GITIN 32 - 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.

1)

TOSFOS DH "ha'Sholei'ach"

תוס' ד"ה "השולח"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Mishnah according to Rebbi.)

לרבי דאמר בטלו מבוטל נקט הגיע בשליח אורחא דמלתא דאז מותר לבטלו ורגיל הוא לבטלו אבל בפני ב"ד שלא בפני השליח אסור לבטלו מדרבנן משום תקנת ר"ג

(a)

Explanation: According to Rebbi, who says that if he nullified the Get it is indeed nullified, the Mishnah used the term "he reached" regarding the messenger, as this would be the normal case of nullifying a Get. At this point it would be permitted and normal to nullify the Get. However, to nullify it before a Beis Din and not in front of the messenger is forbidden according to Rabbinic law due to the decree of Rabban Gamliel.

ועוד נקט הגיע בשליח דהשתא אין צריך בית דין

1.

Additionally, it stated "he reached" regarding the messenger as now there is no need for a Beis Din.

אי נמי היא גופה אתא לאשמועי' דלא אמרינן לצעורה קא מיכוין כדאמרינן בגמרא ולא לומר דדוקא בכי האי גוונא בטל.

2.

Alternatively, the Mishnah is specifically trying to teach that we do not say that he merely intends to cause her pain, a possibility presented in the Gemara. Additionally, we should not say that only in this situation it is null.

2)

TOSFOS DH "v'Lo Amrinan"

תוס' ד"ה "ולא אמרינן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Get would possibly be valid.)

וא"ת פשיטא שהוא בטל היאך היה לנו לומר שאינו בטל והוא עומד וצווח

(a)

Question: It is obviously null! How could we say that it is not null if he is standing and screaming (in protest)?

וי"ל דהוה אמינא כיון שאינו מביא עדים על כך א"כ אינו רוצה לבטלו

(b)

Answer#1: One would think that because he is not bringing any witnesses, he must not really want to nullify it.

א"נ הוה חיישינן להחמיר משום דלמא לצעורה קא מיכוין קמ"ל דלא חיישינן.

(c)

Answer#2: Alternatively, we would suspect that we should be stringent because perhaps he is just trying to cause her pain. This therefore teaches us that we do not have such suspicions.

3)

TOSFOS DH "Eehu"

תוס' ד"ה "איהו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains these cases and asks a question.)

משמע דקידם אצל אשתו לא הוי ממילא אלא בטירחא

(a)

Explanation: This implies that the previous case of him meeting his wife did not merely happen, but he had to make a special effort to meet her.

ותימה דאמאי לא נקט רבותא טפי נזדמן אצל אשתו ממילא או שלוחו דלא אמרינן לצעורה קא מיכוין דתימה הוא לומר שאז אין מועיל ביטול.

(b)

Question: This is difficult. Why didn't it say a more novel law? It could have said that if he or his messenger merely happened to bump into his wife we do not say that he is intending to pain her. It would be very difficult to say in such a case that his nullification does not work. (Note: Therefore, being that the Get should be effective in these cases and they are more novel, why didn't the Mishnah give these cases?)

4)

TOSFOS DH "Mahu d'Teima"

תוס' ד"ה "מהו דתימא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when we say that knowing a person's mindset makes a difference.)

ורבא דאמר לקמן (דף לד.) דגלוי דעתא בגיטא מלתא היא

(a)

Implied Question: Rava says later that knowing what someone's mindset is regarding Gitin is an important thing. (Note: Accordingly, why would he say that the Get is still valid?)

היינו שנודע קודם שהגיע גט לידה אבל אם לא נודע אותו גילוי דעתא עד אחר שהגיע לידה לאו כלום הוא

(b)

Answer: He only holds this way if this information is revealed before she receives the Get. However, if his mindset was not known until after she received the Get, it is insignificant.

כגון דהוה רהיט בתר שליח לבטוליה וסבר שליח דהא דרהיט בתריה דבעי למימר אשור הב לה כדאמר לקמן (שם) וכי מבטל ליה אחר שבא לידה לפי שסבור שעדיין הוא ביד השליח ולא בא לידה אגלאי מילתא למפרע דלבטולי הוה רהיט קמ"ל מתני' דלאו כלום הוא

1.

