Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HOW MANY MEN MAKE A BEIS DIN?

(a) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): The Tana is not a peddler who announces everything that he has (he did not bother to allude to the third judge).
(b) Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): The judges sign below, or the witnesses.

1. Suggestion: The Mishnah equates the judges to the witnesses - just as 2 witnesses suffice, also 2 judges suffice.

(c) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah does not equate them; each has its own law.
(d) Question: Why must the Mishnah mention both witnesses and judges?
(e) Answer: To teach that even if the text of the Prusbul mentions judges, and they sign below as witnesses, or vice-versa, it is valid.

(a) (Mishnah): For the betterment of the entire world...
(b) Question: What does "For the betterment of the entire world" mean?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): So Mamzerim should not result.
(d) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): So women should not be Agunos (unable to remarry, if the husband can easily nullify a Get he sent).

1. R. Yochanan holds like Rav Nachman, that he nullifies in front of 2 - therefore, word of the nullification does not spread, and she will remarry, unaware that her Get was void; her children will be Mamzerim.
2. Reish Lakish holds like Rav Sheshes, that he nullifies in front of 3 - therefore, word of the nullification spreads, and she will not remarry; the only problem is Igun.

(e) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If the husband annulled the Get in front of a Beis Din - it is void;
(f) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he cannot annul it or make new conditions - if he could, Beis Din's enactments have no power!
(g) Question: Do we ever find, mid'Oraisa she is married, and we permit her to remarry because we are concerned for the power of Beis Din?!
(h) Answer: Yes! Anyone that engages a woman does so according to the will of Chachamim; Chachamim said, if the husband annuls a Get in front of Beis Din, the engagement should be void!
(i) Question (Ravina): This is reasonable regarding engagement through money; if he engaged her through relations - how will Chachamim say that she is not engaged?
(j) Answer (Rav Ashi): The relations are deemed to be mere harlotry.
(k) (Beraisa - Rebbi): Reuven told 10 people to write a Get to his wife - he can cancel the appointment of any of them individually;
(l) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can only cancel their appointment when they are all together.
(m) Question: On what do they argue?
(n) Answer #1: Whether a testimony (in our case - appointment) that is partially cancelled is totally cancelled.

1. Rebbi says, the remainder of the testimony stands; if the other agents that were not cancelled write and give a Get, it is valid;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the entire testimony is void; if the other agents write and give a Get, they and she will not know that it is invalid.

(o) Answer #2: All agree, a testimony that is partially cancelled, the remainder stands;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds, any matter done in front of 10 people can only be undone in front of 10.

(a) Question: What is the law if he says 'All of you (write and give a Get to my wife)'?

1. If R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a testimony that is partially cancelled, the entire testimony is cancelled - the other agents know that they cannot give the Get themselves, there is no concern.
2. If he holds that a matter done in front of 10 people can only be undone in front of 10 - he can only cancel his appointment when all are together.

(b) Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): If he told 2 people, 'Give a Get to my wife,' he can cancel either individually; R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can only cancel them together.

1. Since both must sign the Get, it is as if he said 'All (i.e. both) of you' - and we see, R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues even in this case!

(c) Rejection (Rav Ashi): If the Beraisa spoke of writing the Get, this reasoning would be correct; but the Beraisa speaks of giving the Get, which even 1 person can do.

1. Support (end of the Beraisa): If he appointed each agent individually, he can cancel either individually.
2. We understand, if this speaks of agents to give a Get.
3. Question: If it speaks of agents to write a Get - their testimonies do not combine!

i. (Beraisa): Testimony of witnesses only combines if they saw it together.
ii. Answer (rejection of support): R. Shimon ben Gamliel could rule like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (who says that their testimony combines even if they did not see the matter together).

(d) (R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): In these 2 disputes between Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel - in 1, R. Aba ruled like Rebbi, in the other, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel - I do not know which was which.
(e) (Rav Yosef): We can determine which one from the following.

1. There was a case in which Rebbi ruled like Chachamim (who are not concerned for the power of Beis Din).
2. R. Parta: If you rule this way - Beis Din has no power!
3. Rebbi reversed his decision.
4. Since even Rebbi agreed that we are concerned for the power of Beis Din - regarding annulment of a Get in front of Beis Din, surely R. Aba ruled like R. Shimon ben Gamliel;

i. Regarding 10 who were appointed to write and give a Get, he must have ruled like Rebbi.

(f) R. Oshiya of Usha also rules like Rebbi in 1 case, like R. Shimon ben Gamliel in the other.

1. (Rabah bar bar Chanah): There were 5 elders in front of R. Oshiya. A man came, and R. Oshiya ruled that he must divorce his wife; the man authorized the elders to write and give a Get.
2. R. Oshiya told the elders to hide, so the man would not be able to cancel their mission.

i. If R. Oshiya held like Rebbi (regarding canceling a Get in front of a Beis Din), even if the elders hide, the man can cancel the Get!
ii. If R. Oshiya held like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding canceling the appointment of 10 agents, that they must be cancelled together) - why did he tell the elders hide, it suffices that they separate!
iii. It must be, in the former he holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel; in the latter, like Rebbi.

(g) (Rav Nachman): The law is like Rebbi in both cases.
(h) Question: Is Rav Nachman not concerned for the power of Beis Din?!

1. Contradiction (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Orphans that came to divide their father's property - Beis Din assigns an overseer to pick a good portion for them; when the orphans mature, they can protest;
2. (Rav Nachman himself): The orphans cannot protest - if they could, Beis Din's enactment would be weak!

(i) Answer: Regarding money, Rav Nachman says that Beis Din gave strength to their enactments, but not regarding prohibitions.