Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) NON-JEWISH NAMES

(a) Question: What kinds of names are clearly non-Jewish?
(b) Answer (Rav Papa): Hormiz, Avudaina bar Shivetai, ...
(c) Question: But names which could be Jewish - the Get is invalid?

1. If so, why does the end of the Mishnah teach, 'they are only invalid when done by commoners' - even when judges do the Gitin, we can distinguish!
2. They are only valid when the judges' names are clearly non-Jewish; if not, they are invalid!

(d) Answer #1: That is what the Mishnah means!

1. They are only valid when the judges' names are clearly non-Jewish; if not, they are as if they were done by commoners, and are invalid.

(e) Answer #2: The end of the Mishnah refers to monetary documents.

1. It teaches, monetary documents are only invalid when done by commoners.

(f) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): R. Akiva and Chachamim agree that all documents made in Nochri courts are valid, even if Nochrim signed them, even Gitin of divorce or freedom;

1. They only argue when they are done by commoners; R. Akiva says they are valid, Chachamim say, invalid, except for Gitin of divorce or freedom (which all agree are valid, even when done by commoners).
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Gitin of divorce or freedom (signed by Nochri commoners) are only valid in places where Yisraelim do not normally sign them.
3. Question: He should decree that they are invalid even where Yisraelim do not normally sign them, on account of places where Yisraelim normally sign them!
4. Answer: In a place where Yisraelim normally sign, if we would accept Gitin with clearly non-Jewish names, people will also accept Gitin with names that could be Jewish (and they might rely on the signatures) - people do not distinguish between the difference in names;

i. But we can accept Gitin (with clearly non-Jewish names) in places where Yisraelim normally do not sign them, and people will not come to accept them in places where Yisraelim normally sign them.

(a) Ravina was about to accept monetary documents made in gatherings of Nochrim.

1. Rafram: The Mishnah only accepts those made in their courts.

(b) (Rava): A Persian document that was given in front of Jewish witnesses may be used to collect from free (un-mortgaged) property.
(c) Question: But the witnesses that saw it given cannot read it!
(d) Answer: The case is, they can.
(e) Question: But we require unforgeable writing!
(f) Answer: The case is, the paper was treated with gallnuts, so the writing is unforgeable.
(g) Question: But we require that the bottom line of the document repeat the essence of the document!
(h) Answer: The case is, it does.
(i) Question: If so, one should be able to collect even from mortgaged property!
(j) Answer: No, because people do not hear about the document (and buyers did not know to beware).
(k) Version #1 - Question (Reish Lakish): Witnesses signed on a Get, and the names sound non-Jewish - what is the law?

(l) Answer (R. Yochanan): The only case we had, the names were Lukas and Luke; we accepted it.

1. We only accepted these names; but names which Yisraelim often have, the Get would be invalid.

(m) Question (Beraisa): Signed Gitin from abroad, even though the witnesses' names are as Nochri names, are valid, since most Yisraelim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names.
(n) Answer: The Beraisa itself gives the reason - because most Yisraelim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names!
(o) Version #2 - Question (Reish Lakish): What is the law of signed Gitin from abroad, on which the witnesses' names are as Nochri names?
(p) Answer (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): They are valid, since most Yisraelim in Chutz La'aretz have Nochri names.

(a) (Mishnah): A man says, 'Give this Get to my wife, or give this Get to my slave' - in either case, he may retract;
(b) Chachamim say, he can retract by his wife, but not by his slave;

1. This is because we may do something beneficial for a person when he is not there (i.e. the messenger took the Get of freedom on behalf of the slave), but not something detrimental (to accept a Get on behalf of a woman);

i. (It is beneficial for a slave to become free, but not for a woman to become divorced, because a man can refuse to feed his slave, but not his wife.)

2. R. Meir: Freedom is also detrimental - it disqualifies the slave from eating Terumah, just as divorcing his wife!
3. Chachamim: That is because the slave is the master's property.

(c) (Gemara - Rav Huna): We learn from Chachamim, one who seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a lender, he acquires it for him (just as the messenger acquired the Get of freedom for the slave).
(d) Question (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef): Does this apply even if this harms others (e.g. other creditors)?
(e) Answer (Rav Huna): Yes!
(f) R. Yirmeyah: Children! R. Yochanan taught, one who seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a lender does not acquire it for him.

1. The proof (to the contrary) from our Mishnah is invalid - one who says 'Give' is understood to mean 'Acquire for' (but if not for this - as in the case of seizing property for a creditor - he does not acquire).

(g) (Rav Chisda): R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue regarding one who seizes property from a borrower on behalf of a lender.

1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A man gathered Pe'ah on behalf of Peloni, a poor man - it belongs to Peloni;
2. Chachamim say, he should give it to the first poor man he encounters.