1)

TOSFOS DH "Lo Shena"

תוס' ד"ה "לא שנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains these cases.)

כמו שכתוב בפרוזבול בי דינא הוינא אנא פלוני בר פלוני ונזכרין שם הדיינים בתוך התורף ולמטה חותמים עדים להעיד על הפרוזבול שהוא אמת וקמשמע לן דחשיב פרוזבול אע"פ שלא חתמו בו הדיינים עצמם

(a)

Explanation#1: This is as is stated in a Pruzbul, "I, Ploni the son of Ploni was in a Beis Din," and the names of the judges are stated in the main body of the document, and underneath the witnesses sign to testify that the Pruzbul is true. This teaches that the Pruzbul is valid even though the judges themselves do not sign it.

לא שנא כתוב בלשון עדים שאין דיינין נזכרים בתוך התורף של פרוזבול דכתיב ביה הכי בי דינא הוינא ואתא פלוני ואמר לנא מוסרני לכם כל חוב שיש לי ביד פלוני ופלוני ופלוני עדים וחתומים למטה הדיינים

1.

It does not matter (it is valid) even if the witnesses are the ones who seem to be writing the Pruzbul, and the judges are not mentioned at all in the body of the document. (For example if) It says, "We were in a Beis Din and Ploni came and said to us, "I give to you any debt that I am able to collect from Ploni, and Ploni and Ploni are my witnesses," and the judges signatures are underneath.

ובקונטרס פי' בענין אחר.

(b)

Explanation#2: Rashi gives a different explanation.

2)

TOSFOS DH "u'Bei Trei"

תוס' ד"ה "ובי תרי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rabban Gamliel did not institute, according to Rav Nachman, that the nullification should be done in front of three people.

וא"ת ולתקנו שיבטל בפני ג'

(a)

Question: Why didn't they institute that he can nullify the Get before three people?

וי"ל מפני תקנת עגונות.

(b)

Answer: In order to ensure that women are not left as Agunos (which will happen if she already traveled to a far away place and only then finds out that her Get is invalid).

3)

TOSFOS DH "u'Bei Tilsa"

תוס' ד"ה "ובי תלתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if something becomes well known if two or three witnesses are present.)

ואע"ג דמלוה על פה לא גבי ממשעבדי אפילו הלווהו בפני כמה עדים

(a)

Implied Question: An oral loan does not entitle the lender to collect from the borrower's possessions that have a lien on them, even if he borrowed the money in front of many witnesses. (Note: If the problem with an oral loan is that people do not find out, even if there are many witnesses, how can our Gemara say that three people make something very known?)

היינו משום דמאן דיזיף בצנעא יזיף כדאמרינן בחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף מב.) ואין רגילות להודות לבני אדם אלא כופר לכל השואלים ממנו

(b)

Answer: This is because when people borrow money they generally do so privately, as is stated in Bava Basra (42a). People don't generally admit that they took loans, but rather deny it to those who ask about it.

והא דאמר הכא דבי תרי לית להו קלא וגבי מוכר שדהו בעדים אמרינן בחזקת הבתים (שם דף מא: דגובה מנכסים משועבדים

(c)

Implied Question: Our Gemara states that two people do not make something very known. However, regarding selling one's field with witnesses, we say in Bava Basra (41b) that one can collect from property that has a lien. (Note: What is the difference between the two cases?)

הכא בעינן גילוי מילתא טפי.

(d)

Answer: In our case we require that it should become more well known than in the case of the field.

4)

TOSFOS DH "v'Shamah"

תוס' ד"ה "ושמעה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the term Agunah is in place even though a woman's husband is clearly alive.)

אע"ג דבדין לא מינסבא חשיב עגון דהכי נמי אמרינן בפ' כל הגט (לעיל דף כו:) ובדין הוא אפי' טופס לא לכתוב אלא זימנין דבעי למיזל למדינת הים ולא משכח ספרא שביק לה ואזיל ומיעגנה ויתבה.

(a)

Explanation: Even though she certainly cannot get married (according to Halachah), this is still called "Igun" (her being an Agunah). (Note: Tosfos is coming to dispel the notion that the term "Agunah" is only used regarding a woman who is unsure whether or not her husband is alive.) We similarly say earlier (26b) that it would be understandable if we would not allow writing a form for Gitin. However, there are times when a person must go overseas and he will not find a scribe to write a Get. He will end up leaving her and she will become an "Agunah" and she will sit (and be unable to remarry).

