GITIN 88 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for thIs Daf for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



תוס' ד"ה "הכא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos validates documents without space on top or bottom.)

מיכן יש להכשיר גיטין ושטרות שאין בהן ריוח כלל לא למעלה ולא למטה וכן משמע כולה שמעתין דריש גט פשוט (ב"ב דף קסב.)


Observation: We see from here that we can validate Gitin and documents that have no space on top or on bottom. The entire Gemara in the beginning of Chapter Get Pashut in Bava Basra (162a) also implies that this is correct.

ואמר ה"ר אלחנן דאפ"ה לא חיישינן שמא יחתוך בעל השטר מן השיטין של מעלה לפי שהזמן וכל זכות בעל השטר הוא למעלה ולא יחתוך זכותו.


Opinion: Rabeinu Elchanan says that even so, we do not suspect that an owner of a document might cut some of the top lines. This is because the date of the document and all of the rights of the document owner are listed in the beginning of the document. He will not cut up his rights.


TOSFOS DH "v'Dilma"

תוס' ד"ה "ודלמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what he changed his mind about.)

פי' בקונטרס שביטלו ושוב אינו יכול לחזור לגרש בו


Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he nullified the Get, and therefore cannot use it for divorce.

ואין נראה דלר"נ דאמר חוזר ומגרש בו מאי איכא למימר


Question: This does not appear to be correct, as according to Rav Nachman who says that he can use it again, what is there to say?

ומיהו אמר ה"ר עזרא הנביא דלעיל שנגמר הגט אינו יכול לבטלו אבל כשלא נכתב כולו מודה ר"נ דאינו חוזר ומגרש בו


Answer: However, Rabeinu Ezra ha'Navi says, earlier when the Get was already written he could not nullify it (to the extent that it could never again be used according to Rav Nachman). However, when it is not completely written, Rav Nachman agrees that one can never use it for divorce once it was nullified.

ועוד פי' דה"ל כמו נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה


He additionally explains that it is like a case where the Get was written during the day and it was signed at night.

ואין נראה כי העדים ודאי יזהרו שלא יחתמו על שטר מוקדם


Question: This does not appear to be correct, as the witnesses will certainly be careful not to sign on the document beforehand.

ואור"י דנראה לפרש ודלמא אימלוכי כו' דשמא התחיל לכתוב הגט לשם איש אחר ונמלך וסיימו לשם זה וכגון ששמותיהן שוין וכר' אלעזר דלא בעי מוכיח מתוכו


Explanation#2: The Ri says that the explanation of, "And perhaps he changed his mind etc." appears to be that he might have started to write the Get with intent for someone else, and he changed his mind and ended it for this person. The case would be when they have the same name, and according to Rebbi Elazar who does not require that the Get be apparent from the document itself (who it is referring to).

א"נ אפי' כר"מ ואימליך קודם שם האיש והאשה.


Explanation#3: Alternatively, even Rebbi Meir could agree that this is the case, which would be if he changed his mind before writing the name of the man and woman.


TOSFOS DH "Kulei Hai"

תוס' ד"ה "כולי האי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that in this case we still require empty space on the bottom and top of the page.)

היינו דוקא לאמליך בין הרי את למותרת לא חיישי' אבל מ"מ בעינן שיהא ריוח למעלה ולמטה דאי לאו הכי חיישינן דלמא גייז ליה ואיתרמי דהוי הרי את מלמטה ומותרת למעלה.


Explanation: We specifically do not suspect that he changed his mind between "Harei At" and "Muteres." However, we still require that there should be space on top and bottom. If not, we suspect that he might have cut the Get and worked out that the "Harei At" would be on bottom and "Muteres" on top (of the next page).


TOSFOS DH "Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רבי ירמיה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the halachic ramifications of the Gemara.)

משמע דהלכה כר' ירמיה מדמייתי מרבי ירמיה אהא עובדא משמע דהכי קי"ל חתם סופר ועד כשר בשאר שטרות וכתב סופר ועד פסול אפילו בסופר מובהק


Observation: This implies that the law follows Rebbi Yirmiyah. Being that it quotes Rebbi Yirmiyah regarding this incident, it implies that we indeed rule that if the scribe signed together with a witness in any other document (besides a Get), the document is valid. If the scribe wrote the document and a witness signed it, it is invalid even if an expert scribe wrote it.

ודלא כשמואל דהכשיר כתב סופר מובהק ועד ולכתחילה אפילו בגיטין


This is unlike Shmuel, who validates a document written by an expert scribe and signed by a witness. This Lechatchilah (according to Shmuel), and even regarding Gitin.

