1) TOSFOS DH "a'Makom"

תוס' ד"ה "אמקום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains when this applies.)

לכל הפחות באשתו וכן באויר המטה.

(a) Explanation: A person is not stringent (regarding this area), at least when it comes to his wife. The same goes for the airspace above the bed.

2) TOSFOS DH "k'Gon"

תוס' ד"ה "כגון"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why there is no proof from all of these Amoraim that the vessels of the buyer do not acquire in the domain of the seller.)

וא"ת ותיפשוט איפכא מדמתרצי כל הני אמוראי ובהמוכר את הספינה (ב"ב דף פה:) רוצה לפשוט מדברי אמוראי ואינו יכול

(a) Question: Why don't we just derive that the opposite is true (that the vessels of the buyer do not acquire in the domain of the seller), as all of the Amoraim answer here why this is not the case? In Bava Basra, the Gemara indeed wants to extrapolate whether or not the vessels acquire or not from the words of the Amoraim here, but it cannot. (Note: Why don't we say that being that all of the Amoraim establish the case is not where the vessels of the buyer are in the possession of the seller, if that were the case the woman would not acquire her Get?)

ויש לומר דהכא לכולהו מספקא להו אלא דדחו למתני' דלא נפשוט מינה

(b) Answer#1: Here the Amoraim are indeed unsure what the law is. They are merely pushing aside the Mishnah as not a proof that the vessels do acquire (but they are not certain if they do or do not).

א"נ אפי' בעלמא כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה הכא לענין גט דלרחוקה קאתי לא קנה.

(c) Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that even if we would say that the vessels of the buyer generally do acquire in the domain of the seller, regarding a Get this might not be the case, as he intends to distance her from him. (Note: She therefore might not a acquire in his domain.)

3) TOSFOS DH "Makom"

תוס' ד"ה "מקום"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yochanan had to say this.)

וא"ת פשיטא דהא חיקה הוי ממש כידה

(a) Question: This is obvious, as her bosom is exactly like her hand (it is her body)!

ואומר ר"י דר' יוחנן קשורה ותלויה בעי ומיירי כשבגדיה נגררין בארץ והשתא אי לאו טעמא דמקום חיקה קנוי לה לא הוי מהני מידי כיון דאינה קשורה ותלויה.

(b) Answer: Rebbi Yochanan requires that it be tied and hanging. However, this case is where her clothes are dragging on the ground. Without the reasoning that her bosom acquires for her, this would not help at all, as it is not tied and hanging.

4) TOSFOS DH "Aino Get"

תוס' ד"ה "אינו גט"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the requirement of telling a woman that she is receiving her Get, and is now divorced and permitted to any man.)

ר"י היה מצריך לנותן גט לאשתו לומר הי גיטיך וגם הרי את מותרת לכל אדם כדמשמע בהמגרש (לקמן דף פה:) שהיו רגילים לומר ג"כ ודן

(a) Opinion: The Ri required someone giving a Get to his wife to say, "This is your Get" and "You are permitted to any man." This is as implied later (85b) that they used to also say "And this etc." (Note: See top line of 85b.)

ומיהו קשה דבהניזקין (לעיל דף נה.) משמע דאפילו לא אמר כשר גבי מעדותו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא נשמע אמר לעדים ראו גט זה וכו'

(b) Question: However, this is difficult, as earlier (55a) the Gemara implies that even if he did not say this the Get is valid. This is implied there by Rava's statement that from the testimony of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudguda we see that if a person told witnesses, "See this Get that I am going to give my wife?" (Note: If he then went and said to his wife, "Take this obligation document," the Get is valid. This shows that he does not need to say the phrases the Ri requires.)

וי"ל דהתם נמי אחר כך יגידו לה העדים שהיא מגורשת אף על פי דהאשה מתגרשת בעל כרחה מכל מקום צריך לומר לה הי גיטיך והרי את מותרת לכל אדם שתדע שהיא מגורשת ולא תהא חוזרת דבעינן שיהא משלחה ואינה חוזרת.

(c) Answer: Afterwards the witnesses will tell her she is divorced. Although a woman is divorced against her will, a man must tell her that this is your Get and that you are now permitted to any man, in order that she should know she is divorced, and that she should not come back. A requirement of a valid Get is that she should be sent away and know not to come back.