5)

TOSFOS DH "Kol d'Mekadesh"

תוס' ד"ה "כל מקדש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that this is the source for much of the sentence stated by the groom during Kidushin.)

ולכך אומר בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל.

(a)

Observation: This is why we say during Kidushin "like the law of Moshe and Yisrael" (to show that the Kidushin is based on the Rabbanan's laws and understanding).

6)

TOSFOS DH "v'Afkinhu"

תוס' ד"ה "ואפקעינהו רבנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if nullifying a Get when the messenger is not present is also a way to fix some serious problems.)

הקשה ה"ר שמואל אם כן יחפה על בת אחותו וכשיבואו עדים שזינתה ישלח לה גט ויבטל שלא בפני שליח ופקעי קידושין ונמצא שהיא פנויה

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel asked that if this is so (that the Rabbanan will nullify retroactively such a Kidushin), a person will protect his sister's daughter (to whom he was married)! When witnesses will testify that she was unfaithful, he will send her a Get and then proceed to nullify it when the messenger is not present. In this way the Kidushin will be retroactively nullified, and she will end up retroactively having been a single girl (when she was unfaithful).

ואומר ר"י דלא קשה דאין לחוש אלא כשמחפה עליה שלא כדין אבל הכא כדין מחפה ומן התורה פטורה

(b)

Answer: The Ri answers that this is not difficult, as we are only worried about him covering up for her when it is incorrect (such as faking when a Get was given, see 17a). However, here he is covering up for her in a permitted fashion, and she is indeed (somewhat) innocent according to Torah law.

ועוד הקשה רבי' שמואל דהיכי מחייבינן לעולם מיתה אשת איש שזינתה והא התראת ספק היא דשמא ישלח לה גט ויבטלנו

(c)

Question#1: Rabeinu Shmuel further asked, how can we ever rule that a married woman who had an affair should be killed? The warning that the witnesses give her is always deemed a doubtful warning, as perhaps her husband will send her a Get and nullify it.

ועוד יכולין ממזרים ליטהר

(d)

Question#2: Additionally, according to this solution, any Mamzerim could always become regular Jews again (we should just have their mother's husband send her a Get with a messenger and then nullify it)!

ואומר ר"ת דכי האי גוונא לא הוי התראת ספק דאזלינן בתר רובא ורוב אין מגרשין נשותיהן וכששולחין גט אין מבטלין

(e)

Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam says that such a case is not a case of a doubtful warning, as we judge the warning by most people who do not divorce their wives, and if they send them a Get they do not nullify the Get.

ועוד דאוקמינן אחזקתה שהיא עכשיו נשואה דאם לא כן נזיר שהיה שותה יין או מטמא למתים אמאי לוקה דאם אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה חייב על כל אחת ואחת (נזיר דף מב.) והא התראת ספק היא שמא ישאל על נזירותו

(f)

Answer#2: Additionally, we look at her current status, which is that she is married. If not, how could we give lashes to a Nazir who drank wine or became impure to dead people? We know that he does receive lashes, as if they (the witnesses) said to him, "Do not drink, do not drink," the Mishnah says that he is liable for each time he drinks. Why isn't this deemed a doubtful warning, as he might ask that his vow of Nazirus should be permitted (and retroactively he would have merely been a regular person drinking wine)? (Note: It must therefore be that this is not called a doubtful warning as we view the person based on their current status.)

ומה שהקשה אם כן יחפה על בת אחותו ויכולין ממזרין ליטהר אי ידעינן שלכך מתכוין לא מפקעינן קדושין מיניה דלתקנה עשו חכמים ולא לתקלה שמתוך כך יהיו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות אבל אם ברור לנו שלא נתכוין לכך לא חיישינן אם יכולים ליטהר.

(g)

Answer (to a/d): His question that a person will cover up for his niece and that Mamzerim could become regular Jews (Note: can be answered in the following manner). If we know that his intent when he nullifies the Get is to do these things, we do not remove the Kidushin retroactively. This is because the Chachamim made this decree in order to help, not to cause people to stumble. If this would work, it would cause Jewish girls to be promiscuous (as they could always rectify their promiscuous actions). However, if it is clear to us that the husband did not mean to get his niece out of trouble or purify a Mamzer when he nullified the Get, we do not worry if they indeed do become purified because of his nullification.

7)

TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Savar"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי סבר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos demonstrates how the Gemara knows that Rebbi holds that the entire testimony is not invalidated.)

וא"ת מנא ליה להש"ס דסבר לא בטלה כולה ויכול לבטל היינו אפי' לכתחילה

(a)

Question: How does the Gemara know that Rebbi holds that the entire testimony is not invalidated, and that when Rebbi says that he can nullify some of the people from being his messenger that he means that he can even do so Lechatchilah?

דלמא סבר בטלה כולה ואפילו הכי יכול לבטל בדיעבד דהא לעיל אית ליה בטלו מבוטל דמלשון יכול לא מצי למידק שיהא מותר לבטל לכתחילה

1.

Perhaps Rebbi holds that the entire testimony is indeed invalidated, and even so the nullification is b'Dieved. This is supported by his earlier statement that "if he nullified it, it is indeed null (implying b'Dieved)." Just because he uses the terminology "He can," one cannot deduce that he is saying this is permitted Lechatchilah.

כדמוכח בפרק הזהב (ב"מ דף מט.) דאמר האומר לחבירו מתנה אני נותן לך יכול לחזור בו ופריך יכול פשיטא אלא אימא מותר לחזור בו

2.

This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (49a), where he says that if someone says to his friend, "I am giving you a present," "Yachol" -- "he can" retract his decision to give the present. The Gemara asks, it is obvious that he can do this! Rather, the Gemara answers, he must mean that is permitted to do so. (Note: This shows that the term "He can" is not presumed to mean that it is permitted.)

וי"ל דמשמע ליה מילתא דרבי דיכול לבטל אפי' בפני אחד אע"ג דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים כיון שלשליח עצמו אומר שהוא מבטלו הוא מבוטל

(b)

Answer#1: The Gemara understands that Rebbi's statement that "he can nullify" implies that he may even do so in front of one person. Even though we normally say that nothing takes effect regarding Arayos with less than two people, being that he tells (one of) the messenger himself that he is nullifying the Get, it is null.

א"נ אפי' לא מהני בלא שנים מ"מ יכול לבטל בפני ב' זה שלא בפני זה ואי בטלה כולה אפילו רבי מודה דאינו מבוטל אפילו בדיעבד כדפרישי' לעיל דדוקא בפני ג' לרב ששת או בפני שנים ביחד לרב נחמן הוא דמבוטל

(c)

Answer#2: Alternatively, even if (Rebbi holds) it will not help without him telling two people, (the Gemara understands that Rebbi holds) he can nullify the Get in front of two people, even if he does so one after the other. If the entire testimony is invalid, even Rebbi would agree that it is not even nullified b'Dieved. This is as we explained earlier, that (Rebbi's statement "if he nullified it, it is nullified" is) only in front of three people according to Rav Sheshes, or in front of two people who are together according to Rav Nachman, can a Get be nullified. (Note: Rebbi's statement here implies that as long as it is in front of two people, even not in front of each other, it is valid.)

א"נ אע"ג דביטלו בב"ד אומר (Note: רבי) דמבוטל היינו משום דהתם ליכא למיחש כולי האי לממזרות שאם יוודע לשליח קודם הנתינה לא יתננו לה או לאשה קודם שתנשא לא תנשא אבל כאן אפי' כשידעו כולם וגם האשה שביטל הבעל מקצת מן העשרה פעמים יטעו ויהיו סבורים שאחרים לא נתבטלו ותנשא ע"י גיטה

(d)

Answer#3: Alternatively, even though if he nullified it in Beis Din Rebbi says that it is nullified, this is because there is not such a strong suspicion for resulting Mamzerus. This is because if the messenger finds out about this before he gives the Get, he will not proceed to give it to her. Similarly, if a woman finds out about this before she gets remarried, she will not remarry. However, in this case even if everyone finds out, including his wife, that her husband nullified some of the people from being witnesses, they will sometimes make a mistake and think that being that the other witnesses were not nullified she can get married because of this Get.

ולכך אם היה סובר בטלה כולה היה מודה דאינו מבוטל

1.

Therefore, if he held that all of the witnesses are negated he would agree that it is not nullified (yet he says that it is, proving he holds all of the witnesses are not negated).

ולפ"ז אתי שפיר מה שמסתפק הש"ס הי כרבי והי כרשב"ג אפילו למאי דמוקמינן פלוגתייהו בעדות שבטלה מקצתה

2.

Accordingly, the Gemara's doubt (33b) regarding which case is ruled according to Rebbi and which case is ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, is understandable even according to the Gemara's understanding that their argument is dependent on whether or not testimony that is partially nullified is totally nullified. (Note: The cases being discussed are the two arguments between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on our Amud. The Gemara later states that Rebbi Aba ruled in one case like Rebbi and in one like Rabban Shimon. )

דאפי' קי"ל כרבי בביטלו מבוטל בזה שלא בפני זה מצי שפיר לפסוק כרשב"ג דאינו מבוטל דאפילו רבי אי הוה סבר בטלה כולה הוה מודה באומר לעשרה שאינו מבוטל

3.

Even if we hold like Rebbi in the case where he rules, "if he nullified it, it is null," we can still rule in a case where he nullified it in front of each separately like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is not nullified. Even Rebbi, if he held that the entire testimony is nullified, would agree that when he said to ten people (and nullified two) that it is not nullified.

אבל מתוך פירוש הקונטרס משמע דלרשב"ג דבטלה כולה אף זה מתקנת רבן גמליאל ועל כרחך למ"ד מפני תקנת עגונות לא דמו אהדדי

(e)

Opinion: However, from Rashi it is apparent that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that the entire testimony is invalidated, this is part of the decree of Rabban Gamliel. It therefore must be that the opinion that the (original decree of Rabban Shimon is that) nullification is invalid because of the woman being unable to remarry (as she is far away, see Tosfos #4) is not similar to the decree in this case. (Note: The decree in this case seems to be because she will end up having Mamzerim, see Maharam Shif.)

ולפירושו שמשוה אותם מה שמסתפק הש"ס הי כרבי והי כרשב"ג היינו דוקא לפי מה דמוקי פלוגתייהו בצריכי בי עשרה למשלפה אבל למאי דמוקי פלוגתייהו בעדות שבטלה מקצתה אין להסתפק

1.

According to his (Rashi's) explanation that these are similar, the Gemara's question of which case is ruled according to Rebbi and which case is ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is only according to the Gemara's answer that Rabban Shimon's reasoning is not because of a decree, but rather because all ten have to be nullified. However, according to the understanding that they are arguing regarding whether testimony that is partially nullified is completely nullified, there is no room for doubt.

דאי קי"ל בביטלו מבוטל כרבי תו לא מצי למיפסק באומר לעשרה לגמרי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאפי' קי"ל כוותיה דבטלה כולה במאי דקאמר שאין הביטול מועיל אפי' דיעבד לא קי"ל כוותיה

2.

If we rule that "if he nullified it, it is nullified," like Rebbi, we cannot possibly rule in the case of him telling ten people (to write a Get for his wife) completely like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Even if we hold like Rabban Shimon that the entire testimony is nullified, we do not rule like his opinion that the nullification does not even work b'Dieved.

ומיהו אם משמעות דאינו יכול דקאמר רשב"ג לא משמע דיעבד אלא דאתא לאפוקי מדרבי דשרי אפי' לכתחילה אתי שפיר דמסתפק אפי' ללישנא דפליגי בעדות שבטלה מקצתה

3.

However, if the indication of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's statement of "He cannot" is not even b'Dieved, and is only coming to oppose Rebbi's position that this is even Lechatchilah, this is understandable. The Gemara's doubt (who to rule like in which case) would even be applicable according to the opinion that Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argue about testimony which was partially nullified.

ומ"מ לרשב"ג אפי' בדיעבד אינו מבוטל כדפירש בקונטרס מכח ההיא דלעיל דקאמר א"כ מה כח ב"ד יפה.

4.

In any event (this cannot be as), according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Get is not even nullified b'Dieved, as Rashi explains, because of the earlier reason that this would mean that his decree does not have any power.

33b----------------------------------------33b

8)

TOSFOS DH "Tzerichi"

תוס' ד"ה "צריכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Chachamim decreed that even the two people he told can write the Get.)

ואפי' אותם שנים שביטל יכולין לכתוב

(a)

Explanation: Accordingly, even the two that he nullified can write the Get.

ותימה כיון דמדאורייתא יכול לבטל אפי' שלא בפניהם אמאי תקנו חכמים שלא יועיל ביטול לגבי אותם שנים עצמם

(b)

Question: Being that according to Torah law he can nullify the Get, even if he does so when he is not in the presence of the messengers, why did the Chachamim decree that the nullification should not even help for these two (whom he told)?

וי"ל כיון שהוצרכו לתקן שאין ביטול מועיל לגבי אחרים תיקנו נמי שלא יהא לו כח לבטל בזה הגט כלל.

(c)

Answer: Once they had to institute that the nullification does not help for the others, they also instituted that the husband should have no ability at all to nullify this Get (unless he nullifies everyone in their presence).

9)

TOSFOS DH "Amar Rav Yosef"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רב יוסף"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Yosef insists that someone who nullifies a Get receives lashes, even though what he did is ineffective.)

אע"ג דרב יוסף אית ליה הכא דביטלו אינו מבוטל קאמר רב יוסף בפ"ק דקידושין (דף יב:) דרב מנגיד אמאן דמבטל גיטא אע"ג דאינו מבוטל

(a)

Implied Question: Although Rav Yosef holds here that if he nullified the Get it is not nullified, he still says in Kidushin (12a) that Rav gave lashes (Makas Mardus) to someone who would nullify a Get, even though it is not considered nullified. (Note: If what he did is invalid, why should he receive lashes?)

דמ"מ הרי מוציא לעז על הגט כי היכי דמנגיד אמאן דמקדש בשוקא או בביאה אע"ג דליכא איסורא.

(b)

Answer: Even so, he causes rumors to abound about the Get (and therefore receives lashes). This is similar to his giving lashes to someone who did Kidushin in the marketplace or with marital relations, even though there is no prohibition against doing so.

10)

TOSFOS DH "v'Chazar Rebbi"

תוס' ד"ה "וחזר רבי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara assumes that Rebbi retracted his opinion regarding nullification of a Get.)

וא"ת מנא ליה משום דחזר בו התם דחזר בו נמי ממאי דאמר ביטלו מבוטל דלמא ההיא דשום הדיינים דמי טפי לביטלו שלא בב"ד דהתם מודה רבי דאינו מבוטל דאמרי' מה כח ב"ד יפה כדפרישית לעיל

(a)

Question: How do we know that because he retracted his opinion there (regarding the estimation of the judges), that he would also retract his opinion that if he nullified the Get it is indeed nullified? Perhaps the case of an evaluation by Beis Din is more similar to nullifying a Get when one is not in Beis Din? Indeed, Rebbi agrees that in such a case the Get is not nullified, as we say that otherwise Rabban Gamliel's decree would not be valid, as the Gemara explains earlier (33a).

וי"ל דרב יוסף מדמה להו משום דלא איפלגו רבי ורשב"ג אלא בהני תרי מילי במה כח ב"ד יפה בשום הדיינין ובביטול הגט בב"ד ולכך מדמה להו אהדדי ומסתמא כשחזר מזה חזר נמי מזה.

(b)

Answer: Rav Yosef compares them because Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only argued regarding these two things, namely that Beis Din's character will be weakened if the estimation is easily overturned, and nullifying a Get in Beis Din. This is why he compared them to each other, and assumed that if Rebbi retracted his ruling in one case, he retracted it in the other case as well. (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that in each of these cases Beis Din is potentially overruled by circumstances (their estimation was too much/little, or the husband's nullification). This is unlike a case where he nullifies the Get in Beis Din, as then another Beis Din is involved. When another Beis Din is involved, the logic of "making Beis Din weak" is not as applicable.)

11)

TOSFOS DH "Livderu"

תוס' ד"ה "ליבדרו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos validates the Gemara's question according to all opinions.)

אפי' למאן דמוקי פלוגתייהו בעדות שבטלה מקצתה דייק שפיר

(a)

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion that understands that their argument hinges on whether nullification of some of the witnesses nullifies all of the witnesses, this is a good deduction. (Note: Why?)

דבהא קי"ל כרבי דלדידיה ליכא למימר דלבדורי איבדור דכיון שיכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה לא יועיל פיזור דיבטל כל אחד שימצא בפני עצמו עד שיבטל כולן

(b)

Answer: We hold like Rebbi who does not see any purpose in their separating. Being that he can nullify the witnesses when one is not in front of the other, it will not help for them to separate, as he will merely nullify each wherever he finds them until he nullifies all of them.

אבל לרשב"ג דאין יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה אין בביטולו כלום אפי' מבטל כולם כל אחד בפני עצמו אע"ג דהשתא ליכא למיחש דלמא אזלי הנך דלא ידעי וכתבי ויהבי לה לא הוי ביטול עד שיבטל כולם יחד זה בפני זה.

1.

However, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that he cannot nullify each witness when they are not in front of the other witnesses, the nullification is invalid, even if he nullifies each separately. Even though there is no longer a suspicion that some of them who do not know the Get was nullified will go and write the Get (as they were all nullified), it is not invalid until he invalidates each of them in front of each other.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF