Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Kiyum Sh'taros' - is the substantiation of a document, should the defendant claim it to be a forgery. It is performed through the testimony of the witnesses who signed it (substantiating their own signatures) or of two other witnesses testifying on each of the witnesses signatures.

(b) In that case, the question arises that, according to Rava (who ascribes 'be'Fanai Nichtav' to 'Le'fi she'Ein Eidim Meyzuyin Lekaymo') - why will one Sheli'ach suffice? Why not at least two?

(c) The truth of the matter is that documents should not need to be substantiated at all, due to a statement of Resh Lakish, who said - that if witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony had been confirmed by Beis-Din.

(d) This helps us to understand why, according to Rava, one Shelia'ch is sufficient. Because - since Kiyum Sh'taros is only mi'de'Rabbanan, the same Rabbanan who normally require two witnessess, require only *one* Sheli'ach here, to avoid the likelihood of the woman becoming an Agunah (like we explained above according to Rabah).

(a) Rava disagrees with Rabah's reason (of 'Le'fi she'Ein Beki'in Li'shmah') - because then Chazal should have obligated him to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... Lishmah'.

(b) According to Rabah however, Chazal had good reason for not obligating the Sheli'ach to add the word 'Li'shmah' - because they were afraid that with three words to repeat ('u'be'Fanai Nechtam' is a different phrase which Chazal clearly knew he would not forget) he might become confused and forget to the third word (thereby invalidating the Get, as we shall see later).

(c) We are more afraid to make the Sheli'ach say 'be'Fanai Nichtav Li'shmah' than 'be'Fanai Nichtav' - because he is unlikely to forget one of two words (since the remaining word on its own will not make sense [Ritvo]).

(d) We will discover that the Sh'tar was indeed written Lishmah - by asking him to that effect.

(a) Rabah disagrees with Rava's reason (of 'Le'fi she'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo') - because then why does the Sheli'ach need to add 'be'Fanai Nichtav'? It should have sufficed to say 'be'Fanai Nechtam'.

(b) Rava argues - that if they confined the Sheli'ach's statement to 'be'Fanai Nechtam, people would confuse this with 'Kiyum Sh'taros', and would go on to validate 'Kiyum Sh'taros with only one witness.

(c) Rabah however, replies that for three reasons, nobody will confuse our case will Kiyum Sh'taros: 1. because here, Chazal insisted on using the Lashon 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', whereas by 'Kiyum Sh'taros', the witnesses only need to say 'We know ... '. 2. because here a woman is believed, whereas by Kiyum Sh'taros she is not - and 3. because here, the husband himself is believed, whereas by 'Kiyum Sh'taros, the defendant himself is not.

(d) Rabah's second and third Kashya do not perturb Rava (see Tosfos DH 'Keyvan'). His first Kashya - he refutes on the grounds that if the Sheli'ach would indeed say 'I know ... ', his Shelichus would nevertheless be valid.

4)

(a) In a Mishnah in the second Perek, the Tana forbids (Lechatchilah) writing a Get on something that is attached to the ground - because the Torah writes "ve'Kasav ... ve'Nasan", which teaches us that nothing (crucial, such as detaching) may interrupt between the writing of the Get and its presentation. We assume the author of this Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir - because of the principle 'S'tam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir'.

(b) In a Mishnah in the second Perek, The Tana forbids writing a Get on something that is attached to the ground. He validates a Get that was - provided one detached it before having it signed.

(c) Rebbi Meir interprets the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ... ve'Nasan" (by the same token "ve'Kasav Lah" regarding writing the Get Li'shmah) not with regard to the writing of the Get - but to the signing of the witnesses.

(d) Rebbi Elazar argues with Rebbi Meir. According to him, "ve'Kasav Lah" pertains to the Kesivah, and not to the Chasimah. We learn this from his statement - validating a Get on which no witnesses had signed.

(a) According to Rabah, who attributes 'be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam' to 'Le'fi she'Ein Beki'in Li'shmah' - who will be the author of our Mishnah, which requires both the Kesivah and the Chasimah of the Get to be Li'shmah (seeing as Rebbi Meir requires only the Chasimah to be Li'shmah and Rebbi Elazar, the Kesivah)?

(b) We try to reconcile Rabah with Rebbi Elazar, and establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar - by confining Rebbi Elazar to Torah law, but that he concedes that mi'de'Rabbanan, a Get must be signed Li'shmah too.

(c) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Bava Basra says that a Get which is written in the husband's handwriting but on which witnesses did not sign, or they did sign, if it was not dated - is Pasul, but in the event that she married with it, her children are not Mamzeirim.

(d) The third case mentioned by the Tana together with these two is - if the Get is dated, but only one witness signed on it.

(a) The Gitin in the Mishnah there - are Pasul mi'd'Oraysa (but Kasher mi'de'Rabbanan), because otherwise, the children from any subsequent marriage would be Mamzeirim.

(b) Rebbi Elazar says there - that even if no witnesses signed on the Get, it is Kasher (even mi'de'Rabbanan) provided he handed her the Get in front of witnesses.

(c) This disproves our suggestion to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar - because that suggestion assumes that Rebbi Elazar concedes that it is Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas from here it is clear that he even validates a Get without signed witnesses even mi'de'Rabbanan as we just proved).

(d) The reason witnesses sign on a Get according to Rebbi Elazar - is a Takanas Chachamim, for fear that the witnesses who saw the handing over of the Get may die, leaving the woman without witnesses that she is divorced.

8)

(a) We concluded (momentarily) that, according to Rabah, the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Elazar. We attempt to establish it like Rebbi Meir, despite the fact that he does not require Kesivah Li'shmah - by qualifying that as Torah-law, but that mi'de'Rabbanan, Rebbi Meir too agrees.

(b) We refute this theory however, with a statement of Rav Nachman, who, quoting Rebbi Meir, said - that a Get that someone found in a trash-heap, had signed and handed to his wife, is Kasher (despite the fact that it was not written Li'shmah.

(c) Had Rebbi Meir been referring to Torah-law, but mi'de'Rabbanan, the Get is Pasul - then Rav Nachman should not just have said 'Omer Hayah Rebbi Meir'. He should have added the words 'D'var Torah ... '.