GITIN 76 - Dedicated by L. Feinberg towards meriting a Refuah Sheleimah for her cousin, Tamar bas Feige.


TOSFOS DH "Bishlama"

תוס' ד"ה "בשלמא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding the explanation of the Gemara's question.)

פי' בקונט' כיון דלא אצטריך לפרושי ופירש אמרי' דאתיא למימר דאפילו מת לא הוי גט


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that being that he (the husband) did not have to set a time limit and he specified the amount of time she would have to serve anyway, we assume that he is coming to say that even if he (the son/father) would die it would not be a Get.

ואין נראה לר"י דהא גבי אביו אצטריך לפרושי וגבי בן אצטריך לפרושי לר' יהודה דאמר י"ח חודש


Question#1: This does not appear correct according to the Ri. He must (clearly) specify the amount of days regarding the case of the father, and regarding the case of the son according to Rebbi Yehudah who says eighteen months (in order to say that it must be two years).

ומה שפירש נמי אלא לרב אשי מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא כיון דברישא כמפרש יום אחד דמי על כרחין מת האב או הבן דקתני כגון שמת ולא הניקתו כלל


Question#2: Furthermore, Rashi additionally explains the Gemara's question that according to Rav Ashi, what is the difference between the first part of the Mishnah and the second part of the Mishnah. Rashi explains that being that the first part is like explicitly stating one day, it must be that when the Mishnah states a case where the father or son die, it is where he died and she did not nurse him at all.

ואמאי ה"ז גט הא לא נתקיים כלום מן התנאי


Why is this considered a Get? The condition was not fulfilled at all!

ואין נראה דלכ"ע מת הבן היינו שלא הניקתו כלל כדפירש במתני'


It does not appear that everyone will agree that the case of where the son died is where she did not nurse him at all, as explained in the Mishnah.

ונראה לר"י לפרש בשלמא לרבא כו' וסיפא בדפריש דהואיל ופירש שתי שנים ודאי לצעורה קא מכוין ואפילו מת אינו גט


Opinion#2: The Ri understands that when the Gemara asks, "It is understandable according to Rava etc...and the second part is where he makes an explicit statement," being that he explicitly stated two years he certainly wants to pain her for those two years. Even if he dies, the Get is invalid (as he did not get what he wanted).

אלא לרב אשי כיון דרישא נמי הוי במפרש יום א' הרי נמי נתכוין לצעורה כיון דפירש ואפילו מת לא ליהוי גט כמו בסיפא.


However, according to Rav Ashi, being that the first part of the Mishnah is discussing a case where he explicitly states one day, he is also clearly intending to pain her as he stated an amount of time. Even if he dies, the Get should be invalid just like the second case of the Mishnah. (Note: In other words, if in both cases he intended to pain her and not just to receive needed benefit (someone to nurse/serve his son/father) the amount of time explicitly stated should be irrelevant as long as it wasn't fully served.)


TOSFOS DH "v'Havu Lehu"

תוס' ד"ה "והוו להו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this was not used as an answer for the questions asked on Rebbi Chanina in Kidushin.)

הקשה ה"ר אלחנן בפרק האומר (קדושין דף סא:) דפריך מקראי טובא לר' חנינא בן גמליאל דלא בעי תנאי כפול לימא דהויא ב' כתובין הבאים כאחד


Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks that in Kidushin (61b), the Gemara asks from many Pesukim on Rebbi Chanina who holds that we do not require a double condition. Why don't we say that two of these Pesukim are telling us that only in these places must one use a double condition? (Note: If our Gemara uses this claim, why isn't it used there?)

וי"ל דהתם כאיכא דאמרי דהכא דלרבנן קאמר להו


Answer#1: The Gemara there holds like those who say that Rabban Shimon was addressing the Rabbanan (not Rebbi Meir).

אי נמי אי הוה פריך ליה התם מכולהו בהדי הדדי הוי משני להו דהוו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that if the Gemara would have asked him a question from all of these Pesukim at the same time, he indeed would have answered that these two Pesukim together teach us that we do not require a double condition.

ועוד דשפיר מצריך להו רבי חנינא בן גמליאל התם.


Answer#3: Additionally, Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel has good answers (without using this answer) for why each of these Pesukim is said in this fashion.


TOSFOS DH "v'Gamrinan"

תוס' ד"ה "וגמרינן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argues with Rashi regarding why we do not say the rule of "two Pesukim coming as one.")

פי' בקונטרס ולא הוו שני כתובים הבאין כאחד דכולהו מצריך להו ר' חנינא בן גמליאל בקדושין (ג"ז שם)


Opinion: Rashi explains that they are not considered two Pesukim which teach the same lesson (from which we cannot learn), as all of them are needed, as pointed out by Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in Kidushin (ibid.). (Note: See Maharsha at length regarding why this does not contradict Tosfos' closing statement in the previous Tosfos.)

ואין נראה להרב רבי אלחנן דהתם לא מצריך להו אלא דמשני להו דאין משום אחד מהן ללמוד דניבעי תנאי כפול אבל לרבי מאיר דיליף מינייהו לא עביד שם צריכותא


Question: This does not appear to be correct according to Rebbi Elchanan. The Gemara there does not show that these Pesukim are needed. Rather, it answers that they are not a source to teach that we should require a double condition. However, according to Rebbi Meir who learns from them that one must make a double condition, no added teaching is derived from them.

ויש לומר דיש בהן שום צריכותא.


Opinion#2: It is possible to say that they must be said for some reason.




תוס' ד"ה "תניא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the proof from this Beraisa.)

מייתי ראיה מדקאמר ולגט ישן אין חוששין משמע דאם נתיחד עמה לא הוי אלא גט ישן אבל לרב הונא אם נתיחד עמה בטל הגט לגמרי.


Explanation: The proof that is brought is because the Beraisa states, "And we do not suspect that the Get is "An old Get." This implies that if he was secluded with her during this time it is "an old Get." However, according to Rav Huna, if he was secluded with her the Get is totally invalid (more invalid than "an old Get").


TOSFOS DH "v'Neichush"

תוס' ד"ה "וניחוש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos alludes to his argument with Rashi regarding the suspicion of "appeasement" in various Gemaros.)

מפורש לעיל (דף יח: ד"ה שמא).


Explanation: This is explained earlier (18b, DH "Shema").



תוס' ד"ה "ולא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we can still rule like Rebbi Yosi.)

אין להוכיח מכאן דאין הלכה כרבי יוסי אע"ג דרב פסק כוותיה משום דרבי יוחנן קאמר הכא לא הודו לו כל סיעתו ורב ור' יוחנן הלכה כרבי יוחנן


Implied Question: One cannot prove from here that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yosi despite the fact that Rav rules like Rebbi Yosi. The reason one would say this is because Rebbi Yochanan here is the one who says that Rebbi Yehudah Nesia'h's friends did not agree with him (that the law is like Rebbi Yosi). We should therefore apply the rule that when there is an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, the rule follows Rebbi Yochanan. (Note: Why don't we say this?)

דהא ר' יוחנן גופיה יכול לסבור כרבי יוסי


Answer#1: The reason is because perhaps Rebbi Yochanan himself holds like Rebbi Yosi (and he was merely recording an earlier argument).

או שמא דוקא הכא דבעל פה לא סבר כרבי יוסי.


Answer#2: Alternatively, perhaps only here where the case was where it was a stated condition he does not agree with Rebbi Yosi. (Note: This argument is indeed Rava's uncertainty earlier (see top of 72b).)



תוס' ד"ה "דהא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reason why we would not permit this woman to get remarried right away.)

וא"ת לאלתר מה יש לחוש דהא ודאי יתקיים התנאי דכיון דמת לא ישוב עוד לביתו


Question: What are we worried will happen if we permit her to remarry right away? The condition will definitely be fulfilled! Being that he is dead, he is not going to return to his house.

וי"ל דאיכא למיגזר אטו לא מת כי אין העולם יודעין שמת ויתמהו על שמתירין לינשא אבל לאחר שנים עשר חדש הכל יודעין שנתקיים התנאי.


Answer: It is possible to decree that we should wait due to a case where he did not die. This is because people do not necessarily know that he died, and they will think that the people who are permitting her to remarry are doing something strange. However, after twelve months, everyone knows that his condition has been upheld (and she is at least divorced if not already a widow).


TOSFOS DH "ha'Kol"

תוס' ד"ה "הכל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is not exactly according to everyone.)

ולרבי יוסי גט ואינו גט כדאמר לעיל באחר מיתה.


Observation: According to Rebbi Yosi this is actually "a Get, but not a Get" (i.e. a doubtful Get) as stated earlier regarding the case "(from today and) after death" (see Rebbi Yosi's opinion in the Beraisa on 72b).