Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Nachman, who holds that, before Raban Gamliel's Takanah, one could nullify the Shelichus of a Get in front of a Beis-Din consisting of two people. He cites as a source the Mishnah in Shevi'is (concerning a P'ruzbul) ...

1. ... 'Mosrani Lifneichem P'loni u'Ploni ha'Dayanim she'be'Makom P'loni', implying that there were two Dayanim and not three. Rav Sheishes refutes this proof however - on the grounds that the Tana is not a peddler, who needs to show all his wares. When he says 'P'loni u'P'loni', he takes the third 'P'loni' for granted.
2. ... 'ha'Dayanim Chosmin le'Matah O ha'Eidim' - implying that the Tana is comparing the one to the other, in which case, just as one requires only two witnesses, so too will only two Dayanim suffice.

(b) According to Rav Sheishes, this rule pertains to the Chumash, where two things in the same Pasuk are usually compared, but in a Mishnah, we can say 'Ha ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha ke'de'Isa' (one speaks like this, and the other, like that).

(c) The Tana find it necessary to inform us that either the Dayanim or the Eidim sign at the foot of a P'ruzbul - to teach us that it makes no difference whether they employed the formal text used by Dayanim ('Bei-Dina Havina ... ', or that used by witnesses 'Duchrin Sahadusa de'Havah be'Anpana ... '. Either way, the Bitul is valid.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Raban Gamliel instituted this Takanah, because, we explained, he was worried that the Sheli'ach, unaware of the cancellation, will hand the Get to the woman, who, not knowing about it either, will then use it to remarry (when in fact, she is still married), and all the children from her second husband will be Mamzerim. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. According to Resh Lakish - we are worried that she will get to hear about it, and remain an Agunah (i.e. meaning, now that he has set the Get, we need to encourage him not to cancel it, so that his wife, who is alone overseas, should not remain an Agunah).

(b) This Machlokes is interdependent with that of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishes - because Rebbi Yochanan, who is concerned that the woman will not hear about the cancellation, holds like Rav Nachman, who requires two people on the Beis-Din (and two people do not have a Kol - see Tosfos), whereas Resh Lakish, who is concerned that she will, requires three people, like Rav Sheishes, in which case, there is a Kol.

(a) If, in spite of Raban Gamliel's Takanah, the husband did cancel the Get, Rebbi upholds the cancelation. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disputes this - because of the S'vara 'im-Kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis-Din Yafeh' (to allow the cancelation to stand, would be making a mockery of Beis-Din).

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, neither is he permitted to add to any condition that the Get may already contain.

(c) Despite the fact that min ha'Torah, the Shelichus is Bateil, and they are still married, the Rabbanan have the authority to release the marriage and allow the woman to remarry - on the basis of the principle 'Kol de'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata de'Rabbanan Mekadesh' (when someone betroths a woman, he does so on the understanding that the continued validity of the Kidushin is dependent upon the decision of the Rabbanan.

(d) This is understandable with regard to Kidushei Kesef; as far as Kidushei Bi'ah is concerned - we will apply the principle 'Shavyuhah Rabbanan li'Be'ilaso Be'ilas Z'nus' (they simply withdrew the Halachic ramifications of the Bi'ah, rendering the actual Bi'ah an immoral act), in conjunction with that of 'Ma'an de'Mekadesh ... '.

(a) We cannot explain ...

1. ... in the Havah Amina that Kidushei Bi'ah is min ha'Torah because we learn it from the Pasuk "u'Ba'alah", whereas Kidushei Kesef, which is learned from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kichah" "Kichah", is only mi'de'Rabbanan - because whatever is learned from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is considered min ha'Torah.
2. ... in the answer, that they canceled Kidushei Bi'ah on account of Rav, who forbade betrothal in this way - because since Kidushei Bi'ah is 'd'Oraysa, who authorized the Rabbanan to cancel it?

(b) On the numerous occasions that the Rabbanan do cancel the Kidushin (such as here, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), they do so - based on the S'vara of 'Ma'an de'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata de'Rabbanan Mekadesh'.

(a) If someone appoints ten people to write a Get on behalf of his wife without using the Lashon 'Kulchem' - one of them writes the Get and two others sign it.

