GITIN 26 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.


TOSFOS DH "Bein l'Rebbi Yehudah"

תוס' ד"ה "בין לרבי יהודה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Yosef would explain Rebbi Shimon in our Gemara.)

ורב יוסף דמסיק בפ' בכל מערבין (עירובין דף לז:) דלר"ש לית ליה ברירה גבי הריני מערב לשבתות של כל השנה כולה רציתי אלך רציתי לא אלך דמסיק רב יוסף איפוך ולר"ש רצה מבעוד יום עירובו עירוב כו'


Implied Question: Rav Yosef concluded in Eiruvin (37b) that according to Rebbi Shimon there is no Breirah. He said this regarding a person who says, "I am making an Eiruv for all of the Shabbosos of the year. If I want I will go, if I want I will not go." Rav Yosef concludes that this should be switched, and it should read that according to Rebbi Shimon, if he wants the Eiruv before Shabbos it is valid etc." (Note: Beforehand it read that according to Rebbi Shimon he can even decide whether or not he wants the Eiruv after Shabbos starts. Accordingly, he will not say that Rebbi Shimon always holds of Breirah. How will he understand Rebbi Shimon in our Gemara?)

רב יוסף יחלק בין בתולה בדעת עצמו לתולה בדעת אחרים.


Answer: Rav Yosef differentiates between someone who leaves it up to his own decision and someone who leaves the condition in the hands of others (out of his control).



תוס' ד"ה "התם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that the Gemara in Eiruvin contains a different conclusion to our Gemara.)

בפרק בכל מערבין (עירובין דף לז:) מפרש רבא טעמא משום דבעינן ראשית ששיריה ניכרין


Explanation: Rava explains in Eiruvin (37b) that Rebbi Shimon holds in this case the taking of Terumah is invalid because we require that the separation be deemed "Reishis" -- "the first," implying that there must be a clear separation between the Terumah and the rest of the produce/grain from which Terumah is being taken.

ונראה דהתם גריס רבה מדאיירי אביי בתריה


Observation: It seems that the author of this statement there should read Rabah (not Rava), as Abaye is quoted after him.

ועוד דהתם נמי מסיק טעמא כי הכא.


Additionally, there the Gemara concludes as does (Rava in) our Gemara (unlike this answer that it is because there is no clear separation).


TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Elazar"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי אלעזר"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding Rebbi Elazar's position in the Mishnah.)

פירש בקונטרס ובלבד שיניח מקומות הללו


Explanation: Rashi explains that as long as he leaves these places (stated in the Mishnah) blank, the documents are valid.

וקשה לר"י דבגמרא פסיק רב כר' אלעזר וקאמר אפי' בשטרות והאמר רב פפי כו' אלמא מחזי כשיקרא ה"נ מחזי כשיקרא ואי לא מכשיר ר"א אלא בטופס דשטרות מה מחזי כשיקרא איכא מאחר שהניח מקום המלוה והלוה והמעות


Question#1: The Ri has difficulty with Rashi's explanation. In our Gemara, Rav rules like Rebbi Elazar, even by documents. The Gemara asks, didn't Rav Papi say etc. (see 26b) implying that the problem is that it looks like falsehood (to prepare a verification before it is actually being validated)? Here, too, this should be considered looking like falsehood! (Note: Tosfos asks) If Rebbi Elazar only permitted forms of documents (without all of the critical information filled in), why does this look like falsehood? The name of the lender and borrower, and the amount of money are not even filled in!

ועוד משמע דלא פריך מדרב פפי אלא משום דפסיק כר' אלעזר אבל אי הוה סבר כרבנן הוה ניחא ליה ואי שייך בטופס מחזי כשיקרא אפי' סבר כרבנן תקשי לרב פפי


Question#2: Additionally, the implication is that the Gemara only asks a question from Rav Papi because Rava rules like Rebbi Elazar. If he would hold like the Rabbanan, there would be no question. However, if it would be possible to say that a form with the omissions mentioned above looks like falsehood, the question from Rav Papi should even be valid if Rava holds like the Rabbanan!

