GITIN 72 - Today's Daf has been sponsored by Asher and Etti Schoor of Lawrence, NY. May they be blessed with a year filled with the joy of the Torah and see their children continue to grow in Avodas Hashem.


TOSFOS DH "u'mi'Shoom"

תוס' ד"ה "ומשום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not get into the lengthy discussion it did earlier.)

הוה מצי לשנויי כיון דאמר מר כשר ולא תעשה כו' ולאסוקי כדמסיק בהתקבל (לעיל סז.)


Implied Question: It could have answered that being that Mar said that while it is valid it should not be done etc., and can conclude like the conclusion of the Gemara earlier (67a). (Note: Why didn't the Gemara go through the answers and questions that the Gemara earlier (67a) went through before reaching its conclusion?)

אלא לפי שכבר דקדק ולא חש לחזור ולהאריך


Answer: Rather, being that the Gemara already gave this answer (and discussed the resulting discussion), it did not warrant it necessary to go back through the discussion again.(Note: Being that in the end our Gemara would still have to answer the answer it gives now, according to the opinion that while it is valid it should not be done (as is apparent from the Gemara earlier (67a), it did not go through the entire lengthy discussion of this matter.)

ומכאן יש להוכיח דפרק מי שאחזו סדרו אחר התקבל.


Observation: We can prove from here that the chapter of "Mi she'Achzo" was originally arranged after the chapter of Hiskabel (where this original discussion appears at length).


TOSFOS DH "Lo Mibai"

תוס' ד"ה "לא מיבעיא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why our Gemara seems to discuss something that is also according to Rebbi Meir in the middle of its discussion of Rebbi Yosi's opinion.)

לא מיבעיא קמא אתי אפי' לר"מ דקאמר לא מיבעיא כתבו אלא אפי' תנו כיון דמיירי בב' כדקאמר בתר הכי לא מיבעיא היכא דלא אמר לבי תלתא


Explanation#1: The first time the Gemara states, "It is not necessary" it is even according to Rebbi Meir who says that not only, "Write," but even "Give." This is because it is even discussing a case where he said this to two people, as stated afterwards, "It is not necessary to state a case where he did not say to three."

אע"ג דקאי לרבי יוסי


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara is currently discussing Rebbi Yosi's opinion. (Note: Why would the Gemara discuss something according to Rebbi Meir while discussing Rebbi Yosi's opinion?)

אין לחוש דמדקדק כל לא מיבעיא שיכול לומר


Answer: There is no reason to say it cannot also be according to Rebbi Meir, as it is merely stating every type of, "It is not necessary" that it can say.

ויש ספרים דגרסי לא מיבעיא היכא דלא אמר לבי תלתא תנו אלא אפילו אמר לבי תלתא תנו.


Explanation#2: Some Sefarim have the text "It is not necessary to have a case where he did not say to three, "Give," rather even if he said to three Give etc." (Note: This text can only be according to Rebbi Yosi.)



תוס' ד"ה "תניא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's proof to Rav Ashi from the Beraisa.)

לכאורה משמע דלא מייתי מינה ראיה אלא דלא מודה ר' יוסי באומר אמרו


Observation: It seems that the Gemara is only proving from this Beraisa that Rebbi Yosi does not agree that if he says to people that they should tell (the scribe to write etc.) that it is a valid Get. (Note: This is indeed stated by Rav Ashi. However, there is no proof that his answer is correct aside from that detail.)

אבל הרב רבי אלחנן פירש בשם ר' יצחק דמוכח מינה דלא מיבעיא קאמר כדמשני רב אשי


Explanation: However, Rebbi Elchanan explains in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak that it is apparent from this Beraisa that the explanation of our Mishnah is "It is not necessary etc.," as stated by Rav Ashi.

דודאי אי הוי תני נכתוב גט לאשתך כו' הוה דייקינן הא אמר תנו נותנין כדדייק אמתני' והוי רישא ר"מ


Certainly, if it would have said, "Let us write a Get for your wife etc." we would deduce that if he had said, "Give" we would give the Get, as we deduced regarding the Mishnah. We would then say that the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir.

אבל השתא דנקט כתב הסופר לשמה דמשמע הא אם אמר לשום אדם מהני והא ליתא דאפילו לר"מ לא מהני


However, now that it says a case where the scribe wrote the Get Lishmah, this implies that if he said to anyone that a Get should be written it is valid. This is not true, of course, as even Rebbi Meir holds that this is invalid. (Note: What, then, does the Beraisa mean?)

