ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 88
GITIN 88 (13 Iyar) - has been dedicated by Zvi and Tamara Sand of Har Nof,
Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Zvi's grandfather, Meir ben Reb
(a) Initially, we reconcile Rav, who signed on *the side* of a document,
with our Mishnah, which invalidates a Get which is signed at the top or at
the side of a Get - by establishing Rav when the top of the signature faced
the writing on the Sh'tar (since it is then evident that the witnesses
signed on that document), whilst our Mishnah speaks when it is the foot of
the signatures that faces the document (where we suspect that they may have
signed on another document, which was subsequently cut out of of the
(b) We reconcile this answer with our Mishnah, which invalidates two
Sh'taros written on one column if the beginning of the two Sh'taros face
each other, if the witnesses signed in the middle (declining to validate
whichever Sh'tar faces the top of the signatures) - by establishing the
Mishnah when the witnesses signed 'like a bolt' (sideways), facing neither
of the documents.
(c) The next case in the Mishnah (when it is the ends of the two Sh'taros
that face each other), which validates whichever of the two Sh'taros with
which the signatures coincide, forces us to retract from our current
explanation of Rav - because according to that explanation, the signatures
face neither of the Gitin, as we just explained.
(d) So we conclude that a Get or any other legal document which is signed on
top or at the side is always Pasul - and the Sh'tar on which Rav signed was
merely an invitation to attend a Din Torah, which does not support any
transaction, and where the Dayan may therefore sign anywhere.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes our Mishnah 'K'sav Sofer ve'Eid' to mean
'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid' - because otherwise, with only one witness having
signed, the woman would not be permitted to marry Lachatchilah (as we
(b) The Tana is coming to teach us - that we are not afraid that ot was
perhaps others whom the husband asked to sign on the Get, and that those
others (illegally) passed on the Shelichus to the Sofer.
(c) Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Mili Lo
Mimseron li'Sheli'ach' (one Sheli'ach cannot pass on instructions to another
(d) In the case when they recognized the signature of one of the witnesses
and the handwriting of the Sofer ...
1. ... Rebbi Avahu ruled - that the Get was Kasher (like our Mishnah).
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah commented - 'Chasam Sofer ve'Eid Shaninu' (and not
'K'sav Sofer ve'Eid').
(a) When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that a nickname only lasts up to
ten generations, he means - that for a nickname to replace the full name in
a Get, it must not have been out of use for more than ten generations.
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says - for not more than three.
(c) To support Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rav Huna quotes the Pasuk in
va'Eschanan "Ki Solid Banim u'V'nei Vanim, ve'Noshantem ... " (from which we
see that it is after three generations that one adopts the titile 'old'.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "Umlalah Yoledes
ha'Shiv'ah, Nafchah Ba'ah Shimshah, be'Od Yomam Boshah ve'Chafrah" - that it
was only after seven 'Batei-Din' had served idols that Hashem exiled the
Kingdom of Yisrael from the land.
(b) Of the seven Batei-Din of the Kingdom of Yisroel guilty of idolatry ...
1. ... the first was - Yeravam ben Nevat.
(c) Seven Batei-Din mean in this context means - seven families
(incorporating a father and his descendents).
2. ... the last - Hoshei'a ben Eilah (in whose days they were finally
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not include ...
1. ... the families of Shalum ben Yavesh, Zecharyah and Zimri - because each
of them reigned for less than a year.
2. ... Omri rather than his son Achav - because Achav exceeded his father in
his evil ways.
(a) Rav Ami extrapolates this from the Pasuk "Ki Solid Banim u'V'nei Banim"
in the following way: "Ki Solid" - one; "Banim" - two; "u'V'nei - two;
"Vanim" - two, making a total of seven (Tosfos DH 'Mai K'ra').
(b) Hoshei'a ben Eilah was not as bad as his predecessors - inasmuch as he
was the first king to remove the border-guards that Yeravam had set-up.
(c) In spite of this, Shalmaneser exiled Yisrael in *his* time - precisely
because, for the first time Yisrael were able to go up to Yerushalayim on
Yom-Tov, but declined to do so. So Hashem exiled them to make up the number
of years that they did not avail themselves of the opportunity whilst they
(d) Rav Chisda ... quoting Mereimar explains the Pasuk "va'Yishkod Hashem
Elokeinu al ha'Ra'ah va'Yevi'ehah Aleinu Ki Tzadik Hashem Elokeinu" to
mean - that Hashem performed an extreme act of righteousness by bringing on
the Churban Beis-Hamikdash and sending Tzidkiyahu to Bavel early, whilst the
Torah-scholars who went into exile with Yechonyah were still alive (so that
they should be able to learn Torah from their mouths).
(a) Galus Yechonyah preceded Galus Tzidkiyahu - by eleven years.
Rav Acha bar Ya'akov extrapolates from Ula's interpretation of the word
"ve'Noshantem" (i.e. that the word must be understood according to its
numerical value) - that Hashem's "Meheirah" is eight hundred and fifty two
(b) The thousand men described in Melachim as "ha'Cheresh ve'ha'Masger"
were - outstanding Torah-scholars.
1. "ha'Cheresh" means - that when they opened their mouths to expound Torah,
everyone else became silent (as if they were dumb).
(d) Ula explains the Pasuk "ve'Noshantem" (differently than Mereimar) to
mean - that Hashem brought the Churban Beis-Hamikdash forward by two years,
in order to avoid bringing to fruition the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki
Avod Te'abeidun"; and that explains Hashem's righteousness in bringing the
2. "ha'Masger" means - that if they closed their mouths (because they were
unable to answer their questioner), then nobody else could answer him
either. (It is not clear why Rashi does not rather explain that once these
Chachamim had explained something, everyone became dumb, because there was
nothing more to say).
(a) A 'Get Me'useh' is - a Get that Beis-Din coerce the husband to write
(provided the culprit eventually declares his willingness to write it).
(b) A Get Me'useh under the auspices of Beis-Din is Kasher, says Rav Yehudah
Amar Shmuel. It will also be ...
1. ... Kasher if it is enforced by Nochri law-courts - if, in the process of
beating him, they instruct him to comply (not with their instructions, but)
with those of Beis-Din.
2. ... Pasul (even under the auspices of Beis-Din) is Pasul - if the
enforcement is illegal.
(a) When Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says 'she'Lo ke'Din ...
1. ... Pasul', he means - that the woman is not permitted to marry with this
(b) This ruling applies 1. to 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael she'Lo ke'Din', and
2. 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Nochrim ke'Din'.
2. ... u'Posel' - he means that she is nevertheless disqualified from
marrying a Kohen (in the event of her husband's death).
(c) A Get ha'Me'useh be'Nochrim she'Lo ke'Din - is Pasul without even a
Rei'ach ha'Get (and she will be permitted to marry a Kohen after her
(d) The problem we have with the ruling in the case of a Get ha'Me'useh
be'Nochrim ke'Din is - that mi'Mah Nafshach, if a Nochri has the power to
enforce a Get, it should be Kasher, and if he hasn't, it should not have the
Din of a 'Rei'ach ha'Get' either?
(a) Rav Mesharshaya explains that min ha'Torah , a Get ha'Me'useh ke'Din
be'Nochrim is Kasher, and the reason Chazal decreed that it should be Pasul
is - to discourage every disillusioned woman from running to a Nochri to
coerce her husband to divorce her.
(b) The problem we have with Rav Mesharshaya's explanation is - that if that
is so, then why did Chazal not also decree 'Posel' on a Get ha'Me'useh
she'Lo ke'Din (like they did by a Yisrael)?
(c) So we conclude that a Get ha'Me'useh be'Nochrim ke'Din is Pasul even min
ha'Torah, and we explain ...
1. ... the strange phenomenon of 'Pasul u'Posel' - by attributing it to a
decree on account of ke'Din be'Yisrael (so that people should not say that
there too, the Get is Pasul).
2. ... the distinction between ke'Din and she'Lo ke'Din (why they did not
decree 'Posel' in the latter case too [on account of she'Lo ke'Din of a
Yisrael]) - because 'Posel' in that case is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and
generally, Chazal do not decree a 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah'.
(a) When Abaye saw Rav Yosef forcing men to give a Get to their wives, he
objected on the grounds that we are considered Hedyotos - because we do not
have Semichah (since the chain of Semichah, which can only be given by a
Samuch in Eretz Yisrael, was broken already at that time with regard to
sages who lived in Bavel).
(b) He quoted Rebbi Tarfon in a Beraisa, who extrapolated this from the
Pasuk "ve'Eileh ha'Mishpatim Asher Tasim *Lifneihem*" - "Lifneihem" (before
the seventy elders who accompanied Moshe on to Har Sinai before the Torah
was given, and who were all Semuchim), 've'Lo Lifnei Hedyotos'.
(c) The Tana also Darshens from this Pasuk "Lifneihem", 've'Lo Lifnei
Ovdei-Kochavim' (even if one knows that they issue the same rulings as we do
with regard to the matter on hand.
(d) Rav Yosef replied - that we (the Beis-Din in Bavel) perform their
Shelichus (meaning that the Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael has given all
Batei-Din throughout the world the authority to rule in their stead,
regarding the coercion of Gitin..
(a) By 'Midi de'Havi a'Hoda'os ve'Halva'os' - Rav Yosef meant that the Din
of enforcing a Get is equivalent to that of enforcing admissions and loans,
which the Sugya in Sanhedrin specifically permits Hedyotos to enforce.
(b) The Sugya there confines Gezeilos va'Chavalos to Mumchin (Semuchin) -
because they occur less frequently, and the principle of 'Shelichusaihu
Avdinan' is restricted to issues that are common.
(c) Rav Yosef compares Gitin to Hoda'os ve'Halvo'os - because they too, are
(a) The Tana says that a woman about whom the rumor has spread that she is
betrothed - is forbidden to marry anyone else without a Get from the first
(b) Initially, we interpret his statement 'Megureshes, Harei Hu Megureshes'
to mean - that if a similar rumor were to spread that a married woman is
divorced, then assuming that she is married to a Kohen, she is forbidden to
remain with him. It cannot be understood literally - because how can we
permit a married woman to marry on the basis of a mere rumor?
(c) If there is an Amasla (good reason to doubt the rumor), then we discount
it. The example of an Amasla that the Tana give ...
1. ... by Get is - if the man divorced his wife with a condition, which, for
all we know, was not fulfilled.
(d) We reconcile Rav Ashi, who discounts any rumor that emanates concerning
a married couple, with our Mishnah, which forbids the wife of a Kohen on her
husband, as a result of a rumor - by establishing the latter ('Megureshes,
Harei Zu Megureshes') when the rumor that spread was that an unmarried woman
had become betrothed and divorced (which we accept in its entirety (not just
to forbid her to her husband who is a Kohen, as we initially thought, but to
actually go and get married), in similar fashion to the principle 'ha'Peh
she'Asar Hu ha'Peh
2. ... by Kidushin is - if he threw the Kidushin to her and we do not know
whether it landed closer to her or to him, for all we know, closer to him.
And the same will apply the other way round (if the Get fell a Safek closer
to her ... , and the Kidushin was conditional).