Previous daf

1)

(a) As Geniva was being led out in chains to be executed, he announced that - from his wine-storehouse in Nehar Panya, four hundred Zuz should be given to Rebbi Avina.

(b) When Rebbi Zeira commented that Rebbi Avina should take his basket and go to Rav Huna his Rebbe, he meant - that he would find support there to enable him to acquire what Geniva had bequeathed him (despite the fact that no Kinyan had been made).

(c) Rav Huna made two statements regarding the two-way comparison of a Shechiv-Mera's Get to his Matanah. He said ...

1. ... that a Shechiv-Mera who recovers, may retract from his Get, just as he may retract from his Matanah.
2. ... that the Matanah of a Shechiv-Mera is effective even without a Kinyan, like his Get (which we just learned in our Mishnah, is effective).

(d) We cannot however, extend this comparison to say that his Get, like his Matanah, will apply even after his death - because there is no such thing as a Get after death.

(a) What Rebbi Aba (who was mistakenly quoted as having asked why we could not make the previous comparison) really meant to ask on Rebbi Zeira was - that, since Geniva's gift was only a Matanah be'Miktzas (seeing as he only gave him part of his property, retaining the bulk of it for himself), it should have taken effect without a Kinyan? Why was it different than other cases of Matanah be'Miktzas.

(b) We answer (on behalf of Rebbi Zeira and) Rav Huna - that of course (t)he(y) knew that a Matanah be'Miktzas by a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan, but that we are speaking about a Metzaveh machmas Misah (someone who knew that there was no chance of his returning, and who was Makneh his property because of that). Such a Matanah does not require a Kinyan.

(c) Rebbi Aba knew full well that 'Metzaveh Machmas Misah' does not require a Kinyan? What prompted him to ask such a Kashya - was the fact that Geniva did not say 'four hundred Zuz worth of *wine*', nor even 'the value of four hundred Zuz *worth* of wine', but 'four hundred *Zuz* from the wine', which Rebbi Aba maintains is a weak Lashon and rquires a Kinyan.

(d) Geniva said 'me'Chamra' - in order to reinforce Rebbi Avina's rights (that all the wine should be available for him to claim, should some of it turn sour on the one hand, and if the heirs sold some of the wine and the money got lost, they should not be able to say to Rebbi Avina that it was his money that was lost, on the other).

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that in the event that someone who fell into a deep pit calls out that whoever hears his voice should write his wife a Get, whoever hears may write the Get and hand it to his wife. We know who it is - because the Tana is speaking when he gave his details.

(b) We are not afraid that it is a demon who spoke - because we saw that he had a shadow (and we initially think that demons do not have shadows).

(c) Considering that demons also have shadows like humans, we will ultimately know that it was a human and not a demon - because he had a double shadow, and that is something that demons do not have.

(d) We do not suspect that it is the woman's rival wife who is out to get her into trouble - because we establish our Mishnah in the time of danger, and Chazal waved suspicions of this nature in the time of danger (presumably, because of the chances of its being her are unlikely).

(a) The Tana says that if a healthy person says 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti' (but omits to add 'T'nu') - he can laugh at his wife (meaning that she is not divorced).

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if a man says 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti' and then ascends to the roof and falls off - it will depend upon whether he jumped off deliberately (in which case she is divorced) or the wind blew him off (in which case he is not).

(c) A story in a Mishnah always comes to illustrate the Halachah that it is teaching us. The reason that the story in our Mishnah clashes with the Halachah that precedes is only - because there are words missing, and we have to add 'Im Hochi'ach Sofo al Techilaso Harei Zeh Get. u'Ma'aseh Nami ... '.

(a) The three men whom that man found sitting in Shul - were a children's Rebbe and his son, and a third person.

(b) After he appointed two of them to write a Get for his wife the children's Rebbe died, giving rise to the Safek - whether a person would normally intend a son to be his Sheli'ach as an alternative to the father.

(c) Rav Nachman rules that one would not normally appoint a son as a Sheli'ach when his father is there. Rav Papi say that one would.

(d) Rava rules like Rav Papi. Cosequently, the third man together with the Rebbe's son were automatically Sheluchim to write and hand over the Get to the man's wife.

6)

(a) Two people whom a man appointed to give a Get to his wife and three people whom he asked to write a Get and give it to her, have in common - that they have the authority of witnesses to write and sign the Get on his behalf, but not to appoint others to do so, because he appointed them as Sheluchim, and not as a Beis-Din.

