Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah and Rava disagree with Rav Huna. In the case of a Shechiv-Mera who recovered, assuming that ...

1. ... he did not say 'Im Meisi' - they hold that he cannot retract.
2. ... he did - they hold that he can (because it conforms with his condition).

(b) They argue with him on the grounds that - Chazal decreed on account of the fear that people will say that a Get is valid after death.

(c) Even though min ha'Torah, the Get is nullified, Chazal proclaim it valid (permitting her to marry another man) - because when a person marries, he automatically agrees to abide by all decisions of the Rabbanan with regard to the marriage (in which case, they are merely revoking the first Kidushin [retroactively] with the couple's prior consent).

(d) This is fine with regard to a case of Kidushei Kesef (where the Chachamim's right of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' will apply). In the event that he was Mekadesh her with Bi'ah, they declared the Bi'ah a Bi'as Z'nus.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh, ve'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav O Hikisho Nachash, Eino Get' - because it is an O'nes that is unforseeable, and which the stipulator would not have taken into account.

(b) In a similar case where, instead of 'Im Meisi', the husband said 'Im Lo A'amod me'Choli Zeh' - the Tana rules - Harei Zeh Get'.

(c) The Seifa clashes with the Reisha - because, if one does anticipate an unforseeable O'nes (as it would seem from the Seifa), then why should one not do likewise in the Reisha?

(d) They issued a ruling in Eretz Yisrael, in the equivalent case to that of the Seifa of the Beraisa - invalidating the Get (like in the Reisha).

(a) The man who sold his friend a field, undertook to compensate the purchaser - for any O'nes that might occur.

(b) When the king ordered a river to be diverted through that field, Ravina ordered the seller - to reimburse the purchaser in full.

(c) Rava concurred - with the opinion of Rav Acha bar Tachlifa.

(a) Ravina asked Rava from the Beraisa that we just quoted 'Im Lo A'amod me'Choli Zeh, ve'Nafal Alav ha'Bayis ... Harei Zeh Get'. When Rava retorted that we can answer from the Reisha, which says 'Eino Get', Rav Acha mi'Difti asked Ravina - whether that is sufficient reason not to ask from the Seifa?.

(b) Ravina answered him - that if the two sections of a Beraisa clash in this way, it is a sign that the Beraisa has been misquoted (in which case it cannot be considered conclusive).

(c) Consequently, we follow our logic, which dictates that one ignores any O'nes which the stipulator would not have anticipated when stipulating the condition.

(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua purchased - sunflower-seeds (Ger'inim) by the banks of the River Malka.

(b) The sailors whom they hired to transport it across the river - accepted full liability (for any O'nes that might occur).

(c) The sailors were prevented from delivering the barrels - due a royal edict ordering the river to be drained. Consequently, Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua expected the sailors to hire donkeys to transport the goods across the river-bed.

(d) Rava informed them that they were 'stripping people's coats off their backs' - because this was another case of an O'nes which was unforseeable, with which (as we just concluded) we do not contend. He referred to them as 'white geese' - because they were already old and their beards had turned white.

(a) he Tana of our Mishnah forbids a woman who has received a Get 'me'Hayom Im Meisi', to reside with her husband without witnesses - either because (seeing as they are familiar with each other) we suspect that they will be intimate, and according to one opinion, we are afraid that they will do so for the sake of Kidushin. But in any event, seclusion with an unmarried woman is prohibited.

(b) One witness will suffice.

(c) Even a slave is eligible for this purpose. - and so is a maid-servant, provided it is not her own.

(a) In the interim period, Rebbi Yehudah considers the woman to be married - because he holds that, even assuming that he dies from his current illness, the Get will only take effect from the moment prior to his death.

(b) The ramifications of Rebbi Yehudah's ruling are - that if someone commits adultery with the woman during that period, he (and the woman) will receive Chenek (strangulation), or to bring a Chatas, if they transgressed be'Shogeg.

(c) Rebbi Yossi says - 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' (meaning that she is only a Safek Eishes Ish), in which case they will only be obligated to bring an Asham Taluy, nor will they be Chayav Chenek, should they transgress be'Shogeg.

(d) He argues with Rebbi Yehudah - inasmuch as, in his opinion, in the event of the husband's death, the Get will have taken effect the moment it was handed to the woman.

8)

(a) To explain a meaningless Beraisa 'Ra'uhah she'Niv'elah Imo ba'Afeilah ... ' - Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah makes a distinction (where witnesses saw the couple mentioned in our Mishnah in a state of intimacy), between when the man did not subsequently give the woman money, in which case we suspect that he meant to betroth her again, and where he did - when we ascribe their behavior to nothing more than a frivolous act.

(b) 'Chosheshin Mishum Z'nus' in the latter case (implying a Chumra) cannot be taken literally - because which Chumra can this be referring to (seeing as she is divorced anyway, and Terumah is permitted to her, unless she commits adultery with a man who is forbidden to her.

(c) The Tana nevertheless says it - to balance with the continuation 've'Ein Chosheshin Mishum Kidushin'.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Af Chosheshin Mishum Kidushin'.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, commenting on the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (regarding whether a man who divorced his wife and stayed overnight with her in a hotel requires a second Get or not), 'Machlokes ke'she'Ra'uhah she'Niv'alah, Aval Lo Ra'uhah she'Niv'alah, Divrei ha'Kol Ein Tzerichah Heimenah Get'. According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah's interpretation of the Beraisa, this concurs with both opinions in the Beraisa (since both are only worried about Kidushin if the witnesses actually saw the Bi'ah).

(b) Bearing in mind that this interpretation differentiates between a husband who gave his wife money and one who did not, Abaye refutes it on the grounds - that the Tana of the Beraisa does not mention money (so how can we base a Machlokes Tana'im on something which the Tana makes not the least mention?

(c) So Abaye interprets the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - to mean that, even if the witnesses saw them in a state of intimacy, we assume it to have been a mere act of frivolity, and not having Kidushin in mind.

(d) And Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that - once they actually see the Bi'ah, we assume that they had Kidushin in mind.

(a) According to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa - Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement concurs with the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who also equates the Bi'ah with Kidushin).

(b) Based on the Seifa 'Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah Omer Af be'Zu Chosheshin Mishum Kidushin', Rava refutes Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa - due to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah use of the word 'Af', seeing as the Tana Kama maintains that we are not afraid that they had Kidushin in mind, and *he* is, all he needed to say was 'Chosheshin le'Kidushin' ('Af' implies that the Tana Kama is strict, and that he is stricter still).

(c) So Rava explains - that according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, even if the witnesses did not actually see the Bi'ah, we are concerned that Bi'ah may have been performed with Kidushin in mind.

(d) We conclude that, according to Rava's explanation, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan will concur with neither of the Tana'im in our Beraisa - because according to the Tana Kama, even if the witnesses saw them intimate, we do not suspect that they had Kidushin in mind, and according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, even if they did not, we do.

(a) We establish 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' in our Mishnah - when the husband dies from his illness.

(b) In the event that he does not - he will be Chayav Chatas.

(c) We have already learned that a Get cannot take effect after the husband's death. We therefore rule that if the husband said 'Harei Zeh Gitech Im Meisi' - the Get is invalid.

(d) Rabah therefore amends the wording of the case in our Mishnah over which Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi argue to - 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Eis she'Ani ba'Olam'.

Next daf