TOSFOS DH "Divrei"

תוס' ד"ה "דברי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not decree that "on condition" makes a Get invalid due to "besides."

אע"ג דבחוץ פסול אפילו אחר התורף כדאמרינן בסמוך ואי בעית אימא לאחר התורף ודברי הכל מ"מ לא גזרינן ביה ע"מ אטו חוץ


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that "besides" is invalid even after the main body of the Get, as stated later, and alternatively everyone agrees that it is invalid in such a case, we still do not decree that "on condition" is invalid due to "besides." (Note: Why not?)

דחוץ אחר התורף אינו פסול אלא מדרבנן גזירה אטו לפני תורף ולא גזרינן גזירה לגזירה.


Answer: "Besides" after the main body of the Get is only unfit mid'Rabbanan, as a decree lest one might permit "besides" before the main body of the Get. We do not make a decree lest one might transgress another decree.


TOSFOS DH "Rava Amar"

תוס' ד"ה "רבא אמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no problem of "a decree on a decree.")

דרבי גזר ע"מ דלאחר התורף אטו ע"מ דלפני התורף


Explanation: Rebbi decreed that "on condition" after the main body of the Get makes a Get invalid lest one might write "on condition" before the main body of the Get.

אע"ג דלפני התורף נמי אינו אלא גזירה אטו חוץ


Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when "on condition" is written before the main body of the Get it is only a Rabbinic decree that it is invalid due to "besides." (Note: Didn't we just say above that we do not make a decree lest one might transgress another decree (only lest one might transgress a Torah law)?)

כולה חדא גזירה היא.


Answer: This is all considered one decree. (Note: In such a case we do make a decree lest one might transgress another Rabbinic decree. This is often done when similarities between the cases are so striking that we suspect that if we do not forbid every case, none of the laws will end up being kept. Rava understood that this is what Rebbi held regarding this case.)



תוס' ד"ה "אבל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rava's reasoning.)

דגזרינן אטו חוץ ובחוץ הוא פסול גמור אפילו על פה דסבר רבא דלא נכתב לשם כריתות.


Explanation: We decree that this causes the Get to be invalid lest people come to write "besides." "Besides" cause a Get to become invalid even if it is said orally (and not written in the Get). This is as Rava holds that it causes the Get not to be written for "Kerisus."


TOSFOS DH "u'Masnisin"

תוס' ד"ה "ומתניתין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Mishnah itself implies this.)

והוא הדין דבלאו האי טעמא צריך לאוקומי מתני' אחר התורף מדקתני כתבו דמשמע אבל על פה כשר.


Explanation: Without this reasoning we would also need to say that the Mishnah is referring to a case after the main body of the Get was written. This is as the Mishnah states, "If they wrote it..." This implies that if the condition was only stated orally, it is valid.


TOSFOS DH "Tinitu'hah"

תוס' ד"ה "תניתוה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos asks that perhaps there are ways to explain the Beraisa where she can be Mekudeshes right away.)

וא"ת ודלמא מן הארוסין איירי וביש לה אב דבת הויה היא


Question#1: Perhaps this is referring to a case where she is divorced from Eirusin and when she has a father? This would mean she is a girl who is able to have Kidushin (right away through her father)!

ועוד אמאי לא קא מייתי מתניתין דפרק התקבל (לעיל דף סה.) קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה ומוקמינן לה בפ"ב דקדושין (דף מד: באין לה אב


Question#2: Why don't we quote the Mishnah earlier (65a, instead of this Beraisa) where we say that a young girl who says, "Accept my Get for me" is only considered divorced when she physically receives it in her hand? We say in Kidushin (44b) that this is when she does not have a father.

ואור"י דהך ברייתא משמע ליה בכל ענין אפילו אין לה אב או מן הנשואין דאין לאביה רשות בה אבל מתניתין דהתקבל מצי למדחיה בדיש לה אב כדמשמע פשט דמתניתין דקתני בתר הכי ואם אמר אביה כו'


Answer: The Ri says that the Gemara understands that this Beraisa implies that it is true in any scenario, even if she has no father or is divorced after marriage, meaning that her father no longer has her in his domain (regarding Kidushin). However, the Mishnah in Gitin (ibid.) can be understood as when she has a father, as is implied by the simple explanation of the Mishnah. This is as it says later, "And if her father said etc."

והכי הוה בעי למידק בפרק שני דקדושין (דף מד:) דביש לה אב עסקינן.


The Gemara in Kidushin (44b) indeed wants to say that this Mishnah is referring to a case where she has a father.



תוס' ד"ה "חוץ"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue whether the condition is that she can or cannot eat Terumah.)

פי' בקונטרס שאם תנשאי לכהן לא תאכל בתרומה


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that if she will marry a Kohen she should not eat Terumah.

ואין נראה לר"י דבלאו הכי לא אכלה בתרומה דגרושה מתחללת בביאת כהן ואפילו קידשה ונשאה ולא בא עליה דמשתמרת לביאה פסולה היא


Question: This does not seem correct according to the Ri. In any event she cannot eat Terumah, as a divorcee becomes a Chalalah if she has relations with a Kohen. This is even if he is Mekadesh her and marries her and did not yet have relations with her. She has this status because she is being saved for relations that are unfit.

אע"ג דאהני מה שמשייר שתהא אסורה לאכול מן התורה מכל מקום נראה דוחק לפרש כן


Even though the fact that he leaves her out (from being able to eat Terumah) is effective so that she cannot eat Terumah according to Torah law (otherwise she would be prohibited solely because of Rabbinic law), it still seems difficult to give this explanation.

ונראה לפרש חוץ מתרומה שהוא כהן ומגרשה לכל דבר חוץ שלא תיאסר באכילתה אי הוי שיור דקנין כספו אמר רחמנא דע"י קידושין אוכלת בתרומה אם כן עדיין קידושין עליה ואין זה כריתות או דילמא בקידושין הא לא שייר שתוכל להתקדש למי שתרצה


Explanation#2: It appears that the explanation of "besides for Terumah" is that he is a Kohen, and he is divorcing her for anything besides that she should not become forbidden from her eating Terumah. This is very possibly called leaving something out because the Torah stated, "Kinyan Kaspo" -- "the acquisition of his money" telling us that through Kidushin she eats Terumah. If so, she still is partially Mekudeshes to him, and this Get is not called Kerisus. On the other hand, it is possible that this is not called leaving something out because she can become Mekudeshes to anyone she wants.

וכי האי גוונא פי' בקונטרס עצמו גבי חוץ מירושתך ומהפרת נדריך.


Rashi gave a similar explanation regarding the Gemara's case, "Besides for your inheritance and the nullification of your vows."



TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Yehudah"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי יהודה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not "Get Piturin" is the correct text in our Mishnah.)

בספרים לא היה כתוב גט פטורין


Text#1: In some Sefarim it does not have the text, "Get Piturin."

ובגמרא נמי כי קאמר ולורכיה לוי"ו דתירוכין ולוי"ו דשיבוקין לא קאמר לוי"ו דפטורין


Additionally, when the Gemara says, "And let us lengthen the "Vav" of the word Teiruchin and of the word "Shivukin" it does not add that we should also do this to the Vav of "Piturin." (Note: This also indicates that the Gemara did not have the text "Get Piturin" in our Mishnah.)

ומיהו בפ"ק דנדרים (דף ה:) כתיב בספרים נמי גט פיטורין


Text#2: However, in Nedarim (5b) the Sefarim (Tosfos' Sefarim, ours do not) have the text "Get Piturin" in our Mishnah.

ונראה דהכא נמי גרסינן ליה דהא ספר כריתות מתרגמינן פיטורין וגם בגיטין רגילין לכותבו.


It appears that this is the correct text, as the Targum of "Sefer Kerisus" is "Piturin." We are also accustomed to writing this text in Gitin.



תוס' ד"ה "אף על גב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the argument between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah.)

הכא משמע דפליגי בודן ובריש נדרים משמע דפליגי במינאי דלרבנן הויין ידים ואע"ג דלא כתיב מינאי מגורשת דאין אדם מגרש אשת חברו


Implied Question: Our Gemara implies that they (Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah) argue regarding whether or not one must write "And this." However, in the beginning of Nedarim the Gemara implies that they argue regarding the word "Minai" -- "From me." According to the Rabbanan it is a Yad (it is obvious that this is the Get he is giving her, as that is what he is doing). Even though the Get does not say, "Minai" she is divorced, as a person does not divorce his friend's wife. (Note: What are they arguing about: "v'Dan" or "Minai?")

ואומר ר"י דבתרוייהו פליגי ושם מפורש


Answer: The Ri answers that they argue regarding both. This is explained there (by Tosfos in Nedarim 5b).

ולא תיקשי לאביי דאמר התם ידים שאינם מוכיחות הוויין ידים ובסמוך אמר אביי לא ליכתוב ודין


Implied Question: One should not ask that Abaye who says in Nedarim (ibid.) that Yadayim that are not clear are indeed Yadayim, but later in our Gemara he says that one should not write, "v'Din" (but rather "v'Dan," as "v'Din" implies that it is a law that he must divorce her). (Note: What does Abaye hold? If it is not clear, is it valid or is the Get invalid?)

ושמא לשופרא דשטרא קאמר הכי.


Answer: Perhaps he says this (to write "v'Dan" and not "v'Din") just for the beauty of the Get (so that there should be no question about the meaning, even though it would not make it invalid if it would say "v'Din").


TOSFOS DH "v'Lo Lichtov"

תוס' ד"ה "ולא ליכתוב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's warning not to write the letter "Yud" in "Igeres.")

אע"ג דבאגרת מן הדין אין יו"ד


Implied Question: The Gemara states this despite the fact that the word "Igeres" normally would not have a "Yud" in it anyway. (Note: Why, then, did the Gemara bother to state it should not have a "Yud?")

מ"מ איגרא שהוא לשון גג רגילות לכותבו ביו"ד לפי שאינו כתוב בעברי


Answer: Even so, "Igra" which is used to mean "a roof" usually is written with a "Yud," as it is not a Hebrew word. (Note: Abaye therefore is warning to make sure that it is not written with a Yud, as it can change the meaning to mean "a roof.")

אבל באגרת שהוא לשון אגרת כתוב בעברי בלא יו"ד כדכתיב (אסתר ט) על כל דברי אגרת הזאת וכן כולם כתובין כן


However, "b'Igeres" which comes from the word "Igeres" in Hebrew does not usually have a Yud. This is as the Pasuk states, "On all the words of this "Igeres (without a Yud)." Every mention of the word "Igeres" is indeed without a "Yud."

ובסדר תיקון שטרות שכתב הרב ר"י ט"ע כתב ולא ליכתוב אגרת בלא וי"ו דמשמע אגרתא בעלמא שאדם שולח לחברו אלא ואגרת בוי"ו דמשמע דקאי אגיטא ואודן דלעיל.


Opinion: In the Seder Tikun Shetaros written by Rabeinu Yitzchak Tav Alam, he wrote, "And do not write "Igeres" without a "Vav." This is because it implies a simple letter that a person sends to his friend. Rather, write "v'Igeres" implying that this is referring to "Get" and "v'Dan" stated earlier.


TOSFOS DH "d'Tehavyan"

תוס' ד"ה "דתהויין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how to write more of the words in a Get.)

ואומר ר"י שראה בתיקון גיטין קדמונים דחמשה יודי"ן צריכי תלתא יודי"ן ביחד בסוף התיבה ואחר הדל"ת ואחר התי"ו דיתיהוייין דיתיצבייין וכן כתוב בתיקון שטרות של ה"ר יוסף ט"ע ודי תיהוייין הם שתי תיבות ודי במקום אשר


Opinion: The Ri says that he saw in the writing of earlier Gitin that they required five "Yuds" in these words. They required three together at the end of the word, one after the Daled, and one after the Tav (as spelled at the end of the above quote from Tosfos). These words are similarly written in the way documents are set up by Rabeinu Yitzchak Tav Alam. "v'Dy Ty'havy'y'yn" ("y" symbolizing "yud") are two words. "Dy" is instead of the word "Asher" -- "that." (Note: Tosfos appears to contradict himself by first implying this is one word and then stating it is two words. The Beis Shmuel (E.H. 126:25) explains Tosfos means it is two words, but they must be written on one line.)

אבל דיתבא על נהר פלוני הכל תיבה אחת כלומר היושבת ואין לכתוב די יתבא אשר יושבת.


Opinion: However, "d'Yasva" -- "the one who sits" by a certain river" is one word ("d'Yasva" and not "Di Yasva"). One should not write "Di Yasva," as this implies "that is (currently) sitting."


TOSFOS DH "v'Lorchei"

תוס' ד"ה "ולורכיה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not "lengthening" and "distancing" mean more than usual.)

ושמא אין צריך להאריך אלא כלומר שלא יעשה קצרה שתהא נראית יו"ד וכן רגל ה"א דלמהך להרחיק מן הגג שמא אין צריך להרחיק אלא שלא יחבר בגגה ושמא צריך להאריך הווי"ן ולהרחיק רגל הה"א שלא יטעו העולם בזה


Query: Perhaps the Gemara means that one does not have to make it long, but rather that he should not shorten it at all in a way where it might look like a Yud. Similarly, when the Gemara says that the foot of the "Heh" in the word "l'Mhach" should be far from the top of the "Heh," perhaps it does not mean it should be distanced more than usual. Rather, it means that one should ensure that he should not connect it to the roof of the "Heh." On the other hand, perhaps it means that one must lengthen the Vav and distance the Heh more than usual, in order that people should not make this mistake.

ונהגו להאריך ולהרחיק ומיהו ודאי דאין הגט פסול אם לא האריכן וכן הה"א של מהך אם לא הרחיקה יותר מדאי


Opinion: The custom is to lengthen and distance more than usual. However, certainly the Get is not invalid if it was not lengthened (or distanced). The same applies to the Heh of "Meihach," if it was not distanced (the foot of the Heh from its top) more than usual (it is still valid).

ומעשה בגט שלא היה ניכר היטב בין וי"ו ליו"ד שבא לפני רבינו אליהו והביא תינוק דלא חכים ולא טיפש לקרות אותה התיבה כדאמר במנחות גבי תפילין (דף כט:) זיל אייתי תינוק דלא חכים ולא טיפש אי קרי ויהרג כשר אי לא ייהרג הוא ופסול.


There was an incident regarding a Get where it was not noticeable whether the letter was a Vav or Yud. The Get came before Rabeinu Eliyahu, and he brought a child who was neither smart nor dumb to read the word. This is as it is stated in Menachos (29b), that he brought a child who was not smart or dumb to read the word. If he would read it, "va'Yehareg" it would be valid. If not it would be read "Y'Yeihareg" and it would be invalid.