GITIN 67 (16 Elul) - sponsored by Chaim and Caroline Turkel of London in honor of the marriage of their daughter Rivka Ruth to Avraham Mordechai Gross. May the young couple merit to build a Bayis Ne'eman l'Tiferes b'Yisrael and to raise their own children and grandchildren to lives filled with Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!



תוס' ד"ה "אמרו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is unlike a case of a witness giving testimony told to him by his friend who was a witness to the actual event.)

לא דמי לעד מפי עד


Implied Question: This is unlike a case of one witness testifying based on the words of another witness. (Note: Why is this case different?)

דהני מילי כששמעו מפי עדים שפלוני לוה מפלוני מנה שלא נמסרה עדות לאלו המעידים אלא בפני הראשונים אבל כאן עיקר עדות לא נמסרה אלא לאלו והראשונים הם שלוחי הבעל שמצוה לאלו לעשות לה גט.


Answer: The case there is when they heard from witnesses that Ploni borrowed a Manah from Ploni. The ability to testify in this case was only given to those who saw the loan (not this second set of witnesses). However, here the ability to testify about the Get was given to the second set. The first witnesses are merely the messengers of the husband, who are supposed to command the second set to write the Get.


TOSFOS DH "Lo Shechica"

תוס' ד"ה "לא שכיחא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that Shmuel holds "Ksav Sofer v'Eid.")

פירש בקונטרס לשמואל אית ליה בפ' בתרא (לקמן ד' פו:) דכתב סופר ועד שנינו ואתיא אפי' כרבי מאיר


Explanation: Rashi explains that Shmuel holds that the case of the Mishnah is when the scribe writes the Get and the two messengers sign it. This is even according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

ומכל מקום צריך לומר נמי אליביה דלא שכיחא דמתחילה לא הקשה אלא מכח דלא מסתברא דפליג שמואל אדר' ירמיה ורב חסדא.


Even so, even according to him it must be that this is not commonly done. This is evident from the fact that originally the Gemara only asked that it was not logical that Shmuel would argue on Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rav Chisda. (Note: It therefore must not be our working assumption that this is commonly done.)


TOSFOS DH "Chacham l'kishe'Yirtzeh"

תוס' ד"ה "חכם לכשירצה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos contrasts Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, as implied by our Gemara.)

יותר מר"מ ודילמא ר' מאיר חריף ומקשה ור' יהודה מתון ומסיק וכי האי גוונא אמרינן בסוף הוריות (דף יד.).


Explanation: This is true of Rebbi Yehudah more than it is true regarding Rebbi Meir. It is possible that Rebbi Meir is sharp and asks (more) questions while Rebbi Yehudah is patient and gets to the conclusion better. A similar thing is stated in Horiyos (14a). (Note: See Teshuvos Maharlbach (#92) who concludes that "v'Dilma" here is more of an explanation than addressing a question, and explains Tosfos at length. See Zera Yitzchak for a different explanation of Tosfos.)


TOSFOS DH "Chanus Meyuzenes"

תוס' ד"ה "חנות מיוזנת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the definition of a Chanus Meyuzenes.)

לשון מזון


Explanation#1: "Meyuzenes" refers to food.

ואית דגרסי מזוינת לשון זיון.


Explanation#2: Some have a text "Mezuyenes" referring to bearing arms.



תוס' ד"ה "בלום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the definition of "Balum.")

בקונטרס גריס במ"ם כמו פיו בלום ורגליו מבולמות בבכורות (דף מ:)


Text#1: Rashi has the text "Balum" with a Mem at the end of the word, like the phrase, "His mouth and feet are "Balum" -- "short." (Note: Rashi explains that this means his knowledge was compartmentalized neatly and stored properly in his mind (see Rashi at length).)

ואית דגרסי בסמ"ך כמו בבראשית רבה (פ' כ"ח) משל למלך שהיו אוצרותיו בלוסים וחתומין ומעורבין.


Text#2: Some have the text "Balus" with a Samech, as in the phrase stated in Bereishis Rabah (ch.28), "It is akin to a king whose storehouses were "Belusin," meaning sealed, and its many contents were mixed up. (Note: This indicates he had many fields of Torah knowledge in one mind.)


TOSFOS DH "Dibura"

תוס' ד"ה "דיבורא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a similar explanation in Yevamos.)

והא דאמרינן סוף פרק ב' דיבמות (דף כה:) גבי מיאנה או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא ב"ד ופריך בגמרא טעמא דב"ד הא בי תרי לא והתניא עדים החתומים על שדה מקח ועל גט אשה לא חשו חכמים כו'


Question: The Gemara in Yevamos (25b) states regarding a girl who did Miun or a woman who did Chalitzah before someone that he may marry her, as he is part of a Beis Din. The Gemara asks that the only reason this is permitted is because he is part of a Beis Din. This implies she cannot marry one of the witnesses. Doesn't the Beraisa say that if witnesses were signed on a purchase of a field or Get of a woman, the Chachamim did not suspect etc. (i.e. they permitted a witness to marry the woman)?

ומאי קושיא לישני דיבורא אמרי מעשה לא עבדי כדאמר הכא דהתם לא הוי אלא דיבורא שאומר שמיאנה או שחלצה


What is the Gemara's question? Let the Gemara answer that they say words, but do not do an action, as we answer in our Gemara! In the case in Yevamos (ibid.), the Beis Din merely says she that she performed Miun or did Chalitzah.

ויש לומר כיון דהתם על ידי דיבורא נגמר הדבר שע"י כך ניסת לשוק מעשה גמור חשיב ליה אבל הכא אין נגמר על ידם ואינו אלא דיבור בעלמא.


Answer: Being that the entire event is done through their words, and this (i.e. this statement that she did Chalitzah or Miun) permits her to remarry, it is considered an action. However, here (witnesses signed on a document) they do not finish this event and it is only words. (Note: The transaction is only carried out by the giving of the Get or document.)



TOSFOS DH "Mi she'Achzo"

תוס' ד"ה "מי שאחזו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case.)

ואפי' אמר כתבו ותנו.


Explanation: This is even if he says, "Write and give."


TOSFOS DH "Karchah"

תוס' ד"ה "כרכה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the actions of Rav Sheshes.)

משום דאשכח ביה טעמא דחיורא הוא דעבד הכי והגמרא לא פירשו עד לבסוף.


Explanation: He did this because he found that it tasted like meat that had boils on it. The Gemara did not explain this explicitly.