78b----------------------------------------78b

5) TOSFOS DH "Rebbi Yochanan"

תוס' ד"ה "רבי יוחנן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles our Gemara with a similar Gemara in Bava Metzia.)

וקשה דבפ"ק דב"מ (דף י:) קא"ר יוחנן דקטנה יש לה חצר ויש לה ד' אמות וקאמר התם דיליף מציאה מגט משמע דבגט לרבי יוחנן אינה מגורשת אלא תוך ד' אמות והכא קאמר אפילו מאה אמה

(a) Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (10b), Rebbi Yochanan says that a girl who is a minor has a (mode of acquisition) courtyard, and she has four cubits. The Gemara there states that we derive the law regarding a lost object from Get. This implies that regarding a Get, Rebbi Yochanan would say that she is only divorced within her four cubits. Here, however, he says that even within one hundred cubits (she is divorced).

וי"ל דבד' אמות שלה אפילו יכול לשמור כמוה מגורשת וחוץ לארבע אמות צריך שתהא היא יכולה לשומרו ולא הוא

(b) Answer: In her four cubits, even if he can watch the Get as much as she can, she is divorced. If the Get is outside of her four cubis, she is only divorced if only she can guard it and he cannot.

ועוד קשה דרב אשי אית ליה התם דברה"ר לא תקנו ארבע אמות והכא תנן היתה עומדת ברה"ר קרוב לה מגורשת

(c) Question: Another difficulty is that Rav Ashi holds in Bava Metzia (ibid.) that there was no decree that one has four cubits in a public domain (they can acquire an object within their four cubits). However, here the Mishnah states that if she was standing in the public domain and the Get was close to her, she is divorced (clearly implying that one can acquire within their four cubits in the public domain).

וי"ל דהתם באין יכול לשומרו והכא ביכולה לשומרו

(d) Answer#1: The case there is when she cannot guard it (but it is within her four cubits). Here she can guard it, and therefore acquires it despite the fact that is in the public domain.

א"נ י"ל דהכא לאו דוקא נקט רה"ר אלא בסמטא או בצדי רה"ר.

(e) Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that here the Gemara does not literally mean the public domain (when it says "public domain"), but rather a side street or the sides of the public domain.

6) TOSFOS DH "v'Ha Ee Efshar"

תוס' ד"ה "והא אי אפשר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos further explains the case, and the reasoning behind the ruling.)

וא"ת ולישני כגון דלא ידעינן הי מינייהו קדים ולכך הוי ספיקא

(a) Question: Why don't we answer that we simply do not know who was first, and that therefore it is a doubt?

וי"ל דלישנא דמחצה על מחצה לא משמע הכי ולכך מוקי לה בשתי כיתי עדים כו'

(b) Answer: The term, "half and half" does not imply this. (Note: Rather, it implies each seems to have gotten half (and not that we simply do not know who was first).) This is why the case is established to be with two sets of witnesses etc.

וא"ת ונימא אוקי תרי בהדי תרי ואוקי איתתא בחזקת אשת איש ולא תהא מגורשת כלל

(c) Question: Why don't we say that the two contradictory sets of witnesses cancel each other out, and the woman retains her status of being a married woman and is not divorced at all?

וי"ל כיון דספיקא דרבנן היא כדאמרינן בפ' ארבעה אחין (יבמות דף לא.) נתנו לה דין מגורשת ואינה מגורשת.

(d) Answer: Being that it is a Rabbinical doubt, as stated in Yevamos 31a, they gave her a law of being "divorced and not divorced."

7) TOSFOS DH "Shneihem"

תוס' ד"ה "שניהם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case.)

פי' אין יכולין לשומרו כל אחד לבדו אלא שניהם יחד אבל אם אין יכולין לשומרו כלל פשיטא דאינה מגורשת כלל כל עיקר.

(a) Explanation: This means that each cannot watch it by himself, and it can only be watched by both together. However, if they cannot watch it at all, it is obvious that she is not divorced at all.

8) TOSFOS DH "v'At Lo"

תוס' ד"ה "ואת לא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos and the Aruch argue whether the Get must actually reach her hand once it is in her yard.)

והיינו דוקא ברה"ר אבל בחצרה אין צריך שיגיע לידה כדאמר לעיל תיזיל איהי ותחוד ותפתח

(a) Opinion#1: This is only in the public domain. However, if it is in her yard, it does not have to actually come to her hand. This is as stated earlier that she should go and close and open the door (to establish Chazakah, see 77b).

ומיהו בערוך בערך גט כתב קבלנו מרבותינו אפי' זרקו לה בתוך חצרה לא משתריא לעלמא עד דמטא גיטא לידה

(b) Opinion#2: However, in the Aruch under the category of "Get," the Aruch writes that we have a tradition from our Rabbis that even if the Get was thrown to her in her yard, she is not permitted until the Get physically reaches her hand.

ומייתי מהא דאמר בירושלמי המחמיר שבכולן עד שיתננו לידה

(c) Proof: He quotes the Yerushalmi that is stringent in all of these types of cases until the Get reaches her hand.

ואינה ראיה דאיכא למימר דמיירי ברה"ר דבהדיא מסיק לה אקרוב לו וקרוב לה ומסתמא לא אתא לאפוקי חצרה.

(d) Question: This is not proof, as it is possible that the Yerushalmi is discussing cases of the public domain, as it explicitly concludes this (that she needs to actually take the Get) regarding a case where it is close to him and close to her. It does not seem like it is excluding a case of her own yard. (Note: Otherwise, it would have concluded this way regarding her yard, and we would have certainly know that the Get is not finalized in this manner in the public domain.)

9) TOSFOS DH "l'Gitin"

תוס' ד"ה "לגיטין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Get is different.)

פי' בקונטר' משום דבגט נתינה בעל כרחה הויא נתינה

(a) Explanation: This is because regarding a Get, giving against her will is still considered giving.

והקשה ר"י לר' יהודה דלדבר אחר נמי אמרו לעיל במי שאחזו (דף עה.) דנתינה בעל כרחו הויא נתינה

(b) Question: The Ri asks that Rebbi Yehuda said earlier that for another thing we also say that giving against one's will is giving.

והשיב דבדבר אחר אשכחן דוכתא דלא הויא נתינה כגון הלוהו בישוב לא יחזיר לו במדבר אבל בגט בכל מקום הויא נתינה.

(c) Answer: He answered that for other things we find many places where such giving is invalid, for example regarding someone who lent money to his friend in a city. The borrower is not supposed to pay back the lender in the desert (and the lender can refuse such a payment). However, regarding Get, in any place the giving of the Get is valid against her will.

10) TOSFOS DH "Ee Hachi"

תוס' ד"ה "אי הכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the money is not considered to have been returned if it remains close to the borrower.)

וא"ת אדרבה תקשי ליה אמאי קרוב ללוה חייב לוה כיון דאמר זרוק חובי ותפטר קרוב ללוה נמי ליפטר

(a) Question: On the contrary, why doesn't the Gemara ask why if the borrower threw it close to himself he is still obligated to pay? Being that the lender said, "Throw the money you owe me and be exempt," if he threw it close to the borrower he should also be exempt!

וי"ל דמיירי מסתמא דמפרש לו שיזרוק לו למקום שיוכל לשומרו הוא.

(b) Answer: The case is presumed to be where the lender specifies that the borrower should throw it to a place where he can guard it.

11) TOSFOS DH "Mechtzah"

תוס' ד"ה "מחצה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we do not say the rule, "Hamotzi mei'Chaveiro Alav ha'Rayah.")

הכא לא שייך לומר המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה דאין כאן ספק.

(a) Explanation: In this case we cannot say that whoever is making a claim from his friend must bring proof, as there is no doubt here.

12) TOSFOS DH "Im Yachol"

תוס' ד"ה "אם יכול"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the Gemara's case, and discusses exactly how the Get must be given.)

נראה דלא מיירי כשהיתה ידה פתוחה ולאחר שנתן הגט בידה קפצה ידה

(a) Explanation#1: The case is not when her hand is open, and afterwards he put the Get in her hand and she closed it.

דא"כ אפילו אין יכול להביאו אצלו אינה מגורשת כיון דבשעת נתינה היה יכול להביאו אצלו ומה שקופצת ידה אח"כ זה אינו עושה הבעל אלא היא והוה ליה כמו טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע ואינו גט

1. If it would be the case, even if he couldn't bring it towards him (after she closed her hand) she is not divorced, being that at the time of the giving of the Get he could bring it towards him.

אלא נראה לר"י דמיירי שכבר היתה ידה קפוצה והוא תחב הגט לתוך ידה ואם תחב כל כך בחוזק עד שאינו יכול להביאו אצלו הויא מגורשת

2. Rather, the Ri understands that the case is where her hand was already closed, and he jammed the Get into her hand. If he jammed it in so hard that he can no longer bring it towards himself, she is divorced.

ור"ת מפרש דבידה פתוחה איירי שפיר ואם אינו יכול להביאו אצלו היינו כשהגט כבד ואם ימשוך אצלו תינתק המשיחה

(b) Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam explains that the case is understandable if her hand was open. If he cannot bring it towards him refers to a case where the Get is heavy, and if he will pull it towards him the string (it is attached to) will snap.

וצריך ליזהר שתהא יד האשה פתוחה עד שיניח כל הגט בידה דאם תקפוץ ידה בעוד שהבעל אוחז בראש הגט בידו לא הוי גט דהוי כמו גט בידה ומשיחה בידו

(c) Opinion#1: One must be careful that the hand of the woman should be open until he puts the entire Get in her hand. If she closes her hand when the husband is still holding the top of the Get in his hand, the Get is invalid, as it is like the case where the Get is in her hand and the string is in his hand.

ונראה דכשר דלא גרע מערק לה חרציה ושלפתו דהוי גט אע"ג דביד הבעל להדק מתניו שלא תטול

(d) Opinion#2: It appears that the Get is still valid. This is because it is not worse than a case where he moved his hips closer to her, and she pulled out the Get (the Get was stuck between his belt and his pants). The Get is valid, even though the husband has the ability to tighten his belt in order that she not take it.

והמחמיר תבא עליו ברכה.

(e) Opinion#3: One who is stringent should receive a blessing.

13) Tosfos DH "v'Ha b'Arba"

תוס' ד"ה "והא בארבע"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives alternate answers to the Gemara's question.)

הוה מצי לשנויי דמיירי שהאשה עומדת בחצר דידיה דלית לה ארבע אמות או ברה"ר לרב אשי דפ"ק דב"מ (דף י:).

(a) Observation: The Gemara could have answered that the case is where the woman is standing on the side of his yard, and that she therefore does not have a four by four cubit area where she can acquire. Alternatively, she is standing next to the public domain according to Rav Ashi's opinion in Bava Metzia (10b).

14) TOSFOS DH "v'Tisgaresh"

תוס' ד"ה "ותתגרש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara thinks the Get should be valid.)

וא"ת והא לא מינטר כדאמרינן בסמוך באויר גג

(a) Question: The area is not guarded, as stated nearby that the air of a roof is not guarded (and therefore it cannot acquire the Get for her). (Note: Accordingly, why would we think this should make her acquire the Get and become divorced?)

וי"ל דאויר ארבע אמות חשיב ליה מינטר ועומדת על ראש הגג מיירי אפילו חוץ לארבע אמות ולהכי פריך והא לא מינטר

(b) Answer#1: The air of the four cubits is considered guarded. The case where she is standing at the head of the roof is even outside of her four cubits. This is why the Gemara asks that the air is not guarded.

ור"י אומר דרבי אלעזר גופיה מספקא ליה אם מה שתיקנו חכמים ארבע אמות תיקנו גם באויר ואע"ג דלא מינטר עשאוהו כמינטר כמו שעשו ארבע אמות רשותו ואע"פ שאינה רשותו.

(c) Answer#2: The Ri says that Rebbi Elazar himself is in doubt whether the Chachamim's institution of acquiring within one's four cubits is also within the air of those four cubits if they are unguarded. It is possible that even though it is not guarded Chazal considered them as if they are guarded, just as they made the four cubits have a status of his domain (for the purposes of acquisition), even though it is not his domain.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF