Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A SHALI'ACH THAT DEVIATED

(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): All is according to the local custom.
(b) Question: Do Chachamim (the first Tana) disagree?!
(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): In a place where standard Gitin are normally written, if Reuven asked a scribe to write a standard Get and the scribe wrote a tied Get, all agree that Reuven did not want this (if it is a Get of divorce, it is invalid);

1. In a place where tied Gitin are normally written, if he asked for a tied Get and the scribe wrote a standard Get, all agree that Reuven did not want this;
2. They argue in a place where both kinds are written, he asked for a standard Get and the scribe wrote a tied Get: Chachamim say, since he asked for a standard Get, this shows that he does not want a tied Get;

i. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Reuven merely showed that he is happy *even* with a standard Get, the scribe need not toil to write a tied Get.

(d) (Abaye): R. Shimon ben Gamliel, R. Shimon and R. Elazar all hold that a person (sometimes) tells a Shali'ach (agent) how to do something, but does not mind if it is done differently.

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel - in our Mishnah;
2. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): (Leah told a Shali'ach 'Shimon wants to Mekadesh me with a silver Dinar, go receive it for me') - if he received better than this (e.g. gold), she is Mekudeshes.
3. R. Elazar - in this (Mishnah): Leah asked a Shali'ach 'Receive my Get (of divorce) in Ploni (a certain place)', he received it somewhere else - the Get is invalid (she only wanted to be divorced in Ploni);
4. R. Elazar says, it is valid (she merely suggested where she thinks her husband is).

(a) (Mishnah): A standard Get with only one witness...
(b) We understand why the Mishnah must teach that a tied Get with only two witnesses is invalid;

1. One might have thought, since two witnesses normally suffices, here also it is valid (b'Diavad) - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.

(c) Question: Why must it teach that a standard Get with only one witness is invalid?
(d) Answer (Abaye): To teach that even if one witness signed and one witness testifies orally (in Beis Din) that the Get is valid, it is invalid.
(e) Ameimar ruled that such a Get is valid.
(f) Rav Ashi: But Abaye disqualifies such a Get!
(g) Ameimar: I disagree with Abaye.
(h) Question: How does Ameimar explain the Mishnah?

(i) Answer: The Mishnah teaches that a tied Get with only two witnesses is like a standard Get with only one witness: just as the latter is invalid mid'Oraisa, also the former.

(a) Support - Version #1 - Question (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): Do we combine the testimonies of one signed witness and one oral witness?

1. According to Chachamim that argue with R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, who do not combine even two signed witnesses or two oral witnesses unless they saw the testimony together, all the more so, one signed witness and one oral witness do not combine;
2. The question is according to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah: does he combine two signed witnesses *or* two oral witnesses, but not one signed witness and one oral witness?
3. Or - even in this case, they combine?

(b) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): I believe that they combine.
(c) Rejection (of the support - Rav Ashi): We learned a different version.
(d) Version #2 - Question (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If two witnesses testified, each in a different Beis Din, may the Batei Din combine the testimonies?

1. According to Chachamim that argue with R. Noson, even if they testified in one Beis Din they do not combine (unless they testified together), all the more so if they testified in different Batei Din;
2. The question is according to R. Noson: does he combine two witnesses when they testified in one Beis Din, not if they testified in two;
3. Or - even in this case, they combine?

(e) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): I believe that they combine.
(f) Version #3 (Mar bar Chiya) Question (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If two witnesses both testified in different Batei Din, may judges of the Batei Din combine to rule on the case?

1. According to R. Noson, we join witnesses who did not testify together, all the more so, we join judges (they are proficient);
2. The question is according to Chachamim that argue with R. Noson: does he say that we do not combine witnesses, but we combine judges;
3. Or - even judges do not combine?

(g) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): I believe that they combine.
(h) Version #4 (Ravina) Question (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If three judges sat to validate a document and one of them died, must the other judges write (in the validation) 'Three of us sat, and one died', or not?
(i) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): I believe that they must write this. (End of Version #4)
(j) After this answer, R. Yirmeyah was allowed to enter the Beis Medrash again (he was expelled after asking a question which showed a wavering of belief in a teaching of Chachamim).

(a) (Mishnah): If a document says '100 Zuz, that are 20 Sela'im (which is 80 Zuz)' - the bearer only collects 20 Sela'im;

1. If it says '100 Zuz, that are 30 Sela'im' - the bearer only collects 100 Zuz;

(b) If it says 'Kesef Sela'im (or Darchonos), that are...' and the number was erased, we know it was at least two.
(c) If it says '100 Zuz' above (in the main text), and it says 200 below (in the recap of the document), or vice-versa, we follow what is written below.
(d) Question: If so, why do we write the top?
(e) Answer: If a letter is erased from the bottom, we can learn from the top.
(f) (Gemara - Beraisa): If it says 'Kesef', this means at least one silver Dinar;

1. If it says 'Kesef Dinarim' or 'Dinarim Kesef', this means at least two;
2. If it says 'Kesef *b'*Dinarim', this means at least two gold Dinarim worth of Kesef.

(g) Question: The Beraisa says that 'Kesef' means at least one silver Dinar - perhaps he meant an ingot!
(h) Answer (R. Elazar): It says 'coins'.
(i) Question: Perhaps it means Perutos!
(j) Answer (Rav Papa): It is in a place where they do not make silver Perutos.
(k) (Beraisa): If it says 'gold', this means at least one gold Dinar;

1. If it says 'gold Dinarim' or 'Dinarim gold', this means at least two;
2. If it says 'gold *b'*Dinarim', this means at least two silver Dinarim worth of gold.

(l) Question: The Beraisa says that 'gold' means at least one gold Dinar - perhaps he meant an ingot!
(m) Answer (R. Elazar): It says 'coins'.
(n) Question: Perhaps it means Perutos!
(o) Answer: They do not make gold Perutos (anywhere).