GITIN 65 - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivkie Snow in memory of Rivkie's father, the Manostrishtcher Rebbi, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Yoel ben Harav Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz Ztz"l, Rav of Kehilas Nachalas Yehoshua in Canarsie, NY. A personification of the Torah scholar of old, the Ukranian-born Rebbi lived most of his life in the United States where his warm ways changed many lives. His Yahrzeit is 24 Cheshvan.
 

12th CYCLE DEDICATION
GITIN 65 (14 Elul) - This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Yisrael (son of Chazkel and Miryam) Rosenbaum, who passed away on 14 Elul, by his son and daughter and their families.

1)

(a)Rav Ivya now queries Rav Chisda from a Beraisa, which discusses redeeming Ma'aser Sheini. What is the difference between redeeming one's own Ma'aser Sheini to take the money to Yerushalayim, or someone else's?

(b)What does the Tana therefore mean when he says 'Ma'arimin al Ma'aser Sheini? How could one avoid having to add an extra fifth?

(c)To which four people does the Tana permit him to to give the money to achieve this?

(d)In what way is the Amah ha'Ivriyah different than the other three?

1)

(a)Rav Ivya now queries Rav Chisda from a Beraisa, which discusses redeeming Ma'aser Sheini. The difference between redeeming one's own Ma'aser Sheini, to take the money to Yerushalayim or someone else's is - that in the former case, he is obligated to add a fifth, whereas in the latter, he is not.

(b)When the Tana therefore says 'Ma'arimin al Ma'aser Sheini - he means that one could avoid having to add an extra fifth by giving the money with which to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini to people who eat at his table who, on the one hand, do not need to add a fifth, but on the other, who are bound to return the Ma'aser Sheini to him after redeeming it.

(c)To achieve this, the Tana permits him to use - his grown-up son and daughter and his Jewish Eved and maid-servant.

(d)The Amah ha'Ivriyah is different than the other three - in that whereas they are all Gadolim, she must be a Ketanah (since the moment she becomes a Na'arah she goes free).

2)

(a)How does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Rav Chisda?

(b)On what grounds do we refute the initial answer that the Tana is speaking about Ma'aser nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan (whereas Rav Chisda is speaking about the Torah law)?

(c)How do therefore reconcile Rav Chisda with the Beraisa?

2)

(a)This Beraisa pose a Kashya on Rav Chisda - in that as it permits a Ketanah to acquire on behalf of others (which Rav Chisda maintains claims she cannot).

(b)We refute the initial explanation that the Tana is speaking about Ma'aser nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabanan (whereas Rav Chisda is speaking about the Torah law) - because, if that was so, how could he own an Eved Ivri (since, when Yovel does not apply, Eved Ivri does not apply either)?

(c)So we establish the Beraisa - in the times when Yovel was practiced, but by produce that grew in a pot that was not holed (whose Chiyuv Ma'aser was only mi'de'Rabbanan even in those times).

3)

(a)Rava lists three stages by a Katan. A Katan who can distinguish between a nut and a clod of earth can acquire for himself but not for others, as we learned earlier. How does this stage effect specifically a Ketanah?

(b)The second stage is that of Pe'utos. What age are Pe'utos? regarding Pe'utos? we talking about?

(c)In which regard can they acquire for themselves?

(d)How does this stage effect specifically a Ketanah?

3)

(a)Rava lists three stages by a Katan. A Katan who can distinguish between a nut and a clod of earth can acquire for himself but not for others, as we learned earlier. This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who (assuming she has no father) may receive her Kidushin, either through herself or through her mother or brother).

(b)The second stage is that of Pe'utos - (children between the ages of six and eight) ...

(c)... whose sale of Metaltelin is valid.

(d)This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who may accept her own Get, even if she was married off by her father (provided he is no longer alive at the time of the divorce).

4)

(a)The third stage is that of 'Higi'u le'Onas Nedarim', whose Neder is a Neder and whose Hekdesh is Hekdesh. To what age does this apply?

(b)How does this stage effect specifically a Ketanah?

(c)How old must an heir be before he can sell his father's property?

4)

(a)The third stage is that of 'Higi'u le'Onas Nedarim' - (a smart boy of twelve or a girl of eleven, who knows in whose name he/she is making the Neder or declaring Hekdesh) whose Neder is a Neder and whose Hekdesh is Hekdesh.

(b)This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who, should she develop Simanim, becomes eligible to perform Chalitzah (whereas prior to that age, we would assume the Simanim to be the sign of a wart, rather than of Gadlus).

(c)Before an heir can sell his father's property, he must be - twenty.

5)

(a)At which stage is a Ketanah divorced, if she says to a Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti'? Why is that?

(b)What if her father appointed the Shali'ach to receive her Get on her behalf?

(c)If a man says to his Shali'ach 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti be'Makom P'loni' and he hands it to her somewhere else, she is not divorced. Why would this not be the case, if he said 'Harei Hi be'Makom P'loni'?

