GITIN 45 (17 Shevat) - Dedicated by Mrs. Idelle Rudman in memory of Harav Reuven Moshe Rudman ben Harav Yosef Tuvia Rudman, who passed away 17 Shevat 5766, in honor of his Yahrzeit.

GITIN 45 - Dedicated by Dr. Eli Turkel of Raanana, l'Iluy Nishmas his mother, Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer (Mrs. Gisela Turkel) whose passed away on 25 Av 5760. Mrs. Turkel accepted Hashem's Gezeiros with love; may she be a Melitzas Yosher for her offspring and for all of Klal Yisrael.



תוס' ד"ה "מידי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the Gemara seemingly could have differentiated between the two cases.)

ולפי האמת יש לחלק דלא שייך התם למימר אדם יודע כמו במקדש אחותו דהא רב קאמר דמכורה ויוצאה.


Observation: Truthfully, one can differentiate that it is not possible there to say that a person knows (that a sale of a field during Yovel is invalid) just as he knows that one cannot really be Mekadesh his sister, as Rav indeed holds the sale (during Yovel) is valid.



תוס' ד"ה "דלא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we redeem people for large amounts, and when we do not.)

והא דתניא בפ' נערה (כתובות נב.) נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנה עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשון פודה


Implied Question: The Beraisa states in Kesuvos (52a) that if she (his wife) was captured and they were asking until ten times her real worth, the first time she is redeemed. (Note: How, then, can our Gemara suggest that Levi bar Darga perhaps did not do the right thing?)

שאני אשתו דהויא כגופו יותר מבתו דהכא ועל עצמו לא תיקנו שלא יתן כל אשר לו בעד נפשו


Answer: A person's wife is different, as she is like he himself more than his daughter who is discussed here. Chazal did make any limitations regarding a person redeeming himself that he cannot give everything he has for his freedom.

ור' יהושע בן חנניא דפרקיה לההוא תינוק בממון הרבה בהניזקין (לקמן דף נח.)


Implied Question: Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya redeemed a child for a large amount of money, as stated later (58a). (Note: How could he do so if our Gemara frowns on this practice?)

לפי שהיה מופלג בחכמה


Answer#1: The child was extremely learned (and therefore was an exception to the rule).

אי נמי בשעת חורבן הבית לא שייך דלא ליגרבו.


Answer#2: Alternatively, during the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, it was not possible to make this decree in order that they should not capture more slaves (as they were already exiled and many were enslaved).



TOSFOS DH "Amri Lah"

תוס' ד"ה "אמרי לה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the reason that a Sefer Torah in the possession of a Nochri could be used.)

פי' בקונטרס דהוה ליה ספק ספיקא דשמא ישראל כתבו ואפילו כתבו עובד כוכבים שמא כתבו למכור לישראל ולא לשם עבודת כוכבים


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is because it is a "Sfeik Sfeika" -- "doubt of a doubt." We are unsure whether or not a Jew wrote it. Even if a Nochri wrote it, perhaps he wrote it in order to sell it to a Jew and not with intent for Avodah Zarah.

ואין נראה דרב נחמן קאמר כתבו עובד כוכבים יגנז והיינו אפילו כתבו למכור לישראל דלקמן מפרש טעמא משום כל שאינו בקשירה אינו בכתיבה


Question: This does not appear correct. Rav Nachman says that if a Nochri wrote it, it should be placed in Genizah. This implies that it should be placed in Genizah even if it was written in order to sell it to a Jew. This is as the Gemara later explains, that whoever is not included in "tying" (the Mitzvah of Tefilin) is not included in "writing" (i.e. a valid Sefer Torah).

אלא טעמא דאמרי לה קורין בו משום דאיכא למתלי טפי שישראל כתבו דאין דרך עובד כוכבים לכתוב.


Explanation#2: Rather, the reason that some say we could use it to read is because it is far more likely that a Jew wrote the Sefer Torah, as Nochrim do not usually write Sifrei Torah.


TOSFOS DH "v'Ha d'Tanya"

תוס' ד"ה "והא דתניא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara did not say that the author of the opinion that it should be put in Genizah is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.)

הוה מצי למימר דרשב"ג הוא דבעי כתיבה לשמה כדאמר בסמוך


Implied Question: It is possible to say that the Tana is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as he requires that it be written Lishmah, as he says later. (Note: Why didn't our Gemara choose to say that the author is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?)

אלא מייתי תנא דאיירי בה בהדיא.


Answer: However, the Gemara preferred to quote a Tana who explicitly says this particular law.


TOSFOS DH "Kol she'Yeshno"

תוס' ד"ה "כל שישנו בקשירה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not a woman can tie a Lulav or Tzitzis.)

מכאן אומר ר"ת דאין אשה אוגדת לולב ועושה ציצית כיון דלא מיפקדה


Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam extrapolated from our Gemara that a woman cannot tie a Lulav or Tzitzis, as she is not commanded in the Mitzvah.

ואין נראה דהא מדפסלינן בריש התכלת (מנחות דף מב.) ציצית בעובד כוכבים דדריש בני ישראל ועשו ולא בעובדי כוכבים מכלל דאשה כשרה ואמרינן נמי סוכת גנב"ך כשרה בפ"ק דסוכה (דף ח:


Question: This does not seem correct. In Menachos (42a), we derive that Tzitzis cannot be made from a Nochri from the Pasuk, "Bnei Yisrael...v'Asu" -- "Bnei Yisrael...and they shall make." This implies that Nochrim cannot make Tzitzis. However, (the fact that the Gemara did not exclude women) this implies that woman can make Tzitzis. We similarly say that a Sukah made by Nochrim, women, for animals, or Kusim is kosher, as stated in the Gemara in Sukah (8b). (Note: We see that something can be made to be used to fulfill a Mitzvah even by those who are not commanded in that particular Mitzvah.)

ודוקא בס"ת ותפילין ומזוזות דכתיב וקשרתם וכתבתם דרשינן הכי.


Opinion#2: Only regarding a Sefer Torah, Tefilin, and Mezuzos where the Pasuk says, "u'Keshartem...u'Chisavtem" -- "and you will tie...and you will write" do we derive that anyone who is not included in tying is not included in writing.


TOSFOS DH "Ad she'Yeavdem Lishman"

תוס' ד"ה "עד שיעבדם לשמן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos rules like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and proves that this ruling is consistent with other Gemaros that discuss his opinion.)

כרשב"ג קיי"ל דבעי עיבוד לשמה כדמוכח בהנזקין (לקמן דף נד: דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אבהו א"ל ס"ת שכתבתי גוילין שלו לא עבדתים לשמן ומסיק דנאמן אתה להפסיד שכרך ואין אתה נאמן להפסיד ס"ת


Opinion: We rule like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who requires that the processing of the parchment must be Lishmah. This is as is apparent from the Gemara later (54b). A person came before Rebbi Avahu and said to him, "I did not process the parchment, that I used to write my Sefer Torah, Lishmah." He (Rebbi Avahu) concluded that this scribe is believed to lose his pay, but he is not believed to make the Sefer Torah (that had already been transferred to the possession of the buyer) invalid.

והא דאיפליגו אביי ורבא בפ' נגמר הדין (סנהדרין דף מח: בהזמנה אי מילתא היא ומוקי התם פלוגתייהו בפלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן


Abaye and Rava argue in Sanhedrin (48b) regarding whether or not preparing something for a certain use gives the item the status of that object. The Gemara there says that their argument is the same as the argument between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan.

לא כמו שפי' שם בקונטרס דאביי דאמר מילתא היא כרשב"ג דבעי עיבוד לשמן


This is unlike Rashi's explanation of the Gemara there that Abaye holds preparation establishes the status, like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who holds that the processing is required to be Lishmah

דאם כן קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא דקי"ל כרבא לגבי אביי בר מיע"ל קג"ם


If so, the halachic rulings in these Gemaros would contradict each other, as we always rule like Rava and unlike Abaye, besides for the six cases of YA'L KgaM (each of the caps stands for a case in the Gemara where we rule like Abaye).

אלא מפרש ר"ת דאביי כרבנן דלא בעי עיבוד לשמן דסגי בשאר הזמנות שמתקנין הקלפים ומשרטטין אותם לשמן כיון דהזמנה מילתא היא ורבא כרשב"ג דבעי עיבוד לשמן ולא הזמנה מועטת


Rather, Rabeinu Tam explains that Abaye holds like the Rabbanan that do not require processing Lishmah. Other types of preparation can be done, such as preparing them and doing Sirtut (etching the lines on the top and bottom of each row). Being that preparation is significant, this type of preparation is sufficient. Rava holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that the processing of the leather itself has to be done Lishmah, and not merely a small amount of preparation.

ואע"ג דאמרינן בהתכלת (מנחות דף מב:) דרב כרבנן ושמואל כרשב"ג והלכתא כרב באיסורי


Implied Question: We say in Menachos (42b) that Rav holds like the Rabbanan, and Shmuel holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The law generally follows Rav in matters of prohibitions (and Shmuel in monetary matters). (Note: Doesn't this contradict our ruling that the law is like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?)

הכא הלכתא כשמואל


Answer: The law in this case follows the opinion of Shmuel.

ואף ע"ג דאמר ליה התם אביי לרב שמואל בר יהודה האי תכלתא היכי צבעיתו לה א"ל מייתי לן דם חלזון וסמנים ורמינן לה ביורה ושקלינן פורתא בביעתא וטעמינן לה באודרא ושדינן לההיא ביעתא וקלינן להאי אודרא בנורא משמע דבעינן צביעה לשמן


Implied Question: Abaye asked Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, how can one dye this Techeiles? Rav Shmuel answered that one brings the blood of the Chilazon and dye, puts them in a pot (and boils it), takes a little in an egg and puts a bit of it on some stuffing (i.e. wool). We then throw away the egg and burn that wool in a fire. This implies that the dying of the wool must be done Lishmah (as this is why we throw away the part that was dyed as a test, as it was not done Lishmah, but only for a test). (Note: This implies that Abaye agrees that preparation must be done Lishmah, further implying that he is the one who holds like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, not Rava.)

צ"ל דאביי לא קיבלה דאיהו לא בעי לא עיבוד ולא טוייה ולא צביעה לשמן.


Answer: Abaye did not accept this answer from Rav Shmuel, as he does not require processing, sewing, and dying Lishmah.


TOSFOS DH "Ma'alin b'Demeihen"

תוס' ד"ה "מעלין בדמיהן"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding whether the Gemara is discussing Tefilin and Mezuzos or not.)

מתוך פי' הקונט' משמע דקאי גם אספרים


Opinion: Rashi implies that this is also referring to Sefarim.

וקצת תימה דאיך משוה הש"ס ספרים שדמיהן יקרים להעלות כדי טרפעיק כמו בתפילין ומזוזות


Question: This is slightly difficult. How can the Shas equate Sefarim, whose value is great and we would only say that one can pay a Trefik (half a dinar) more, to Tefilin and Mezuzos?

לכך נראה דקאי אתפילין ומזוזות.


Answer: Therefore, it seems that it is only discussing Tefilin and Mezuzos.


TOSFOS DH "Ibud Lishman"

תוס' ד"ה "עיבוד לשמן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks why the Gemara did not differentiate between writing and preparation.)

קשה דלמא כתיבה לשמן ודאי לא בעי דמסתמא לשמן קאי אבל סתם עיבוד עורות לאו לתפילין קיימי


Question: This is difficult. Perhaps they do not require Kesivah Lishmah, as they are generally written Lishmah. However, general processing of skins are not for Tefilin.

ולא מסתבר דפריך מעיבוד לעיבוד דמדקאמר כתיבה לשמן לא בעי משמע דמכתיבה פריך.


It is not logical to assume the question is from processing to processing. Being that the Gemara says that writing Lishmah is not necessary, it implies that the question is from writing.