אלא ודאי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לא אמר כתבו אלא אפי' אמר כתבו ולא מיבעיא דלא אמר תנו כו' כדדייק אמתני'.


Rather, it certainly means to say, "It is not necessary etc." as stated by Rav Ashi. It doesn't have to say a case of "Write" as even if he says this etc. It does not have to say a case of "Give" etc., in the same way that Rav Ashi similarly understands the Mishnah.



תוס' ד"ה "קולו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara thinks the Beraisa, and not the Mishnah, excludes Rav Kahana's position.)

וא"ת ואמאי נקט מדרב כהנא ממתני' נמי אתיא לאפוקי דמכשרה בהרכנת הראש בלא קול


Question: Why does the Gemara say that it excludes the position of Rav Kahana? We could similarly disprove his position from our Mishnah that permits nodding without requiring a voice!

וי"ל דמסתברא דהרכנה דמתני' מהני כמו קול כיון דקים לן שמתרצה לא בעינן שמיעת הקול כמו תן גט זה לאשתי אם היה זכות לה לא היה יכול לחזור בו ואע"פ שהיא אינה אומרת כלום כיון שהיא מתרצה בלא שמיעת קולה הוי שלוחה


Answer: It is logical that the nodding of our Mishnah helps like a voice. Being that we understand he wants to give a Get, we do not require that we hear his voice. This is like someone (who cannot talk but is clearly sane, see Pnei Yehoshua) who says, "Give a Get to my wife." If it is good for her to receive the Get, he cannot retract this, even if she does not say anything. Being that she accepts this, without her voice he is her messenger. (Note: Accordingly, the Mishnah might not exclude Rav Kahana's position.)

ובבריית' דנקט עד שישמעו קולו לא שנה אלא למעוטי חרש דרב כהנא דמסתבר למעוטי.


The Beraisa that states, "Until they hear his voice" is only stating this to exclude the case of a deaf-mute that Rav Kahana says may also communicate in this fashion. It is logical that the Beraisa excludes this position.


TOSFOS DH "mei'ha'Yom"

תוס' ד"ה "מהיום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses what happens if he dies on that very day.)

כתב ר"ת מהיום אם מתי אם מת בו ביום לא ידענא מה אדון בה


Opinion#1: Rabeinu Tam says that if the man says, "From today if I die" and he dies on that day, I am not sure how to judge this (whether or not she is divorced, as it is unclear which came first).

ולרבינו אלחנן נראה דמהיום הוי כמו מעכשיו ודעתו שיהא גט לאלתר דמסתמא דלכך נותן גט שירא למות וכי אין לו לירא שמא ימות בו ביום אלא ודאי לאלתר קאמר שיהא גט ומכל מקום נכון להחמיר.


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Elchanan says that it seems, "From today" is like "From now." He has intent that the Get should take effect from this instant, as he probably is giving the Get because he fears he may die anytime. Isn't he scared he may die that day as well? It must be that he means it should take effect immediately. Even so, it is good to be stringent.



תוס' ד"ה "הכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos shows that Rav and Rava hold like Rebbi Yosi, despite Gemaros that would seem to imply the opposite.)

והא דאמרינן בפרק בתרא (לקמן פה:) התקין רב בגיטא מן יומא דנן ולעלם ולאפוקי מדרבי יוסי


Implied Question: The Gemara says later (85b) that Rav instituted that a Get contain the words, "From this day onward," excluding the position of Rebbi Yosi. (Note: How, then, can Rav say here that we rule like Rebbi Yosi?)

אין זה אלא לשופרא בעלמא דהא כרבי יוסי ס"ל כדאמר הכא


Answer: This is only an enhancement of the document, as Rav really holds like Rebbi Yosi, as stated here.

ואית דגריס לקמן רבא


Observation: Some later (85b) have the text, "Rava."

לפי זה צריך לומר נמי דלשופרא דשטרא תקן דהא אמר בסמוך דלרבא פשיטא ליה דהלכה כרבי יוסי אפילו בעל פה וכן פירש בקונטרס לקמן.


According to this opinion as well this must be merely an enhancement of the document, as the Gemara states later that according to Rava it is obvious that we rule like Rebbi Yosi, even when a person mentions this condition (orally) while giving the Get. (Note: He does not mention it in the document, but by the giving of the Get (see 72b and top Rashi there).)




