In your insights to gittin on daf 9b you answered the question on Rashi D"H "chutz", in which he writes that the p'sul of nochrim on a get shichrur is because of the the gezeira shava to get isha over the more logical choice that they are not involved b'toras shichrur avodim, by pointing out that Rashi's choice is a function of the hava amina of the gemara that only p'sulim derabbonon should be listed in the braisa because they are not self evident. (At least this is how I understood it...if I understood incorrectly, please tell me).
After this you pointed out that from here Rashi was bothered with the question of, absent the gezeira shava of "la, la", how is it that eidim can, me'de'oraisa, be kosher on a get shichrur.
What I don't understand is, isn't there still the issue that they are not b'toras shichrur avodim? Granted the Poras Yosef claims that this would not be a problem because shichrur lacks a psul of the form of "v'chosav, v'nosan", however we didn't seem to adopt this approach instead, seemingly, demonstrating why rashi chose one over the other. (unless of course I misunderstood again, and you somehow proved also that lack of "toras shichrur avodim is not a psul, in which case I would appreciate it if you you can explain that to me)
Thank you very much for your time
Avi Block, Highland Park, NJ
Avi, you got it right, but might have missed the subtlety of one point.
You write,
>Rashi's choice is a function of the hava amina of the gemara that only
>p'sulim derabbonon should be listed in the braisa because they are not self
>evident
What I meant there was that we may infer from the Hava Amina of the Gemara that the only reason a Nochri cannot write a Get Shichrur is because of the Gezeirah Shavah Lah Lahl; not because of another Halachah that the two happen to share in common (such as Lav Bnei Kerisus). This is inferred from the Gemara's suggestion that the Beraisa is not discussing Halachos that are mid'Oraisa. The logic of the Gemara's suggestion can only be that there is no need to list the Halachos that Get Ishah and Shichrur have in common mid'Oraisa, since we already know that they share all of their Halachos mid'Oraisa because of the Gezeirah Shavah of "Lah Lah." Thus, if the reason Nochrim cannot sign a Get Shichrur is because they are "Lav Bnei Kerisus" (and not because of "Lah Lah"), the Beraisa would have had to list that common denominator between Get Ishah and Kerisus, since it is not a consequence of "Lah Lah."
This is the way Rashi concludes that Nochrim are Bnei Kerisus with regard to Get Shichrur (because they can own their own slaves, as Dibros Moshe -- mentioned in question (c) -- suggests; this answers your question). What is left to explain is how a Nochri can sign a Get Shichrur mid'Oraisa, if he cannot even sign a Shetar Matanah without relying on "Dina d'Malchusa." Why should Dina d'Malchusa help for signing a Get Shichrur?
My answer to that was that the rights of Dina d'Malchusa apply to any law that affects Nochrim. Therefore, if they are Bnei Kerisus for a Get Shichrur, then Dina d'Malchusa gives them the rights to enact that a Nochri can sign a Get Shichrur of a Jew. This is Rashi's intention here.
Please let me know if this is not clear enough.
Chag Same'ach,
Mordecai Kornfeld