ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 7
GITIN 7 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for
Torah and those who study it.
(a) Due to the strong-arm tactics Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel used in his
home - the members of his household once replaced the limb of a Shechted
animal that became lost with one that they took from a live animal (Eiver
min ha'Chai), which he almost ate.
(b) We reject the initial statement, that he actually ate it - because
Chazal have said that if Hashem spares even the animals belonging to
Tzadikim from eating what is forbidden (such as the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas
ben Yair), then He will certainly spare the Tzadikim themselves from doing
(c) When Mar Ukva ...
1. ... asked Rebbi Elazar what he should do about tough guys who were
causing him trouble - he first made Sirtut, then quoted him the Pasuk in
Tehilim "Amarti Eshmerah Darki me'Chato bi'Leshoni ... be'Od Rasha Lenegdi"
(instructions to bear it in silence).
(d) The words had hardly left Rebbi Elazar's mouth - when Geniva (the
culprit) was captured by the king's men and sentenced to death.
2. ... insisted that they were making his life unbearable - he quoted him
the Pasuk there "Dom la'Hashem ve'Hischolel Lo", implying that he should go
to Shul every morning and evening to Daven (or to the Beis ha'Medrash to
learn Torah), and they will fall away automatically.
(a) Mar Ukva send a message containing the Pasuk "Al Tismach Yisrael el Gil
ka'Amim" - in response to the She'eilah whether one is permitted to have
music at parties.
(b) He did not quote the Pasuk "be'Shir Lo Yishtu Yayin ... " - because one
might confine that prohibition to musical instruments, but not to songs that
one sings without it.
(c) Rav Huna bar Nasan was not impressed when Rav Ashi informed him that the
Pasuk in Yehoshua "Kinah ve'Dimonah ve'Adadah" were names of towns. He
quoted Rav Gevihah from Argizah, who had a far more sophisticated
interpretation of the Pasuk.
1. ... Rav Gevihah from Argizah interpreted it - to mean that if someone is
angry with his friend but he nevertheless controls his anger and remains
silent (like Mar Ukva and Rebbi Elazar cited above), the One who dwells
forever will take up his case.
2. ... Rav Acha from Bei Chuza'a explain the Pasuk there "Tziklag u'Madmanah
ve'Sansanah" - to mean that if someone has reason to cry out against his
friend for stealing from him to the point that his entire livelihood is
threatened, but remains silent, the One who dwelt in the Burning Bush will
take up his case.
(a) When the Resh Galusa (the Exilarch) asked Rav Huna the source for the
prohibition of Chasanim wearing crowns and the instrument called 'Eirus', he
cited a Mishnah which specifically described it as an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan.
This decree was instituted - at the time that Vespasian attacked
Yerushalayim (before the final attack of Titus).
(b) When Rav Huna left the room, Rav Chisda quoted the Pasuk in Yechezkel
"Koh Amar Hashem ... Hasir ha'Mitznefes ve'Harim ha'Atarah ... " - which he
interpreted to mean that when the Kohen Gadol no longer wears the Mitznefes,
one should remove the crown worn by the Chasanim (raising this prohibition
from the status of a Rabbinical decree to one that has a source in a Pasuk).
(c) The correct interpretation of the Pasuk is - that when the Kohen Gadol
stops wearing the Mitznefes, the King will stop wearing his crown, a
prophecy that Tzidkiyahu would go into Galus at that time.
(d) Although Rav Huna did not agree with Rav Chisda's interpretation - he
nevertheless praised him for it. 'His name is Chisda', he said 'and his
statements are nice (Chisda'in)'.
(a) Despite Chazal's decree, forbidding Chasanim to wear crowns, Mar bar Rav
Ashi justified to Ravina the crown that he was weaving for his daughter's
wedding - by pointing out that this particular decree was confined to
Chasanim and did not pertain to Kalos.
(b) Rav Avira (sometimes quoting Rav Ami and sometimes, Rav Asi) explained
the conclusion of the previous Pasuk "Zos, Lo Zos, Hashafalah Hagbe'ah,
ve'Hagavo'ah Hashpil". When the angels asked Hashem "Zos" - they meant 'Is
this what Yisrael deserve for pronouncing "Na'aseh" before "Nishma"?
(c) Hashem replied - "Lo Zos, Hashafalah Hagbe'ah, ve'Hagavo'ah Hashpil";
'Is this not what they deserve, for lowering what is high, and raising what
is low, when they placed an image in the Heichal'?
