Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye proves from the current Beraisa ...

1. ... that the relative is permitted to sign anywhere on the Sh'tar (at the beginning, in the middle or at the end) - since the Tana did not restrict his signature to any particular place.
2. ... that one is permitted to substantiate a Get Mekushar from any three of the witnesses, even if they did not sign consecutively - because had they needed to be consecutive, why did the Tana not arrange for one Pasul witness to sign at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of each set of three witnesses, in which case there would never be more than one Pasul witness in any group of three, and there would be no reason not to permit more than one Pasul witness to sign on a Get Kere'ach.

(b) When a Get Kere'ach came before Rebbi Ami (or Rebbi Yanai) - he instructed the Sofer to go and find a slave in the street to sign on the remaining fold (like ben Nannes).

2)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer validates the divorce in a case where the husband says to his wife 'You are permitted to everyone except so-and-so'. The Chachamim render it invalid.

(b) He says it - whilst handing the Get to her.

(c) In the event that he did say it - he must take the Get back and gives it to her again.

(d) If he wrote this wording in the Get - it is Pasul, even if he subsequently erased it.

(a) We ask whether 'Ela li'P'loni' (by which Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan argue) is a Lashon of 'Chutz' or of 'al-M'nas'. If it is a Lashon of ...

1. ... 'Chutz', then by 'al-M'nas' - the Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Eliezer because (unlike Chutz, which is a Shiyur [a preclusion]) 'al-M'nas' is a regular condition.
2. ... 'al-M'nas', then by 'Chutz' - Rebbi Eliezer will agree with the Rabbanan (because he only permits a Lashon of T'nai, but not one of Shiyur).

(b) The Torah writes in Metzora "ve'Nasati Nega Tzora'as be'Veis Eretz Achuzaschem". We ...

1. ... learn from there - that all Jewish houses are subject to Tum'as Nega'im.
2. ... infer from there - that all houses belonging to Nochrim are not.

(c) Ravina proves from here that, in the Mishnah in Nega'im 'Kol ha'Batim Mitam'in bi'Nega'im Ela shel Ovdei Kochavim' - 'Ela' must mean Chutz (a Shiyur), and not a T'nai.

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah cannot be the author of our Mishnah (as we shall now see)?

(b) In connection with the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that ...

1. ... in the case of 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam Chutz mi'P'loni' - even Rebbi Eliezer will agree that she is not divorced (because it is a Shiyur).
2. ... in the case of 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam al'M'nas she'Lo Tinas'i li'P'loni' - Rebbi Eliezer permits her to everyone except for that man, whereas the Chachamim declare the Get invalid.

(c) According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Chachamim differentiate between this latter case, and any other T'nai regarding Gitin, which is effective - because by any other T'nai, the Get is total, whereas in this case, he has precluded someone from the Heter of the Get (albeit via a T'nai and not via a preclusion).
2. ... the Tana of our Mishnah, Rebbi Yanai quoting a certain Zakein, Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates his leniency from the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" - which implies that his wife is divorced even if the divorce only permitted her to one man.

(d) The Chachamim explain this Pasuk to mean - that she went and married one of any men.

5)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates from "ve'Ishah Gerushah me'Iyshah Lo Yikachu" what Rebbi Yanai extrapolated from "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah le'Ish Acher" - because it implies that even though she is only divorced from husband, and not permitted to everyone else, she is nevertheless considered divorced.

(b) In spite of this Pasuk - the Rabbanan decline to learn like Rebbi Eliezer, because the Pasuk in Emor is referring to Kohanim, who have many extra Mitzvos, and from whom one cannot therefore extrapolate Chumros regarding other people.

(a) Rebbi Aba ask whether we can extend the current Din of Gerushin to Kidushin - where he said to the woman 'Hiskadshi Li Le'aser le'Chol Adam Chutz mi'P'loni.'

(b) He suggests that even Rebbi Eliezer may well restrict his lenient ruling here to Get, because of the Pesukim that we quoted, whereas there are no Pesukim by Kidushin. Nevertheless, he might well extend it to Kidushin - because of the Hekesh "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" which is used to learn various Dinim of Kidushin from Gitin, and vice-versa.

(c) The Rabbanan too, might extend their stringent ruling to Kidushin because of the same Hekesh. On the other hand, they might be more lenient by Kidushin than by Get - because Kidushin does not require "Kerisus", as Gitin does.

(d) Rebbi Aba's conclusion is - that both Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim will Darshen "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (the former, le'Kula, the latter, le'Chumra.

(a) Assuming that we hold like Rebbi Aba, if Reuven betrothed a woman 'Chutz mi'Shimon' (his brother), and Shimon betrothed her 'Chutz me'Reuven', why might we have thought that Levi their brother cannot perform Yibum - because it appears to be a case of 'Eishes Sh'nei ha'Meisim'.

(b) Abaye however, permits him to do so - due to the fact that, whereas Reuven's Kidushin are effective inasmuch as it forbade the woman on the rest of the world, Shimon's, which does not affect her at all, is not effective.

(c) We find a case of Eishes Sh'nei Meisim according to Rebbi Aba - in a case where Reuven betrothed a woman 'Chutz mi'Shimon' (his brother), and Shimon betrothed her S'tam, in which case his Kidushin is effective because it forbids the woman on Reuven, and rendering her 'Eishes Sh'nei Meisim'.

(a) Abaye asks what the Din will be if someone divorced his wife 'le'Chol Adam Chutz me'Reuven and Shimon' and then, before handing her the Get, he said 'li'Reuven ve'Shimon' - whether he finally includes Reuven and Shimon in the Heter for her to marry, or whether he now means to permit Reuven and Shimon but to forbid the rest of the world.

(b) Based on the first side of the She'eilah, we ask what the Din will be if he later mentioned Reuven but not Shimon. Even if he meant to include Shimon as well, he might nevertheless have mentioned only Reuven, because he was the first of the pair that he precluded the first time.

(c) If he meant specifically Reuven and not Shimon, we ask what the Din will then be if he only mentioned Shimon. We think that 'Shimon' might be better than 'Reuven' in this regard - beaus he was the one that he mentioned last the first time.

(a) Assuming that Shimon, like Reuven, is specific, Rav Ashi thinks that perhaps 'Af Shimon' is better than just Shimon, because he means to say not only Reuven, but Shimon too. Alternatively, 'Af Shimon' may be no different than 'Shimon' - because it might be referring to the rest of the world, to whom he permitted her the first time (but not to Reuven).

(b) We conclude 'Teiku'.