(b) According to Rebbi, he is permitted to cancel the Shelichus of two of them even not in the presence of the others. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - he is not.

(c) Assuming that their dispute concerns Raban Gamliel's Takanah, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it because he holds 'Eidus she'Batlah Miktzasah Batlah Kulah'. Consequently, we are afraid that the remaining witnesses, not aware of the cancelation, will write the Get and hand it to the woman, who in fact, will not be divorced (though she will be unaware of it), as we explained earlier. Whereas Rebbi holds 'Eidus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Lo Batlah Kulah', and the Shelichus remains intact even Lechatchilah.

6)

(a) According to the second Lashon, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that 'Eidus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Lo Batlah Kulah', and the reason that he forbids the man to cancel the Shelichus of two of them not in the presence of the others is - because it is intrinsically forbidden to cancel part of a Shelichus; having appointed ten people to be Sheluchim, he cannot cancel five of them.

(b) We ask whether, if the husband used the Lashon 'Kulchem', he is permitted to cancel two of them not in the presence of the others. The two sides of the She'eilah are - the very two Leshonos that we just cited. If Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason is because of Rebbi's Takanah, then it will be permitted, seeing as none of the witnesses may fulfill their Shelichus without the others, there is nothing of which to be afraid; whereas the reason that one cannot negate half the Sheluchim without the others, will apply equally to where he said 'Kulchem'.

(c) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa which presents the Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel by a case where there are only two witnesses and he cancels one not in the presence of the other - on the grounds that two witnesses, who can only sign the Shelichus together, are like 'Kulchem', and yet Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it here too, proving the second side of the She'eilah.

(d) To resolve this Kashya - Rav Ashi establishes this Beraisa by Eidei Holachah (where both of them are not required to take the Get to his wife), and not to Eidei Kesivah, where both of them would need to sign simultaneously.

(a) We try to prove that the Beraisa must be speaking by Eidei Holachah from the Seifa 'Amar la'Zeh Bifnei Atzmo, ve'la'Zeh Bifnei Atzmo, Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo Bifnei Zeh' - which must be speaking about Eidei Holachah, because the two Eidei Kesivah are obligated to sign in front of each other, as we learned in Kesuvos.

(b)We refute this proof however, on the grounds that the Tana might hold like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - who validates a Sh'tar whose signatories sign independently.

(c) Assuming that we uphold this disproof of Rav Ashi, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason for forbidding the cancelation of two of the witnesses not in the presence of the others - will be because of Raban Gamliel's Takanah (based on the fact that he holds 'Eidus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Batlah Kulah').

(a) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah heard two rulings from Rebbi Aba, one like Rebbi and the other, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. We are talking about - the cases of 'Bitlo Mevutal' and 'Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo Bifnei Zeh'.

(b) Rav Yosef resolves which ruling is which from the episode cited by Rav Dimi. Rebbi rule there with regard to a Beis-Din who assessed someone's property at a price that was one sixth too little or one sixth too much - that Bedieved 'Mah she'Asuy Asuy'.

(c) When Rebbi P'rata asked Rebbi 'im-Kein, Mah Ko'ach shel Beis-Din Yafeh' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) - he relented.

(d) Rav Yosef proves from here - that, if, as Rebbi Aba maintains, we hold like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding 'Bitlo Mevutal' (seeing as Rebbi himself concedes that), then we have no option other than to hold like Rebbi with regard to 'Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo Bifnei Zeh'.

(a) Rebbi Yashiyah from Usha agrees with Rebbi Aba, who ruled in one of the above issues like Rebbi and in the other, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. After forcing a man to agree to divorce his wife, Rebbi Yashiyah from Usha instructed the witnesses - to go and hide and write the Get, in order to prevent the man from canceling their Shelichus.

(b) We prove from the fact that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yashiyah from Usha considered hiding effective - that if the husband cancelled the witnesses not in their presence, his cancelation would be void (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
2. ... he instructed them to hide rather than to scatter - that if they would scatter the husband would nevertheless be permitted to cancel the one not in front of the other (like Rebbi).

(c) Rava Amar Rav Nachman disagrees with Rebbi Aba and Rebbi Yashiyah from Usha - inasmuch as he rules like Rebbi in both cases.