ונראה לר"י דר"א מכשיר בשטרות אפי' תורף והשתא מיחזי כשיקרא שכותב פלוני לוה מפלוני ועדיין לא לוה חוץ מגיטי נשים דפסיל אפילו טופס מדקתני משום שנאמר וכתב לה משמע דפסיל בגיטי נשים טפי מת"ק


Answer: The Ri understands that Rebbi Elazar says that regular documents are even kosher if the entire document is written beforehand. This indeed looks like falsehood, as it is written that ploni, a borrower, borrowed from ploni, and it has not yet happened. Rebbi Elazar only maintains that Gitin are even invalid when written from a form (with information missing). This is apparent from the fact that the Mishnah says he holds they are invalid because the Torah says, "And he will write for her," implying that he is more stringent than the Tanna Kamma regarding Gitin (who allows forms with information missing).

וא"ת ומנא ליה לגמרא דר"א מכשיר בשטרות אפי' תורף דפריך מדרב פפי דלמא בטופס דשטרות דווקא מכשיר


Question: How does the Gemara know that Rebbi Elazar holds that documents are permitted, even when they are written out in their entirety in advance, and therefore is able to ask a question from Rav Papi? Perhaps he only permits forms (with omissions)?

וי"ל דאם איתא דלא מכשיר אלא בטופס היה לו לקבוע דברי ר"א אחר ת"ק והיה לו לקצר ולשנות ר' אלעזר פוסל בגיטי נשים ור' יהודה פוסל בכולן וגם היה ראוי לשנות בסדר זה שכל אחד מחמיר משלפניו


Answer: If he would only permit forms, the Mishnah would have quoted Rebbi Elazar's opinion after that of the Tanna Kamma. It would have said in short that Rebbi Elazar invalidates such forms for Gitin, and then said that Rebbi Yehudah says all such forms are invalid. It also should have changed the order to make sure that everyone is listed as more strict than the person quoted before him.

אבל אי רבי אלעזר אתא לאכשורי בשטרות אפי' תורף ניחא דתנא דברי רבי יהודה קודם משום דקאי את"ק דאיירי בטופס ור"א בשטרות מכשיר טפי מתנא קמא ובגיטין פסיל טפי.


However, if Rebbi Elazar is coming to say that documents are kosher even if totally written out in advance, the order is understandable. Rebbi Yehudah is quoted first because he is addressing the same issue as the Tanna Kamma who is discussing forms. Rebbi Elazar is then quoted as being more lenient than the Tanna Kamma in regular documents, but more stringent in Gitin.



תוס' ד"ה "חוץ מגיטי נשים"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how we know that Rebbi Elazar does not hold this way regarding freedom documents of slaves.)

ואין לומר בשחרורי עבדים נמי פסיל


Implied Question: We cannot say that he also holds this would be invalid if it were done for freedom documents for slaves. (Note: Why not?)

דאם כן בפ"ק (לעיל ט.) גבי שלשה דברים ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים ליתני וכדברי ר"א בארבע כדקתני וכדברי ר"מ בארבע.


Answer: If so, in the first Perek (9a) regarding three things where Gitin of women and servants are similar, it should have said that according to Rebbi Elazar there are four, just as it said that according to Rebbi Meir there are four.


TOSFOS DH "v'Tzarich"

תוס' ד"ה "וצריך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how essential this statement is to a Get.)

בכל דוכתי משמע שכותבין לשון זה בגט


Observation: In every place, the implication is that this statement is written in a Get.

ובפ' בתרא (לקמן פה.) נמי תניא גופו של גט הרי את מותרת לכל אדם


Later (85a), the Beraisa also states that the main part of a Get is the statement, "You are permitted to all men."

והנהיג ר"ת לכתוב לשון זה בגט אבל בטופסי גיטין לא היה כתוב


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam indeed was accustomed to writing this terminology in a Get, but not in Gitin forms.

ומ"מ אין להוציא לעז על גיטין הראשונים שהרי מאריכין לכתוב כמה לשונות בגט דחשיב כמו הרי את מותרת לכל אדם.


Even so, one should not spread rumors about earlier Gitin (that did not have this statement), as they do write at length many other terms that are akin to "You are permitted to all men."


TOSFOS DH "Aval Seifa"

תוס' ד"ה "אבל סיפא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara earlier (23a) still has a question despite the logic presented in our Gemara.)