ומ"מ אין להכשיר חתם סופר ועד בגיטין מכח רבי ירמיה


In any event, one should not rule that a Get signed by a scribe and another witness is valid based on Rebbi Yirmiyah's opinion.

דהא לכל אמוראי בסוף פ' התקבל (לעיל סו:) דמכשרי באומר אמרו יש לפסול חתם סופר ועד משום דנפיק מיניה חורבה כדאמר התם.


This is because according to all Amoraim in the Gemara earlier (66b) that validate a Get in a case where the husband said to some people that they should tell the scribe to write the Get and others to sign it, one should still say that a case where the scribe signed along with a witness the Get is invalid. This is because ruination will come from this, as explained there. (Note: The Gemara explains that they might ask the scribe to sign out of embarrassment, and it will end up that one of the witnesses the husband designated will not sign, making the Get invalid.)


TOSFOS DH "v'Kach"

תוס' ד"ה "וכך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains what exactly the "Nikee'yai ha'Da'as b'Yerushalayim" used to do.)

שלא היו כותבין אלא איש פלוני בן פלוני


Explanation: They would only write, "Ish Ploni ben Ploni."

ור"ח וכן ר"ת גרסי חניכתו וחניכתה כשר וכך היו נקיי הדעת שבירושלים כותבין


Text: Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam have the text, "His family name and her family name, it is valid, and this is the way those with clean knowledge in Yerushalayim would write."

פירוש שלא היו כותבין אלא חניכתם וחניכת אבות דבגמרא לא איירי בחניכת האיש כדהכא אלא חניכה שהמשפחה נקראת על שמה.


This means that they would only write their personal nickname (see Maharsha). When the Gemara discusses their family name, it is not referring to a personal nickname as is the Mishnah, but rather a family nickname.



תוס' ד"ה "מאי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara understands seven Batei Din served Avodah Zarah from this verse.)

]כי תוליד חד דור בנים תרי דור ובני תרי דור בנים תרי דור הרי ז'[


Explanation: "Ki Solid" implies one generation, "Banim" implies two more (as "Banim" is plural), "u'Vnei" implies two more generations, and "Banim" implies another two, equaling seven generations.



TOSFOS DH "Shema Minah"

תוס' ד"ה "שמע מינה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that they indeed served Avodah Zarah all of these years.)

וא"ת נהי דמשנכנסו לארץ עד שיצאו יש כל כך מ"מ מאז לא עבדו ע"ז


Question#1: Even if when they came into Eretz Yisrael until they left there were eight hundred and fifty years, they did not serve Avodah Zarah the entire time!

ועוד הקשה ה"ר אלחנן ודלמא תאבדו מהר אחר ונושנתם קאמר


Question#2: Rabeinu Elchanan also asked, perhaps, "You will be destroyed quickly" only applies after "v'Noshantem?"

ואור"י דמתחילה מיד היו עובדי עבודת כוכבים שפסלו של מיכה היה עמהם.


Answer: The Ri answers that originally they indeed started serving Avodah Zarah (i.e. they are considered as having served Avodah Zarah when they entered Eretz Yisrael), as "Pesel Michah" -- "the idol of Michah" was with them (at that time). (Note: The second question of Tosfos seems to remain unanswered (see Pnei Yehoshua).)


TOSFOS DH "u'vi'Ovdei"

תוס' ד"ה "ובעובדי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the intent of the Mishnah.)

אין לפרש דאפי' בענין זה רוצה לומר דבעובדי כוכבים פסול משום לפניהם ולא לפני עובדי כוכבים אע"פ דהעובדי כוכבים מעשין על פי ישראל


Implied Question: One should not explain that even in this way, meaning that when Nochrim force him to give a Get, it is invalid due to "Before them - and not before Nochrim" even though the Nochrim are forcing him upon the request of Jews. (Note: Why not?)

דאין זה לפני עובדי כוכבים כיון דדייני ישראל מצוים לחובטו דאטו מומחין עצמן יחבטו אותו ולא יכלו לצוות להדיוט לחובטו


Answer: This is not called, "Before Nochrim" being that Jewish judges are commanding that he should be hit. Is there any reason to think that expert judges have to hit him themselves, and they cannot command other non-experts to him?

אלא כמו שפר"ת והעובדי כוכבים חובטין אותו שאז כשר בזה הענין וכן פירש רב יהודאי גאון בהלכות גדולות דבעובדי כוכבים כשר בזה הענין


Explanation: Rather, the explanation is as stated by Rabeinu Tam that if the Nochrim are hitting him the Get is valid (when the Jewish judges command that they should do so). The same explanation is advanced by Rav Yehudai Gaon.