(d)What distinction does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah draw between a woman who says to her Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni', and one who says 'Havei Li mi'Makom P'loni'?

5)

(a)If a Ketanah says to a Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti' - she will only become divorced when the Get reaches her hand (because a Katan cannot) appoint a Shali'ach.

(b)If her father appointed the Shali'ach on her behalf - the Shelichus will be valid and she is divorced as soon as the get reached the Shali'ach's hand.

(c)If a man says to his Shali'ach 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti be'Makom P'loni' and he hands it to her somewhere else, she is not divorced. This would not be the case, if he said 'Harei Hi be'Makom P'loni' - which is no more than an indication that this is where he will find her, but not a binding stipulation.

(d)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah draws a distinction between a woman who says to her Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' - (which is the equivalent of 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti' by a man) and one who says 'Havei Li mi'Makom P'loni' (which is the equivalent of 'Harei Hi be'Makom P'loni by a man).

6)

(a)What does Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah say in the case when a woman said to her Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' and he received it elsewhere?

(b)Why does he argue with the Tana Kama in this case, but not in the Reisha, in the equivalent case by the man?

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, when a woman said to her Shali'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' and he received it elsewhere - she is divorced.

(b)He argues with the Tana Kama in this case - because a woman can be divorced against her will, neither does she know where her husband intends to divorce her (so her geographical instructions are a mere indication, but not a stipulation); whereas in the Reisha, in the equivalent case of the man, who divorces of his own freewill, Rebbi Elazar will agree that when he says 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti be'Makom P'loni', he really means it.

7)

(a)Up to when is the wife of a Kohen permitted to eat Terumah if she said to the Shali'ach ...

1. ... 'Havei Li Giti'?

2. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti'?

3. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni', according to the Tana Kama? ...

4. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni', according to Rebbi Elazar?

(b)In the last case in our Mishnah, the Get is considered a Get, according to the Tana Kama, the moment it reaches the specified place. How does this clash with the Tana Kama in the previous Mishnah?

(c)How do we establish the latter Mishnah in order to reconcile it with the former one?

(d)'ve'Rebbi Elazar Oser Miyad'. Having already taught us that Rebbi Elazar holds 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo', is this not obvious? How do we therefore establish the case?

7)

(a)If the wife of a Kohen said to the Shali'ach ...

1. ... 'Havei Li Giti', she is permitted to eat Terumah - until the Get reaches her hands.

2. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti', she is forbidden to eat Terumah - immediately.

3. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' - she is permitted to eat Terumah until the Get reaches that place, according to the Tana Kama (following his opinion in the previous Mishnah).

4. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti', she is forbidden to eat Terumah - immediately - according to Rebbi Elazar (following his opinion in the previous Mishnah).

(b)In the last case in our Mishnah, the Get is considered a Get, according to the Tana Kama, the moment it reaches the specified place. This clashes with the previous Mishnah - which completely invalidated a Get that was handed over in a location other than the specified one.

(c)In order to reconcile the latter Mishnah with the former one, we establish it - when the woman said to the Shali'ach 'Receive my Get in Masa Mechsaya, though you might find her in Bavel (proper)'. What he therefore meant to say was that wherever he finds her husband, he should accept her Get from him, though it will not be valid until it arrives at the specified place.

(d)'ve'Rebbi Elazar Oser Miyad'. Having already taught us that Rebbi Elazar holds 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo', we establish this case - where the woman said 'Go to the east, because that is where you will find him', and the Shali'ach went to the west. The Mishnah comes to teach us that we nevertheless suspect that he may just by chance, meet him in the west.

65b----------------------------------------65b

8)

(a)One Beraisa states that if a man instructs his Shali'ach to place an Eiruv on his behalf consisting of dates, and he made the Eiruv with dried figs or vice-versa, his Eiruv is valid, whereas another Beraisa states that it is not. How does ...

1. ... Rabah reconcile the two Beraisos by making a Machlokes Tana'im?

2. ... Rav Yosef reconcile them even if they both follow the opinion of the Rabbanan? Why, in the first Beraisa, will the Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Elazar?

(b)What then, is the reason of the second Beraisa?

8)

(a)One Beraisa states that if a man instructs his Shali'ach to place an Eiruv on his behalf consisting of dates, and he made the Eruv with dried figs or vice-versa, his Eiruv is valid, whereas another Beraisa states that it is not. On the one hand ...

1. ... Rabah reconciles the two Beraisos - by establishing the first one like Rebbi Elazar (who holds in our Mishnah 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo'), and the second, like the Rabanan; whilst on the other ...

2. ... Rav Yosef reconciles them even if they both follow the opinion of the Rabbanan, who will agree with Rebbi Elazar in the first Beraisa - because, unlike in the case of Get, where the husband is fussy for his wife to be divorced in a particular place, because he wants her to be embarrassed, there is no reason to be fussy here (and the Rabbanan agree in principle that, whenever there is no reason to be fussy, we say 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lah').

(b)The second Beraisa however is - speaking when the Shali'ach is using the fruit belonging to a third party, who permitted him to use a specific fruit, and the S'vara 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo' does not apply where somebody else's objects are concerned.

9)

(a)Abaye queried Rav Yosef from two Beraisos that argue with regard to someone who asks his Shali'ach to place an Eiruv in a tower, and he placed it in a dovecote or vice-versa. What do they say?

(b)What is the problem?

(c)What did Rav Yosef reply?

9)

(a)Abaye queried Rav Yosef from two Beraisos that argue with regard to someone who asks his Shali'ach to place an Eiruv in a tower, and he placed it in a dovecote or vice-versa - one Beraisa rules that the Eiruv is valid, whilst the other rules that it is not.

(b)The problem is - that here, there is no reason to distinguish between whether the Eiruv is placed in a tower or in a dovecote, in which case there is no reason for the Mesha'le'ach to be fussy.

(c)Rav Yosef replied - that here it is not a question of the location of the Eiruv, but of using the fruit that he placed in the one or the fruit that he placed in the other.

10)

(a)What do the following cases listed in our Mishnah have in common: Someone who says to two Sheluchim ...

1. ... 'Kisvu Get u'Tenu le'Ishti'; 'Girshuhah u'Tenu Lah'; 'Kisvu Igeres u'Tenu Lah'?

2. ... 'Pitruhah'; 'Pirnesuhah'; 'Asu Lah ke'Nimus'; 'Asu Lah ka'Ra'uy'?

(b)The Beraisa repeats the latter list. What does the Tana there say about 'Shilchuhah'; 'Shavkuhah'; 'Tarchuhah'?

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah does not differentiate between 'Patruhah' and 'Pitruhah'. What does Rebbi Nasan say?

(d)What is the basis of this Machlokes, according to Rava?

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone says to two Sheluchim ...

1. ... 'Kisvu Get u'Tenu le'Ishti'; 'Girshuhah u'Tenu Lah'; 'Kisvu Igeres u'Tenu Lah' - they have the authority to write a Get and give it to his wife.

2. ... 'Pitruhah'; 'Pirnesuhah'; 'Asu Lah ke'Nimus'; 'Asu Lah ka'Rauy' - it is as if he said nothing (because these have connotations of freeing her from her troubles, feeding her and doing for her whatever she needs, respectively, but not of divorce.

(b)The Beraisa repeats the latter list. The Tana there adds that 'Shilchuhah'; 'Shavkuhah'; 'Tarchuhah' - have the equivalent Din to the first list in our Mishnah, and the men concerned are Sheluchei ha'Get.

(c)The Tana of our Mishnah does not differentiate between 'Patruhah' and 'Pitruhah' - According to Rebbi Nasan however, 'Patruhah' is a Lashon of divorce, whereas 'Pitruhah' (which is a Lashon of exemption) is not.

(d)According to Rava, the basis of this Machlokes is - the fact that the Chachamim were from Eretz Yisrael, where no form of 'Liftor' means 'to divorce', whereas Rebbi Nasan was from Bavel where certain forms of the word do.

11)

(a)We ask whether 'Hotzi'uhah', 'Izvuhah'; 'Hatiruhah'; 'Hanichuhah'; 'Hanichu Lah' and 'Asu Lah ke'Das' are considered a Lashon of Gerushin or not. Which one of these do we resolve from a Beraisa?

(b)What does the Tana there say about 'Asu Lah ke'Nimus', and 'Asu Lah ka'Ra'uy'?

11)

(a)We ask whether 'Hotzi'uhah', 'Izvuhah'; 'Hatiruhah'; 'Hanichuhah'; 'Hanichu Lah'; 'Asu Lah ke'Das' are considered a Lashon of Gerushin or not. Citing a Beraisa, we resolve - only the last case ('Asu Lah ke'Das'), which the Tana does not consider a Lashon of divorce ...

(b)... together with 'Asu Lah ke'Nimus', and 'Asu Lah ka'Ra'uy' (already mentioned in our Mishnah).

12)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about someone who is being taken out with a 'Kolar' and who announces 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti!'? What is a Kolar?

(b)They subsequently added someone who departs on an overseas journey (a hazardous undertaking in those days) or who joins a long distance caravan train. What does Rebbi Shimon Shezuri add to the list?

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone who is being taken out with a 'Kolar' (in chains to be executed) announces 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti!' - he is authorizing those present to write a Get for his wife and hand it to her (even though he did not say T'nu').

(b)They subsequently added someone who departs on an overseas journey (a hazardous undertaking in those days) or who joins a long distance caravan train. Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds to the list - someone who is on his death-bed.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF