Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 11

1) A "SHTAR" WRITTEN IN PERSIAN

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that a Shtar written in Persian that was given over in front of Jewish witnesses (Edei Mesirah) may be used to collect from "Nechasim B'nei Chorin" but not from "Nechasim Meshubadim." What type of witnesses signed on this Shtar?

(a) RASHI (DH Shtara) explains that Nochrim *Hedyotos* were signed on the Shtar. He proves this from the Gemara later (19b) that says that a Shtar signed by *Arka'os* of Nochrim is valid to collect even from Meshubadim.

Why, though, may a Shtar signed by Hedyotos be used to collect even from Nechasim B'nei Chorin, if the Mishnah says that we trust only a Shtar signed by Arka'os and not by Hedyotos? Rashi explains that since there are Edei Mesirah who are Jewish, we may rely on the Shtar.

However, if there are valid Edei Mesirah to prove the details of the transaction, then why is a Shtar necessary at all? Why should we need to rely on the signatures of the Hedyotos in the Shtar? The Gemara should simply say that one may collect based on the Jewish witnesses (the Edei Mesirah), and we may ignore not only the the signatures on the Shtar, but we may ignore the entire Shtar itself!

The TOSFOS RID asks this question and answers that the Shtar is necessary in that it prevents the borrower from claiming that he already repaid the debt. Even though the Shtar does not allow the lender to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim, nevertheless, it does provide proof that the debt has not yet been repaid. (According to the view of the RA'AVAD (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 27:1), who maintains that a Shtar which cannot be used to collect from Meshubadim cannot be used to prove that the debt was not repaid, we will have to provide another explanation.)

(b) The RI (see TOSFOS, DH Lo Nechleku) rules that the Beraisa mentioned earlier on this Daf disqualifies a Shtar signed by Hedyotos even when there *are* Jewish Edei Mesirah, according to the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi Akiva. Therefore, the Ri explains that the Persian Shtar of our Sugya was signed by *Arka'os*. Even though it was signed by Arka'os, it may not be used to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim because it does not have a Kol.

Because of this, the Ri changes the Girsa of the Gemara later (19b) in order to make it consistent with this ruling. (ROSH 1:10)

(c) The ROSH himself explains that the Persian Shtar of our Gemara has *no* Chasimos at all. Even though the Rabanan disqualified a Persian Shtar that has Hedyotos signed on it even when there are Jewish Edei Mesirah (because it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho"), they did *not* disqualify a Persian Shtar that has *no* witnesses signed on it.

11b

QUESTIONS: Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Get is valid when it has the signatures of witnesses who have names commonly used by Nochrim (and we do not know whether those signatories are Jewish or not). RASHI explains that Reish Lakish's question was whether we may accept the Get when there is valid Edei Mesirah, or whether it will be invalid even with Edei Mesirah because it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho."

Rebbi Yochanan answers that the only case that the Chachamim permitted, with Edei Mesirah, was a Get that had signatures of "Shemos Muvhakim" of Nochrim ("Lukus" and "Lus") -- names that are used exclusively by Nochrim and not by Jews. A Get that has signatures of "Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim" -- names of Nochrim that are not used exclusively by Nochrim, but might also be used by Jews -- is not valid.

(a) Why does Rashi explain that Reish Lakish was asking whether the Get is valid because of its Edei Mesirah? The Gemara later cites a Beraisa that states that when a Get is brought from Chutz la'Aretz with foreign names signed on it, it is valid, since most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such names. Rashi explains that the Beraisa permits Gitin with foreign names even without Edei Mesirah, because we assume that the signatories are Jewish. The Gemara attempts to prove from the Beraisa that even when a Get comes from within Eretz Yisrael with foreign names signed on it, we may assume that the signatories are Jewish.

Why, then, does Rashi not explain here that the reason why Reish Lakish wanted to permit the Get was because we assume that the signatories are Jewish? Why does Rashi explain instead that his question was whether or not we rely on the Edei Mesirah? (TOSFOS, in fact, explains this way -- that Reish Lakish wanted to permit such a Get because we assume that the signatories are Jewish.) (MAHARAM SHIF)

(b) According to Rashi, the Gemara is questioning whether we permit a Get with names of Nochrim which are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the Edei Mesirah (according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon). Why is the Gemara questioning whether we accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim according to Rebbi Shimon? The Gemara earlier (10b) takes it for granted that Rebbi Shimon does *not* accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the invalidating factor of "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho!" (RASHBA, PNEI YEHOSHUA)

(c) Regarding the Beraisa that says that Gitin that come from Chutz la'Aretz with foreign names are valid because most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such names, the Gemara concludes that the reasoning of the Beraisa does *not* apply in Eretz Yisrael, since most Jews in Eretz Yisrael have Jewish-sounding names. Rashi writes that since Jews in Eretz Yisrael have Jewish-sounding names, and if a Get with foreign-sounding names is sent from within Eretz Yisrael, we must suspect that the signatories are not Jewish, and therefore the Get is invalid even with Edei Mesirah "like the Rabanan of our Mishnah."

Why does Rashi attribute this opinion to the Rabanan of the Mishnah? The names signed on the Get in that case are obviously not Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim, because Rashi writes that we are uncertain about the identity of the witnesses who signed. In such a case, even Rebbi Shimon of the Mishnah disqualifies a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho" (10b)! (MAHARSHA and others)

ANSWERS:

(a) Rashi explains that Reish Lakish wanted to permit the Get because of the Edei Mesirah, because Rashi wants to explain the context of Rebbi Yochanan's answer to Reish Lakish's question. Rebbi Yochanan answered that we permit a Get with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim, but we do not permit a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim. If Reish Lakish was asking whether we assume that the signatories are Jews or Nochrim, then Rebbi Yochanan's answer about permitting a Get with signatures of Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim is completely unrelated to the question of Reish Lakish! Reish Lakish was only asking about names that could be Jewish names! Why, then, did Rebbi Yochanan mention that we permit Gitin with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim?

Therefore, Rashi explains that Reish Lakish indeed was questioning whether we can rely on Edei Mesirah even when the names signed on the Get are Shemos of Nochrim that are *not* Muvhakim. Rebbi Yochanan replies that we only rely on foreign-sounding names when they are Shemos Muvhakim.

(b) Even though Rebbi Shimon normally does not permit a Get signed with names of Nochrim that are not Muvhakim because of the Pesul of "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho," this Pesul is only a Pesul *d'Rabanan*. Therefore, when there is a possibility that the witnesses signed on the Get are actually Jewish (and the Get is not Pasul), perhaps we may be lenient since it is only a Safek d'Rabanan. That is why Reish Lakish is asking what the Halachah is when the names signed on the Get are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim and we do not know whether the witnesses who signed are Jewish or not. (RASHBA, PNEI YEHOSHUA)

(c) The RASHBA explains that Rashi means to say that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are not necessary ruling like Rebbi Shimon. (After all, since the Rabanan, the majority, argue with Rebbi Shimon, the Halachah should follow their opinion.) Rashi is suggesting that *even* the Rabanan -- who invalidate a Get both when it has Shemos Muvhakim and when it has Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the Pesul of "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho" -- might permit the Get in the case of Reish Lakish since it is only a *Safek* whether it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho," since the persons signed on the Get might actually be Jews.

The Rashba explains that even names like "Lukus" and "Lus" -- which are Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim -- do not preclude the possibility that the signatories are really Jews. The Gemara says only that it is very uncommon for Jews to bear such names, but not that it is impossible or unheard of completely.

The MAHARAM SHIF, however, points out that from the context of Rashi's words it seems that Rashi is explaining *not* why the Get of our Sugya would be valid *even* according to the Rabanan, but why a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim would be invalid according to the Rabanan, and the Rabanan *only*. Why should Rashi limit this to the opinion of the Rabanan -- even according to Rebbi Shimon, Safek Nochrim with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim should invalidate a Get, and Safek Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim should not!

The MAHARSHA also says that Rashi is trying to explain the entire Sugya according to the opinion of the Rabanan. The Maharsha explains that the only reason the Rabanan invalidate a Get that has foreign-sounding names signed on it is because we might rely on the Nochrim who signed it to serve as the Edei Mesirah as well. When a Get comes from Medinas ha'Yam, though, then it is impossible to use the witnesses who signed it as the Edei Mesirah (since they are out of the country). Therefore, the Rabanan have reason to be more lenient and say that when the names are Shemos Muvhakim the Get is valid, and only when the names are *not* Muvhakim do they invalidate the Get.

Rebbi Shimon, though, would accept the Get even when the names are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim. Since Rebbi Yochanan accepted only a Get from far away that was signed with Shemos Muvhakim, Rashi understands that he must be following the opinion of the Rabanan.

Another possibility (see MAHARAM SHIF) is that when Rashi writes that a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim is invalid "like the Rabanan of our Mishnah," he is not referring to the *Tana Kama* of the Mishnah, but rather he is referring to *all* of the Tana'im (the "Rabanan" of the Mishnah (that is, the Tana Kama as well as Rebbi Shimon)! That is, Rashi is trying to point out that we should not think that the Gemara here is following a minority view, but rather that this opinion is accepted by all of the Tana'im of the Mishnah. However, this is only the opinion of the Rabanan of the *Mishnah*, not the Rabanan of the *Beraisa*.

That is, Rashi is following his own view as expressed earlier (10b, DH Teni Chutz), where he explained that the Tana Kama of our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Meir, that "Edei Chasimah Karti." Hence, we do not find a Tana in the *Mishnah* who would say that according to *Rebbi Elazar*, a Get with Shemos Muvhakim is invalid. All of the Tana'im of the Mishnah agree that a Get with Shemos Muvhakim is valid (with Edei Mesirah) according to Rebbi Elazar. The Tana'im of the *Beraisa* (9b), though, argue whether Rebbi Elazar would permit a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim, as the Gemara there explained. That is why