ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 25
GITIN 24 & 25 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz
Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) We just explained that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein B'reirah'. He says
that if brothers divided the inheritance they received from their father -
they are obligated to redistribute the entire property when Yovel arrives,
as if they had purchased their respective rights from one another.
(b) If he held 'Yesh B'reirah' - the brothers would be able to retain what
they initially received (because then they would be 'Yorshin' and not
(c) Rebbi Yochanan found it necessary to teach us 'Ein B'reirah' both in the
case of brothers and in the case of Get, because, had he only taught it to
us in the case of ...
1. ... Get, but not by brothers - we would have said confined it to Get,
where the Torah writes "Lah" 'Lish'mah', but not in the case of brothers who
inherit, since it is only a *sale* that goes back in the Yovel, but not an
(d) If we read 'ki'Techilah' (instead of 'Mishum de'le'Chumra') in the last
distinction, then we will say - that had Rebbi Yochanan not repeated his
ruling by the case of Get, we would have thought that maybe his ruling in
the case of brothers inheriting is not due to 'Ein B'reirah', but because
that is how Yehoshua bin Nun distributed the land originally, one portion to
one person (not to many people). But elsewhere, he maintains 'Yesh
2. ... brothers, but not by Get (if we read 'Mishum de'le'Chumra') - we
would have perhaps thought that Rebbi Yochanan has a Safek (whether 'Yesh
B'reirah' or 'Ein B'reirah). Consequently, he rules 'Yesh B'reirah'
le'Chumra (in the case of brothers who inherit), but not le'Kula (in the
case of a Get).
(a) Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Yehudah whether, in the case of the man (whose two
wives had the same name) who asked the Sofer to write a Get in the name of
whichever wife came out of the door first - the Get was valid (because 'Yesh
B'reirah'), or not (because 'Ein B'reirah').
(b) Rav answered him from our Mishnah - where, in he case when the husband
asked the Sofer to write the Get for whichever wife he would ultimately
decide, the Tana invalidates it, because he holds 'Ein B'reirah'.
(a) In the case cited by the Tana in the Beraisa, of the man who informed
his children that he was Shechting the Korban Pesach on behalf of the first
one to arrive in Yerushalayim - the Tana concludes that, whoever arrives in
Yerushalayim first, merits a portion for himself as well as for all his
(b) Rav Yehudah refuted Rav Hoshaya's proof from there (that we hold 'Yesh
B'reirah') with Rebbi Yochanan - who explains that the father's sole
intention was to encourage his children to hurry to Yerushalayim, and not to
exclude any of his children from the Korban Pesach.
(c) Rav Yehudah proves Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation from the very words
of the Tana - who adds that the one to arrive first in Yerushalayim, merits
a portion in the Korban Pesach for all his siblings too. Now if the father
really meant what he said, how could the other siblings be permitted to
receive a portion of the Korban Pesach, seeing as they were not designated
on it when it was Shechted?
(d) We further substantiate this with another Beraisa, where the Tana
relates how in an actual case, the daughters arrived in Yerushalayim first -
and he concludes by praising the daughters and denigrating the sons. He did
not say however, that the daughters earned themselves a portion in their
father's Korban Pesach, and the sons did not.
(a)The problem that Abaye has with the inconsistency of Rav Hoshaya's
She'eilah (regarding whichever wife leaves the house first), Rav Yehudah's
reply (from whichever wife he decides to divorce), and Rav Hoshaya's
subsequent Kashya (from the case of the Korban Pesach) - is that the
She'eilah concerns a case of Toleh be'Da'as Acheirim, the reply, a case of
Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo (where there is more reason to say 'Ein B'reirah', as
we shall see), and the subsequent Kashya again from a case of Toleh be'Da'as
(b) There is less reason to say 'Yesh Bereirah' in a case of 'Toleh be'Da'as
Atzmo' than Toleh be'Da'as Acheirim' - because in the former case, the very
fact that he made such a condition demonstrates that he is currently
undecided which to choose. That being the case, it is not possible to say
that when he decides, his decision will work retroactively; whereas in the
latter case, where he relied entirely on circumstances outside his
jurisdiction, it may well be that he does intend it to.
(c) Rava rejects Abaye's Kashya on the grounds that - Abaye must prove that
such a distinction exists. Otherwise, we will say that those who hold 'Yesh
B'reirah', do so in all circumstances, and the same holds for those who hold
(a) Rebbi Meir permits drinking wine that one purchased from Kutim (on Erev
Shabbos and he was unable to separate the Ma'asros before Shabbos arrived).
He says that, assuming that he purchased one hundred Lugin, he is obligate
to verbally separate ...
1. ... two Lugin as Terumah.
(b) In spite of what we have learned that Amei ha'Aretz are not suspect on
Terumah, it was nevertheless necessary to separate Terumah from produce
purchased from the Kutim, because Kutim were suspect on Terumah, too (in
fact they were suspect on whatever they sold to a Yisrael, because they were
not particular about the La'av of 'Lifnei Iver').
2. ... ten (actually a bit less, see Tosfos DH, 'Asarah') as Ma'aser Rishon.
3. ... and ten (a bit less still) as Ma'aser Sheini.
(c) This entire Halachah is not applicable nowadays - because Chazal later
discovered that the Kutim were idolaters and they declared them Nochrim in
(a) Rebbi Meir permits drinking the wine - even before having actually
separated the Ma'asros from it, because he holds 'Yesh B'reirah' (in which
case the Ma'asros that he separates later will take effect retroactively.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon - forbid drinking the wine
before Ma'asros have actually been taken.
(a) According to Rav Mesharshaya, Rebbi Yehudah's reason is because of 'Ein
(a) Rebbi Yehudah states in a Mishnah later that if someone says to his wife
'Zeh Gitech Me'achshav Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh', she has the status of a
married woman during the interim period, even if he does die from the
illness. The ramifications of Rebbi Yehudah's ruling ...
1. ... assuming the husband is a Kohen is - that she is permitted to eat
(b) We can extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless
validates the Get should he die from the illness, that Rebbi Yehudah holds
'Yesh B'reirah' by Toleh be'Da'as Acheirim - because otherwise, due to the
principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah', the Get would not be valid.
2. ... even if he is not - that she is Chayav Misah, should she commit
adultery during that period.
(c) If not for B'reirah, the Get would be invalid because of 'Ein Get
le'Achar Misah' - because we are dealing with a situation that will be
determined by circumstances beyond his control. This differs from other
conditions that need to be fulfilled after the Get takes place, and when
they are, the Get is valid retroactively, even without B'reirah - because
there, we have a situation where he definitely wants the Get to take place,
but under certain conditions that are within his jurisdiction to fulfill
(conditions which could not have been fulfilled earlier).
(a) In another Beraisa, in a case where a man says to a woman 'Hareini
Bo'alech al-Menas she'Yirtzeh Aba', the Tana Kama says that she is betrothed
even if the woman's father did not consent to the betrothal - because of the
principle 'Ein Adam Oseh Be'ilaso Be'ilas Z'nus'.
(b) Rebbi Shimon (who concurs with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in the
Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim') disagrees. Rebbi Shimon
ben Yehudah quotes him as saying - that she is not betrothed unless her
father agrees to the Kidushin.
(c) We extrapolate from here that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Yesh B'reirah' -
because it is clear that even Rebbi Shimon will agree that she is betrothed
retroactively, in the event that her father agrees.
(a) Rav Mesharshaya now extrapolates from this Beraisa - that Rebbi Shimon
holds 'Yesh B'reirah' by Toleh be'Da'as Acheirim, and from that of
'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin' - that he holds 'Ein B'reirah' by Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo'
(a Kashya on Rava, who maintains that the Tana'aim make no distinction
between the two, as we learned above).
(b) Rava replies that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Yesh
B'reirah', and the reason they forbid the person who purchased wine from a
Kuti to drink it before having actually separated it is not because they
hold 'Ein B'reirah' but - because they suspect that the flask containing the
wine might break, before he has a chance to separate the Ma'asros that he
already declared. And since he did not actually separate them, it will
transpire that he drank Tevel.
(c) The Tana'im who argue with Rebbi Meir specifically gave this reason in
another Beraisa - to which Rebbi Meir replied 'le'she'Yibaka!' 'We will
worry when it breaks!' because it is unusual for the flask to break in such
a short space of time, so we do not content with it.