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.

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.


TOSFOS DH "k'Ain d'Oraisa"

תוס' ד"ה "כעין דאורייתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the picking up of Shituf is indeed "like" the Torah way to acquire through picking up.)

והא דסגי בהגבהת טפח גבי חבית של שיתופי מבואות אפי' לפירוש הקונטרס דלא קניא הגבהה בעלמא אלא בג' טפחים


Implied Question: It is sufficient to raise the barrel of Shitufei Mevo'os a Tefach, even according to Rashi who says that to make a "Kinyan Hagba'hah" -- "acquisition by picking something up" one must pick up the item three Tefachim off the ground. (Note: Why don't we say that the picking up must be like the Torah way of acquiring through picking up?)

חשיב ליה כעין דאורייתא כיון דמגביה בר זכייה ויש בה הגבהה קצת.


Answer: It is considered enough like the Torah way of picking up because the one who is picking it up is able to acquire, and he has picked it up a little bit.


TOSFOS DH "u'Padu"

תוס' ד"ה "ופדו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how a minor can redeem for others.)

וא"ת ומאי מהני פדיית קטן והא אין מעשה קטן כלום ובת"כ (פרשת בחקותי) ממעט קטן שאינו פודה מעשר שני ותנן נמי (תרומות פ"א מ"א) חמשה לא יתרומו וקטן חד מנייהו


Question: How does it help that the minor redeemed the Ma'aser Sheini? The action of a minor is nothing! The Toras Kohanim (Bechukosai) excludes a minor as being unable to redeem Ma'aser Sheini. The Mishnah in Terumos (1:1) also states that five people cannot take Terumah, and one of them is a minor.

ולעיל בהניזקין (דף נב.) תניא אפוטרופין תורמין ומעשרין משמע אבל קטן לא ומאי שנא פדיית מעשר מתרומה


Earlier (52a), the Beraisa states that a caretaker can take off Terumos and Ma'aseros. This implies that a minor cannot do so. It would not seem that there is any difference between Ma'aser and Terumah (if he cannot take, it would seem he also cannot take Ma'aser).

וי"ל דאתיא כמ"ד במס' תרומות (פ"א מ"ג) דהגיעו לעונת נדרים כשם שנדרן נדר כך תרומתן תרומה וכשם שחל שם תרומה על פיו ומשתרי טבל באכילה ה"נ מתחלל מעשר שני על ידו


Answer: This is according to the opinion in Terumos (1:3) that if the minor came to the age of their vows being valid, just as their vows are valid so too their taking of Terumah is valid. Additionally, just as the Terumah is called Terumah when he takes it, and the (remaining grain that used to be) Tevel is now permitted to be eaten, so too he can redeem Ma'aser Sheini (and make the grain Chulin while having the Kedushah fall on money).

וא"ת היאך פודה לאחרים הא אפי' למ"ד זוכה לאחרים היינו כשדעת אחרת מקנה אותו לאחרים ופדיית מעשר נהי דחשבינן ליה כזוכה לאחרים מ"מ אין דעת אחרת מקנה אותו לאחרים ע"י זכיית קטן והוי כמו מציאה דלא זכי מדאורייתא


Question: How can the minor redeem for others? Even according to the opinion that he can acquire for others, this is only because another mind is actually effecting the acquisition to others. While redeeming Ma'aser is like redeeming for others, it does not work with the mechanics that another mind is actually effecting the acquisition to others through the actions of the minor. It is more like the minor finding a lost object, which according to Torah law he does not acquire. (Note: Here, he is acquiring the original Ma'aser grains for the owner from Hash-m, so to speak. This is like acquiring a lost object for someone, not effecting a Kinyan as instructed by an adult for that adult.)

וי"ל כיון דמופלא הסמוך לאיש דאורייתא ותרומתו תרומה וחילולו חילול אם לגבי ממון זוכה לאחרים מן התורה כשדעת אחרת מקנה אותו א"כ לענין חילול מעשר יש לו להועיל אפי' בלא דעת אחרת


Answer: A "Mufla Samuch l'Ish" (loosely translated as a child who is close to being an adult) is a Torah concept, and his taking of Terumah is valid, as well as is his creating a status of Ma'aser. If regarding money matters, he can acquire for others according to Torah law when another mind effects the transaction, he should certainly be able to redeem Ma'aser (regarding which the Torah states he can take Ma'aser) even without another mind effecting the transaction.

אבל לרב חסדא דאינו זוכה לאחרים אע"פ שלעצמו זוכה גם בחילול מעשר לא יזכה לאחרים בחילול אע"פ שלעצמו מחלל.


However, according to Rav Chisda that he cannot acquire for others even though he can acquire for himself even by redeeming his grain from Ma'aser, he will be unable to acquire through others by redeeming their Ma'aser.


TOSFOS DH "v'Amah"

תוס' ד"ה "ואמה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out another question the Gemara could have asked.)

ה"נ הוה מצי למיפרך אי בזמן הזה למה לו להערים והלא יכול לחלל שוה מנה על שוה פרוטה וחומשה


Observation: The Gemara here also could have asked if the case of a Jewish maidservant is applicable nowadays, why does he have to use trickery? He can have the holiness of Ma'aser (which is mid'Rabbanan) worth a Manah go on something worth one Perutah and a fifth!

ולמאן דאמר בהזהב (ב"מ דף נג:) דבעינן (Note: אף) בחומשה שוה פרוטה יחלל שוה מנה על חמש פרוטות.


According to the opinion in Bava Metzia (53b) that we require even the fifth to be worth a Perutah, he should redeem the Kedushah of the Manah on five Perutos (four and a Chomesh worth a Perutah).


TOSFOS DH "Tzror v'Zorko"

תוס' ד"ה "צרור וזורקו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how to understand the Gemara in Bava Basra in light of our Gemara.)

וא"ת והא דתנן במי שמת (ב"ב דף קנו:) זכין לקטן ואין זכין לגדול הא קטן גופיה אמר הכא דזכי


Question: The Mishnah in Bava Basra (156b) states that one can acquire for a minor but not for an adult. The Gemara here states that a minor can acquire on his own!

י"ל דהתם בפחות מכאן


Answer#1: The Gemara there is referring to an age that is less than the age referred to here.

אי נמי בקנין חליפין דאין מבחין.


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is referring there to a Kinyan Chalifin that the minor cannot understand. (Note: This is why they enacted that one can acquire for him in such a case, as opposed to him being able to do a basic Kinyan, which he must do himself.)


TOSFOS DH "u'Kinegdan"

תוס' ד"ה "וכנגדן"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding Rava's true position regarding the age when a minor can do Chalitzah.)

פירש בקונטרס שנה אחת לפני נערות כגון בת י"א שנה ויום אחד אם הביאה סימנין חולצת ולא אמרי' שומא נינהו


Opinion#1: Rashi explains that one year before Na'arus, for example at eleven years and one day, if she brings Simanim (physical signs of maturity) she does Chalitzah, and we do not say the signs are just marks.

וקשה דרבא גופיה פסיק בסוף פ' יוצא דופן (נדה דף מו.) הלכתא תוך הזמן כלפני הזמן


Question: This is difficult, as Rava himself rules in Nidah (46a) that the law is that (the appearance of Simanim) within the amount of time (before the expected age of maturity) is like before the time (and the Simanim are not counted as Simanim, but rather physical marks).

ומפרש רבינו שמואל כנגדן בקטנה היינו לא הגיע לעונת נדרים קאמר אלא בת י"ב שנה ויום אחד דהא הגעת נדרים של קטן כנגדן באשה גדולה היא


Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that when Rava says, "this age by a female minor," it does not mean the age where a girl would have her Neder taken seriously, but rather when she is twelve years old and one day. This is because the age that the vows of a male minor become valid is the same age that a girl can become an adult (twelve and a day).

ואין הלשון משמע כן


Question#1: The Gemara's (Rava's) terminology does not imply this explanation.

ואור"ת דאליבא דר' יוסי קאמר רבא הכא דאמרי' בפ' מצות חליצה (יבמות דף קה:) מדברי ר' יוסי נלמד דקטנה חולצת בפעוטות ורבא אמר עד שתגיע לעונת נדרים


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam states that Rava is saying his law according to Rebbi Yosi. This is as we say in Yevamos (105b) that from Rebbi Yosi's words we learn that a minor does Chalitzah at the age of Perutos. Rava holds that she can only do Chalitzah from the age where her Nedarim are valid. (Note: In other words, Rava here is making his statement according to Rebbi Yosi who indeed holds that a young girl can do Chalitzah, while Rava himself does not hold this way.)

ועוד מפרש דהא דמסיק התם והלכתא עד שתביא שתי שערות כל זה מדברי רבא כלומר לר' יוסי עד שתגיע לעונת נדרים אבל הלכה עד שתביא שתי שערות


Rabeinu Tam additionally explains that the Gemara's conclusion in Yevamos that the law is that she can only do Chalitzah if she has two (pubic) hairs (indicating she is really an adult) is based on Rava's opinion. In other words, while Rebbi Yosi holds that she can do so when she reaches the age when her vows could be valid, the law is that she can only do so when she has two such hairs.

והא דנקט רבא למילתיה כר' יוסי


Implied Question: Rava (in our Gemara) quoted Rebbi Yosi's position. (Note: If he does not hold that way himself, why did he say his statement according to Rebbi Yosi's position?)

כדי לעשות כלל שלו ולומר בכולן כנגדו בקטנה


Answer#1: He did this in order to make his own rule that in all of these things, the opposite is true by a minor.

ועוד יש לומר דהכא גרסי' רבה דהא מסיק ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים ובפרק מי שמת (ב"ב דף קנה.) אמר רבא אמר ר"נ מבן י"ח שנה


Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that here the correct text should be Rabah (not Rava). This is evident from his statement here that in order to sell his father's possessions he must be twenty, while in Bava Basra (155a) Rava says in the name of Rebbi Nachman that he can do so from the age of eighteen. (Note: It therefore must be that the author here is not really Rava, but Rabah.)

וליכא למימר דהתם משמיה דר"נ קאמר וליה לא ס"ל


One cannot say that in the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.) Rava is merely recording the opinion of Rav Nachman, and that he himself does not agree with Rav Nachman.

דהא מסיק התם דמכללא איתמר ומוכח מעובדא דאתא לקמיה דרבא דפחות מבן עשרים דזבין נכסי כו' דסבר רבא בן י"ח.


This is because the Gemara concludes there that this was not an actual statement of Rava, but rather was derived from an incident where someone less than twenty years old came before Rava etc. It is clear that Rava practically held eighteen was old enough (based on the position of Rav Nachman).


TOSFOS DH "Hiskabel"

תוס' ד"ה "התקבל"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no objection to the "law" that a woman who appoints a messenger to accept a Get can no longer eat Terumah.)

הוה לן למימר דאוקי אשה בחזקתה שלא נתגרשה


Implied Question: We could have stated (i.e. asked) that the woman should remain in her non-divorced status until she is divorced (and be able to eat Terumah). (Note: Why isn't this objection raised in the Mishnah or Gemara?)

אלא חומרא בעלמא היא שהחמירו חכמים משום דחזקה שליח עושה שליחותו


Answer: Rather, this was a mere stringency that the Chachamim instituted because there is an assumption that the messenger performs his mission.

ואע"ג דאין ביד השליח לעשות שמא לא יתן לו את הגט


This is despite the fact that the messenger does not have the ability to ensure that this happens, as the husband might not want to give him a Get.

כמו שאסור בכל הנשים שבעולם אע"ג דכל אחת היא לו בחזקת היתר וגם אין ביד השליח לעשות שליחותו.


This is just like the stringency we encountered earlier (64a) that a person who sends a messenger to be Mekadesh any woman for him, and the messenger later died without anyone knowing whether he was Mekadesh a woman or not, is forbidden to all of the women in the world. (Note: The reason is that he might end up marrying a relative of his unknown wife who the messenger was Mekadesh that he is forbidden to marry.) This is despite the fact that each woman is presumed to be permitted to him according to the letter of the law, and the messenger could not ensure the mission was performed (as every woman he approached may reject the offer).




תוס' ד"ה "גיטא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the mechanics of a Get being valid in this manner.)

וא"ת ואם אינה רוצה שיהא גט עד מתא מחסיא גם כשיגיע למתא מחסיא לא יהא גט דהא אינו מקבלו שם מיד הבעל והוי כמו טלי גט מעל גבי קרקע


Question: If she doesn't want the Get to be valid until the messenger reaches Masa Machsya, it should also not be valid when he reaches Masa Machsya, as the messenger is not receiving it there from the husband! This is like a woman who is instructed to pick up her Get from the ground (which is invalid).

ואי מיירי כשהבעל עושהו שליח להולכה עד מתא מחסיא ושם הוי שליח לקבלה והא לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל


If the case is where the husband makes the messenger a Sheliach l'Holachah (messenger to take the Get) until Masa Machsya, and he will accept the Get as the messenger of the wife in Masa Machsya, it is still not valid. This is because the Shelichus does not revert back to the husband (when he gets to Masa Machsya, see 24a where the Gemara indeed said this is a problem).

וי"ל דמיירי דא"ל הוי שליח להולכה עד דמטית התם וכי מטית התם שוי שליח להולכה וקבליה כדאמרי' בפ' שני (לעיל דף כד.)


Answer#1: The case is where the husband appointed the messenger as his Sheliach l'Holachah until he gets to Masa Machsya, and when he gets to Masa Machsya he should be a Sheliach for Holachah and Kabalah. This is the Gemara's answer earlier (24a).

א"נ מבבל ועד מתא מחסיא הוי הכל שליח לקבלה והוי כאומר לאשה ה"ז גיטך ולא תתגרשי בו עד לאחר ל' יום, רבינו יצחק ב"ר מאיר.


Answer#2: Alternatively, from Bavel until Masa Machsya he is indeed a Sheliach l'Kabalah, and it is like the husband tells his wife, "Here is your Get, but you should not be divorced with it until after thirty days." (Note: As long as the giving is halachically between husband and wife (or a Sheliach l'Kabalah), it is still possible for the Get to take effect later.)



תוס' ד"ה "הא והא"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding how to understand this answer in our Gemara.)

פי' בקונטרס דלרבנן נמי לא הוי קפידא אלא גבי אשה משום דהתם ניחא ליה דתיתזיל ולא בדוכתא אחרינא אבל גבי עירוב בשלו לא איכפת ליה


Explanation: Rashi explains that according to the Rabbanan, as well, the husband is only stringent that the woman should go and accept the Get in a certain place, as opposed to a different place. However, regarding the Eiruv, he doesn't care what gets used (from amongst his fruits).

והא דקתני אינו עירוב בשל חבירו כגון דיהיב ליה חבריה רשותא לערב בתמרים דידיה דהכא ודאי קפידא הויא דבגרוגרות דחבריה לית ליה רשותא


The case where the Eiruv is invalid is where he takes from his friend. For example, if his friend gave him permission to make an Eiruv with his dates, he is certainly stringent that only his friend's dates be used. This is because he has no permission to use his friend's figs.

וקשה דלא משמע כלל דפליג רב יוסף אסוגיא דלעיל דסבר דלרבנן הוי קפידא בעירוב שלו כמו באשה ולא בא רב יוסף לחדש אלא בשל חבירו


Question#1: This is difficult, as there is no implication whatsoever that Rav Yosef is arguing on our Gemara earlier. The Gemara there held that the Rabbanan are stringent regarding his own Eiruv, just like the husband is stringent regarding where his wife receives the Get. Rav Yosef seems to only come to say that he is stringent that the messenger should not take the wrong fruits of his friend.

ועוד דא"כ הל"ל הא והא ככולי עלמא דרבי אלעזר נמי מודה בשל חבירו דהויא קפידא כמו בבעל דמודה ר"א דהוי קפידא


Question#2: Additionally, if so the Gemara should have said that both cases are according to everyone. Rebbi Eliezer also admits that he is stringent that the messenger shouldn't take other fruits from his friend, just like Rebbi Eliezer admits that there is a stringency regarding the husband.

ולכך נראה לפרש דשלו הוי קפידא אבל בשל חבירו דהוי בשל שליח בכל מה שירצה השליח יערב לו כיון דמערב לו בפירותיו


Answer: Therefore, the explanation appears to be that he is stringent with his own things. However, with his friend's fruit, meaning the messenger owns the fruit (and he is his messenger), he doesn't care what the messenger makes the Eiruv from, as long as he is doing so with his fruit.

וא"ת השתא משמע דלרבנן בשלו הוי קפידא גם לרב יוסף כדפירשנו וכן בפ' (הנהנה) (Note: השליח) (מעילה דף כא.) הבא לי מן החלון והביא לו מן הדלוסקמא שליח מעל משום דלא עשה שליח שליחותו דקפידא הוי


Question: The Gemara now implies that according to the Rabbanan he is stringent that the messenger should not take the wrong fruits when it is his fruits even according to Rav Yosef, as we have explained. Similarly, in Meilah (21a) when the person instructs a messenger to bring something from the window and he brings it instead from the bag (and the item in the bag was actually Hekdesh), the messenger transgressed Meilah, because he did not do as he was asked. This is because we assume a person wants his bidding to be carried out exactly as ordered.

ותימה דבסוף המפקיד (ב"מ דף מב:) גבי כשותא משמע דלא הוי קפידא משום דלא אמר לו מהאי רמי ומהאי לא רמי


This is difficult, as the Gemara implies in Bava Metzia (42b) regarding hops of Hekdesh that there is no stringency (from the owner) to take certain hops, as he did not say that he should take from these and not from these. (Note: Why would the Gemara in Bava Metzia say this if in the Gemaros above it is clear that the owner is stringent that his worker only take fruits from the fruits pointed out to him?)

ואין נראה לומר דאתיא לרבי אלעזר דהכא דהילכתא כוותיה דקאי רשב"ג בשיטתיה בפ' גט פשוט (ב"ב דף קסה.) מדלא מייתי לה התם בהמפקיד


It does not appear that this is according to Rebbi Elazar here, who the law indeed follows in this case, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like his opinion in Bava Basra (165a). This is because he is not quoted in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (ibid.). (Note: See Mesores Hashas who has a significantly different text in this part of Tosfos.)

ונראה דהכא ודאי שהזכיר תמרים וגרוגרות והזכיר חלון ודלוסקמא לא היה מזכיר אם לא שהיה מקפיד אבל בהמפקיד דאחוי לסרסיה היכן כשות שלו מונח והוו התם תרי כריא דכשותא וגם אין רגילין להקפיד כיון שהכל מין אחד הא לא הוי ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה שיהא לאחרים כשות בביתו של זה.


Answers: It seems here that because dates and figs are specifically mentioned, and in Meilah (21a) the window and bag are mentioned, it is only because the person is indeed stringent regarding what should be used. However, in Bava Metzia (ibid.) he showed his worker (who makes the beer) where the hops are stored. There were two piles of hops, and people do not usually care about which one is used as it is all one type of thing. The messenger had no reason to think that other people stored hops in this house. (Note: Therefore, when he used the other hops he was not doing anything other than fulfilling the master's orders.)


TOSFOS DH "Mai Shelo"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי שלו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not give a seemingly more simple answer.)

לא בעי לשנויי הא דתניא עירובו עירוב בסמוכין זה לזה והא דתניא אין עירובו עירוב במרוחקין זה מזה


Implied Question: The Gemara didn't want to answer that the Beraisa that says the Eiruv is valid is when they are close to each other, and the one that says it is invalid is when they are far from each other. (Note: Why didn't it give this seemingly logical answer?)

דא"כ אפי' שובך ושובך נמי


Answer#1: Otherwise, the Beraisa would have given a case of two coops (not two different things, one being a coop and one being a tower).

ועוד דניחא ליה לשנויי הכל בחד גוונא.


Answer#2: Additionally, it is better to say that both Beraisos are talking about the same case.