Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah validates all kinds of inks for writing a Get, specifically mentioning ink, orpiment and Sikra.
What is 'Sikra'?

(b) He also permits Kumus and Kankantum (vitriol, also known as 'copper-water').
What is 'Kumus'?

(c) What qualifies ink that is Kasher to write a Get?

(d) What may one therefore not use?

(a) The Tana validates any surface on which to write a Get, among them an olive leaf and the horn of a cow or the hand of a slave.
What condition must the husband fulfill before the latter cases will be Kasher?

(b) What does 'u've'Chol Davar ha'Miskayem' in our Mishnah come to include?

(c) Which two kinds of surface does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili invalidate in lieu of parchment?

(d) Rebbi Chiya cites a Beraisa which includes Eiver, Shachor and Shichor. Eiver is lead.
What is ...

1. ... 'Shachor'?
2. ... 'Shichor'?

(a) If, on Shabbos, someone writes with red paint over letters written in ink, Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish obligate him to bring two Chata'os.
Why is that?

(b) What will be the Din if he writes with ink over ink or red paint over paint?

(c) Should he write with red paint over ink, there are two opinions as to whether he is Chayav or Patur.
On what grounds might he ...

1. ... Chayav?
2. ... Patur?

(d) On what grounds does the first opinion disagree with the latter argument?

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether, in a case where the witnesses are unable to sign their names, one writes their names in red paint, and they then overwrite them in ink.
Why did Resh Lakish think that it should be valid?

(b) In light of Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement, how did he then justify his reply to Resh Lakish's She'eilah (that this is not considered writing)?

(c) Rav proposes scratching the witnesses names on the parchment and inviting the witnesses to sign on the cuts.
What is the problem with Shmuel, who suggests writing their names with lead for them to overwrite?
What does the Tana of the Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chiya say about a Get that is written in lead, charcoal or vitriol?

(d) How do we resolve this problem? What did he mean by 'Eiver'?

(a) And what is the discrepancy between Rebbi Avahu, who validates writing the witnesses names in Mei Milin (water in which gall-nuts have been soaked), with the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chanina, which validates a Get that is written with 'Mei Tarya *ve'Aftza*' (which is synonymous with Mei Milin)?

(b) How do we resolve this discrepancy? When is Mei Milin considerd writing, and when is it not?

(c) The final suggestion is that of Rav Papa.
What did Rav Pap advise Papa Tura'ah, to do with regard to witnesses who did not know how to write? What was Papa Tura'ah' profession?

(a) What did Rav Kahana do with someone who used this method of signing with regard to Sh'taros other than Gitin?

(b) What should one then do if witnesses do not know how to sign their name?

(c) Why should Gitin be different than other Sh'taros in this regard?

(d) Which of the above opinions is substantiated by a Beraisa?

7)

(a) What does one do with witnesses who do not know how to read (the Sh'tar that they are signing), but who do know how to sign their names?

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel differentiates between Gitin and other Sh'taros, as we learned already above.
What does the Tana Kama say?

(c) Rava rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
How does Rav Gamda quote Rava?

(d) If, as Rav Gamda maintains, the Halachah is like the Rabbanan (the Tana Kama), then why did Rav Kahana (on the previous Amud) give Malkos to someone who validated witnesses who were unable to sign?

(a) Why did Rav Yehudah have trouble in reading the Get he was about to sign or corroborate?

(b) What did Ula tell him? Why did he quote Rebbi Elazar and Rav Nachman?

(c) To whom will this concession not apply?

(d) What title did Rebbi Elazar enjoy?

(a) What would Rav Papa do when a Sh'tar Parsa'ah came before him (to corroborate)? What is a Sh'tar Parsa'ah?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav Papa with what we learned in the first Perek, that with a Sh'tar Parsa'ah one may only claim from B'nei Chorin (but not from Meshubadim)?

(a) Huna bar Nasan quoting Ameimar, told Rav Ashi that a Sh'tar Parsa'ah signed by Jews is valid even to claim from Meshabadim. Besides the witnesses being able to read Persian and the Sh'tar being written on a surface that does not allow forgery, what third requirement did Rav Ashi stipulate for the Sh'tar to be Kasher?

(b) What did Huna bar Nasan reply to Rav Ashi's second query (regarding a Sh'tar that does not allow forgery)?

(c) Seeing as the Sh'tar was without flaw, what was Huna bar Nasan's Chidush?

(d) But that too, is a Mishnah in 'ha'Megaresh' 'Get she'Kasvo Ivris ve'Eidav Yevanis ... , Kasher'? So what is now Huna bar Nasan's Chidush? Why might there be a distinction between Gitin and other Sh'taros?

(a) What does Shmuel say about a man who gave his a wife a blank piece of paper saying 'Harei Zeh Gitech!'?

(b) How do we know that the Sh'tar in question was not treated with Afeitzim?

(c) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about a man who gave his wife a Get and who then informed her, after she had tossed it into the fire, that it was a Sh'tar Pasim or a Sh'tar Amanah?

(d) What is ...

1. ... a Sh'tar Pasim?
2. ... a Sh'tar Amanah?

(a) What Kashya does the above Beraisa pose on Shmuel (with regard to the case of the blank Get)?

(b) We answer that Shmuel only validates the Get if, after checking, using the appropriate dye, the letters ultimately appeared (which is not possible once the Get no longer exists).
What problem do we have with this answer?

(c) How do we resolve the problem?

(d) What are then the ramifications of Shmuel's ruling?

(a) Ravina, quoting Mereimar in the name of Rav Dimi, requires the witnesses to read the Get.
Which witnesses?

(b) What do we ask on him from the Beraisa that we just cited (regarding a man who gave his wife a Get and who then informed her, after she had tossed it into the fire, that it was a Sh'tar Pasim or a Sh'tar Amanah)?

(c) So how will Shmuel explain the Beraisa? What is then the Chidush?

(a) When the 'Get' that a man threw his wife fell among barrels of wine and after searching, they discovered a Mezuzah, on what grounds did Rav Nachman declare the missing 'Get' to be synonymous with the Mezuzah?

(b) Why would he have ruled differently, had they discovered two or three Mezuzos?

(c) Then why did they fail to find the Get?

Next daf