GITIN 81-82 - 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 "Lo Kal Heimenu"

תוס' ד"ה "לא כל הימנו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rav Ada's version of the conspiracy in this case.)

ואם תאמר לרב אדא בר אהבה דמוקי לה בשניסת מה שפירש בקונטרס משום חששא דקנוניא מה קנוניא שייך דכיון דנישאת לשני לא מצי להחזירה דתצא מזה ומזה


Question: According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah who holds that the case is when she was already married to a second person, how can we understand Rashi's explanation that there is a suspicion of conspiracy? Being that she married the second person, the first husband cannot marry her anyway and the law is that she must be divorced from both! (Note: Why would they make a conspiracy that would not work?)

וי"ל דפעמים דאין הבעל שם על לבו שאסור להחזירה ועושה קנוניא.


Answer: Sometimes a husband does not realize that it will be forbidden to him to remarry his wife (who already married again), and he therefore will try to do this conspiracy.


TOSFOS DH "uvi'Nehardea"

תוס' ד"ה "ובנהרדעא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not stop a rumor here and we do stop it in Bava Basra and Kesuvos.)

אפילו ע"י עדים


Explanation: This was even if this would be through witnesses (who would say that the rumor was incorrect).

והא דאמרינן בחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף לב.) ובפ' שני דכתובות (דף כו: ושם) גבי מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד דמבטלין קלא


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (32a) and Kesuvos (26b) states that we allow one witness to establish someone as a Kohen, and it takes away any rumors. (Note: Why, then, wouldn't we proclaim that this rumor is false as two witnesses have testified to that effect?)

התם משום דנפסל מתרומה לעולם אבל משום דנאסרה לבעלה משום גרושה אין לבטלו


Answer#1: In Bava Basra (ibid.) the reason we stop the rumor is because otherwise he will be forbidden from Terumah forever. However, if she should become forbidden to her husband because she has the status of a divorcee (according to the rumor), we will not actively stop the rumor.

א"נ שאני התם דלתרומה דרבנן אין לחוש אי מבטלי קלא.


Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.) is different as it is discussing Terumah d'Rabbanan. There is no suspicion on Beis Din for stopping such a rumor (people will not say Beis Din is supporting people who transgress as it is a question of a Rabbinic sin).


Tosfos DH "Doros"

תוס' ד"ה "דורות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rebbi Yehudah could be upset about the later generations when he himself agreed with the position of Rebbi Dosa.)

אע"ג דבאלו נערות (כתובות דף לו:) קאמר ר' יוחנן רבי יהודה ור' דוסא אמרו דבר אחד והכא קאמר ר"י גופיה בא וראה שלא כדורות כו'


Implied Question: In Kesuvos (36b), Rebbi Yochanan says that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Dosa say the same thing. In our Gemara, Rebbi Yehudah (b'Rebbi Ilai, who is generally known just as Rebbi Yehudah) himself says, "Come and see that unlike the earlier generations etc." (Note: If Rebbi Yehudah held the same way as Rebbi Dosa, why would he lament that the later generations are so different than the earlier generations?)

גם על עצמו היה קורא תגר


Answer#1: He was lamenting his own position on the matter as well.

אי נמי לאו דבר אחד ממש קאמר שלא היה מיקל כמו ר' דוסא ובכמה מקומות אמרינן אמרו דבר אחד אע"פ שאינן שוין.


Answer#2: Alternatively, he did not hold exactly like Rebbi Dosa, as he was not as lenient as him. In many places the statement, "(They hold) the same thing" is said, even though the positions are not exactly the same positions.


Tosfos DH "v'Chi"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this is stated regarding an Arab.)

לרבותא נקט דאפילו ערביים ששטופין בזימה כדאמרינן בפ"ב דקדושין (דף מט:) י' קבין זנות ירדו לעולם ט' נטלו ערביים ואחת לכל העולם אפ"ה ליכא למיחש.


Explanation: This is being inclusive and saying that this even regarding Arabs who are steeped in promiscuity. Even though the Gemara in Kidushin (49b) states that ten Kav of promiscuity came down to the world, and the Arabs took nine and one was given to the rest of the world, this still does not make us suspect that they actually had relations with a captive.


Tosfos DH "Traksimon"

תוס' ד"ה "טרקסמון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and the Aruch argue about the definition of "Traksimon," and Tosfos asks question on the definition of the Aruch.)

לשון שער כמו טרוקו גלי (ברכות דף כח.)


Explanation#1: This term means a gate, as is evident from the Gemara in Berachos (28a), "Teruku Gali" -- "close the gate (i.e. door)."

ובערוך פי' טרקסמון מין ירק דבמשניו' חשיב ירק ששמו טרקסמון רוצה לומר דרך שמכניסין ירק שפטור ממעשר


Explanation#2: The Aruch explains that "Traksimon" means a type of vegetable. In the Mishnayos we see a vegetable called Traksimon refers to a way that they would bring a vegetable in that would make it exempt from having to take Ma'aser. (Note: The Aruch in Berachos (35b) says that a "Traksima" was a vegetable, and a "Traksimon" was a path to take vegetables (which would make them exempt from Terumos and Ma'aseros). He also explains that although the vegetable "Traksima" does not appear in the Mishnah, a Traksima means Olshin, a type of vegetable that does appear in the Mishnayos.)

ואין נראה דא"כ הל"ל ירק סתם


Question#1: This does not seem correct, as if so it should have said, "Yerek" -- "vegetable" (not "Traksimon").

ועוד צ"ע במשניות אם דרך טרקסמון פטור אפילו מדרבנן.


Question#2: Additionally, it is unclear if in the Mishnayos taking vegetables through a Traksimon will exempt them from Ma'aseros even mid'Rabbanan. (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that other vegetables taken these ways are still obligated to have Ma'aseros taken mid'Rabbanan. It therefore remains to be seen, Tosfos asks, if and why these particular vegetables are exempt even mid'Rabbanan.)


Tosfos DH "Derech Gagos"

תוס' ד"ה "דרך גגות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this only refers to temporary eating, not permanent eating.)

היינו דווקא אכילת עראי אבל אכילת קבע אסורה כדאמר רבי אושעיא (פסחים דף ט.) מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר


Explanation: This is specifically referring to temporary eating. However, permanent eating is forbidden, as Rebbi Oshiya states in Pesachim (9a) that a person can use trickery with his produce and bring it in with its straw in order that his animal may eat and it is exempt from Ma'aser.

ואכילת בהמה אכילת עראי הוא כדתנן (פאה פ"א מ"ו) מאכילין לבהמה ולחיה ולעוף עד שיתמרח בכרי.


The eating of an animal is temporary eating, as the Mishnah states in Pei'ah (1:6) we feed to a domesticated animal, wild animal, and bird until it is gathered in a pile in the silo.


Tosfos DH "v'Rebbi Yochanan"

תוס' ד"ה "ורבי יוחנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rebbi Yanai's position, and says it is impossible to hold that a yard only creates a permanent status if the produce ends up in the house.)

וא"ת ור' ינאי היכי פליג עליה והא כמה תנאי אית להו דחצר קובעת כההוא דמייתי בפ' יוצא דופן (נדה מז:) אי זו היא חצר שקובעת למעשר רבי ישמעאל אומר שהכלים נשמרים לתוכה כו' וכן (ביצה לה.) היה אוכל באשכול ונכנס מגינה לחצר ר"א אומר יגמור ור' יהושע אומר לא יגמור


Question: How can Rebbi Yanai argue on him? Many Tannaim hold that a yard creates a status of permanent eating. This is like the following Gemara in Nidah (47b). The Gemara says, what is a yard that creates a permanent status for Ma'aser? Rebbi Yishmael says if the vessels are guarded there etc. Similarly, the Gemara in Beitzah (35a) says, "If he was eating a cluster of grapes and entered from the garden into the yard, Rebbi Eliezer says he may finish eating, while Rebbi Yehoshua says he may not finish eating (as the yard makes his eating permanent).

וי"ל דרבי ינאי מוקי להו מדרבנן אבל מה"ת צריך שיראה פני הבית


Answer: Rebbi Yanai holds that all of this is only a Rabbinic stringency. However, according to Torah law, it would have to actually "see the house" to be considered obligated in Ma'aseros.

אבל אין לתרץ דהא דחצר קובעת היינו דבעינן שיבא דרך חצר לבית אבל חצר לבד אינה קובעת אפי' מדרבנן


Implied Question: However, one cannot answer that a yard establishes a status of permanent eating for Ma'aser if the produce comes from the yard into the house. However, if the produce just enters the yard, it is not considered permanent even in Rabbinic law. (Note: Why can't we give this answer?)

דההוא דהיה אוכל באשכול משמע דחצר קובעת בלא בית וכן בכמה משניו'


Answer#1: This is because the case of the person eating the cluster of grapes implies that the yard immediately creates a permanent status even without it entering the house. This is also implied by many Mishnayos.

ועוד הקשה ה"ר אלחנן דההוא בסוף פ' יוצא דופן (נדה דף מז:) מסיים בה הכי ר' יהודה אומר שתי חצרות זו לפני' מזו הפנימי' חייבת והחיצונה פטורה ואי צריך להביא לבית פשיטא דלעולם לא יתחייב עד שיכניס דרך פנימית כי דרך חיצונה לבדה לא יוכל לבא.


Answer#2: Rabeinu Elchanan also asks (i.e. proves that (c) is an incorrect answer) from the Gemara in Nidah (47b) that finishes as follows. Rebbi Yehudah says that if there are two yards, one inside the other, the inner one is liable and the outer one is exempt. If he would have to end up bringing into the house anyway, this law is obvious! The produce will never be obligated to have Ma'aseros taken until it gets in to the inner yard, as it cannot get from the outer yard to the house (without going through the inner yard).



TOSFOS DH "Beis Shamai"

תוס' ד"ה "בית שמאי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel's opinion, and how they are understood together with their opinions in Yevamos.)

ואע"ג דביבמות פ' ב"ש (דף קז.) אמרי ב"ש דאין ממאנין אלא ארוסות ולא נשואות ומפרש רב יוסף ורבה טעמא דב"ש משום דאין אדם בועל בעילתו בעילת זנות ולהכי נשואות אין יכולות למאן דלאו אדעתא דהכי נסבה


Implied Question: In Yevamos (107a), Beis Shamai says that only Arusos can perform Miun, not Nesuos. Rav Yosef and Rabah explained that Beis Shamai understands that being that a person does not want his marital relations to be considered promiscuity, we cannot allow married minor girls to perform Miun. The husbands did not marry them so that their marriage will ended up being null and void. (Note: This turns the marital relations that they had into promiscuity. How, then, can Beis Shamai here hold that a person does not care if his relations are considered promiscuity? )

איכא למימר דהתם כיון שראינו שקידשה ודאי אינו רוצה לבעול בעילתו בעילת זנות אבל הכא שלא ראינו הקדושין סברי דבועל בעילת זנות וב"ה סברי דלעולם אין אדם בועל בעילת זנות


Answer: It is possible to say that in Yevamos (ibid.), being that we saw that he gave Kidushin for this minor (i.e. to her brother or mother), he certainly does not want his marital relations to be considered promiscuity. However, in our case where we did not see a Kidushin, we assume that he does not mind to have his relations be considered promiscuity. Beis Hillel holds that a person never wants his relations to be considered promiscuity.

ואע"ג דאית להו התם אפילו נשואות ממאנות


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Beis Hillel holds there that even married girls can do Miun. (Note: Why does Beis Hillel allow this if this will turn the husband's relations with this minor into promiscuity?)

היינו משום דכיון שע"י קדושין ונשואין בא עליה לא חשיב ליה בעילת זנות כדאמרי' התם.


Answer: This is because Beis Hillel holds that being that he only had relations with her after doing Kidushin and Nisuin, it is not considered that his relations with her were promiscuous, as stated there. (Note: Being that he did everything he could do according to Halachah, no promiscuity is considered to have taken place.)



תוס' ד"ה "בגט"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this case wasn't listed in the Mishnah earlier (80a) that had many cases where she must leave both men.)

הא דלא תני לה בהדי הנהו דלעיל


Implied Question: This case was not listed with other similar cases listed previously. (Note: Why not?)

אומר ה"ר יוסף דאיידי דתנא לעיל כתב סופר גט כו' תנא כתב לגרש את אשתו והדר תנא המגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדקי דהוי נמי פלוגתא דב"ש וב"ה כמו כתב לגרש כו' והדר תנא גט קרח.


Answer: Rabeinu Yosef says that since it says earlier that if the scribe wrote a Get etc., the Tana also wrote the case where he wrote a Get in order to divorce his wife. The Tana then wrote another case of someone who divorced his wife and slept with her in an inn, as that is also an argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, just like the case where he wrote a Get to divorce his wife etc. The Tana then wrote our Mishnah regarding a "bald Get."


Tosfos DH "v'Chol"

תוס' ד"ה "וכל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that this is according to Rebbi Meir, not the Rabbanan.)

לקמן בפ' בתרא (דף פו.) מוקי לה כר"מ אבל לרבנן תצא והולד כשר.


Observation: The Gemara later (86a) says that this is according to Rebbi Meir. However, according to the Rabbanan she should get divorced, but the child is kosher (not a Mamzer).