(b) We know that he did not appoint the three men to be a Beis-Din - because he added the word 'Kisvu'.

(c) Had he not added the word 'Kisvu', they would indeed have had the authority of a Beis-Din to appoint others to write the Get and give it to the man's wife. The author of this Mishnah - is Rebbi Meir.

(d) Rebbi Chanina from Ono actually cited this Halachah when he returned from prison. He quoted it in the name - Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi Chanina. He told 'the Sheli'ach' that if a husband who says to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol 'T'nu Get le'Ishti' - they must learn how to write a Get (because they cannot appoint others to do it in their place), and give it to the woman personally.

(b) Rebbi Yossi's reason is - because 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Sheli'ach' (words without actions cannot be handed over to a Sheli'ach).

(c) The Tana says - that if someone says to ten people ...

1. ... 'Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti' - one of the ten must write the Get, and two of them must sign it.
2. ... 'Kulchem K'suvu' - then all of them must sign it.

(d) Consequently - if one of them dies before he has signed, the Get is Batel.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba informs us that Rav's Beis-Hamedrash sent Shmuel the She'eilah whether, if someone instructed two people 'Kisvu u'T'nu Get le'Ishti', and they subsequently asked a Sofer to write it, but signed it themselves, the Get is Kasher or not. The She'eilah was - whether, when the Tana requires the Sheluchim to write the Get themselves, he is referring to the actual Kesivah, or to the Chasimah (but as far as the Kesivah is concerned, he may appoint someone else to do it).

(b) Shmuel replied - that the Get was Kasher, but that one needed to look into the matter.

(c) Shmuel's Safek cannot have been whether 'Mili Mimseri li'Sheli'ach' or not - because he has already quoted Rebbi who rules like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah that 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Sheli'ach'.

(d) Shmuel's Safek was - whether 'K'suvu' refers to the writing of the Get, or to the witnesses' signatures.

(a) We ...

1. ... try and resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who requires the Beis-Din Hagadol to learn how to write a Get - and who has ever heard of a Beis-Din who cannot sign their signatures?
2. ... refute the proof - by establishing our Mishnah by a newly appointed Beis-Din, who have not yet learned how to sign their signatures (see Pirush ha'Mishnayos le'ha'Rambam).

(b) Despite having already ruled like Rebbi Yossi who holds 'Mili Lo Mimseran li'Sheli'ach', Shmuel suggests that a Get that is written by someone else other than the appointee, should be Kasher - because, seeing as 'Kesuvu' means their signatures (and the husband is not fussy about who writes it), it is as if he had asked them specifically to appoint someone to write it.

(a) The Tana (in 'Mi she'Achzo') states 'Kasav Sofer ve'Eid, Kasher' - meaning that if the Sofer wrote the Get, but someone else signed it, the Get is Kasher.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah amends the Mishnah to read - 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid'.

(c) Rav Chisda extrapolates from here that the author must be Rebbi Yossi, who holds 'Mili Lo Mimseri li'Sheli'ach' (and that consequently, only the person who was actually told to do so may sign the Get) - because otherwise, we would suspect that the Sheli'ach may have appointed the Sofer to write the Get and others to sign it. The Sheli'ach however, noticing the Sofer's embarrassment at not having been asked to sign, invitited him to do so contrary to the Meshale'ach's wishes, and the Sofer (who did not know what the Meshale'ach had told the Sheli'ach, complied). Whereas now that only someone who is asked specifically by the husband can sign the Get. there is no way that the Sofer would have accepted such an offer from the Sheli'ach.

(d) Now if Rebbi Yossi would concede that the Get is Kasher if the husband said 'Imru' - then the above suspicion would still be applicable, because the Sofer might still believe the Sheli'ach that the husband asked *him* to sign, when really, he asked the Sheli'ach to ask two other people?

(a) We initially attempt to answer that even though this latter case is Kasher, one should not appoint a Sheli'ach in this way. Consequently, it is unusual for it to occur, and whenever something is unusual, Chazal did not decree an Isur because of it (which explains why 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid' is Kasher according to Rebbi Yossi).

(b) All of this is in accordance with Rebbi Yirmiyah, who established the Mishnah 'Kasav Sofer ve'Eid' according to Rebbi Yossi.
Notwithstanding the fact that, in principle, Shmuel agrees with the outcome of the Sugya (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Shechicha'), he will answer the original Kashya on himself (from the Mishnah of 'Kasav Sofer ve'Eid') much more simply - by establishing the Mishnah as it stands 'Kasav Sofer ve'Eid', which will go even according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi.