ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 15
GITIN 14 & 15 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz
Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who
argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not
(the Chachamim). The Tana Kama ('Biksho ve'Lo Matz'o, Yachzero
li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Ya'akov ('Meis
Meshale'ach, Yachzero le'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi
Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis') - all
hold - like Rebbi Elazar.
(b) We know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar - because it is only in
the event that the Meshale'ach dies that he obligates the Sheli'ach to hand
the Sh'tar to the heirs of the recipient; otherwise, he would have to return
it to the Meshale'ach.
(c) The Chachamim (who hold 'Yachloku') - are uncertain whether the Halachah
is like Rebbi Elazar or the Chachamim.
(d) If the Shechiv Mera recovers, he is entitled to retract.
(a) Rav Yosef rules - like Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi.
***** Hadran Alach ha'Meivi Kama *****
(b) Whether Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi was actually a Nasi or whether he was just
quoting the Nasi - is a She'eilah which remains unanswered.
(c) We reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei
Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Damu' - by establishing the Beraisa
by a healthy person (like the original interpretation of the Machlokes).
(d) Rav Yosef must then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachzeru
le'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachzeru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after
all) - because, according to the original text, Rebbi Shimon would clash
with the principle 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis'.
*****Perek ha'Meivi Get (Tinyana) *****
(a) If the Sheli'ach who brings a Get declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo
be'Fanai Nechtam', or vice-versa - the Get is not valid.
(b) The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his
presence but only half signed, or vice-versa. Half signed means - that he
witnessed one of the witnesses signing on the Get, but not the other.
(c) Neither will the Get be Kasher if one witness declares 'be'Fanai
Nichtav' and a second witness, 'be'Fanai Nechtam'. This is not necessarily
because one of the two is not a Sheli'ach (though some will later explain it
this way). It might also be because, since the Shelia'ch who testifies on
the Kesivah does not testify on the Chasimah and vice-versa, we might
confuse this with Kiyum Sh'taros, and validate that too with one witness.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav
and a third witness, be'Fanai Nechtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah
disagrees - because, in his opinion, since we obligate testimony both on the
Kesivah and on the Chasimah, we will not confuse it with Kiyum Sh'taros.
(b) In fact - Rebbi Yehudah argues in all the previous cases in the Mishnah
too, for the same reason.
(a) In spite of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ...
Tzarich Lomar be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam', the Tana here finds it
necessary to invalidate the Get should the Sheli'ach fail to make the full
declaration - because 'Tzarich Lomar' implies Lechatchilah, leading us to
believe that, Bedieved, if he failed to make the declaration, the Get is
(b) We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Rav
Ashi confines this to the second half of the Get, because as far as the
first half is concerned, we have already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who validates
the Get even if the Sheli'ach only witnessed the writing of the first line.
(c) The first line of the Get comprises - the names of the man, the woman
and the date.
(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'. Rav Chisda
maintains that, in such a case, even if two witnesses would then corroborate
the signature of the second witness - the Get would be Pasul.
(b) His reason is because the we will then be trying to validate it by means
of two different methods: 1. by substantiation; 2. by means of the Takanas
Chachamim, when in fact, Chazal required either the one or the other (but
not by a combination of both).
(c) We learned in the first Perek that if a Sheli'ach testifies on the
witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nechtam') - the Get is
(d) Based on this, Rava rejects Rav Chisda's ruling - because, if one
witness is believed to corroborate the witnesses signature, then how can we
possibly reject the testimony of two?
(a) Rava does concede however, that if the Sheli'ach himself testifies on
the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul - because of
its similarity to Kiyum Sh'taros, which is Pasul under similar
(b) The case by Kiyum Sh'taros (of Mamon) is - if the same witness who
corroborates his own signature, also combines with another witness to
corroborate the signature of his co-signatory. The Sh'tar is Pasul - because
it transpires that three quarters of the money is being extracted through
one witness, and a quarter through the other (whereas the Torah requires
each witness to extract half the money).
(c) Rav Ashi rejects this ruling of Rava's however - because how can it be
that if the Sheli'ach were to testify all by himself, the Get would be
Kasher, and now that a second witness testifies together with him, it will
(d) The case that is Pasul, according to Rav Ashi is - if the She'liach,
after declaring 'be'Fanai ... Nechtam Chetzyo', concludes that *he* is the
second witness who signed on the Sh'tar, which is Pasul because we are
trying to validate it using a combination of two different methods: 1.
substantiation; 2. the Takanas Chachamim of 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', when in
fact, Chazal required either the one or the other (like Rava explained
(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'. The Tana
cannot be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness - because now
that the Tana invalidates 'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nichtav ve'Echad Omer
be'Fanai Nechtam (where each witness testified on a complete Kesivah or a
complete Chasimah) Pasul', it is obvious that this case will be Pasul too.
(b) Clearly, the Tana is coming to teach us - that even if he testified on
the second signature, together with a second witness (like Rava) or if he
claimed that he was the other witness (like Rav Ashi), it would be Pasul (to
preclude a case where there are two witnesses on the second signature, which
would be Kasher - a Kashya on Rav Chisda). Bear in mind the principle that
either the Tana is telling us an intrinsic Chidush, or the Chidush lies in
(c) The Tana cannot be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi
too - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta' (one always
learns the smallest possible Chidush).
(d) The reason that we do not confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case,
which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as
well as on Rav Chisda) is - because in fact, Rava's case is no more of a
Chidush than that of Rav Ashi, since in the equivalent case by other
Sh'taros, the Sh'tar is Pasul, as we explained above (in which case Rava's
case and that of Rav Ashi are equal).
(a) Rav Chisda answers the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah
'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam'. He comments - that having told
us that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, uve'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo' is Pasul (where
at least he testifies on half of the Chasimah), then surely it is obvious
that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam' is Pasul too. Clearly then,
the Tana finds no problem in stating first the smaller Chidush and then the
bigger one (even though in light of the latter Chidush, the former one is
quite superfluous [a third principle known as 'Lo Zu Af Zu'...]).
(b) He extrapolates from there - that with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo,
u'be'Fanav Nechtam Chetzyo' too, the Tana may well have inserted it, not to
tell us the bigger Chidush (in which case he could have presented us with
his case [that even when two witnesses testify on the other signature], it
is Pasul), but to say that not only in this case is the Get Pasul ('Lo Zu',
which doesn't need to be a Chidush at all, and from which one can
nevertheless not make any inference), but it is even Pasul when one witness
testifies on the entire Kesivah and one witness on the Chasimah ('af Zu').
(a) Rav Chisda rules that, with regard to 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah
Chamishah' - (when the five-Tefach wall of a pit [Gidud] extends five
Tefachim above ground level), the two sets of five Tefachim do not combine
to form a Kasher wall (regarding Shabbos) and one cannot therefore carry
inside the pit.
(b) Mereimar disagrees - the Halachah is like him (and one is permitted to
carry in the pit).
(a) Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves. He cannot be referring
1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shiur of) one Revi'is of water -
because we have learned in a Mishnah in Yadayim that even two people may
wash from one Revi'is (i.e. when the one places his hands underneath the
(b) Wen we answer the previous Kashya with the words 'Lo Tzericha de'Ika
Mashkeh Tofe'ach' - we mean that Rebbi Yanai is speaking when the first half
of the hand is already dry when he washes the second half, whereas we are
talking about a case where it is still slightly wet.
2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other - because we
have learned in a Beraisa that this is permitted (even to dip one's hand
into a river in this way).
3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other
half - because Rebbi Yanai has already invalidated washing in this way.
(c) We refute the Kashya on that from the Mishnah in Taharos, which
specifically lists 'Tofe'ach' among those things which are not considered
joined (regarding Tum'ah) - by going one step further and establishing the
Mishnah in Taharos when it is only slightly wet, whereas we are speaking
when the hand is wet enough to render what touches it sufficiently wet to
make other things wet.