Previous daf

1)

(a) We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not (the Chachamim). The Tana Kama ('Biksho ve'Lo Matz'o, Yachzero li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Ya'akov ('Meis Meshale'ach, Yachzero le'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis') - all hold - like Rebbi Elazar.

(b) We know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar - because it is only in the event that the Meshale'ach dies that he obligates the Sheli'ach to hand the Sh'tar to the heirs of the recipient; otherwise, he would have to return it to the Meshale'ach.

(c) The Chachamim (who hold 'Yachloku') - are uncertain whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar or the Chachamim.

(d) If the Shechiv Mera recovers, he is entitled to retract.

(a) Rav Yosef rules - like Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi.

(b) Whether Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi was actually a Nasi or whether he was just quoting the Nasi - is a She'eilah which remains unanswered.

(c) We reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Damu' - by establishing the Beraisa by a healthy person (like the original interpretation of the Machlokes).

(d) Rav Yosef must then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachzeru le'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachzeru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after all) - because, according to the original text, Rebbi Shimon would clash with the principle 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis'.

3)

(a) If the Sheli'ach who brings a Get declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam', or vice-versa - the Get is not valid.

(b) The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his presence but only half signed, or vice-versa. Half signed means - that he witnessed one of the witnesses signing on the Get, but not the other.

(c) Neither will the Get be Kasher if one witness declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and a second witness, 'be'Fanai Nechtam'. This is not necessarily because one of the two is not a Sheli'ach (though some will later explain it this way). It might also be because, since the Shelia'ch who testifies on the Kesivah does not testify on the Chasimah and vice-versa, we might confuse this with Kiyum Sh'taros, and validate that too with one witness.

(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav and a third witness, be'Fanai Nechtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because, in his opinion, since we obligate testimony both on the Kesivah and on the Chasimah, we will not confuse it with Kiyum Sh'taros.

(b) In fact - Rebbi Yehudah argues in all the previous cases in the Mishnah too, for the same reason.

(a) In spite of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ... Tzarich Lomar be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam', the Tana here finds it necessary to invalidate the Get should the Sheli'ach fail to make the full declaration - because 'Tzarich Lomar' implies Lechatchilah, leading us to believe that, Bedieved, if he failed to make the declaration, the Get is nevertheless Kasher.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Rav Ashi confines this to the second half of the Get, because as far as the first half is concerned, we have already quoted Rebbi Elazar, who validates the Get even if the Sheli'ach only witnessed the writing of the first line.

(c) The first line of the Get comprises - the names of the man, the woman and the date.

(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'. Rav Chisda maintains that, in such a case, even if two witnesses would then corroborate the signature of the second witness - the Get would be Pasul.

(b) His reason is because the we will then be trying to validate it by means of two different methods: 1. by substantiation; 2. by means of the Takanas Chachamim, when in fact, Chazal required either the one or the other (but not by a combination of both).

(c) We learned in the first Perek that if a Sheli'ach testifies on the witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nechtam') - the Get is Kasher.

(d) Based on this, Rava rejects Rav Chisda's ruling - because, if one witness is believed to corroborate the witnesses signature, then how can we possibly reject the testimony of two?

7)

(a) Rava does concede however, that if the Sheli'ach himself testifies on the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul - because of its similarity to Kiyum Sh'taros, which is Pasul under similar circumstances.

(b) The case by Kiyum Sh'taros (of Mamon) is - if the same witness who corroborates his own signature, also combines with another witness to corroborate the signature of his co-signatory. The Sh'tar is Pasul - because it transpires that three quarters of the money is being extracted through one witness, and a quarter through the other (whereas the Torah requires each witness to extract half the money).

(c) Rav Ashi rejects this ruling of Rava's however - because how can it be that if the Sheli'ach were to testify all by himself, the Get would be Kasher, and now that a second witness testifies together with him, it will be Pasul?

(d) The case that is Pasul, according to Rav Ashi is - if the She'liach, after declaring 'be'Fanai ... Nechtam Chetzyo', concludes that *he* is the second witness who signed on the Sh'tar, which is Pasul because we are trying to validate it using a combination of two different methods: 1. substantiation; 2. the Takanas Chachamim of 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', when in fact, Chazal required either the one or the other (like Rava explained earlier).

(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'. The Tana cannot be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness - because now that the Tana invalidates 'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nichtav ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam (where each witness testified on a complete Kesivah or a complete Chasimah) Pasul', it is obvious that this case will be Pasul too.

(b) Clearly, the Tana is coming to teach us - that even if he testified on the second signature, together with a second witness (like Rava) or if he claimed that he was the other witness (like Rav Ashi), it would be Pasul (to preclude a case where there are two witnesses on the second signature, which would be Kasher - a Kashya on Rav Chisda). Bear in mind the principle that either the Tana is telling us an intrinsic Chidush, or the Chidush lies in the inference.

(c) The Tana cannot be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi too - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubah Lo Tafasta' (one always learns the smallest possible Chidush).

(d) The reason that we do not confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case, which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as well as on Rav Chisda) is - because in fact, Rava's case is no more of a Chidush than that of Rav Ashi, since in the equivalent case by other Sh'taros, the Sh'tar is Pasul, as we explained above (in which case Rava's case and that of Rav Ashi are equal).

(a) Rav Chisda answers the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam'. He comments - that having told us that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, uve'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo' is Pasul (where at least he testifies on half of the Chasimah), then surely it is obvious that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam' is Pasul too. Clearly then, the Tana finds no problem in stating first the smaller Chidush and then the bigger one (even though in light of the latter Chidush, the former one is quite superfluous [a third principle known as 'Lo Zu Af Zu'...]).

(b) He extrapolates from there - that with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u'be'Fanav Nechtam Chetzyo' too, the Tana may well have inserted it, not to tell us the bigger Chidush (in which case he could have presented us with his case [that even when two witnesses testify on the other signature], it is Pasul), but to say that not only in this case is the Get Pasul ('Lo Zu', which doesn't need to be a Chidush at all, and from which one can nevertheless not make any inference), but it is even Pasul when one witness testifies on the entire Kesivah and one witness on the Chasimah ('af Zu').

(a) Rav Chisda rules that, with regard to 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah' - (when the five-Tefach wall of a pit [Gidud] extends five Tefachim above ground level), the two sets of five Tefachim do not combine to form a Kasher wall (regarding Shabbos) and one cannot therefore carry inside the pit.

(b) Mereimar disagrees - the Halachah is like him (and one is permitted to carry in the pit).

(a) Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves. He cannot be referring to ...

1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shiur of) one Revi'is of water - because we have learned in a Mishnah in Yadayim that even two people may wash from one Revi'is (i.e. when the one places his hands underneath the other).
2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other - because we have learned in a Beraisa that this is permitted (even to dip one's hand into a river in this way).
3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other half - because Rebbi Yanai has already invalidated washing in this way.

(b) Wen we answer the previous Kashya with the words 'Lo Tzericha de'Ika Mashkeh Tofe'ach' - we mean that Rebbi Yanai is speaking when the first half of the hand is already dry when he washes the second half, whereas we are talking about a case where it is still slightly wet.

(c) We refute the Kashya on that from the Mishnah in Taharos, which specifically lists 'Tofe'ach' among those things which are not considered joined (regarding Tum'ah) - by going one step further and establishing the Mishnah in Taharos when it is only slightly wet, whereas we are speaking when the hand is wet enough to render what touches it sufficiently wet to make other things wet.