "Ain ha'Eved"

תוס' ד"ה "אין העבד"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah said "Oved Kochavim" instead of "Eved Kenani.")

וא"ת ומתניתין ליתני עבד וכל שכן עובד כוכבים


Question: Why didn't the Mishnah say an Eved Kenani cannot be a messenger, and we would know that certainly a Nochri cannot be a messenger!

וללישנא דאמר ר' יוחנן לעיל זו אין תורה ניחא דנקט עובד כוכבים למידק דלענין כתיבה אפילו עובד כוכבים כשר


According to the version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement earlier (23a) that "This is not Torah," (meaning that a Get does not have to be written Lishmah) this is understandable. The Mishnah said specifically a Nochri to teach that even he can write a Get.

אבל להך לישנא דמוקי ר' יוחנן כר"א קשה מהך דר' יוחנן דהכא


However, according to the version that states that Rebbi Yochanan agrees with Rebbi Eliezer (that the writing of a Get must be done Lishmah), this is difficult from Rebbi Yochanan's statement in our Gemara.

ואור"ת דנקט עובד כוכבים לאשמועי' עובד כוכבים ונתגייר פסול אע"פ שבאותה שעה היתה דעתו להתגייר


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that the Mishnah says "Nochri" (and not "Eved Kenani") to teach us that a Nochri who converted cannot be a messenger for a Get, even though when he was made a messenger he had already intended to convert.

דהוי בעובד כוכבים רבותא טפי מבעבד שאין בידו להשתחרר.


This is more novel than teaching that an Eved Kenani cannot be a messenger, as his own freedom is not in his hands (as opposed to a Nochri who is free to convert).



תוס' ד"ה "לפי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how she can get divorced through her own slave.)

והא דמתגרשת בעבד שלה


Implied Question: She can get divorced through her own slave. (Note: How can she do so if a slave cannot become a messenger?)

היינו מטעם חצר.


Answer: This is due to the mechanics of (acquiring through) a courtyard.


TOSFOS DH "ha'Oved Kochavim"

תוס' ד"ה "העובד כוכבים"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Nochri's produce should be considered Terumah.)

פי' בקונט' דקסבר אין קנין לעובד כוכבים


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that he holds that there is no acquisition for a Nochri (in Eretz Yisrael to make the produce of the land that he owns exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros).

ונראה לר"י דאפילו למ"ד יש קנין משכחת לה כשגדלה שליש ביד ישראל וקנה ממנו עובד כוכבים ולא מיפטר מטעם לוקח דתבואת זרעך קרינא ביה כיון שגדלה הרבה ביד עובד כוכבים


Opinion#2: It seems to the Ri that even according to the opinion that a Nochri can acquire (and the produce of his land is therefore exempt), the case is where it grew one third of its growth in the possession of a Jew, and a Nochri then bought it from him. It is not exempt (from Terumos and Ma'aseros) because of the buyer, as it is still called "the produce of your seeds." This is because it grew a lot (more than half of its growth, see Dvar Yaakov) in the possession of the Nochri. (Note: In other words, both possible exemptions do not apply. The exemption of a Nochri buyer does not apply when the Nochri replants the slightly grown produce, and the exemption of a Nochri grower does not apply when it grew one third of its growth in the possession of a Jew.)

אי נמי כשזרעה העובד כוכבים ומכרה לישראל וגדלה שליש וחזר וקנאה ממנו


Alternatively, the case is that the Nochri planted and sold it immediately to a Jew, who sold it to a Jew where it grew on third of its growth, and the Jew then acquired it back from him.

ועוד דפי' ר"ת בספ"ק דבכורות (דף יא: ד"ה טבלים) דלא מיפטר לוקח היכא דלקח קודם שנתמרח


Additionally (an alternative exception), Rabeinu Tam explained in Bechoros (11b, DH "Tevalim") that the buyer is not exempt in a case where he bought it before the produce was gathered (when it becomes obligated in Ma'aser).

אי נמי בחכר שדה מישראל חייב הגדל בו בתרומה ואפי' יש קנין לעובד כוכבי'.


Alternatively, the case is where a Nochri rented a field from a Jew, whatever grows in the field is obligated in Terumah, even if one holds that a Nochri has a Kinyan (as explained above).


TOSFOS DH "Terumaso Terumah"

תוס' ד"ה "תרומתו תרומה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemaros in Zevachim and Temurah follow a different opinion.)

והא דאמרי' בזבחים בפ' ב"ש (דף מה.) ופ"ק דתמורה (דף ב:) דקדשי עובדי כוכבים אין בהן משום מעילה ומפרש טעמא משום דילפינן חט חט מתרומה ובתרומה כתיב בני ישראל


Implied Question: The Gemara in Zevachim (45a) and Temurah (2b) states that one does not transgress Meilah by misusing the Kodshim of Nochrim. It explains that this is because we derive "Chet-Chet" from Terumah, and regarding Terumah the Pasuk says "(Terumas) Bnei Yisrael." (Note: This implies that Terumah can only be from a Jew (unlike our Gemara which says that a Nochri can take his own Terumah).)

אתיא כר' שמעון דפליג הכא בסיפא ובריש פרק שני דקידושין (דף מא:) מייתי לה.


Answer: This is according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who argues here in the second part of the Mishnah, and is quoted in Kidushin (41b).


TOSFOS DH "u'Tnan"

תוס' ד"ה "ותנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a different answer.)

הוה מצי לשנויי דאתיא כרבי שמעון דסבר דליתא בתרומה דנפשיה בפרק שני דקדושין (דף מא:)


Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that this Mishnah is according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who argues that a Nochri cannot take his own Terumah, as stated in Kidushin (41b). (Note: Why didn't it give this answer?)

אלא דעדיפא מיניה משני.


Answer: It gave a better answer instead.


TOSFOS DH "Mah Atem"

תוס' ד"ה "מה אתם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reveals Rebbi Shimon's source for this derivation.)

וא"ת דבפ"ב דקידושין (גז"ש) משמע דלרבי שמעון לא איצטריך ליה למידרש מה אתם בני ברית ומוקי לה לדרשא אחריתי וא"כ לדידיה מנא לן הא דקי"ל בכל דוכתי דעובד כוכבים לאו בר שליחות הוא לענין זכיה ורבית בפ' איזהו נשך (ב"מ דף עא:)


Question: In Kidushin (41b), the Gemara implies that Rebbi Shimon does not require this Pasuk to derive "Just as you are "sons of the covenant" etc." Instead, the Gemara there understands that he uses this Pasuk for something else. If so, according to him, how do we know this rule that we find in many places (throughout the Gemara) that a Nochri cannot be a halachic messenger, as stated regarding acquiring and interest in Bava Metzia (71b)?

וי"ל דמ"מ כיון דדרשי' שליחות מתרומה מגם אתם ומינה ילפינן בעלמא מסתמא דלא מרבינן בעלמא אלא דומיא דאתם.


Answer: Even so (that he does not derive explicitly that the messenger cannot be a Nochri), being that the status of a halachic messenger is derived from "Also you," and that is the standard source for other laws regarding a halachic messenger, it must be that the only people included as a halachic messenger are people like "you" (i.e. Jewish, see Maharam).


TOSFOS DH "Mai Taima"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי טעמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that we do not have the text "Rebbi Yochanan.")

ולא גרסי' דר' יוחנן


Observation: We do not have the text "Rebbi Yochanan" (instead of "Rebbi").

דבהערל (יבמות דף עח.) סבר ר' יוחנן דעובר לאו ירך אמו הוא וכן מוכח סוגיא התם.


Proof: In Yevamos (78a), Rebbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is not like the "thigh of the mother," and this is the implication of the Gemara there. (Note: Accordingly, our Gemara cannot be saying that Rebbi Yochanan holds that a fetus is like the "thigh of the mother.")


TOSFOS DH "v'Na'aseh"

תוס' ד"ה "ונעשה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos has difficulty with the Gemara.)

תימה לר"י היתה עוברה היאך זכתה לו אע"ג דירך אמו הוא כיון דידה היא כיד רבה שלא שיחרר אלא העובר ואפילו שיחרר כולה חוץ מידה לא הוה לה לזכות לו דכשמשחרר כולה יש לה כח לזכות משום דגיטה וידה באין כאחד כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף כג.).


Question: The Ri has difficulty with this statement. If she was pregnant, how can she acquire his freedom for him (the fetus)? Even though he is considered "the thigh of his mother," being that her hand (for the purposes of acquiring) is like the hand of her master as he only freed her fetus, how can she acquire anything for the fetus? Even if he freed all of her as well besides her hand she should not be able to acquire his (the fetus) freedom for him. Only if he frees all of her should she have such ability due to the principle that "her Get and her hand (to acquire) arrive at the same time," as stated in Kidushin (23a).


TOSFOS DH "Adirabah"

תוס' ד"ה "אדרבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Yosef argues with Abaye.)

ורב יוסף


Implied Question: (Note: It would seem that Abaye has a strong reason to say what he says.) What is Rav Yosef's reasoning?

סבר דמ"מ יכולה לקלקלה בחו"ל ע"י עדים וראיה שלא שלח לה הגט.


Answer: He holds that even so (despite Abaye's logic) she can ruin her in Chutz la'Aretz through witnesses and proof that her husband never sent the Get with her.