Previous daf

1)

(a) The difference whether someone redeems his own Ma'aser Sheini, to take the money to Yerushalayim or someone else's is - that in the former case, he is obligated to add a fifth, whereas in the latter, he is not.

(b) When the Tana therefore says 'Ma'arimin al Ma'aser Sheini - he means that one could avoid having to add an extra fifth by giving the money with which to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini to people who eat at his table (who do not need to add a fifth, but) who will return the Ma'aser Sheini to him after redeeming it.

(c) For this trick the Tana permits him to use - his grown-up son and daughter and his Jewish Eved and Shifchah.

(d) We refute the initial explanation (to answer how the Shifchah ha'Ivri'ah, who is a Ketanah, can acquire on his behalf - see Rashash) that the Tana is speaking about Ma'aser nowadays, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan - by countering that, in that case, how could he own an Eved Ivri (since, when Yovel does not apply, Eved Ivri does not apply either)?

3)

(a) Rava lists three stages by a Katan. A Katan who can distinguish between a nut and a clod of earth can acquire for himself but not for others, as we learned earlier. This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who (assuming she has no father) may receive her Kidushin , either through herself or through her mother or brother).

(b) The second stage is that of Pe'utos (between the ages of six and eight) - whose sale of Metaltelin is valid.

(c) This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who may accept her own Get, even if she was married off by her father (provided he is no longer alive at the time of the divorce).

(a) The third stage is that of 'Higi'u le'Onas Nedarim, whose Neder is a Neder and whose Hekdesh is Hekdesh. We are talking about (a particularly smart) boy of twelve or a girl of thirteen.

(b) This stage effects specifically a Ketanah - who, should she develop Simanim, becomes eligible to perform Chalitzah (whereas prior to that age, we would assume the Simanim to be the sign of a wart, rather than of Gadlus).

(c) Before an heir can sell his father's property, he must be - twenty.

(a) Even though a Ketanah said to a Sheli'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti' - she would only become divorced when the Get reached her hand, because a Katan is not empowered to appoint a Sheli'ach.

(b) In the event that her father appointed the Sheli'ach on her behalf - the Shelichus would be valid and she would be divorced as soon as the get reached the Sheli'ach's hand.

(c) If a man says to his Sheli'ach 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti be'Makom P'loni' and he hands it to her somewhere else, she is not divorced. This would not be the case, if he said 'Harei Hi be'Makom P'loni' - which is no more than an indication that this is where he will find her, but not a binding stipulation.

(d) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah draws a distinction between a woman who says to her Sheli'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' - (which is the equivalent of 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti' by a man) and one who says 'Havei Li mi'Makom P'loni' (which is the equivalent of 'Harei Hi be'Makom P'loni by a man).

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah, when a woman said to her Sheli'ach 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' and he received it elsewhere - she is divorced.

(b) He argues with the Tana Kama in this case - because a woman can be divorced against her will, neither does she not know where her husband intends to divorce her (so her geographical instructions are no more than an indication); whereas in the Reisha, in the equivalent case of the man, who divorces of his on freewill, Rebbi Elazar will agree that when he says 'Ten Get Zeh le'Ishti be'Makom P'loni', he really means it.

(a) If the wife of a Kohen said to the Sheli'ach ...

1. ... 'Havei Li Giti', she is permitted to eat Terumah - until the Get reaches her hands.
2. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti', she is forbidden to eat Terumah - immediately.
3. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti be'Makom P'loni' - she is permitted to eat Terumah until the Get reaches that place, according to the Tana Kama (following his opinion in the previous Mishnah).
4. ... 'Hiskabel Li Giti', she is forbidden to eat Terumah - immediately - according to Rebbi Elazar (following his opinion in the previous Mishnah).

(b) In the last case in our Mishnah, the Get is considered a Get, according to the Tana Kama, the moment it reaches the specified place. This clashes with the previous Mishnah - which completely invalidated a Get that was handed over in a location other than the specified one.

