(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 10

GITIN 9 & 10 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.



(a) We just suggested that the Tana of the Beraisa that compares Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim omits the two cases of 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' because they are d'Oraysa, whereas he only speaks about cases that are de'Rabbanan. The problem that this creates with regard to the case of Chazarah which the Tana inserts according to Rebbi Meir is - that that too, is d'Oraysa.

(b) The case of 'Chazarah' is d'Oraysa - because once the husband retracts, he is no longer the husband's Sheli'ach, in which case, neither the husband nor his Sheli'ach has placed the Get into the woman's hand (and the Torah writes "ve'Nasan be'Yadah").

(c) The Tana omits 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' from the Beraisa - because they are both Pasul by Kidushin too, and the Tana only lists cases that are unique to Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim (but which do not pertain to Kidushin).

(d) It may may well be that the husband can retract from the Shelichus by Kidushin too - but that is only when the Sheli'ach is appointed with the woman's consent, whereas Rebbi Meir's case of Get and Sh'tar Shichrur are speaking even against her will (as we explained above). Consequently, it is correct to say that the Din of Chazarah does not apply to Kidushin.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah writes 'All Sh'taros on which a Kuti has signed are Pasul - except for Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim'.

(b) Raban Gamliel validated the Get Ishah that they brought before him when he was in K'far Osna'i, and on which a Kuti had signed.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u'Shemartem es ha'Matzos" - that not only may the Matzos Mitzvah at the Seder not be baked Chametz, but they must also be baked 'le'Sheim Matzos Mitzvah'.

(b) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits Matzah baked by a Kuti on Pesach, because he is careful not to allow it to become Chametz. This Heter also extends to Matzos Mitzvah at the Seder - because they are also careful to bake them 'Lesheim Matzos Mitzvah'.

(c) Rebbi Elazar forbids it - because they cannot even be trusted to bake them without becoming Chametz.

(d) When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Kol Mitzvah she'Hichziku Bah Kutim, Harbeh Medakdekim Bah Yoser mi'Yisrael - he means to include even Mitzvos de'Rabbanan, whereas the Tana Kama speaks only about Mitzvos d'Oraysa.

(a) Our Mishnah does not seem to follow any of the opinions in the Beraisa that we just quoted - because, at first glance, there seems to be no reason to differentiate between one Sh'tar and another, according to any of the Tana'im.

(b) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora) restricts our Mishnah, which permits Kuti witnesses by Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim, to one Kuti witness, but not two.

(c) That prevents us from resolving the currernt difficulty by answering that the Kutim were careful concerning Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim but not about other issues - because if that were so, even a Get was signed by two Kuti witnesses ought to be Kasher.

(d) We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa, and Gitei Nashim ... are different, because it speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti - indicating that the latter must have been a Kuti Chaver, who is reliable and can be trusted (otherwise the Yisrael would never have allowed him to sign before him).




(a) Even if, as we just explained, the Tana of our Mishnah speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti (indicating that the latter must have been a Kuti Chaver), we do not say the same with regard to other Sh'taros - because, as Rav Papa explains, it is only the witnesses of a Get who must all sign simultaneously (so that they all know who is signing with them), but when it comes to other Sh'taros, it may well be that the Yisrael who signed (first) at the end of the Sh'tar, thought that the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar intended a Chashuv Yisrael to sign after him, so he left room on the Sh'tar in the space above his.

(b) Rav Ashi explains that the witnesses of a Get must all sign simultaneously - on account of a case where the husband used the term 'Kulchem', where one of them writes the Get, and all the others must sign for the Get to be valid (as we will learn in the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer'), and we are afraid that some of them may not sign rendering the Get Pasul.

(c) Rebbi Elazar found it necessary to restrict the leniency of our to one Kuti witness. We could not have understand this from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Kol Get she'Yesh Alav Eid Kuti, Pasul Chutz mi'Gitei Nashim ... ' - because the Tana may well have used that Lashon on account of the Reisha, to teach us that, even with only one Kuti witness, other Sh'taros are Pasul.

(d) We reconcile Rebbi Elazar with our Mishnah, which relates that Raban Gamliel validated a Get Ishah that came before him ... even though the witnesses were Kutim, according to ..

1. ... Abaye - by amending the Mishnah to 'Eido' instead of 'Eidav'.
2. ... Rava, who retains the original text of 'Eidav' (in the plural) - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im, and adding instead 've'Raban Gamliel Machshir bi'Shenayim, u'Ma'aseh Nami ... '.
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates Sh'taros that are written in law-courts of Nochrim - even if the witnesses are Nochrim, too.

(b) The two exceptions are Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim. Rebbi Shimon however, says - that even *they* are valid if the Sh'tar was written in Nochri law-courts, and it is only if they are written by a Nochri *Hedyot* that they are Pasul.

(a) Our Mishnah validates all Sh'taros that are written in the law-courts of Nochrim, irrespective of whether they are documents of sale or of gift. We have a problem with the latter however. We accept the Mishnah's ruling with regard to documents of sale, but query it vis-a-vis documents of gift - because whereas the former acquires the property anyway, with the money which he paid the seller (in which case the Sh'tar is no more than a proof), the latter, who did not pay money, acquires the property by means of the document, which, having been written by Nochrim, ought to have no validity.

(b) We know that the purchaser has already paid - because otherwise, the seller would not have strengthened the purchaser's rights by presenting him with a document.

(c) Shmuel resolves this She'eilah with the words 'Dina de'Malchusa Dina' - meaning that any document authenticated by a law-court of Nochrim is valid (even without any other Kinyan).

(d) Alternatively - we amend our Mishnah to read 'Chutz mi'*ke*'Gitei Nashim', which incorporates all Sh'taros that conclude the deal in the category of Gitei Nashim, which are Pasul if they are written in law-courts of Nochrim.

(a) Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah validates even Gitei Nashim that are written in law-courts of Nochrim. Rebbi Zeira resolves the problem that Nochrim are not subject to 'K'risus' - by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Elazar, who validates the Get with Eidei Mesirah (as we learned already on the previous Daf).

(b) And Rebbi Aba resolves this with Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das), in whose opinion Rebbi Elazar concedes that when the Sh'tar is 'forged from within' it is Pasul (even when there are Eidei Mesirah) - by establishing the case when the names of the witnesses are typical Nochri names (as we discussed above).

Next daf


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