Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Taharos states 'ha'Nitzok, ve'ha'Ketapras u'Mashkeh Tofe'ach Eino Chibur' Lo le'Tum'ah ve'Lo le'Taharah'.

1. 'Nitzok' is - water that is being poured from one receptacle into another through the air.
2. 'Ketapras' is - when the water is being poured via something steep, such as a board.

(b) When the Tana says ...

1. ... 'Eino Chibur le'Tum'ah' - he means that if there is something Tamei in the bottom receptacle which renders the water in it Tamei, the water in the top receptacle remains Tahor.
2. ... 'Eino Chibur le'Taharah - he means that if two Mikva'os, neither of which contains forty Sa'ah, are combined by means of a Ketapras, even someone who Tovels in the lower one, will not be Tahor.

3)

(a) The problem with two people who Toveled one after the other in a Mikvah that contained exactly forty Sa'ah is - that the second one has Toveled in a Mikveh that contains less than forty Sa'ah.

(b) According to the Tana Kama in Mikva'os, the second person remains Tamei. According to Rebbi Yehudah - as long as the feet of the first one are touching the water, the second one is Tahor.

(c) This Mishnah answers the Kashya that we just asked 'Ha Nami Tenina, Tofe'ach al Menas Lehatfi'ach Chibur' - because it enables us to establish that Mishnah with regard to Mikva'os, and the author, as Rebbi Yehudah, who considers 'Tofe'ach al-Menas Lehatfiach' as joined with regard to Mikva'os.

(d) We cannot resolve our She'eilah regarding washing one's hands in halves from Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - because his reason is the S'vara of 'Gud Acheis' (we extend the water on the first man's body, as if it was joined to the Mikveh), which may well join the two lots of water, but will not prove that one may wash one's hands in two stages.

(a) What do the following have in common: 'ha'Ba Rosho ve'Rubo be'Mayim She'uvim' and 'Tahor she'Naflu Al Rosho ve'Al Rubo Sheloshah Lugin Mayim She'uvin' is - that both become Tamei (mi'de'Rabbanan), as we learned in Shabbos.

(b) In keeping with the previous Sugyos, Rebbi Yirmiyah asks - whether someone who entered into drawn water with half his body, and three Lugin of drawn water fell on the other half, becomes Tamei or not.

(c) Chazal allowed a Ba'al Keri who is sick and who cannot go to Mikveh - to have nine Kabin of water poured over him (to enable him to Daven - which he would otherwise be forbidden to do due to Takanas Ezra).

(d) Rav Papa asks the same She'eilah regarding a Ba'al Keri who Tovels half of his body and pours four Kabin of water over the rest. The outcome of both She'eilos is - Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if one witness declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and the other one, be'Fanai Nechtam', the Get is Pasul. Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies this - establishing it when only one of them was a Sheli'ach. If both were Sheluchim however, then the Get will be Kasher.

(b) The same will apply even if they said nothing - because Chazal only issued the decree of 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', with one Sheli'ach, but not with two (since there are two witnesses available).

(c) The reason that we do not apply the same S'vara when there is only one witness is - because of the S'vara 'Lo P'lug' (Chazal did not differentiate between one single witness and another).

(d) In that case, we will be forced to explain the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shenayim Omrim be'Faneinu Nichtav, ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul ... ' - when only one of them is actually a Sheli'ach. Otherwise, even the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Yehudah that the Get is Kasher.

6) If, as we just explained, the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is confined to where only one of the witnesses was a Sheli'ach, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we decree because of Kiyum Sh'taros (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yehudah). According to the second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah ('Echad Amar be'Fanai Nichtav, ve'Echad Amar be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul') - even when both of them are Sheluchim.

7)

(a) According to the second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes 'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nichtav ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam' - even when they are both Sheluchim.

(b) We can extrapolate from this that even two Sheluchim who bring a Get from overseas - must declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

(c) When Rav Asi asked Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah whether this means that the Seifa ('Shenayim Omrim be'Faneinu Nichtav ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul, ve'Rebbi Yehudah Machshir') speaks even when the two witnesses are both Sheluchim - he replied in the affirmative.

(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, we initially establish the basis of their Machlokes - whether the reason for the Takanas Chazal to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' is (also) on account of 'le'Fi she'Ein Beki'in Lishmah' (the Chachamim) or whether it is (only) on account of 'le'Fi she'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo' (Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) Rava will certainly not be happy with this explanation, because it will mean that the Rabbanan do not hold of 'Ein Beki'in Lichmah' (like Rabah) and *he* will be following the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Consequently, he will establish the Machlokes like the first Lashon, which establishes our Mishnah when only one of the witnesses was actually a Sheli'ach (and in the Seifa, when the two witnesses on the Kesivah were not).

(b) Rabah, who concurs with the second Lashon of Rebbi Yochanan - establishes the Machlokes after they learned how to write a Get Lishmah, and they argue over whether we are afraid that the situation will revert to the way it was before (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).

(a) As a matter of fact, according to both opinions - Rebbi Yehudah argues in the Reisha too (when one of the Sheluchim said 'be'Fanai Nichtav', and the other, 'be'Fanai Nechtam').

(b) The Beraisa 'Rebbi Yehudah Machshir be'Zu, ve'Lo ba'Acheres' does not come to preclude the Reisha (proving what we just said wrong). It comes to preclude, Ula told Rav Oshaya - when the Sheli'ach said 'be'Fanai Nichtav', but not 'be'Fanai Nechtam'.

(c) We need a Beraisa to teach us this - because we might otherwise have thought that, since Rebbi Yehudah is not worried that the situation might revert to what it was, he is also not worried that people might confuse this with Kiyum Sh'taros.

(a) The second Lashon of Rebbi Yochanan is corroborated by Rav Yehudah, who said - 'Shenayim she'Heivi'u Get mi'Medinas ha'Yam Ba'nu le'Machlokes Rebbi Yehudah ve'Rabbanan'.

(b) When Rabah bar bar Chanah was sick, and Rav Yehudah and the Rabbanan went to visit him, they asked him whether two Sheluchim who brought a Get from overseas need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - he replied in the negative, because had they said 'be'Faneinu Girshah', he explained, they would certainly have been believed (though we will need to explain why the principle that 'Migu' does not apply in the case of two witnesses, should not apply here).