ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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,
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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