For example, if he was running after a messenger to nullify the Get, and the messenger thought he was running over to him to say that he should quickly give her the Get, as Rava says later (ibid.). When he nullifies the Get after she has already received it, he does so because he thinks that the messenger still has the Get, not his wife. This makes it seem pretty clear retroactively that his intent when he was running after the messenger was to nullify the Get. Our Mishnah tells us that even so, his nullification is insignificant.

וטעמא משום דבאותה שעה שהוא רץ לא נודע דעתו לא לשליח ולא לאשה ולא לב"ד והוו להו דברים שבלב דאינן דברים אע"פ שנאמן לומר כך היה בלבי

2.

The reason is because at the time that he is running, his mindset is unknown to the messenger, his wife, or Beis Din. His thoughts are therefore "words of the heart" which are not considered significant, even though he is believed to say that this is what he was thinking.

ואף ע"ג דבעלמא גבי ההוא דזבין אדעתא למיסק לארץ ישראל (קדושין דף מט:) בדין הוא דלא הוו דברים כיון שלא חשש לפרש רוצה הוא שיתקיים הדבר בכל ענין אבל כאן עושה כל מה שיכול לעשות

(c)

Implied Question: Normally, as in the case in Kidushin (49b) of someone who sold land with intent that he was going to Eretz Yisrael (and then he ended up canceling his move), we say that these types of thoughts (that the deal should only be valid if he is moving) are insignificant because he did not verbalize them. This indicates that he wanted the deal to go through even if he did not end up moving. However, in this case, it is clear that he did everything in his power to nullify the Get (it just wasn't enough). (Note: Why, then, shouldn't we consider his clear intent enough to nullify the Get?)

מ"מ עשאום כדברים שבלב

(d)

Answer: Even so, Chazal considered his words like regular "words of the heart."

ואין להקשות דמי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא לא הוי גט ומדרבנן הוה גט

(e)

Implied Question: One should not ask, is there any Get that according to Torah law is invalid, but according to Rabbinic law is valid?

דכיון שקצת דומה לדברים שבלב לא חשיבא עקירת דבר מן התורה ועדיפא מינה אמרינן בבטול שלא בב"ד בלא ידיעת שליח ואשה דמשמע פשט הלכה דלא הוי בטול

(f)

Answer: Being that it is somewhat similar to "words of the heart," it is not considered uprooting something from the Torah. Moreover, when nullification is not done in Beis Din and without the messenger or the wife's knowledge, the implication is that the Get is not nullified at all.

וצ"ע כי שמא בטול שלא בב"ד אינו מועיל להקל אבל יועיל להחמיר

(g)

Question: This requires study. Perhaps nullification that is not done in Beis Din does not help to be lenient, but will help to be stringent.

ועוד נראה לר"י כי דברים שבלב אינן דברים אפי' היכא דקי"ל שנאנס מלפרשם כמו שרוצה להוכיח בפ"ב דקדושין (דף נ.) דדברים שבלב אינן דברים וכופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני דגט ודכפרה

(h)

Opinion: The Ri also understands that "words of the heart" are not considered words, even where we see that he did not say them due to forced circumstances. This is as the Gemara attempts to prove in Kidushin (50a) that "words of the heart" are not words, as is clear from the fact that we must force a person until he says that he wants to give a Get or bring a Korban. (Note: This is despite the fact that we understand that he really wanted to do so the entire time (see Rambam in Hilchos Geirushin 20:20).)

ולא מהני דברים שבלב להיות דברים אלא היכא שבלא גילוי דעתו יש לנו לדעת דעתו מעצמנו.

1.

"Words of the heart" are only valid when without his telling us, it is clear to us that this is his mindset.

5)

TOSFOS DH "v'ha'Amar Rabah"

תוס' ד"ה "והאמר רבה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that a certain text is incorrect.)

ול"ג רבה בר אבוה א"ר ששת

(a)

Opinions: We do not have the text "Rabah bar Avuha says in the name of Rav Sheshes."

דרבה בר אבוה היה רבו של רב נחמן ורב נחמן חבירו של רב ששת.

1.

Rabah bar Avuha was Rav Nachman's teacher, and Rav Nachman was the friend of Rav Sheshes.

6)

TOSFOS DH "Mevuteles"

תוס' ד"ה "מבוטלת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos contends with a Gemara with an alternate text.)