(c) In order to reconcile the two Mishnayos, we establish the latter Mishnah - when the woman said to the Sheli'ach 'Receive my Get in Masa Mechsaya, though you might find her in Bavel (proper)'. What he therefore meant to say was that wherever he finds her husband, he should accept her Get from him. However, the Get will not be valid until it arrives at the specified place.

(d) 've'Rebbi Elazar Oser Miyad'. Having already taught us that Rebbi Elazar holds 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo', we establish this case, when the woman said 'Go to the east, because that is where you will find him', and the Sheli'ach went to the west. The Mishnah comes to teach us that we nevertheless suspect that he may just by chance, meet him in the west.

8)

(a) One Beraisa states that if a man instructs his Sheli'ach to place an Eiruv on his behalf consisting of dates, and he made the Eruv with dried figs or vice-versa, his Eiruv is valid, whereas another Beraisa states that it is not.

1. Rabah reconciles the two Beraisos - by establishing the first Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar (who holds in our Mishnah 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo'), and the second, like the Rabanan.
2. Rav Yosef reconciles them even if they both follow the opinion of the Rabbanan, who will agree with Rebbi Elazar in the first Beraisa - because, unlike in the case of Get, where the husband is fussy for his wife to be divorced in a particular place, because he wants her to be embarrassed, there is no reason to be fussy here (and the Rabbanan agree in principle that, whenever there is no reason to be fussy, we say 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lah').

(b) The reason of the Tana in the second Beraisa is - because he is speaking when the Sheli'ach is using the fruit belonging to a third party, who permitted him to use a specific fruit, and the S'vara 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo' does not apply where somebody else's objects are concerned.

(a) There is a divergence of opinion between the Tana'im of two Beraisos regarding someone who asks his Sheli'ach to place an Eiruv in a tower, and he placed it in a dovecote or vice-versa - one says the Eiruv is valid, the other says it is not.

(b) Abaye asked Rav Yosef (who maintains that the Rabbanan agree in principle that, whenever there is no reason to be fussy, we say 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lah') how he will reconcile the two Beraisos. The problem is - that here, there is no reason to distinguish between whether the Eiruv is placed in a tower or in a dovecote.

(c) He replied - that there it was not a question of the location of the Eiruv, but of using the fruit in the one and the fruit in the other (both of which belonged to a third person who had authorized the Meshale'ach to use either the one or the other).

(a) If someone says to two Sheluchim ...

1. ... 'Kisvu Get u'T'nu le'Ishti'; 'Girshuhah u'T'nu Lah'; 'Kisvu Igeres u'T'nu Lah' - they have the authority to write a Get and give it to his wife.
2. ... 'Pitruhah'; 'Pirnesuhah'; 'Asu Lah ke'Nimus'; 'Asu Lah ka'Rauy' - it is as if he said nothing (because these have connotations of freeing her from her troubles, feeding her and doing for her whatever she needs, respectivel, but not of divorce.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa repeats the latter list. He adds that 'Shilchuhah'; 'Shavkuhah'; 'Tarchuhah' - have the equivalent Din to the first list in our Mishnah, and the men concerned are Sheluchei ha'Get.

(c) The Tana of our Mishnah does not differentiate between 'Patruhah' and 'Pitruhah' - According to Rebbi Nasan, 'Patruhah' is a Lashon of divorce, 'Pitruhah' (which is a Lashon of exemption) is not.

(d) According to Rava, the basis of this Machlokes is - the fact that the Chachamim were from Eretz Yisrael, where no form of 'Liftor' means 'to divorce', whereas Rebbi Nasan was from Bavel where certain forms of the word do.

12)

(a) The Tana say that if someone who is being taken out with a 'Kolar' (in chains to be executed) announces 'Kisvu Get le'Ishti!' - is authorizing those present (and perhaps even those who are not) to write a Get for his wife and hand it to her (even though he did not say T'nu').

(b) They subsequently added someone who departs on an overseas journey (a hazardous undertaking in those days) or who joins a long distance caravan train. Rebbi Shimon Shezuri adds to the list - someone who is ill.