תימה דבסוף פרק שני לעיל (דף כג.) מוקי לה ר' זריקא א"ר יוחנן כר"מ ופריך עלה מההיא דמחובר דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ר"א היא ודחק לשנויי אמוראי נינהו אליבא דר' יוחנן


Question: This is difficult, as later (23a) Rebbi Zerika says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that the Mishnah (22b) is according to Rebbi Meir. The Gemara asks there from Rabah bar Chanah, who said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that the Mishnah (21b) that one cannot write a Get on something connected to the ground is according to Rebbi Elazar. The Gemara there gave a forced answer that it must be there is an argument among the Amoraim regarding the true position of Rebbi Yochanan.

ומאי קושיא הא משמע הכא דאע"ג דמוקמינן ההיא דמחובר כר"א מ"מ מוקמינן שפיר ההיא דהכל כשרים כר"מ


Why did the Gemara even have a question? The Gemara here implies that even if we say the Mishnah regarding not writing a Get that is connected to the ground is Rebbi Elazar, we can still say that the Mishnah (22b) is according to Rebbi Meir!

ואור"י דאע"פ שעושה צריכותא בזה מ"מ מיסתבר דאתיא כחד תנא


Answer: The Ri answers that even though our Gemara says that we need these (Shmuel's) statements (using reasoning that these two Mishnayos could have different authors), it is more logical to say that they are all according to one opinion.

אבל הך דפירקין ודאי ר' יוחנן מוקי לה כר"מ משום טעמא דמסיק מדסיפא ר"א רישא לאו ר"א


However, Rebbi Yochanan certainly holds that our Mishnah in this chapter (26a) is according to Rebbi Meir, for the reason that our Gemara concludes that if the second part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar, it must be that the first part is not according to Rebbi Elazar.

דמטעם זה קאמר ר"י בפרק ד' אחין (יבמות דף כז:) אחיות איני יודע מי שנאן


This reasoning (the author of the Seifa must not be the author of the Reisha) is why Rebbi Yochanan says in Yevamos (27b) that he does not know think a certain teaching regarding sisters is authentic.

ועוד דבתרתי קמייתא דמתניין בחדא פירקא איכא קפידא טפי לאוקמינהו כחד תנא.


Additionally, regarding the first two Mishnayos discussed earlier (21b and 22b) that are in one chapter, there is much more reason to insist that they are according to the opinion of a single Tana.


TOSFOS DH "Mipnei ha'Takanah"

תוס' ד"ה "מפני התקנה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why "Mipnei ha'Takanah" is explained by the Gemara before "u'Makom ha'Zeman.")

מקום הזמן דתנא ברישא דקבע בגמרא אחר כך


Implied Question: Our Gemara discusses the Mishnah's statement "the place of the date," later in the Gemara, even though it was before "Mipnei ha'Takanah" in the Mishnah. (Note: Why? The Gemara usually discusses the statements of Mishnayos in order of their appearance.)

היינו משום דאתא לפרושי מפני התקנה אליבא דמאן דמוקי לה כר"א דאין פירושו כמו למאן דמוקי לה כר"מ.


Answer: This is because it wants to explain the Mishnah's statement "Mipnei ha'Takanah" according to the opinion that establishes this statement according to Rebbi Elazar, and point out that is not explained the same way according to those who say it is according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.



TOSFOS DH "Ka Pasik"

תוס' ד"ה "קא פסיק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara makes this deduction, which it did not do previously.)

הא דלא דייק לעיל בפרק ב' (דף יז.) גבי נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה


Implied Question: The Gemara did not make a similar deduction (that it does not make a difference whether it is from Eirusin or Nisuin) earlier (17a), when the Mishnah discussed a case where the Get was written during the day and signed at night. (Note: Why not?)

משום דהכא נמי לא דייק אלא משום דכיון דכבר אשמועינן דמוקדם פסול ממילא ידעי' דצריך שיניח מקום הזמן אפילו לא הוי תני ליה דהכי נמי לא תנא צריך שיניח מקום הרי את מותרת לכל אדם.


Answer: This is because even our Gemara only makes this deduction for the following reason. Being that we already know that a Get dated early is invalid, we also know that the date must be left (to be filled in when the Get is actually going to be given). We would know this even if it would not be stated explicitly. The Mishnah also does not state that one must leave the statement, "You are permitted to all men" in the Get (as this is an integral part of the Get). (Note: Tosfos therefore is answering that the fact that the Mishnah states that the place of the date must be left over anyway must be teaching us an extra law. It therefore tries to deduce that it is teaching us that there is no difference between Eirusin and Nisuin. Earlier (17a), the Mishnah was needed, and therefore not open to such interpretation (see Tosfos Ha'Rosh).)


TOSFOS DH "l'ki'she'Echnasenah"

תוס' ד"ה "לכשאכנסנה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how "an old Get" is relevant to our Gemara.)

פירש בקונטרס משום דהוי גט ישן


Explanation: Rashi explains that this is because it is an "old Get."

וקשה דאינו גט משמע דאינו גט כלל ובגט ישן אם נתגרשה תינשא לכתחלה כדאמר לקמן בהזורק (דף עט:)


Question: This is difficult, as "it is not a Get" implies that it is not a Get at all. However, if someone is divorced with an "old Get" they can get married Lechatchilah, as stated later (79b).

ואומר ר"ת דבגט ישן ליכא אלא ייחוד בעלמא והכא דכנסה גרע טפי דודאי איכא ביאה


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that with an "old Get" there is only Yichud (seclusion). The case here is worse as he already married her, and they certainly already had relations.

וא"ת דביבמות פ"ה (דף נב.) גרסינן אהך מילתא לכשאכנסנה אגרשנה הרי זה גט מפני שבידו לגרשה


Question: The text of the Gemara in Yevamos (52a), regarding this case of "I will divorce her after I marry her," is that it is a Get because he has the ability to divorce her.

ולפי' הקונטרס ניחא דפי' שם דגט ישן מיהא הוי


According to Rashi this is understandable, as he explained that it is still considered an "old Get" (which is valid, and just should not be done Lechatchilah).

ור"ת מפרש דהתם איירי כשכתב בו זמן הנתינה דאפי' גט ישן לא הוי והכא כשכתב זמן קודם נישואין.


Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara there is referring to a case where the time of the giving of the Get was written. This means it is not even an "old Get." In our Gemara, the case is where the date was written before the marriage.


TOSFOS DH "Hacha Nami Gezeirah"

תוס' ד"ה "הכא נמי גזירה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why writing the date when the Get is given does not fix this particular Get.)

וא"ת מה קפידא הוא שיכתוב הסופר זמן והא ליכא למיחש שיבא לגרש בגט זה אחר נישואין שהרי עדים לא יחתמו לו דחזו שהוא מוקדם ואיכא למיחש בנישואין משום פירי


Question: Why should we be particular about this Get if the scribe writes the date? There is no suspicion that he will come to use this Get for a divorce after he is married, as witnesses will not sign for him, as they will see it is dated early, and they will suspect that it will be used to take away "fruits" unjustly after marriage (see 17a).

ואומר ר"ת דכיון שרואין העדים שכתב בגט ארוסתי יחתמו אחר הנשואין כי יסברו דעודה ארוסה


Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that because the witnesses see that the Get contains the term "Arusasi" -- "my betrothed," they will sign after she is married because they will think she is still betrothed.

וא"ת כשיניח מקום הזמן נמי ויכתבו זמן ביום גרושין איכא למיחש שיאמרו גיטה קודם לבנה כיון שרואין שכתוב בגט ארוסתי וסבורין שלא ניסת לו מעולם


Question: When the place for the date will be left blank and they will only write in the date on the day of the divorce, there is a suspicion that people will say her Get came before her child, as the Get contains the term "Arusasi" and they think she never married him!

וגם יפסידו הלקוחות פירות שמכר להם הבעל שלא כדין דיאמרו ארוסה היתה ואין לו פירות


Additionally, the buyers will lose the fruit that the husband sold them wrongfully, as they will say that she was betrothed and he therefore never had the right to the fruit (when in fact she was married and he did have the right to sell them).

וי"ל דלקוחות לא יקנו פירות אם לא שידעו שנשואה היתה ויביאו עדים על כך וגם על בנה ידקדקו ויראו שנתעברה לפני הזמן הכתוב בגט ויתברר הדבר שניסת


Answer#1: The buyers will not buy the fruits unless they know she is married, and there will be witnesses to this effect. Similarly, they will check regarding her son, and will see that she became pregnant before the date in the Get, and will clarify that she was married (when she became pregnant).

א"נ יש לדבר קול שנישאת אלא שאין זמן הנישואין ידוע כל כך וידעו דמה שכתוב בגט ארוסתי לפי שנכתב קודם נישואין אבל אם נכתב זמן של קודם נישואין יאמרו כל שעה דגיטה קודם לבנה


Answer#2: Alternatively, there is a rumor that she got married, but the date that it happened is not so well known. They will know that the word "Arusasi" is used in the Get because the Get was written before the marriage. However, if the date before the marriage is used, they will always say that her Get was before her child.

אבל קשה דלמה לן טעמא דגיטה קודם לבנה כיון שהיא נשואה וכתוב בו זמן של אירוסין יפסל למ"ד משום פירי כמו גט שאין בו זמן כלל שאין שום הוכחה מתוך זמן הכתוב בגט זה.


Question: However, this is difficult. Why do we need the reason that people will say that her Get preceded her son? Being that she is married and the time of her betrothal is written, it should be invalid according to the opinion (17a) which says (that a Get dated early is invalid) "due to fruits," just as a Get that does not have a date at all. There is no proof from the date that is on the Get (regarding when the husband had the rights to sell the "fruits" and when he did not)!


TOSFOS DH "Hacha Nami Mechzi"

תוס' ד"ה "הכא נמי מיחזי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Papi specifically gave the example of the verification of documents.)

וא"ת ורב פפי מ"ש דנקט אשרתא טפי מכל שטרות


Question: Why did Rav Papi use an example of a verification of a document more than any other type of document?

ואומר ר"י דרבותא היא באשרתא אע"פ שיודעין שחתימת העדים אמת ומזומנים העדים לפניהם לקיימה.


Answer: The Ri answers that Rav Papi is including a case of verification, as the judges know that the signatures are authentic and the witnesses are present to verify their signatures. (Note: Even so, it is deemed like falsehood for them to write out the document beforehand. This is a more novel statement than saying that other documents written in advance look like falsehood, as those transactions might never occur.)


TOSFOS DH "v'Lesa"

תוס' ד"ה "וליתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the fact that Rav Papi's statement is argued upon by various Gemaros, and how that impacts the correct text of these Gemaros.)

תימה דמסיק דליתא ורב נמי לא סבר לה ובפרק ב' דכתובות (דף כא:) פריך מינה לרב גבי ג' שישבו לקיים את השטר ומגיה מתוך כך דברי רב אימא עד שלא כתבו כו'


Question: This is difficult. Our Gemara concludes that this statement of Rav Papi is incorrect, and Rav also argues on it. Yet the Gemara in Kesuvos (21b) asks a question from this statement of Rav Papi on a statement of Rav, regarding three people who are sitting together to verify a document. Based on Rav Papi's statement, the Gemara there adjusts Rav's statement that it should read "Until they wrote etc." (Note: Why is Rav Papi's statement used as a question, and especially a question on Rav?)

וי"ל דודאי אליבא דרב ליתא והתם פריך ללישנא דקאמר משמיה דרב הונא ולא מסיים בה אמר רב


Answer: Rav certainly does not agree with Rav Papi. The Gemara there asks according to the version that quotes the statement in the name of Rav Huna without finishing "in the name of Rav."

ואית דלא גריס הכא לדרב פפי אלא וליתא ופי' וליתא לקושיא דבשטרות לא חיישינן למיחזי כשיקרא דאמר רב נחמן וכו' ודוקא באשרתא חיישי' למיחזי כשיקרא שהוא קיום השטר


Text: Some do not have the text here that "we do not hold of Rav Papi," but rather their text reads, "And it is not." This means that the question does not apply, as we do not suspect that regular documents written early look like a falsehood, as Rav Nachman says etc. Only regarding verifications of a document do we say that it appears like falsehood to write it early.

ובפ"ב דכתובות (דף כא:) דאיירי בקיום השטר פריך שפיר מינה


This fits with the Gemara in Kesuvos (21b) that is discussing verification of documents, and therefore the Gemara uses it to ask a question.

ובפ' הכותב (שם פה.) דמייתי לה אפסק דין דרב ביבי קאמר נמי וליתא יש לפרש כמו הכא וליכא כולי האי מיחזי כשיקרא שכותבין שנשבעה כמו שפסקו לה ב"ד.


The Gemara in Kesuvos (85a), which brings this statement regarding a ruling of Rav Bibi, also states "And it is not." This can be explained (according to this explanation) just as it is here. It would mean that there is no problem of looking like falsehood, as they write that she swore as Beis Din instructed (which is what Rav Bibi ruled to do in advance before she actually swore).