Previous daf

1)

(a) We just established Rava (who holds [with regard to a Get Shichrur which includes a gift of Karka] 'Palginan Diburei') like Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa. When Rebbi Yossi heard Rebbi Shimon's opinion - he was so impressed that he quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei "Sefasayim Yishak Meishiv Devarim Nechochim" (i.e. he deserves to be kissed).

(b) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman said - that, in spite of Rebbi Yossi's statement, the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir (in the Mishnah in Pe'ah).

(c) In that case, we ask - how can Rava hold 'Palginan Diburei' (by a Sh'tar), based on Rebbi Shimon, when the Halachah is like Rebbi Meir, who seems to hold that 'Palginan Diburei' does not apply with regard to a Sh'tar?

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman rules that a Shechiv-Mera (a man on his death-bed) who wrote all his property to his slave and then recovered - may retract from the property but not from the slave, proving that he does in fact hold of 'Palginan Diburei' with regard to a Sh'tar?

(b) Rav Ashi reconciles Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman's latter ruling with the previous case, where he ruled like Rebbi Meir, who ostensibly does not hold of 'Palginan Diburei' by Sh'tar, with the words 'de'La'av K'rus Gita Hu' - meaning that it does not sever all connections between the two parties concerned (and is therefore invalid, because the Torah refers to a Get as 'Seifer K'risus').

(c) In the context of the Mishnah in Pe'ah, it means that the reason for Rebbi Meir's ruling is (not because he does not hold of 'Palginan Diburei' by Sh'tar, but) because, by virtue of his having written 'Chutz' on the one hand, and not having *spefically* included the slave in the sale on the other, the owner failed to sever connections with the slave completely. Otherwise, Rebbi Meir would agree that we say 'Palginan Diburei' by a Sh'tar too.

(d) We know that 'K'rus Gita' applies to a Get Shichrur as well a to a Get Ishah, where it is written - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "O Chufshah Lo Nitan *Lah*" (in connection with a Shifchah Charufah in Kedoshim) and "ve'Kasav *Lah*" (Ki Seitzei) from a Get Ishah.

(a) The Tana in our Mishnah states 'Im Yesh Alav Orerin, Yiskayem be'Chosamav'. We reject the proposition that this refers to the protest ...

1. ... of one witness (who claims that the Get is Pasul) - on account of Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Divrei ha'Kol Ein Ir'ur Pachos mi'Shenayim".
2. ... of two witnesses - because why should we then believe the substantiating witnesses any more than the protesting ones, seeing as it is 'T'rei u'T'rei' (two against two).

(b) The protester referred to by the Tana is - the husband himself, whom Chazal believe unless witnesses substantiate the signatures.

(c) We are not worried that the Get may not have been written Li'shmah - because the Tana is speaking about Eretz Yisrael, where the Sofrim were experts in Li'shmah.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that ...

1. ... if someone brings a Get from overseas but is unable to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - then, assuming witnesses signed on it, their signatures need to be substantiated.
2. ... someone who brings a Get Shichrur from overseas - is required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav, just like someone who brings a Get Ishah.

(b) Since the former case is not speaking about a Cheresh (who is not eligible for Shelichus anyway) - it must be speaking about a Sheli'ach who brought the Get and handed it to the woman, but who became a Cheresh before he had a chance to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ...'.

(a) Gitei Nashim are compared to Shichrurei Avadim in three regards: 1. the need to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav' (as we learned in our Mishnah); 2. that if a Kuti signed on either of them as a witness, the Sh'tar is valid - and 3. if they were written in Nochri law-courts, they are Pasul.

(b) In the third case that we just learned, the difference between Gitin (which are Pasul) and other monetary documents (which are valid) is - that whereas Nochrim are not subject to Gitin and Kidushin, when it comes to money-matters, we apply the principle 'Dina de'Malchusa Dina' (their laws are binding on us too).

(c) According to Rebbi Meir, there is a fourth case where Gitei Nashim are compared to Shichrurei Avadim - namely, where someone gives either of them to a Sheli'ach and wishes to retract before the Sheli'ach hands the Get to the woman or to the slave, he may do so.

(d) Rebbi Meir's reason is - because both a Get and a Shtar Shichrur are detrimental to the respective recipients (the former, because she loses her marital rights, the latter, because it is an advantage to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis), in which case a She'li'ach cannot acquire on their behalf without their consent.

6)

(a) The Rabbanan do not list this case - because, in their opinion, once he has appointed a Sheli'ach to hand his slave a Sh'tar Shichrur, he cannot retract.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether setting a slave free is considered a Chov (Rebbi Meir, as we explained) or a Z'chus (the Rabbanan, because freedom is an advantage).

(c) According to the Rabbanan, the Tana states that there are three cases, to preclude the case of Rebbi Meir. He needs to state that there are four according to Rebbi Meir - to preclude the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign their names, which is about to come under discussion.

(a) If the witnesses of ...

1. ... a Get Ishah do not know how to sign their names - we cut their names into the Sh'tar and they fill them in with ink.
2. ... other Sh'taros - it is too bad. If they cannot sign, then we simply have to look for other witnesses.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - compares Shichrurei Avadim to other Sh'taros in this regard, and he comes to explain the opinion of the Chachamim it seems, that rather than to argue with them.

(c) Chazal did not compare Shichrurei Avadim to Gitei Nashim here too - because the only reason Chazal were lenient with regard to the latter was to avoid the woman from becoming an Agunah (should there be a problem in finding other witnesses), a reason that does not of course, apply to slaves.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel said in his statement regarding other documents 'Im Yod'in Likros ve'Lachtom'. To accommodate the word 'Likros', which appears to be superfluous, we amend his statement to read - 'Eidim she'Ein Yod'in Li'kros, Korin Lifneihem ve'Chosmin, ve'she'Ein Yod'in Lachtom ... '.

(a) If a Shechiv-Mera gives a Sh'tar to a Sheli'ach and dies - he is not permitted to hand it to the recipient in the case of ...

1. ... a Get Ishah, or in the case of ...
2. ... a Sh'tar Shichrur, due to the principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'?

(b) He may however - hand to the recipient a Manah that the Shechiv-Mera gave him before his death.

(c) The Tana did not include this case in his list of cases where Gitei Nashim are compared to Shichrurei Avadim - because the same Halachah applies to a case of 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni', and the Tana only includes cases which are unique to Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim.

(d) Ravin Amar Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi gives 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni' the same Din as Gitei Nashim in this regard - because of the suspicion that people will rely on the Sh'tar to acquire the money, and 'there is no Sh'tar after death'.

(a)

1. A Get Ishah - that is written she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul.
2. So is a Sh'tar Shichrur.

(b) We ask why the Tana did not insert this in his list - a problem according to Rava, in whose opinion the Tana mentions 'Molich u'Meivi' because of 'Shema Lo Yimtze'u Eidim Lekaymo', but not according to Rabah, who gives the reason of 'Ein Beki'in Lishmah' (in which case he has already mentioned it).

(c) We have learned that a Get that is written on something that is still attached to the ground is invalid - and the same applies to a Sh'tar Shichrur.

(d) We attempt to explain why the Tana ...

1. ... omits these two cases ('Lishmah' according to Rava, and 'Mechubar' according to everyone) - by restricting the cases that he does include to P'sulim de'Rabbanan, whereas these two are P'sulim d'Oraysa.
2. ... then inserts that of Ercha'os shel Nochrim, which is a P'sul d'Oraysa - by establishing it when there are Eidei Mesirah (according to Rebbi Elazar), reducing the P'sul to a P'sul de'Rabbanan.

(a) Despite the fact that the Tana speaks when there are Eidei Mesirah - the Get will be Pasul, because it is 'Mezuyaf mi'Tocho' (forged from within) as we explained above.

(b) The Sofer must then have been a Jew - because Rebbi Elazar establishes the P'sul of she'Lo Lishmah by the *writing* of the Get (and a Nochri cannot write Lishmah).

(a) In the Seifa of the Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar validates even Gitei Nashim that are signed by Nochrim - which Rebbi Zeira establishes like Rebbi Elazar (who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi', and who does not therefore require witnesses to sign on the Get).

(b) This does not necessarily imply that the Tana Kama does not follow the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, as we shall now see.

(c) They may well argue over where the names on the Get are typical Nochri names (such as John or Bill). Rebbi Shimon does not consider this Pasul mi'Tocho, since everyone knows that the witnesses are Nochrim, and will not come to rely on them should Eidei Mesirah not be available; whereas the Chachamim do not differentiate between one name and another.