(a) Based on a Pasuk in Nachum, Rav Avira (sometimes quoting Rav Ami and
sometimes, Rav Asi) Darshened - that someone whose income is tight should
give Tzedakah, how much more so someone who is well-off.
(b) And Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael says - that someone who cuts off from his
property to give Tzedakah will be spared from the Din of Gehinom.
(c) He illustrates this with a parable about two lambs crossing a river, one
of them shorn, the other, with its wool still intact. The one that will
cross safely is the one that is shorn, the other one will drown.
(d) He learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Chein Nagozu ve'Avar" - that the sheep that is shorn will cross.
2. ... "ve'Inisicha Lo A'anech Od" - that if a poor man (who has suffered
affliction and who) collects his income from Tzedakah, nevertheless gives
Tzedakah, he will never again suffer the pangs of poverty.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa states that if someone is traveling (in a
northerly direction) from Acco to K'ziv (or to Lavlevo, according to Rebbi
Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi quoting his father) whatever is ...
1. ... to the right of the path - is considered Chutz la'Aretz and is
therefore Metamei Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz..
(b) The ramifications of this distinction, besides that of Tum'ah, are -
whether Ma'asros and Shevi'is apply to what grows there or not.
2. ... to the left of it - is considered Eretz Yisrael.
(c) The Din of the Beraisa not apply - when one knows for sure that any
particular place along that path is part of Eretz Yisrael or is not. The
Tana's Din is confined to places that are a Safek.
(d) According to this Tana - Acco would appear to be south of the border and
K'ziv (or Lavlevo) constitutes the northern border (whereas the Tana of our
Mishnah clearly considers Acco as the northernmost point of the border).
Note: according to this text, Acco will be on the east side of Eretz
Yisrael. See Hagahos ha'Gra however, who switches the text from 'Temei'ah'
to 'Tehorah' and vice-versa, because Acco and K'ziv are known to be on the
(a) Abaye reconciles the Tana of our Beraisa with our Mishnah, which clearly
considers Acco to be in the extreme north of Eretz Yisrael (as we just
stated) - by explaining that, although Acco is the northernmost point of
Eretz Yisrael, there is an additional strip of land that protrudes
northwards from Acco, extending as far as K'ziv.
(b) The problem with Abaye's answer is - that it hardly seems appropriate
for the Tana to use such a thin, insignificant strip of land as a sign.
(c) We resolve this problem from a Pasuk in Shoftim however - which does the
(d) With regard to the path that led northwards from Beis-Eil to Sh'chem ...
1. Shiloh was - on the east of the path, immediately to the north of
2. Levonah was - also on the east of the path, but north of Shiloh.
(a) One Beraisa considers a Get that was written on a boat in Eretz Yisrael
to have been brought from Eretz Yisrael. According to others - it is as if
the Get was brought from Chutz la'Aretz.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah reconciles the two Beraisos - by establishing the former
like the Rabbanan (of the Beraisa that we are about to discuss), and the
latter like Rebbi Yehudah.
(c) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Chalah writes that if one planted
something in earth of Chutz la'Aretz that is being brought to Eretz Yisrael
by boat, it is subject to Ma'aser and Shevi'is. Rebbi Yehudah qualifies
this - establishing it specifically by a boat that is dragging on the sea or
river bed, but not by one that is sailing on the surface.
(d) Abaye establishes both previous Beraisos like Rebbi Yehudah,
establishing the Beraisa that considers the boat to be Eretz Yisrael - when
the boat is dragging on the sea or river bed.
(a) Rebbi Zeira attempts to compare the Din of a holed pot placed on posts
(in which one planted grain) to earth on a boat, in which case grain that is
planted in it - will be subject to Ma'aser and Shevi'is according to the
Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(b) Abaye disagrees. He differentiates between ...
1. ... a holed pot on posts and a ship (according to Rebbi Yehudah). It is
the latter, he maintains - that Rebbi Yehudah does not consider Eretz
Yisrael, because it moves, but he will concede that a holed pot on posts is
considered Eretz Yisrael.
(c) The reason that the pot is only considered joined to the ground if it is
holed, whereas the boat is considered joined even if it is not is - because
the former is speaking about a wooden pot, and the latter, about an
earthenware boat (see Tosfos DH 'Atzitz').
2. ... a holed pot on posts and a ship in water (according to the Rabbanan).
It is the latter, he maintains - that the Rabbanan consider Eretz Yisrael,
because the water is considered an extension of the land, but they will
concede that a holed pot on posts is not considered Eretz Yisrael, because
the air interrupts between the pot and the ground.