וכן איתא בירושלמי דמכילתין אמר רב ישראל שעושה כמעשה עובד כוכבים פסול (אפי') באומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס


This is also stated in the Yerushalmi here. Rav says that if a Jew does an action like a Nochri, the Get is unfit, (even) if he says, "I will not give you food nor support you." (Note: This is in a case where a Nochri court ruled that he should be forced to divorce his wife.)

תני ר' חייא עובדי כוכבים שעושין כמעשה ישראל כשר אפי' באומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס


Rebbi Chiya taught that if a Nochri does an action like a Jew the Get is valid, even if the case is where he says, "I will not give you food nor support you." (Note: This is in a case where a Beis Din ruled that he should be forced to divorce his wife (see Maharsha, unlike Maharshal).)

ואהא דנקט אפי' ]באומר[ דלא מתכשר בעובדי כוכבים שלא ע"פ ישראל אע"ג דהוי כדין אמר ר' אסי מתני' אמרה כן ובעובדי כוכבי' חובטין אותו ואומרי' לו עשה מה שישראל אומר לך ולא מה שאנו אומרים לך.


The word "even" implies that the Get is not valid if force is used by Nochrim when Jews did not mandate that force be used. This is even if he indeed must divorce his wife according to Halachah. Rebbi Asi says, our Mishnah says this. It says, "And with Nochrim, they hit him and tell him, "Do what the Jew tells you to do, and not what we say you should do."



תוס' ד"ה "אלא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refers to Tosfos in Bava Basra for more explanation.)

בח"ה (ב"ב מח. ד"ה דבר) מפורש אמאי מייתי לה הש"ס התם כיון דבדותא היא.


Explanation: In Chapter Chezkas ha'Batim in Bava Basra (48a, DH "Davar") it is explained why the Shas quotes this there, as it is a mistake.


TOSFOS DH "Lifneihem"

תוס' ד"ה "לפניהם"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding who exactly was "before him.")

פי' בקונטרס דקאי אשבעים זקנים דעלו עם משה אע"פ שכתובין בסוף פ' דואלה המשפטים


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this ("before them") is referring to the seventy elders that went up with Moshe Rabeinu, even though they are only written about at the end of Parshas Mishpatim.

ור"י אומר דאהאלהים טובא דכתיבי בפרשה קאי וכן משמע בהחובל (ב"ק פד:) דמאלהים נפקא לן מומחין


Opinion#2: The Ri says that this is referring to the many mentions of "Elohim" -- "judges" that are written in the Parshah. The Gemara in Bava Kama (84b) also implies that from "Elohim" we derive that the judges have to be experts.

דאמר מ"ש נזקי אדם באדם ונזקי אדם בשור דאלהים בעינן וליכא


This is as the Gemara asks, what is the difference between damages of a person to another person and damages of a person to an ox? We require "Elohim" and there is no "Elohim" (expert judges in Bavel). (Note: This clearly implies "Elohim" are expert judges.)

ואיצטריך קרא דלפניהם דלענין עישוי בעינן מומחין.


The Pasuk, "Before them" is needed to teach us that in order for a Beis Din to force someone to do something (i.e. give a Get), we require expert judges.


TOSFOS DH "v'Lo Lifnei Hedyotos"

תוס' ד"ה "ולא לפני הדיוטות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how this Pasuk can apply to a woman.)

תימה דמשמע דאיירי קרא בכשרים לדון ואילו בפ"ק דקדושין (דף לה.) ובב"ק (ד' טו.) דרשינן מינה דהשוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל דינין שבתורה


Question: This is difficult, as it implies that the Pasuk is referring to people who are fit to judge. However, in Kidushin (35a) and Bava Kama (15a) we derive from this Pasuk that the Torah equates a woman to a man regarding all laws of the Torah. (Note: It would therefore seem that a woman should be able to judge, as the Gemara implies that this Pasuk includes a reference to women.)

ואשה פסולה לדון דתנן בפ' בא סימן (נדה מט:) כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ואשה פסולה להעיד כדמוכח בהחובל (ב"ק פח.) ובפרק שבועת העדות (דף ל.)


A woman, however, is unfit to judge. This is as stated in Nidah (49b) that anyone who is fit judge is fit to testify. A woman is also unfit to testify, as is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Kama (88a) and Shevuos (30a). (Note: How, then, can this Pasuk be referring to women?)

וי"ל דכלל דפרק בא סימן באיש איירי כלומר כל איש הכשר לדון כשר להעיד


Answer: The rule cited in Nidah (49b) is only discussing a man. It is as if it says that any man who is fit to judge is fit to testify. (Note: However, a woman is indeed fit to judge even though she is unfit to testify.)

ומדבורה דכתיב בה (שופטים ד) והיא שופטה את ישראל אין ראיה דאשה כשרה לדון


Implied Question: From Devorah, regarding whom the Pasuk says, "And she judged Bnei Yisrael" (Shoftim 4:4), there is no proof that a woman is fit to judge. (Note: Why not?)

דשמא לא היתה דנה אלא היתה מלמדת להם הדינים


Answer#1: Perhaps she did not judge, but rather taught them the laws of the Torah (this is what is meant when it says she judged).

א"נ שמא קיבלו אותה עליהם משום שכינה


Answer#2: Alternatively, perhaps they accepted her upon themselves as a judge due to the Shechinah being with her. (Note: One is allowed to accept any Jew as a judge, even a relative or someone otherwise unfit to judge, as stated in Sanhedrin (23a).)

מיהו בירושלמי דיומא (פ"ו) יש מעתה דאין אשה מעידה אינה דנה


Implied Question: However, the Yerushalmi in Yoma states that now that a woman cannot testify, she cannot judge. (Note: This therefore returns us to our original question.)

ואומר ר"י דקרא משמע ליה דאיירי בכל ענין בין בדיינין בין בנדונין.


Answer#3: The Ri says that the Pasuk implies that it is both referring to judges and people being judged (which indeed can include women).


TOSFOS DH "Ee Hachi"

תוס' ד"ה "אי הכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos answers why we seem to find such cases judged in Bavel.)

וא"ת והא מצינו בכמה מקומות שהיו דנין גזלות וחבלות ההוא רעיא בפ"ק דבבא מציעא (דף ה.) וההוא גברא דגזל פדנא דתורי דחברי' (ב"ק דף צו:) ובכמה מקומות


Question: We have found in many places that they judged thefts and injuries! They did so in the case of the shepherd in Bava Metzia (5a), in the case of the man who stole a pair of oxen from his friend in Bava Kama (96b), and in other places.

וי"ל דהיו דוחקין אותו ע"י דקבעיה ליה זימנא לא"י


Answer#1: It is possible to answer that they would push the person to go have the case judged in Eretz Yisrael (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

ועוד אור"י דגזלות ע"י חבלות קאמר דאין דנין בבבל שחבל בחברו וגזל לו.


Answer#2: Additionally, the Ri answers, that our Gemara means theft through injury. In other words, it is only discussing a case where a person injured his friend and stole from him.


TOSFOS DH "b'Milsa"

תוס' ד"ה "במלתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains who we can accept converts without expert judges.)

כמו בהודאות והלואות


Explanation: This is like cases of admission and loans.

ומה שאנו מקבלים גרים אע"ג דגר צריך ג' מומחין כדאמרי' בהחולץ (יבמות מו:) משפט כתוב ביה


Implied Question: We accept converts today, even though a convert requires three experts. This is derived in Yevamos (46b) from the Pasuk, "Mishpat" -- "judgement" (regarding converts, implying that expert judges are required). (Note: How, then, can we accept converts today?)

אור"י דעבדינן שליחותייהו דחשיב כשכיחא ובהחולץ (גז"ש) נמי משמע שהיו מקבלים גרים בבבל


Answer: The Ri answers that we are the messengers of those who have Semichah. This is because it is considered a common case (which we still judge outside of Eretz Yisrael even if it involves a fine). In Yevamos (ibid.), the Gemara implies that they indeed still use to accept converts in Bavel (during the times of the Gemara).

וא"ת היכי עבדינן שליחותייהו והא עכשיו אין מומחין בא"י ומי יתן לנו רשות


Question: How can we be the messengers of the judges in Eretz Yisrael who have Semichah when there are no longer any such judges in Eretz Yisrael? Who gives us permission?

וי"ל דשליחות דקמאי עבדינן.


Answer: It is possible to answer that we are the messengers of those who had Semichah from previous generations.


TOSFOS DH "v'ha'Amar Rav Ashi"

תוס' ד"ה "והאמר רב אשי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Ashi does not merely say that the Mishnah is discussing a case after Eirusin, not Nisuin.)

וא"ת ולוקמה בתר אירוסין דחיישינן לרב אשי


Question: Why doesn't Rav Ashi say that the Mishnah is referring to a case where there was only Eirusin, as Rav Ashi does have suspicions regarding such rumors (as stated on 89b)?

וי"ל דמשמע ליה מתני' אף בתר נישואין


Answer#1: He understands that the Mishnah is even discussing a case of marriage.

ועוד דפסקי' לקמן (דף פט:) דאף קלא דבתר אירוסין לא חיישינן.


Answer#2: Additionally, we rule later (89b) that we do not even have suspicions regarding rumors of Eirusin.