תוס' ד"ה "אי אמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the doubt regarding Rebbi Yosi's position.)

אם מבטל בדבורו הוכחת זמן השטר כיון שאין כתוב בו מהיום.


Explanation: The doubt is whether or not Rebbi Yosi holds that his stated condition nullifies the proof of when the Get was dated, being that it does not state in the date that he is giving it "from today (if he dies)."


TOSFOS DH "l'Rava"

תוס' ד"ה "לרבא"

(SUMMARY: The Ri and Rashbam argue whether or not a Gemara in Bava Basra 136a is according to Rebbi Yosi.)

מכאן קשה על רשב"ם דפי' ביש נוחלין (ב"ב קלו.) גבי בעי מיניה רבא מרב נחמן בהקנאה מהו פי' אם מועיל הקנאה כמו מהיום א"ל בהקנאה אינו צריך


Question: This is a question on the explanation of the Rashbam in Bava Basra (136a). The Gemara there states that Rava asked Rav Nachman whether or not this is true regarding a Kinyan. This means that he asked whether having a term in the document stating that a Kinyan is being made is effective like saying that it should be "from today." Rav Nachman answered that this is not necessary.

ופי' רשב"ם היינו דלא כר' יוסי והכא משמע דסבר רבא כר' יוסי


The Rashbam explained that this is unlike the position of Rebbi Yosi. However, the Gemara here implies that Rava holds like Rebbi Yosi.

ואור"י דהתם מיירי באין כתוב זמן בשטר ומתוקם כר' יוסי.


Opinion: The Ri answers that the Gemara there is discussing a case where there is no date in the document, and it therefore can be according to Rebbi Yosi.


TOSFOS DH "Amar Rav Huna"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רב הונא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies if Shechiv Meira who gives a Get must stipulate that the Get is null if he recovers.)

פרש"י ור"ח מה מתנת שכיב מרע בלא שום תנאי חוזר אף גיטו נמי אם עמד חוזר ממילא בלא שום תנאי


Opinion#1: Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel explain that just like the present of a Shechiv Meira (person lying on his supposed deathbed) is retracted if the person gets better without requiring a special condition to this effect, so too the Get of such a person is retracted without requiring an explicit condition to this effect.

ומסיק דרבה ורבא לא ס"ל הא דרב הונא דכיון דאם עמד חוזר וכי מיית הוי גיטא אמרי יש גט לאחר מיתה כמו מתנה שאינה חלה עד לאחר מיתה כמו כן גט


The Gemara concludes that Rabah and Rava do not agree with Rav Huna. They argue that if we say that if he gets better he can retract, and if he dies it is a valid Get, people will say that it is possible to give a Get after death. They will say that just as a present is only valid after his death, so too his Get is valid after his death.

ואין להקשות לפירושו דכיון דבסתם אם עמד חוזר מה צריך במתני' למיתני מהיום אם מת מעכשיו אם מת בסתם נמי הוי כמהיום וכמעכשיו


Implied Question: One cannot ask that according to his (their) explanation, being that the assumption is that if he gets better he retracts, why did the Mishnah have to state, "From today if I die" or "From now if I die," being that the general assumption is that these conditions apply.

דאיצטריך לאשמועינן איזה לשון משמע מחיים ואיזה לאחר מיתה


Answer: The Mishnah was required to teach us which term implies from when he is alive (and it is therefore valid), and which term implies the transaction is taking place after death (and is therefore invalid).

אבל קשה דאמאי הוצרך שמואל לתקן בגט דשכיב מרע לקמן בפרקין (דף עה:) אם ימות יהא גט ואם לאו לא יהא גט כיון דבסתם נמי חוזר אם עמד


Question: However, this is difficult. Why did Shmuel have to institute later (75b) regarding the Get of a Shechiv Meira that if he dies the Get is valid, and if he does not it is not valid? The standard assumption is that the Get is retracted if he gets better!

ומיהו י"ל דשמואל לא סבר כרב הונא אלא כרבה ורבא


Answer: It is possible to answer that Shmuel does not agree with Rav Huna, and agrees with Rabah and Rava.

