Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna just established our Mishnah which validates a Get written by a 'Chashu', when a Gadol is supervising them and instructing them to write it Lish'mah. Rav Nachman asked him why, in that case, a Get written by a Nochri should also be Kasher under the same condition. Rav Nachman knew that it was not - because of the Beraisa, which specifically states '(Kosvo) Oved-Kochavim, Pasul'.

(b) Rav Nachman answered his own Kashya - by drawing a distinction between a 'Chashu', who will follow instructions and write the Get Lish'mah when he is told to do so, and a Nochri, who will ignore instructions and follow his own whims.

(c) Rav Nachman finally repudiates his own explanation, extrapolating from the Mishnah later, which disqualifies a Nochri from *bringing* a Get - that he is not disqualified from *writing* one?

(d) He reconciles this with the initial Beraisa that he quoted, which invalidates a Get that a Nochri wrote - by establishing its author as Rebbi Elazar, who requires Kesivah Lishmah.

(a) According to Rav Nachman, our Mishnah validates a Get written by a 'Chashu' - even when there is no Gadol supervising him, because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, who requires Chasimah Lish'mah, not Kesivah.

(b) And he establishes the Beraisa, which specifically invalidates a Get written by a Nochri - like Rebbi Elazar.

(c) Rebbi Meir validates a completed Get that one finds in a trash heap, as long as it is signed Lish'mah.

(a) According to Rav Nachman ...

1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Kasav Lah", from which we extrapolate "Lah" 'Lish'mah' - refers to the Chasimah, not the Kesivah.
2. ... the S'tam Mishnah in 'Kol Get' 'Kol Get *she'Nichtav* she'Lo Leshum Ishah, Pasul' - really means to say 'Kol Get *she'Nechtam* ... '.
3. ... the Beraisa 'ke'she'Hu Kosvo, Ke'ilu Kosvo Lish'mah' - means to say 'ke'she'Hu Chosmo (Lish'mah), Ke'ilu Kosvo Lish'mah'.

(b) Initially, we understand this Beraisa to mean - that if one writes the Toref Lish'mah (and not the Tofeis), it is as if he had written the Tofeis Lish'mah, too.

(c) Alternatively, we could establish both the Mishnah in 'Kol Get' and the Beraisa 'ke'she'Hu Kosvo ... ' - like Rebbi Elazar.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav disagrees with Rav Huna and Rav Nachman's interpretation of our Mishnah and so does Rebbi Chaga Amar Ula. According to them, our Mishnah, which validates a Get written by a 'Chashu' (according to Rebbi Elazar and even without a Gadol supervising him) - is referring to the Tofeis only.

(b) Rebbi Aba explains that, when Rebbi Zerika Amar Rebbi Yochanan said (about this opinion) 'Einah Torah', he meant - that it was incorrect, because, he maintains that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, and even the Toref does not need to be written Lish'mah.

(c) Rabah bar bar Chana, according to whom Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar - argues with Rebbi Zerika as to what Rebbi Yochanan really holds in this matter.

(a) Besides a 'Chashu', the Tana of our Mishnah also disqualifies - a blind person and a Nochri from bringing a Get from overseas.

(b) Even if, during the course of the Shelichus, the Katan grew up, the Cheresh was cured or the Shoteh became normal - they remain disqualified from performing the Shelichus.

(c) This change in their status would validate their Shelichus - had the Cheresh and the Shoteh become stricken only after the Shelichus had begun and then became cured before its completion (and the same will apply to a blind person).

(d) The Tana disqualifies a 'Chashu' from Shelichus of a Get because he does not have Da'as. He disqualifies a Nochri - on the grounds that he is not subject to the Dinim of Kidushin and Gitin (and one cannot be a Sheli'ach for something to which one is not subject).

(a) Rav Yosef refutes the suggestion of Rav Sheishes (who was himself blind) that a blind man is disqualified from Shelichus ha'Get because he cannot see who gave him the Get or to whom he is giving it - because, in that case, a blind man should be forbidden to be intimate with his wife, and so should any man at night-time. This is not the case however, because they can recognize their spouses by their voices, in which case a blind man should be acceptable for Shelichus for the same reason.

(b) Rav Yosef (who was also blind) establishes our Mishnah in Chutz la'Aretz, and a blind man is Pasul - because he is unable to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

(a) According to Rav Yosef, if a Sheli'ach became blind during the course of the Shelichus - his Shelichus will be valid.

(b) According to Rav Yosef, the Tana of our Mishnah said 'Pasu'ach ve'Nistama ve'Chazar ve'Nistama, Kasher' (not to imply that 'Pasu'ach ve'Nistama' is Pasul, but rather) - because it is mentioned together with the case 'Shafuy ve'Nishtateh ve'Chazar ve'Nishtafeh', where he would not be Kasher if he had not recovered before the termination of his Shelichus.

(a) They asked Rebbi Ami - whether a slave could be a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah (on behalf of the wife) to bring her Get.

(b) It will make no difference whether he is a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah (on behalf of the wife) or a Sheli'ach le'Holachah (on behalf of the husband).

(c) Rav Sheishes inferred from our Mishnah, which disqualifies Nochrim - that slaves are Kasher.

(d) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Ami. He says - that a slave cannot be a Sheli'ach for a Get, since he is not subject to Gitin and Kidushin.

9)

(a) The Tana ...

1. ... of a Mishnah in Terumos declares the Terumah of a Nochri valid (inasmuch as it is forbidden to a Zar) - on the grounds that in his opinion, a Nochri cannot acquire a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael (with the result that it retains its Kedushah as regards Terumah).
2. ... of another Mishnah in Terumos invalidate the Terumah that a Nochri separates from the produce belonging to a Jew - because the Pasuk "*Gam* Atem" (Korach, written in connection with Terumah) precludes him, because he is not a ben B'ris like a Yisrael.

(b) The Terumah separated by a Kuti or by a slave is valid - because "Gam Atem" includes him since he is a ben B'ris like a Yisrael.

(c) We initially Darshen from "Gam Atem" - Mah Atem Yisrael, Af Sheluchachem Yisrael (which would have precluded a slave from Shelichus).

(d) When we say that a slave is 'ben B'ris', we mean - that he is Chayav to be circumcised and that he entered into the B'ris of Mitzvos (as the Torah writes in Nitzavim "me'Chotev Eitzecha ... ").

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar quoting Rebbi Yochanan conforms with Rav Asi (who invalidates a slave from the Shelichus of a Get). The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's conclusion 've'Af-al-Pi she'Shaninu Harei At Shifchah u'V'ladcha ben Chorin, Im Haysah Ubrah, Zachsah Lo' is - that this has nothing to do with the previous statement.

(b) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah adds a second statement to explain Rebbi Yochanan's conclusion. He also said that a slave cannot receive a Get Shichrur on behalf of his friend, because he is not subject to the Dinim of Gitin and Kidushin.

(c) Nevertheless, he is able to receive a Get Shichrur on his own behalf - because he obtains his Get simultaneously with his freedom.

(a) To answer the apparent discrepancy between Rebbi Yochanan's second statement and the Beraisa, either Rebbi Zeira or Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak establishes the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi - who says that if someone sets free half of his slave - he does indeed go (half) free.

(b) This answer however, is inadequate. It will not explain the Beraisa, 'Harei At Shifchah u'V'ladcha ben Chorin, Im Haysah Ubrah, Zachsah Lo' - because the two halves of a slave are both part of the same person, whereas the fetus of the Shifchah is a second person.

(c) Rebbi Zeira or Rebbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak supplied the basic answer. The other one now explains - that Rebbi Yochanan (or Rebbi - see Tosfos DH 'Mai Ta'ama') holds 'Ubar Yerech Imo' (rendering it similar to the case of half a slave), and it is as if the master was Makneh to her one of her own limbs, which she acquires.

(a) Even women who are not believed to testify that the following women's husbands died (to permit them to remarry) are believed to bring a Get for their Tzarah (rival wife) from overseas - because in this case, unlike their testimony regarding the woman's husband's death, where we rely completely on that testimony, there is a Sh'tar to back up their testimony.

(b) 'Yevemtah' - refers to her husband's brother's wife. We cannot cannot believe her when she testifies that the husband died, because, for fear that he will die without children, and his wife will fall to Yibum and become her rival, she will testify falsely, in the hope that the husband will return, forbidding her to remain with her husband.

(c) A woman is believed to bring her own Get from overseas.

(a) Our Mishnah seems to clash with a Beraisa, which specifically declines to differentiate between a woman who brings a Get and one who testifies that the husband died (with regard to the four women mentioned in our Mishnah). Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah by one of the women concerned who brings a Get in Eretz Yisrael - where we believe her because we do not need to rely on her words ('be'Fanai Nichtav'), whereas the Beraisa speaks in Chutz la'Aretz, where we do. Abaye reverses the cases on the grounds that - it is more logical to believe her in Chutz la'Aretz, because, once she has delivered the Get and declared 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', her husband will no longer be believed to invalidate the Get (in which case, there is nothing to fear); whereas in Eretz Yisrael, where, after she has delivered the Get, the husband will still be able to declare the Get a forgery, she should not be believed.

(b) In a Beraisa which comes to substantiate Abaye, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoting Rebbi Akiva, states that a woman is believed to bring her own Get from the 'Kal va'Chomer' - that if the women who are *not* believed to testify in the case of 'Meis Ba'alah' (as we explained in our Mishnah), are nevertheless believed to bring her Get, then the woman herself, who *is* believed there, should certainly be believed here.

(c) The Tana go on to prove that just as those women need to say be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', so too, does the woman herself, a clear indication that our Tana is speaking about bringing a Get in Chutz la'Aretz, and not in Eretz Yisrael.

(d) Rav Ashi further substantiates Abaye's opinion from our Mishnah - which concludes 'u'Vil'vad she'Hi Tzerichah Lomar be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', proving that the Tana there too, is speaking about Chutz la'Aretz.