Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah instituted that, in the wording of a document of sale of an Eved Cana'ani, one adds 'Avda D'nan Mutzdak le'Avdu ... '.

1. 'Mutzdak le'Avdu' means - that the sale is uncontested.
2. 'u'Patir ve'Atir mi'Kol Charuri' - that he is totally removed from freedom.
3. 'u'min Aruri Malka ... ' - that the king has no claim to him.

(b) 've'Rashum de'Inash Lo Is Alohi, u'Menukeh mi'Kol Mum u'min Sh'chin de'Nafik ad Titzhar'.

1. ... 'Rashum' is - the badge worn by slaves as a mark of slavery.
2. ... 'u'Menukeh mi'Kol Mum' means - that he is not a robber.
3. ... 'u'min Sh'chin de'Nafik ad Titzhar' - that he is clean from all boils that appear up to two years (and which would therefore indicate that the illness has already begun [because boils tend to reappear for a period of up to two years]).
4. ... 'Chadas ve'Atik' means - whether the boil is new or old.

(c) The Sugya in Kesuvos 'Simpon ba'Avadim Leika' - speaks when no conditions were stipulated, whereas here we are speaking when there were.

(d) Ginger, sulfur, wine-vinegar, the waste of silver (a by-product known as litharge), olive oil and white Naphtha - mixed together constitute the cure for boils, which one rubs in with a goose-feather.

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah says that if a Get is written in the husband's handwriting but on which witnesses did not sign, or even if they did, if the Sh'tar was not dated - it is Pasul, though the children are legitimate.

(b) The third case listed by the Tana is - if the Sh'tar is dated but there is only one witness (this will be explained shortly).

(c) These Gitin are Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan (but Kasher mi'd'Oraysa).

(d) The author of our Mishnah does not appear to be Rebbi Meir (see Tosfos DH 'Sheloshah') - because according to Rebbi Meir, the children would also be Mamzeirim.

(a) Rebbi Elazar says - that even if no witnesses sign on a Get, as long as it is handed over in the presence of witnesses, it is Kasher.

(b) When he says 've'Govah mi'Nechasim Meshubadim' - he is referring to Sh'tarei Chov, because he holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi by all Sh'taros.

(c) Even though he validates a Sh'tar even when no witnesses signed on it, witnesses nevertheless tend to sign on a Sh'tar - due to Tikun ha'Olam, in case the witnessess who witnessed the handing over of the Sh'tar are overseas or no longer alive, when they are needed to substantiate it.

(a) The Tana does not include in the list (of Gitin Pesulin, ve'ha'V'lad Kasher') ...

1. ... Get Yashan, assuming that our Mishnah holds ...

a. ... 'Teitzei' - because there the Din is 'Lo Seitzei'.
b. ... 'Lo Seitzei' - because there, she is even permitted to marry Lechchatchilah, whereas here, only Bedieved.

2. ... 'Get Kere'ach', according to ...

a. ... Rebbi Meir who holds 'Kol ha'Meshaneh mi'Matbe'a she'Tav'u Chachamim be'Gitin, ha'V'lad Mamzer' - because here, the Tana holds 'ha'V'lad Kasher'.
b. ... the Chachamim who hold ... ha'V'lad Kasher' - because there, the Din is ha'V'lad Teitzei', whereas here, we hold 'Lo Seitzei'.

(b) And according to those who hold in our Mishnah 'Teitzei' - we will have to say that our Tana speaks exclusively about a regular Get, and not about a Get Mekushar.

(c) The Tana does not include the case of 'Kasav le'Shem Malchus', where the Din is 'Teitzei', according to those who hold here too 'Teitzei' - because the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, who considers the children there to be Mamzeirim, whereas the children in our Mishnah are all legitimate.

(d) Rebbi Meir legitimizes the children in our Mishnah on the grounds - that the husband's signature is really like a hundred witnesses, in which case the Sh'tar is really Kasher.

(a) Our Mishnah opens with the words 'Sheloshah Gitin Pesulin'. Later it states 'Harei Eilu Sheloshah Gitin ... '. From the first number we exclude - the three cases we just discussed (Get Yashan, Get Kere'ach and Shalom Malchus).

(b) The second number - comes to exclude the case in the Beraisa, of someone who brings a Get from overseas and fails to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav u've'Fanai Nechtam', according to Rebbi Meir, who says 'Yotzi ve'ha'V'lad Mamzer'. The Chachamim say there - that the V'lad is not a Mamzer, and that all that is needed is for the Sheli'ach to take back the Get and declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' before returning it to the woman.

(c) In spite of Rebbi Meir having already taught in the Beraisa that 'ha'V'lad Mamzer', the Tana of our Mishnah nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it here by way of inference - to teach us that the Beraisa is correct.

(a) Rav says 'Kasav bi'K'sav Yado Shaninu'. This cannot refer to ...

1. ... the Reisha ('Kasav bi'K'sav Yado ve'Ein Alav Eidim') - because that is precisely what the Tana says.
2. ... the middle case ('Yesh Alav Eidim ve'Ein Alav Z'man') - because since there are already witnesses who have signed, what difference will it make whether it is the husband who wrote the Get or the Sofer.

(b) Then he must be referring to the Seifa 'Yesh Bo Z'man ve'Ein Bo Ela Eid Echad'.

(c) The Din will differ if it was the Sofer who wrote the Get and not the owner - inasmuch as the children will then be Mamzeirim.

(d) In spite of having already taught that when there are no witnesses at all, the Get is Kasher, the Tana needs to repeat the same Din when there is one witness - to teach us that even when there is one witness together with the husband's handwriting, she is nevertheless not permitted to marry Lechatchilah.

7)

(a) We just cited Rav who explains holds 'Kasav bi'K'sav Yado Shaninu'. Based on the Mishnah later, which specifically states 'Kasav bi'K'sav Yado Kasher', Shmuel validates even 'Kasav Sofer ve'Eid'.

(b) Rav rejects Shmuel's proof from that Mishnah - based on the fact that the Tana there permits the woman to marry Lechatchilah, whereas here, the Tana forbids it (forcing us to make an amendment).

(c)

1. ... Rav amends that Mishnah - to 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid' (as we shall see later).
2. ... Shmuel resolves the discrepancy by establishing that Mishnah by an expert Sofer (who knows not to write the Get unless the husband instructs him to do so); whereas our Mishnah speaks about a regular Sofer (whom we suspect of writing the Get on the instructions of a Sheli'ach).

(d) Rav sometimes said 'Teitzei', and sometimes 'Lo Teitzei' - depending upon whether the woman had children from the second husband or not.

(a) The Beraisa rules that if any of the fifteen Arayos (who normally exempt the Tzaros from Yibum and Chalitzah) were a Safek Kidushin or a Safek Gerushin - the Tzaros must perform Chalitzah.

(b) The case of Safek Kidushin is when he threw her Kidushin and we do not know whether it landed closer to her or to him. The case of Safek Gerushin is - any of the three cases of Get Pasul in our Mishnah, which adopt the Din of a Safek.

(c) We are not concerned that, if we say 'Lo Seitzei', the Tzarah will be tempted to perform Yibum instead of Chalitzah - because based on the fact that, min ha'Torah, the Get is valid, even if the Tzoroh does perform Yibum, she will not have transgressed any real Isur.

(d) Levi says 'Lo Seitzei'. With regard to 'K'sav Yado ve'Eid', Rebbi Yochanan supports Rav - in the current Machlokes, he supports Levi.

(a) Besides the above ruling, Rebbi Yochanan told the sons of Rebbi Chalafta from Cheifa in their father's name, that if a 'Kartzis' (which is a huge species of fly the size of a locust) that lives among the sheaves drinks from the Mei Chatas - it does not render it Pasul.

(b) According to the Tana of the Beraisa ...

1. ... birds that drank from the Mei Chatas render it Pasul - because they lap up the water and some of it drips back into the container. Consequently, based on the fact that Mei Chatas loses its identity once it enters any animal's mouth. Consequently, the water that drips is no longer Mei Chatas and disqualifies the rest of the water.
2. ... a dove that drank fom the Mei Chatas does not render it Pasul - because it drinks by sucking the water, so that none of the water in its mouth drips back into the container.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana did not list the Chartzis together with the dove - because the Halachah regarding it is not clear-cut, seeing as a very large one does not invalidate the Mei Chatos, whereas a small one does.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah or Rebbi Ami says that a Chartzis is called 'small' up to the size of an olive.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Elazar ('Eidei Mesirah Karsi') by Gitin. When Rav Yehudah (who went to learn by Shmuel after Rav's death) informed him of Rav's ruling - he commented that the Halachah is like him by all Sh'taros.

(b) Although Rav only rules like Rebbi Elazar with regard to Gitin, he nevertheless concedes that he himself issued his ruling by all Sh'taros (as we see in our Mishnah, where he concludes 've'Govah mi'Nechasim Meshubadim').

(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Kasuv ba'Sefer ve'Chasum", the basis of the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel is - whether Yirmiyah was teaching the people that documents must be signed in order to be valid (Rav), or whether he was merely advising them to do so (because they were about to go into exile and would not return for some time - Shmuel).

(d) When both Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan said 'Afilu Re'ach ha'Get Ein Bo', they meant - that the Get is not even valid le'Chumra (to be forbidden to marry a Kohen in the event of their husband's death). It does not follow that they do not hold like Rebbi Elazar - because they said this according to the Rabbanan.

12)

(a) If two men with the same name sent two Gitin to their wives who also had the same name, and the two Gitin got mixed up - they must hand each Get to both women (independently), for them to be divorced.

(b) If one of the Gitin is lost - the other one is Pasul.

(c) If five men wrote five Gitin on the same piece of parchment, and the witnesses signed after the last one, assuming that they wrote ...

1. ... a general Get for all of them (which will be explained later) concluding 'P'loni Megaresh P'lonis, u'P'loni, P'lonis' - then all five Gitin are Kasher.
2. ... five individual Gitin, one for each couple - then only the bottom one, together with which the signatures can be read, is Kasher.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah not like Rebbi Elazar who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi' - because according to him, the Mesirah needs to be Lish'mah (i.e. having in mind the woman who is being divorced, which is not the case in our Mishnah, seeing as they do not know who the woman is).

(b) Abaye reconciles our Mishnah even with Rebbi Elazar - because, he says, since the Torah writes "ve'Kasav Lah" ('Lishmah') it is the Kesivah that Rebbi Elazar requires Lishmah, and not the Mesirah.