QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses a Ketanah who was married off by her father and then received a Get while she was still a Ketanah. RASHI (DH Ketanah and DH ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, and in Sanhedrin 69b) writes that her father accepted the Get on her behalf. Although a man's daughter is no longer in his domain after her Nisu'in, she remains in his domain with regard to his right to accept a Get on her behalf.
However, Rashi in Kesuvos (46b, DH u'Mekabel) and in Kidushin (43b, DH Hi v'Aviha) writes that the father may not accept a Get for his daughter after Nisu'in because she leaves his domain at the time of her Nisu'in. He may accept a Get for her only after Erusin, before Nisu'in.
TOSFOS in Kidushin (10a, DH u'Mekabel) discusses the issue of whether the father may accept a Get on behalf of his daughter after Nisu'in. He remains in doubt about the actual Halachah in practice. Rashi, however, seems to take both sides. In some places, he writes that the father may accept the Get for his daughter after Nisu'in, but in other places he writes that the father may not accept the Get for her after Nisu'in. How are the apparently contradictory views of Rashi to be reconciled?
ANSWER: REBBI AKIVA EIGER (Teshuvos 2:100) suggests that Rashi's words may be reconciled as follows. When Rashi here and in Sanhedrin writes that the father may accept the Get on behalf of his daughter, he refers to an actual Ketanah. In contrast, when Rashi in Kesuvos and Kidushin writes that the father may not accept the Get on behalf of his daughter, he refers to a Na'arah (see Rashi there). A Na'arah is able to accept her own Get, and thus her father may not accept it for her after Nisu'in. (Tosfos in Kidushin 10a alludes to the possibility of such a distinction.)
The reasoning behind this distinction may be as follows. In order to enable a Ketanah to become divorced, the Torah gives the father the authority to accept a Get on his daughter's behalf, because a Ketanah cannot make a Kinyan herself. A Na'arah, however, must accept her own Get because she is able to make a Kinyan and become divorced on her own. (See, however, Rashi to 113a, DH Al ha'Chareshes, who writes that a Chareshes, who -- like a Ketanah -- lacks Da'as and cannot make a Kinyan, may accept her own Get (when she is an adult), even if her father married her off while she was a Ketanah and her Kidushin therefore took effect mid'Oraisa.)


OPINIONS: The Gemara cites the verse in Shir ha'Shirim (3:7-8) which states, "Behold, it is the bed of Shlomo surrounded by sixty Giborim (mighty men) of the mighty men of Yisrael. They all clutch the sword and are trained in warfare; each man with his sword upon his thigh, [defending] against the dread of the nights." The Gemara derives from this verse that when a Dayan issues a ruling, he should be as fearful as though a sword is placed between his legs and Gehinom is open below him.
According to the Gemara's Derashah, who are the "sixty mighty men" mentioned in the verse?
(a) RASHI explains that the mighty men are the Talmidei Chachamim who comprise the Sanhedrin, who are fearful in judgment as though a sword is placed beneath them. However, the Sanhedrin was comprised of seventy Dayanim, and not sixty. If the verse refers to the members of the Sanhedrin, why does it mention sixty mighty men? Rashi in Sanhedrin (7b) answers that according to the Derashah, the number sixty in the verse is not an exact figure. The point of the verse is to emphasize that Talmidei Chachamim should be adequately prepared when they issue rulings.
The MAHARSHA (in Sanhedrin) cites support for Rashi's interpretation of "sixty mighty men" from the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabah 11:7) which also explains that the sixty men are Dayanim.
(b) TOSFOS disagrees with Rashi and explains that the word "Giborim" refers to the sixty myriads (600,000) of the Jewish people. (This explanation is also mentioned by the Midrash (loc. cit.) and the Yalkut Shimoni 2:986.) Apparently, according to Tosfos the verse means that when Shlomo ha'Melech, the Dayan, is surrounded by the Jewish people who come to him to judge their cases, he and his associates must be fearful of Gehinom.
The ROKE'ACH (on Shir ha'Shirim) cites further support for this explanation from a Gematriya: the Gematriya of "Shishim Giborim" equals the Gematriya of "Eleh Shishim Rivo" ("these are sixty myriads").
(c) The VILNA GA'ON supports Rashi's interpretation. He explains that when the Sanhedrin convenes, ten of its most prestigious members sit in the middle of the group, surrounded by the other sixty. Those are the "sixty mighty men" who surround "the bed of Shlomo." (The ten in the middle correspond to the seven "Ro'ei Pnei ha'Melech" and the three "Shomrei ha'Saf" in the court of a mortal king who are closest to the king, who correspond to the ten in the court of the King of kings; see Megilah 23a. The verse in Melachim II (25:19), which associates these authoritative members of the king's court with sixty other men, appears in the context of a discussion of the members of the Sanhedrin.)
The source for the Vilna Ga'on's explanation is the Midrash (Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 3:13) and Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 1:2) which associate the verse of Shlomo's bed with the verses that describe the "Ro'ei Pnei ha'Melech" and the sixty others.
(d) The ARUCH LA'NER cites the Yalkut Shimoni (2:986) which explains that the number sixty refers to the nation of Yisrael, which is comprised of 24 Mishmaros of Kohanim, 24 Mishmaros of Leviyim, and 12 Shevatim which frequented the Beis ha'Mikdash, for a total of sixty groups. (The Aruch la'Ner suggests that these groups comprised the Sanhedrin in the Lishkas ha'Gazis.) (See also Insights to Sanhedrin 7:3)