(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Gitin 51

GITIN 51 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


(a) Question: Does R. Chanina also require that the debt be written, or is it sufficient that it has a limit?
(b) Answer: We can derive R. Chanina 's opinion from the following: A man died and left 2 daughters and a son. The first daughter took Parnasah (a 10th of the estate as a dowry); the son died before the second took Parnasah.
1. (R. Yochanan): The second daughter forfeits her claim to Parnasah.
2. Question (R. Chanina ): Parnasah may be collected from mortgaged property, unlike food for the daughters - how can you say that she does not receive Parnasah?!
i. Parnasah is limited, but it is not written, and we see that R. Chanina says that it may be collected from mortgaged property!
(c) Rejection: People hear about Parnasah, therefore it is considered as if it is written.
(d) Question (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): (When Leah married Reuven, she stipulated that he feed her daughter Dinah (from a previous marriage) for 5 years; she made the same stipulation when she married David). If Reuven and David died, their own daughters are fed from unmortgaged property (of their fathers), Dinah is fed from even mortgaged property, for she is as a creditor. (Even though the debt was not written!)
(e) Answer: The case is, formal acquisitions were made to obligate Reuven and David. (Rashi - and presumably, this was written; Tosfos - this is as good as being written.)
(f) Question: If so, acquisitions should also enable their own daughters to eat from mortgaged property!
(g) Answer: The case is, acquisitions were only made for Dinah, not for their own daughters.
(h) Question: Why does the Tana pick such a case, that acquisitions were made only for Dinah?
(i) Answer #1: Dinah was alive when Leah got married, so an acquisition helps for her; the husbands' own daughters were not alive at the time, so acquisitions would not help for them.
(j) Objection: Why must we say that the husbands' daughter were not yet alive? Perhaps they were previously married to Leah, and have daughters from the previous marriage!
(k) Answer #2: Rather, since their own daughters are entitled to be fed by a stipulation of Beis Din (the enactment of Kesuvah), an acquisition does not help for them; Dinah, for whom there is no stipulation of Beis Din, an acquisition helps for her.
(l) Objection: Why should the stipulation of Beis Din weaken the power of acquisition for the daughters?!
(m) Answer #3: Rather, because their daughters are entitled to food by a stipulation of Beis Din, we do not allow them to take mortgaged property, because we are concerned that their fathers left money for them.
(n) Question (Beraisa - R. Noson): When do we say that consumed produce and improvements to stolen land may not be collected from mortgaged property? When the land was bought before the produce and improvements;
1. If the produce and improvements came first, they may be collected from land sold later! (Rashi - even though they are neither written nor limited - this opposes all the Amora'im! Tosfos - even though they are only limited but not written - this challenges Ula, and shows that R. Chanina must hold that it suffices to be limited.)
(o) Answer: Tana'im argue on this.
1. (Beraisa): We do not collect consumed produce, improvements to stolen land, food for the widow and daughters from mortgaged property because they are not written - this is an enactment to fix the world;
2. R. Yosi says, even without an enactment we do not collect these from mortgaged property - they are unlimited! (Rashi; Tosfos - the enactment to fix the world is not because they are not written rather because they are unlimited!)
(a) (Mishnah): One who finds a lost object does not swear...
(b) (R. Yitzchak): Reuven claims that he lost 2 wallets tied together and that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1 - Shimon must swear;
(c) Reuven claims that he lost 2 oxen tied together and that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1 - Shimon need not swear.
(d) Question: Why does the law change?
(e) Answer: Wallets do not come untied by themselves, oxen do.
(f) [Version #1 - Rashi - (R. Yitzchak): Reuven claims that he lost 2 oxen tied together and that Shimon found them; Shimon admits to finding them, but claims that he returned 1 of them - Shimon must swear.]
(g) [Version #2 - Tosfos - Support (Beraisa): Reuven claims that he lost 2 oxen tied together and that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1 - Shimon need not swear;
(h) Reuven claims that he lost 2 wallets tied together and that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1 - Shimon must swear.]
(i) Question: Does R. Yitzchak not agree that an enactment to fix the world exempts the finder of a lost object from swearing?!

(j) Answer: R. Yitzchak holds as R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Sometimes a person swears on his own claim: Reuven says, 'Shimon's father deposited 1 Maneh by me; I returned half' - he must swear;
2. Chachamim say, he is as one that returns a lost object, he is exempt.
(k) Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Yakov not hold that one who returns a lost object is exempt?
(l) Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, Shimon, a minor, claims that Reuven owes the full Maneh.
1. Question: The claim of a minor means nothing!
i. (Mishnah): We do not swear to counter the claim of a deaf person, lunatic or minor.
2. Answer #1: Rav meant, Shimon is an adult, but in his father's affairs he is (ignorant) as a minor.
i. Question: If so, why does R. Eliezer ben Yakov say that Reuven swears on his own claim - he swears on Shimon's claim!
ii. Answer #1: It is Shimon's claim, but Reuven's admission.
iii. Objection: Every case of the oath (of partial admission) is when one admits to another's claim!
3. [Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question l:1): Really, Shimon is a minor; R. Eliezer ben Yakov and Chachamim argue regarding Rabah's teaching,]
4. [Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (to Question l:2:i): R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that Reuven swears on what Chachamim call Reuven's own claim; they argue regarding Rabah's teaching,]
i. (Rabah): The Torah required one who makes a partial admission to swear, because a person is not brazen enough to lie and deny his creditor's claim.
ii. Really, the borrower would like to deny the whole claim, but he lacks the audacity to deny his creditor's claim.
iii. Since he lacks the audacity, he would prefer to admit to the entire claim; he is not doing this, because he cannot pay the whole claim now; he is stalling until he can pay it all.
iv. The Torah says that we impose an oath on him so he will admit to the whole claim.
5. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that likewise, a person cannot be brazen to deny the claim of his creditor's son; therefore, he is not as one who returns a lost object (and must swear).
6. Chachamim say that a person cannot be brazen to deny his creditor's claim, but he can be brazen against his creditor's son;
i. Since he could have denied the whole claim, but did not, he is as one who returns a lost object (and need not swear).
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,