Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE WORDS OF A DYING MAN (cont.)

(a) Rejection: No - if Reuven was healthy, all agree that 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for';

1. They argue when Reuven was dying, as R. Elazar and Chachamim argued.
2. (Mishnah - R. Elazar): One who declares how to divide his estate - whether he is healthy or dying, land is only acquired through a document, money or using the land; one acquires Metaltelim by pulling them to his domain;
3. Chachamim say, both land and Metaltelim are acquired through his words.

i. Chachamim There was a case with the mother of Benei Rochel - as she was dying, she said to give her very expensive pin to her daughter, and Chachamim fulfilled her words!
ii. R. Elazar: Benei Rochel were terrible sinners - Chachamim fined them by giving the pin to her daughter.

4. The first Tana holds as R. Elazar; R. Noson and R. Yakov agree with this, and also say that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
5. 'Some say' hold as Chachamim of the Mishnah (that the words of a dying man make an acquisition);
6. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi holds as R. Elazar, but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
7. Chachamim say to split the money - they are unsure (whether the law is as R. Elazar or Chachamim of the Mishnah, and whether there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased);
8. Chachamim of Bavel say, the best solution is to leave it to the whim of the messenger.
9. R. Shimon ha'Nasi comes to teach how they ruled in an actual case

(b) Question: R. Shimon ha'Nasi - was he the Nasi, or did he speak in name of the Nasi?
(c) Answer: Rav Yosef said, the law is as R. Shimon ha'Nasi (it must be, he was the Nasi).
(d) Question: We can ask what Rav Yosef meant also!

1. This question is unresolved.

(e) (Rav Yosef): The law is as R. Shimon ha'Nasi.
(f) Question: But we hold, the words of a dying man make an acquisition!
(g) Answer: Rav Yosef explains that Reuven is healthy (as we originally explained the Beraisa).
(h) Question: R. Shimon ha'Nasi said, the money goes to Reuven's heirs - but we hold, it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased!
(i) Correction: The Beraisa should read, R. Shimon ha'Nasi says...to Peloni's heirs.

2) A PARTIAL DECLARATION

(a) (Mishnah): A messenger brought a Get from abroad and said 'it was written in front of me, but not signed in front of me'; 'It was signed in front of me, but not written in front of me'; 'It was totally written in front of me, and half was signed in front of me'; 'It was totally signed in front of me, and half was written in front of me' - the Get is invalid;
(b) If 1 messenger says 'It was written in front of me', and another messenger says 'it was signed in front of me', it is invalid;
(c) If 2 messengers say 'It was written in front of us', and another messenger says 'it was signed in front of me', it is invalid; R. Yehudah says, it is valid;
(d) If 1 messenger says 'It was written in front of me', and 2 messengers say 'it was signed in front of us', it is valid.
(e) (Gemara) Question: We already learned, the messenger must say 'it was written and signed in front of me'!
(f) Answer: If only for that Mishnah, one might have thought that it should be said, but the Get is valid even if he did not say it - we hear, this is not so.
(g) (Mishnah): 'It was totally signed in front of me, and half was written in front of me' - the Get is invalid.
(h) Question: Which half was written in front of him?

1. Suggestion: If the first half - but R. Elazar said, it suffices to see the first line written Lishmah!

(i) Answer: Rather, he saw the second half.
(j) (Mishnah): 'It was totally written in front of me, and half was signed in front of me' - the Get is invalid.
(k) Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): Even if 2 people testify about the signature the messenger did not see, the Get is invalid.

1. The validation must be entirely as the enactment of Chachamim, or entirely as standard validation of documents (i.e. 2 witnesses on both signatures).

(l) Objection (Rava): It cannot be, if 1 person (the messenger) would testify about the second signature, the Get would be valid, but now that 2 testify about it, the Get is invalid!

(m) Opinion #2 (Rava): Even if the messenger and another person testify about the other signatures, it is invalid.

1. This is a decree, lest people will think that other documents may be validated similarly, i.e. a witness signed on a document confirms his own signature, and joins a second man to confirm the other signature.
2. Such validation is no good, since 3/4 of it relies on 1 witness.

(n) Objection (Rav Ashi): It cannot be, if 1 person (the messenger) would testify about the second signature, the Get would be valid, but now that 2 testify about it, the Get is invalid!
(o) Opinion #3 (Rav Ashi): Even if the messenger is the other witness, it is invalid.

1. The validation must be entirely as standard validation of documents, or entirely as the enactment for Gitin.

(p) (Mishnah): 'It was totally written in front of me, and half was signed in front of me' - it is invalid.
(q) Question: Does anyone testify about the other signature?

1. Suggestion: No.
2. Rejection: When 1 messenger says 'It was written in front of me', and another messenger says 'it was signed in front of me' - each testifies about the entire Get, it is invalid; here, there is only testimony on half the signatures, there is no need to teach that it is invalid!

(r) Answer: (We must say, second witness testifies about the second signature); the Mishnah comes to teach as Rava or Rav Ashi.

1. Question: This refutes Rav Chisda (if it is invalid even when 2 witnesses testify on the second signature, the Mishnah should have taught this!)

i. Counter-question (Rav Chisda): Why must the Mishnah teach 'It was written in front of me but it was not signed in front of me' - it later teaches, even if it was written and half signed in front of him, it is invalid!
ii. Answer: You must say, the Mishnah teaches a law which follows from a subsequent law of the Mishnah.

2. Answer: Here also, the Mishnah teaches a law which follows from a subsequent law of the Mishnah!

(a) (Rav Chisda): A ditch 5 Tefachim deep next to a wall 5 Tefachim tall - they do not join to be considered a wall;

1. A wall must be 10 Tefachim below ground (e.g. the edge of a pit) or 10 Tefachim above ground.

(b) (Mereimar): A ditch 5 Tefachim deep next to a wall 5 Tefachim tall join to be considered a wall.

1. The law is as Mereimar.

(c) Question (Ilfa): Can hands become Tahor half-way?

1. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: 2 people wash their hands from 1 Revi'is (the minimal amount to purify hands).
ii. Rejection: A Mishnah teaches explicitly, 1 Revi'is suffices for 1 or 2 people to wash their hands!

2. Answer #1: Rather, a person washed 1 hand at a time.
3. Rejection: A Mishnah teaches, if a person pours water on 1 hand and immerses the other (in a river), his hands are Tahor (even though he washed 1 at a time)!
4. Answer #2: Rather, he washed half of his hand, and then the other half.

(d) Question: But R. Yanai taught, hands do not become Tahor half-way!
(e) Answer: Ilfa's question is when the first half is still wet when he washes the second half; R. Yanai spoke in a case when the first half dried before washing the second.
(f) Question: Even if the first half is still wet, this does not help