תימה דבפרק בתרא דכריתות (דף כד.) גרסי' איפכא מבוטלת היא תיבטל אי אפשי בה דבריו קיימים בטלה היא אינה מתנה לא אמר כלום

(a)

Question: This is difficult. In the last chapter of Kerisus (24a), we have the opposite text. "If he says, "It is null/it should be null/I don't want it " his words are effective. If he says, "It is null" or "It is not a present" his words are invalid".

ואי אפשר למיגרס התם כדהכא דהתם פריך מינה אדריש לקיש דאמר הנותן מתנה לחברו ואמר הלה אי אפשי בה כל הקודם בה זכה ורב ששת קאמר דאי אפשי בה דבריו קיימים מאי לאו דבריו קיימים והדרה למרה

1.

We cannot possibly change the text there to reflect our text. The Gemara there asks a question on Reish Lakish who says that if someone gives a present to his friend, and the intended recipient says that he does not want it, whoever acquires it first has acquired it. Rav Sheshes is the one who says that if someone says, "I don't want it," his words are valid. This implies that his words are valid, and therefore the present goes back to the owner.

ומיהו לספרים דגרסי התם והכא אי אפשי בה בטלה היא אינה מתנה דבריו קיימים אתי שפיר

(b)

Answer #1: However, according to the Sefarim that have the text both here and there that if the person says, "I don't want it / it is null / it is not a present" his words are upheld, this is understandable.

והא דלא מקשה מאי אפשי בה כמו שמקשה אבטלה

(c)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask from "I don't want it" like it asks regarding "it is null." (Note: Why not?)

משום שפשוט לו דהאי דדבריו קיימים באי אפשי בה היינו משום דהוי לשון הפקר כדמתרץ בכריתות לריש לקיש ומיהו גירסא זו אינה ברוב ספרים

(d)

Answer to Implied Question: This is because it was obvious to him that the reason that his words are upheld when he says that he does not want it is because it is a terminology of making something ownerless, as the Gemara itself answers for Reish Lakish in Kerisus. However, this text is not in most Sefarim.

ור"י אומר שיש ליישב כאן גירסא דכריתות

(e)

Answer #2: The R"I answers differently, in a manner that does not necessitate changing the Girsa in Kerisus.

ודייק דבטל מעיקרא משמע מדקתני 'בטלה היא אינה מתנה לא אמר כלום', דאי ליבטל משמע להבא א"כ היו דבריו קיימין והוי הפקר וכל המחזיק בה זכה

1.

And he understood through a careful reading that "it is null" implies from the beginning (in the past), since we learn that if a person says "it is null/ it is not a present" his words are invalid; for if nullifying it implies in the future, his words would be effective and it would be ownerless and anyone who takes it acquires it.

אבל השתא דמעיקרא משמע הרי הוא כאומר על כל מתנות שאדם נותן לחברו וזוכה בהן שאינן מתנות, דכאן נמי זוכה בהו, ולכך לא אמר כלום

2.

However, now that it means from the beginning, it is as if he says regarding all gifts that a person gives to his friend and he acquires them that they are not gifts, for here he also acquires them, and therefore it is ineffective.

והאי דקאמר 'שתי לשונות משמע ולישנא דמהני בה קאמר' לאו דמהני דבריו במתנות קאמר, אלא 'דמהני' היינו לשון הטוב לו, דטוב לו שיתבטל הגט וטוב לו שלא יתבטל המתנה

(f)

Clarification: And the statement (of the Gemara) "it has two meanings and he intended the meaning that is to his advantage" does not mean that he intended to his advantage for (acquiring) gifts, rather "to his advantage" means what is good for him, because he wishes to cancel the Get, and he wishes not to cancel the gift.

והא דמשמע בריש פ' האומנים (ב"מ דף עו:) דחשיב עילוי לבעל מה שממהר הגט לחול

(g)

Implied Question: And that which is implied in the beginning of Perek Ha'Umanin (Bava Metzia 76b) that it is advantageous to the husband the faster the Get takes effect.

דאמרינן בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא, התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי והוא אומר הילך כמה שאמרה ואמר רב נחמן כיון שהגיע גט לידו מגורשת, אלמא אעילויא דידיה סמיך

1.

Because we say, "it is correct if it said the opposite, (his wife said) "accept for me my Get" and (the agent said) "your wife said 'bring me my Get'" and he (the husband) says "do as she said", and Rav Nachman said that she is divorced when the Get reaches the hand (of the agent)"; thus we see that it relies on what is advantageous to him.

32b----------------------------------------32b

התם ודאי שרוצה לגרשה חשוב ליה עילויא אבל כאן שמגלה דעתו שחפץ בביטולו היינו עילויא דידיה

(h)

Answer to Implied Question: There where he certainly wants to divorce her, it is considered advantageous to him, but here that he demonstrates that he wishes to cancel it, this is advantageous to him.

ורש"י פי' בכריתות (דף כד.) דגרסינן התם כמו בשמעתין ולא פריך מאי אפשי דלא אמר כלום דכי אמר ר"ל במתנת מטלטלין דכיון דאתו לידיה הוי אי אפשי לשון הפקר ומפקירם אבל זה לא הפקיר את השדה אלא אומר איני חפץ שתהא המתנה קיימת

(i)

Answer #3: And Rashi explained in Kerisus (24a) that the correct text there is as is in our Gemara, and it does not ask from "'I don't want it' is ineffective", because Reish Lakish only said this with respect to moveable objects, since they come into his hands, the language of "I don't want it" is language of renouncing ownership; however this one (who is given a field) did not renounce ownership of the field but rather (said) 'I do not want the gift to take effect'.

אלא מסיפא פריך, דקתני 'בטלה היא אינה מתנה דבריו קיימים', דלשעבר משמע, ומודה שלא קיבלה לשם מתנה והודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, מאי לאו דבריו קיימים והדרה למרה - אלמא היכא דאהני דבריו הדרה למרה

1.

Question: Rather it asks from the latter half, where it says "'it is nullified/it is not a gift' his words are effective", because it implies the past, and he agrees that she did not accept it for the sake of a gift and the admission of the contestant carries the weight of one hundred witnesses, does it not mean his words are effective and it returns to the owner- we see that when his words are effective, it returns to the owner.

ומשני לא דבריו קיימים ולא הדרה למרה.

(j)

Answer: And it answers, "no, his words are effective and it does not return to the owner".

והוא הדין דהוה מצי לתרוצי דההיא דריש לקיש כיון שכבר זכה הוי הפקר אבל בההיא דרב ששת דמודה שלא זכה בה מעולם הוי דמרה, דכי יהיב אינש אדעתא דמקבלי לה מיניה ואי לא לא הוה מתנה, דהכי משני התם אקושיא אחריתי

1.

And it could have similarly answered that the case of Reish Leikish is made ownerless since he already acquired it, however in the case of Rav Sheshes who agrees that he never acquired it, it belongs to the owner, for a person gives a gift with the intent that it go only to the one he is giving it to, and if not, it is not a gift, for this is how another question there is answered.

ומיהו השתא משני שפיר בלאו הכי

2.

However, now it answers nicely in either event.

ובתר הכי פריך מ'אומר לחברו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו וידי מסולקת הימנה לא אמר כלום' פריך שפיר משדה אמטלטלין

(k)

Implied Question: And afterword when it asks from "'I have nothing to do with this field, and my hand is removed from it' is ineffective", it asks correctly from a field to moveable objects.

דבשדה שהיא שלו איירי, כדפי' בקונט' 'האומר לחברו - שהוא שותף עמו', דלא שייך למימר דעתו שלא תהא המתנה קיימת כמו בההיא דרב ששת

1.

Since it is referring to a field that is his, as Rashi comments 'One who says to his friend- who is his partner', where it is not possible to say that his intent is that the gift should not be effective as in the case of Rav Sheshes.

ואי לשון אי אפשי הוי הפקר במטלטלים, א"כ ידי מסולקת הימנה בשדה שלו הוי נמי הפקר, שאי אפשר לומר שרוצה לומר בענין אחר, ואמאי לא אמר כלום.

2.

And if the language of "I don't want it" by moveable objects is considered renunciation of ownership, it follows that "my hands are removed from it" with regard to a field is also renunciation of ownership, because it is impossible to say that his intention is different, because why did he not say anything?

7)

TOSFOS DH "l'Holech"

תוס' ד"ה "להולך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara uses an expression that does not seem to be pertinent to our Gemara.)

בגט לא שייך לומר הולך לאו כזכי דאפילו זכי נמי לא מהני

(a)

Implied Question: It is not possible to say that saying "take this" is not like saying "acquire" regarding a Get, as even "acquire" does not help. (Note: Why, then, is it even brought up in our Gemara?)

ולא נקטיה אלא לסימנא בעלמא לומר כי היכי דלא מהניא הולך בגט לא מהני נמי במתנה.

(b)

Answer: It was only stated as a sign (of indication), meaning that just as saying "take this" does not work for a Get, it does not work for a present.

8)

TOSFOS DH "Mai Shena"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי שנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos does not understand how the Gemara can ask why this should be different than Hekdesh.)

תימה דבריש אין בין המודר (נדרים דף לד:) משמע דככר זה הקדש מועיל וגט זה חרס ודאי לא אמר כלום דגרע מגט זה חרס הוא דאמר דלא אמר כלום דהא בטל הוא דבריו קיימין וכי אמר גט זה בטל ולא אמר הוא מיבעיא לן ועמד בתיקו.

(a)

Question: In Nedarim (34b), the Gemara implies that if someone says that a certain loaf is Hekdesh, his words are effective. If he says about a Get "Get Zeh Cheres," he has not said anything, as this is less effective than saying, "Get Zeh Cheres Hu" which is also not effective (as stated clearly in our Gemara). If he says "It is nullified," his words are valid. When he says, "This Get is nullified," but does not add the word "Hu," the Gemara is unsure and concludes Teiku. (Note: Accordingly, how can the Gemara say that "Harei Hu k'Cheres" should not be any different than "Harei Hu Hekdesh? We see that Hekdesh clearly takes effect where this phrase does not!)

9)

TOSFOS DH "Rav Sheshes"

תוס' ד"ה "רב ששת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Sheshes can maintain that the get cannot be used.)

תימה והא ריש לקיש ור' יוחנן דפליגי בריש האומר בקידושין (דף נט.) משמע דמודו דלא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה כמו שמוכיח שם ממתני' דכל הכלים יורדים לידי טומאה במחשבה כו'

(a)

Question: This is difficult. Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue in Kidushin (59a), but the Gemara there implies that they agree that words cannot nullify an action. The Gemara proves this from the Mishnah that states that vessels can become ready to accept impurity (when they are thought of as being in a finished state by their owners).

וכתיבת גט לשמה הוי מעשה דאם כתב אדם ס"ת לשמה אינו יכול לחזור ולבטל

1.

Writing a get Lishmah is certainly an action, as someone who writes a Sefer Torah Lishmah cannot retract this fact (and make it invalid).

וי"ל דכל זמן שלא הגיע ליד האשה לא חשיב גמר מעשה.

(b)

Answer: As long as the Get did not reach the woman, it is not considered the end of the action (meaning it is not considered an action which cannot be nullified by words).

10)

TOSFOS DH "Hasam Dibur"

תוס' ד"ה "התם דיבור"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not explicit nullification of a Get is valid.)

מתוך הלשון משמע דאפי' ביטלו בפירוש אינו מבוטל מדקאמר התם דיבור ודיבור הוא משמע דהכא לאו דיבור ודיבור הוא אלא דיבור ומעשה וגם מדקאמר גט גופיה מי קא בטיל משמע דאין לו כח לבטל

(a)

Explanation: The terminology indicates that even if he would explicitly say it is nullified, his statement is invalid. This implies that in this case it is not considered words negating words, but rather words against an action. Additionally, the statement "Is the Get itself nullified?!" implies that he has no ability to negate the Get.

אבל בקידושין בריש האומר (דף נט.) אין שם כל זה האריכות וכתוב בכל הספרים נהי דבטליה מתורת שליחות מתורת גט לא בטליה משמע דאם ביטלו בפירוש מודה רב נחמן דבטל

1.

However, the Gemara in Kidushin (59a) does not have this entire lengthy discussion. The Sefarim state that even if it is negated from being delivered by the messenger, it is not negated from being a Get. This implies that if he explicitly nullified it from being a Get, Rav Nachman would agree that it is nullified.

וכן צריך לומר דגט לא חשיב מעשה כל זמן שלא הגיע ליד האשה דאי לאו הכי תקשי לרב ששת כדפירשנו לעיל

2.

Indeed, we must say that a Get is not considered an action as long as it does not reach the hand of the woman. Otherwise, one could ask a question on Rav Sheshes as we said earlier (previous Tosfos).

ומדקאמר בפ"ב (לעיל דף יח.) גבי נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה דלא הכשיר ר"ש מיכן עד עשרה ימים דחיישינן שמא פייס פי' שמא ביטל את הגט כדפי' ר"ת אין ראיה כדפרי' בפ"ב

3.

The Gemara earlier (18a) says regarding a Get that was written during the day and signed at night that Rebbi Shimon did not say it was kosher if the signing was delayed for ten days (as opposed to being signed that night). This means that we suspect that he nullified the Get. However, there is no proof from here that one can nullify such a Get, as apparent from the opinion of Rabeinu Tam quoted in Tosfos earlier (18b, DH "Shema Payis").

ועוד דשמא התם לא נחתם לא חשיב גמר מעשה.

4.

Additionally (even if we do not give Rabeinu Tam's explanation), perhaps there that the Get has not been signed yet, it is not yet considered the end of the action.

11)

TOSFOS DH "v'Rav Nachman"

תוס' ד"ה "ורב נחמן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos cites Rav Nachman's source for two people being called a Beis Din.)

אין לומר דרב נחמן לטעמיה דאמר בפ"ק דסנהדרין (דף ה:) משמיה דשמואל שנים שדנו דיניהם דין

(a)

Implied Question: (Note: What is Rav Nachman's source that two people are called a Beis Din?) We cannot say that Rav Nachman is basing himself on his reasoning in Sanhedrin (5b) in the name of Shmuel that if two people judge (instead of the normal three), their judgement is valid.

דהא רבא לית ליה התם (דף ג.) דשמואל ועל כרחך רבא אית ליה הכא כרב נחמן דאמר בפני שנים

1.

This is apparent from the fact that Rava does not hold there (3a) of Shmuel's statement. It must be that Rava holds of Rav Nachman's statement here who says that the nullification of the Get can be done before two people.

דהא פליגי ר' יוחנן ור"ל בסמוך בפלוגתא דרב נחמן ורב ששת ורבא פסיק בריש החולץ (יבמות דף לו.) בכולי הש"ס כר' יוחנן לגבי דר"ל לבר מתלת ור' יוחנן קאי כרב נחמן

2.

Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue later regarding the argument of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes. Rava rules in Yevamos (36a) that in general Rebbi Yochanan is correct when he argues with Reish Lakish, besides for three cases. Rebbi Yochanan here rules like Rav Nachman. (Note: Accordingly, it seems that Rava holds like Rav Nachman.)

ועוד אמר בירושלמי דסנהדרין רבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין ובהחולץ (שם דף מו:) נמי א"ר יוחנן גר צריך שלשה משפט כתיב ביה

3.

Additionally, the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin says that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both hold that if two people judge, their judgement is invalid. In Yevamos (46b), Rebbi Yochanan says that a convert requires three people (to form a Beis Din for conversion), as it states regarding conversion "Mishpat" -- "judgement."

וע"כ צריך לומר אף ע"ג דתרי אין דיניהם דין כיון דפרוזבול סגי בתרי קרי להו בית דין

(b)

Answer: It therefore must be that even though two people cannot judge, being that a Pruzbul can be done with two judges, they are called a Beis Din.

ואם תאמר בפ' זה בורר (סנהדרין דף ל.) דפריך גבי אודיתא דילמא ב"ד חצוף כדשמואל דאמר שנים שדנו כו' בלאו שמואל נמי איכא למיפרך דהא ר' יוחנן ורבא לית להו דשמואל וקא סברי דלתרי בית דין קרי להו וכי האי גוונא נמי פריך גבי קיום שטרות בפ"ב דכתובות (דף כב.)

(c)

Question: In Sanhedrin (30a), the Gemara asks regarding an Odisa (admission document) that perhaps this is a "Beis Din Chatzuf" -- "a brazen Beis Din" as per the statement of Shmuel who says that two people who judge (have validly judged, but they are called a Beis Din Chatzuf). Even without Shmuel's statement a question can still be asked, as Rebbi Yochanan and Rava do not hold of Shmuel. They hold that two can be called a Beis Din. (Note: Accordingly, the fact that the document stated it was arranged by a Beis Din could mean two people, as according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rava two people are called a Beis Din.) A similar question is also asked regarding the verification of documents in Kesuvos (22a).

וי"ל דהתם כיון דבעינן שלשה באודיתא וקיום שטרות אין שייך לגבי ההוא מילתא לקרות לתרי ב"ד מש"ה קאמר דלמא לא בעי התם ג' כדשמואל

(d)

Answer: In the Gemara in Sanhedrin (ibid.), being that three are required for an Odisa and the verification of documents, it is not relative to the Gemara's discussion to say that two people can be called a Beis Din. (Note: In the Gemara's context, it cannot be that Beis Din means two people according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rava.) The Gemara therefore states that perhaps Beis Din refers to two and not three, as per the opinion of Shmuel.

ואם תאמר ומאי נפקא מינה השתא בפלוגתא דרב נחמן ורב ששת בפני כמה מבטלו הא תיקן רבן גמליאל שלא יהו עושין כן

(e)

Question: What is the practical outcome from this argument between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes regarding in front of how many people does one have to nullify a Get? Rabban Gamliel instituted that they should not do this!

ואומר ר"י דנ"מ לרבי דאמר לקמן אם ביטלו מבוטל ופסק לקמן רב נחמן כוותיה ומודה רבי דאם ביטלו בפני ב' לרב ששת או בפני אחד אפי' לרב נחמן דאינו מבוטל

(f)

Answer: The Ri answers that the difference is according to Rebbi, who says later that if the Get was nullified, it is indeed nullified. Rav Nachman later rules like Rebbi's opinion. Rebbi admits that if they nullified the Get in front of two people according to Rav Sheshes, or in front of one person according to Rav Nachman, the Get is not nullified.

דאפילו קודם תקנת רבן גמליאל לא היה מבוטל דדוקא בפני ג' לרב ששת מבוטל דליכא למיחש לממזרות אבל בפני שנים דאיכא למיחש לממזרות לא

1.

Even before the decree of Rabban Gamliel such nullification would be invalid. According to Rav Sheshes, it would only be nullified before three people, as there is no more suspicion of resulting Mamzerus.

ולרב נחמן אע"ג דבפני שנים איכא למיחש לממזרות כדאמרינן בסמוך ואפ"ה הוי מבוטל מ"מ בפחות משנים דאיכא למיחש טפי אינו מבוטל

2.

According to Rav Nachman, even though that before two people one would normally suspect that Mamzerus would occur, as say later, even so it is considered nullified. However, with less than two people there is a very strong concern, and it is therefore not nullified.

ובהא אפילו רבי מודה דאמרינן מה כח ב"ד יפה.

3.

In such a case, even Rebbi agrees (before the decree of Rabban Gamliel and in front of two people, see Maharam Shif) that it is not nullified, as we say "What does Beis Din help?" (Note: It only helps with three (see Maharsha as well who has difficulty understanding this phrase in Tosfos).)

12)

TOSFOS DH "li'Trei Nami"

תוס' ד"ה "לתרי נמי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why two people being called a Beis Din is not used in a Gemara in Yevamos.)

וא"ת דבספ"ב דיבמות (דף כה:) גבי מיאנה או חלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא ב"ד ודייק טעמא דב"ד הוא הא בי תרי לא והא אמר הכא דלתרי נמי ב"ד קרי להו

(a)

Question: In Yevamos (25b), regarding a woman who does Miun or Chalitzah in front of him, he is allowed to marry her, as he was part of the Beis Din. The Gemara deduces that this is because he was part of a Beis Din. This implies if he was only one of two people who witnessed this, he could not marry her. Doesn't the Gemara here say that two people are also called a Beis Din?

ואור"י דהתם דייק מדלא קאמר מפני שהם שנים אלא תלי טעמא בב"ד ש"מ דלא סגי התם בתרי

(b)

Answer#1: The Gemara there deduces this from the fact that the Mishnah does not say, "because they are two people." This implies that the reason is because he was part of a Beis Din, and teaches us that two would not be enough.

א"נ מיאון דומיא דחליצה וב"ד דחליצה היינו ג' ולא אתי כמאן דמכשיר חליצה ביחיד דחד לא מקרי ב"ד ואיכא נמי רננה.

(c)

Answer#2: Alternatively, it could be that Miun is like Chalitzah, and a Beis Din for Chalitzah is clearly with three people. This is unlike the opinion that says Chalitzah can be done in front of one person, as one person is clearly not called a Beis Din, and (there is a risk that) people will complain.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF