ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 46
GITIN 46 - Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of New Jersey have dedicated this Daf in
memory of Marcia's mother, Esther Friedman (Esther Chaya Raizel bat Gershom
Eliezer) and father, Hyman Smulevitz (Chaim Yisochar ben Yaakov).
(a) We just cited two versions of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman
explaining the Tana Kama: whether 'Lo Yachzir' is because of Kilkul or so
that the B'nos Yisrael should not be lax in their morals and in Nedarim -
both of which are substantiated by Beraisos.
(b) In the Beraisa that substantiates the first Lashon, Rebbi Meir describes
the entire cause and effect of Kilkul. He is referring to - the case of
someone who divorces his wife because of a bad name, though the Din will be
exactly the same in the case of Nedarim.
(c) The author of the Beraisa which supports the second Lashon ('so that the
B'nos Yisrael should not be lax in their morals and in Nedarim') - is Rebbi
Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "ve'Lo Hikum B'nei
Yisrael Ki Nishbe'u Lahem Nesi'ei ha'Eidah" - that a Neder she'Hudar
le'Rabim cannot be annulled.
(b) The Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi Yehudah, however. In spite of
the Pasuk, they maintain that a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim can be annulled -
because seeing as the oath that Yehoshua and the elders had made to the
Giv'onim was extracted under false pretences, it was anyway ineffective and
did not require nullification.
(c) Nevertheless, Yehoshua did not abrogate that oath - because of the
Chilul Hashem that would ensue, when people who knew of the Neder but not of
the circumstances, would accuse Yisrael of abrogating a Neder made in good
(a) Rav Nachman learns from the Pasuk "Yamim Rabim" (in connection with a
Zavah) - that 'Rabim' means a minimum of three people (because in the
context of a Zavah, "Yamim" implies two days, and "Rabim", three).
We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Meir holds of Kilkul only be in the
case of a Neder that requires Beis-Din to annul it, whilst Rebbi Elazar
holds that (basically) it is only by a Neder that does not. The basis of
their Machlokes is - whether a man does not mind his wife being denigrated
by appearing in Beis-Din (Rebbi Meir), or whether he very much does (Rebbi
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak learns that 'Rabim' means ten people - because the Torah
refers to the ten spies (excluding Yehoshua and Kalev) as "Eidah" (a
(a) At the end of our Mishnah, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah cites the
incident of the man from Tzidon who declared a Konem if he would not divorce
his wife - which he subsequently did. The Chachamim permitted him to take
(b) In spite of the fact that the previous Tana'im did not mention a case
where the husband was the one to declare the Neder, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah's statement fits into our Mishnah - because we amend the Mishnah,
adding the words 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Nadrah Hi, Aval Nadar Hu,
Yachzir', and that is what Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah comes to
(c) When Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah said that the man declared '*Konem* Im
Eini Megarshech' (since 'Konem' S'tam has connotations of Hekdesh) - he
means that the man declared a Neder forbidding all fruit on himself unless
he divorced his wife.
(d) The Chachamim permitted him to take her back - in spite of Rebbi Nasan
in a Beraisa, who said that someone who makes a Neder is as if he had built
a Bamah, and that, if he subsequently fulfils it (instead of having it
revoked), it is as if he actually sacrificed on it. On that basis, we might
have thought that he deserves to be penalized, and forbidden him to remarry
According to Rav Sheishes, the concluding words of our Mishnah 'Mipnei Tikun
ha'Olam' might pertain to the first half of the Mishnah ('ha'Motzi es Ishto
Mishum Shem-Ra ... Lo Yachzir'). According to Ravina however, they pertain
to the Din of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in the Seifa - meaning that in
this case, Tikun ha'Olam does not apply.
(a) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that if a man divorces his wife
because he discovers that she is an Aylonis, he may not take her back (even
if it later turns out that she is not). The man must not have known that his
wife was an Aylonis when he married her - because if he had, why would he
later divorce her because she is?
(b) He is nevertheless required to give her a Get. It is not simply a Mekach
Ta'us (an erroneous sale), which is automatically canceled - because a man
does not like to turn his Bi'ah into a Be'ilas Z'nus (an 'immoral' act).
(c) She does not however, receive her Kesuvah.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because of 'Kilkul' (in case she remarries
and has children, and her first husband then claims that had he known that
she could have children, he would not have divorced her ... ).
(a) The Rabbanan in the previous case - are not concerned about 'Kilkul', in
which case he is permitted to take her back.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah advises the above woman who, after becoming divorced,
remarrying and having children, comes to claim her Kesuvah from her first
husband - to be silent, to prevent him from retorting that had he known, he
would never have divorced her in the first place (which is not a valid
argument to counter the divorce, but is to counter her claiming the
Kesuvah - see Tosfos Rid, beginning of 47b).
(c) Shmuel reconciles Rebbi Yehudah in this Mishnah (who *is concerned*
about 'Kilkul') with Rebbi Yehudah in the previous Mishnah ('ha'Motzi es
Ishto Mishum Neder ... ' [who is *not*]) - by switching the opinions in our
Mishnah, so that it is the Rabbanan who are concerned about 'Kilkul' and not
(d) The Kashya from the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Niseis le'Acher, ve'Hayu Lah
Banim Mimenu ... '), where Rebbi Yehudah is worried about Kilkul too, Shmuel
will answer in exactly the same way - by switching that to the Rabbanan.
(a) Abaye disagrees with Shmuel. In his opinion, Rebbi Yehudah *is*
concerned about 'Kilkul', as is clear from our Mishnah. And the reason that
he said in the previous Mishnah 'Kol Neder she'Yad'u Bo Rabim, Yachzir'
(ignoring the issue of 'Kilkul') is - because with regard to a Neder that
requires Beis-Din, he holds that a man does not wish his wife to be shamed
in Beis-Din (like Rebbi Elazar), and with regard to a Neder that does not,
he holds that there is no Kilkul since he could have annulled it himself
(like Rebbi Meir).
(b) We have reconciled the two rulings of Rebbi Yehudah. Rava reconciles the
Rabbanan in our Mishnah (who are not concerned about 'Kilkul') with the
Rabbanan in the previous Mishnah (who are) by establishing this Mishnah like
Rebbi Meir - who requires a T'nai Kaful (a condition that specifically
mentions both the positive and the negative sides of the transaction and the
T'nai), and our Mishnah, whose author is Rebbi Meir, speaks when the husband
failed to mention a T'nai Kaful.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that someone who sells himself together
with his children to Nochrim ...
1. ... cannot be redeemed.
(b) If the man fell on hard times, and was forced to sell himself but could
not find a Jewish purchaser, he would indeed not be penalized. Therefore -
Rav Asi establishes our Mishnah when he sold himself a number of times
(turning his act from an O'nes into one of negligence).
2. ... though his children can, after his death.
(c) We do not redeem his children immediately - because as long as their
father is alive, he will ensure that they are not led astray by their
(a) Those people from Bei Michsi - borrowed money from Nochrim, and when
they were unable to repay their loan, the creditors chose them (as servants
to work for them until the debt had been paid).
(b) Rav Huna, citing our Mishnah - prohibited their redemption.
(c) When Rav Aba queried Rav Huna's ruling from Rav Asi - he replied that
this had happened already a few times, and that they were therefore
considered negligent and not A'nus.