ומיהו קשה דהא אמרי' באיזהו נשך (ב"מ דף סו.) ההוא שכיב מרע דכתב גט לדביתהו איתנח אמרה ליה דביתהו אמאי קא מיתנחת אי קיימת דידך אנא וקאמר דפטומי מילי נינהו ופריך פשיטא ואמאי פשיטא והא רב הונא אית ליה הכא אם עמד חוזר


Question: However, this is difficult. The Gemara in Bava Metzia (66a) states that a Shechiv Meira wrote a Get for his wife. He groaned. His wife said, "Why are you groaning? If you will live, I will still be yours." The Gemara says that she was just saying this to making him happy (but in fact the Get would remain valid). The Gemara proceeds to ask that this is obvious. Why is it obvious? Rav Huna in our Gemara holds that if he gets better he can indeed retract the Get!

ע"כ נראה לר"ת שכ"מ שנתן גט ולא התנה דאם עמד אינו חוזר


Opinion #2: It therefore seems to Rabeinu Tam that if a Shechiv Meira gave a Get and did not make a condition (that if he gets better the Get is invalid), if he then gets better the Get cannot be retracted.

ולא דמי למתנת שכ"מ דאם עמד חוזר דמתנה אינה חלה כלל אלא לאחר מיתה אבל גט חל מחיים דדעתו שיחול מיד הלכך אינו חוזר אם לא פירש


This is unlike a present of a Shechiv Meira which he can retract if he gets better. This is because this type of present only takes effect after death. However, a Get takes effect when the husband is alive, as he wants it to take effect immediately (before he dies). Therefore, he cannot retract the Get if he does not make an explicit condition that it should only be valid if he dies.

וגיטו כמתנתו דקאמר רב הונא


Implied Question: And that which Rav Huna states that the present of a Shechiv Meira is like his Get. (Note: How can this be true if we just stated that they are not the same?)

אומר ר"ת מדקאמר גיטו ולא קאמר גט שכ"מ משמע דקאי אמתני' דמהיום אם מת מחולי זה


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that from the fact that Rav Huna says, "His Get" and not "The Get of a Shechiv Meira," he implies that he is referring to the Mishnah which said, "From today if I die from this sickness."

וקאמר מה מתנתו אפילו בלא תנאי אם עמד חוזר אף גיטו בתנאי אם עמד חוזר ממילא שאין כאן עוד תנאי כיון דעמד אע"פ ששוב חזר ונפל באותו חולי הראשון ומת


Rav Huna is saying that just as his gift is retracted if he gets better, even without him having made an explicit condition to this effect, so too if he makes a stipulation and he gets better his Get is retracted without him having to make another explicit condition to this effect since he got better, even if he gets sick again with the same illness and dies.

רבה ורבא לא סבירא להו הא דרב הונא דאפי' עמד והלך בלא משענת כיון דשוב מת מאותו חולי אינו חוזר והוה גט


Rabah and Rava do not agree with Rav Huna. They hold that even if he got better and walked without support, since he died from the original sickness, he cannot retract and it is a valid Get.

דאי לא הוי גט אע"פ שמת מאותו חולי יאמרו שאין תנאי החולי הזה גורם אע"פ שהתנה שהרי מת זה מאותו חולי אלא מיתה גורמת ולכך לא הוי גט כשעמד ויש גט לאחר מיתה


For if it is not a valid Get even though he died from that illness, people will conclude that the stipulation about this illnes is not what causes it to take effect even though he stipulated, because he died from that illness, but rather death is what causes it to take effect, and that is why the Get is not valid when he recovers- and therefore, a Get can take effect after death.

אבל השתא דעמד אינו חוזר כיון דמת מאותו החולי יאמרו שתנאי החולי גורם ולא מיתה


But now that (we say) if he recovered he may not retract, because he died from that illness they will conclude that the prime factor is the illness and not death.

ופריך אם אמרת אם עמד חוזר למה לי אומדנא לפי' רש"י פריך מכ"ש


Explanation of Question in the Gemara: And it asks, "if you say that if he recovers he may retract, why then is it necessary to make an estimate?", it is asking according to Rashi's interpetation in a language of how much more so,

דכיון דאמרת דאם עמד חוזר אף כשנתן גט סתם כ"ש דהיכי דפירש מהיום אם מת


Since you said that if he recovers he may retract even when he gave a Get without stipulating, how much more so if he stipulates "from today if I die",

ולפי' ר"ת פריך בפשיטות


And to Rabeinu Tam's interpreation, it understood simply.