ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 11
GITIN 11 - Dedicated by Al and Sophia Ziegler (Har Nof) in loving memory of
Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov Ziegler.
(a) Rav Papa mentions Hurmiz, Avudina, bar Shivsa'i, Bar Kidri, Bati and
Nakim - as being common Nochri names, in connection with validating Gitei
Nashim that were written in Nochri law-courts according to Rebbi Shimon.
(b) Rebbi Shimon's S'vara for validating even Gitin that were written in a
Nochri law-court is confined to where the names on the Get are typical
Nochri names (as we just explained). And when he concludes 'Lo Huzkeru Ela
bi'Z'man she'Na'asu be'Hedyot' - what he really means is that if the names
on the Get are atypical, it is as if the Get was written by a Hedyot, and it
(c) Alternatively, the concluding statement refers, not to Gitei Nashim, but
to other Sh'taros - which the Rabbanan invalidate if they are written by a
(a) A Beraisa in which Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi cites Rebbi Shimon
corroborates the latter explanation of the concluding statement in our
Mishnah. However - Rebbi Shimon quotes Rebbi Akiva, who even validates
Sh'taros that are written by Nochri Hedyotos.
(b) The basis of the distinction that Rebbi Shimon draws between Gitei
Nashim and other Sh'taros that are written by a Nochri Hedyot is - that
whereas with regard to other Sh'taros, one relies on the Sh'tar as evidence
of the sale (or whatever), this is not the case by Gitei Nashim, where one
relies on Eidei Mesirah.
(c) The two conditions that Rebbi Shimon requires for Gitei Nashim to be
valid is - that there are Eidei Mesirah and that the names on the Sh'tar are
typical Nochri names.
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies the concession of the previous
Tana'im in the Beraisa regarding Gitei Nashim - by restricting it to towns
where only Nochrim are permitted to sign (and there is no chance that people
will think the witnesses who signed are Jews with typically Nochri names).
(b) He does not decree a place where they deny Jews the right to sign on
documents on account of a place where they are permitted to sign (just like
he decrees typical Nochri names because of names that are atypical) -
because people tend to confuse one name with another but not two towns.
(c) When Ravina wanted to validate other Sh'taros that were written by a
group of Nochrim - Rafram objected on the grounds that the Mishnah
specifically restricts the concession to Sh'taros written in a law-court.
(a) Rava ruled that a Sh'tar Parsa'ah - (that is written in Persian and
signed by Persian Hedyotos) is valid to claim from B'nei Chari (the
defendant's available property.
(b) Rava must speak when the witnesses are conversant with the language in
which the Sh'tar is written. We also establish Rava by a Sh'tar that was
treated with Afeitzan - gall-apple (which leaves the parchment with a black
tint, removing the possibility of forging the Sh'tar.
(c) This is essential - because a Sh'tar which has not been treated with
Afeitzan is invalid, seeing as it can easily be forged.
(a) The other vital condition which must have been maintained by the Nochri
law-courts, without which the Sh'taros could not have been Kasher is - the
Sofer's repetition of the main points of the Sh'tar in the last line of the
(b) In spite of the fact that all of the above conditions were met, the
claimant is not eligible to claim from Meshubadim (that purchasers had
bought), because the witnesses who signed are Nochrim, and Nochrim do not
tend to spread a Kol (word of the original transaction), without which
potential purchasers have no way of safeguarding themselves of unwittingly
purchasing property that is mortgaged.
(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Get that came before Beis-Din
whose signatories had Nochri names - was valid provided they had Eidei
(b) The Get was written - in Eretz Yisrael.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan replied that this had only happened once - on which
occasion he had validated it, because the names of the signatories were
Lukus and Lus, typically Nochri names (like Rebbi Shimon in the previous
(a) The Beraisa says that Gitin that come from overseas whose signatories
have Nochri names (and whose nationality we therefore have reason to
doubt) - are valid, because the majority of Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have
adopted Nochri names.
(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who requires such typical names
as Lukus and Lus before the Get can be valid - by drawing a distinction
between Chutz la'Aretz (which the Tana of the Beraisa specifically said he
was referring to, and where they tended to have typically Nochri names) and
Eretz Yisrael (which Rebbi Yochanan is talking about, and where they were
not given Nochri names).
(c) The alternative version of Resh Lakish's She'eilah and Rebbi Yochanan's
reply is - that Resh Lakish asked him about a Sh'tar in Chutz la'Aretz, to
which replied by citing the Beraisa.
(a) Rebbi Meir states in our Mishnah that if someone asks a Sheli'ach to
hand a Get to his wife or a Sh'tar Shichrur to his slave, he can retract
from both - because both sustain a loss when they receive their respective
Sh'taros, in which case, it is not possible to effect an immediate
transaction through a Sheli'ach (as we learned above).
(b) He can retract until the Sh'tar reaches their hands.
(c) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Meir regarding the Get - since the husband
had no recourse to depriving his wife of her sustenance whilst they were
married (on which case, the Get is a liability), but not regarding the
Sh'tar Shichrur - since he could have deprived him of his sustenance at any
(d) When Rebbi Meir asked the Rabbanan about the slave belonging to a Kohen,
who, by giving him a Sh'tar Shichrur, disqualifies him from eating Terumah -
they replied that this is because he is his acquisition (though this will be
(a) Rav Huna extrapolates from the Rabbanan, who said in our Mishnah that
the Sheli'ach seizes the Sh'tar Shichrur on behalf of the slave - that
someone who seizes a debt on behalf of a creditor, the creditor acquires it.
(b) Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef asked him whether this will also extend to a case
where it would cause a loss to others - for example, if he seized the debt
on behalf of one creditor, when their were other creditors who were equally
entitled to claim the debt.
(c) Rav Huna replied - in the affirmative.
(d) He seems to have learned this from our Mishnah - which is considered a
loss to the owner, who now wishes to retract.
(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah (who was their senior, and who had been dozing in
their vicinity) awoke, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying - that a Sheli'ach
cannot seize a creditor's debt if it causes others a loss.
(b) According to the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, the Sheli'ach's seizing is
effective - because since the master asked the Sheli'ach to hand him the
Sh'tar, it is as if he specifically told him to acquire it on his behalf
(which one might refer to as foregoing his equal rights).
(a) In the Mishnah in Pe'ah, Rebbi Eliezer says that if the owner collects
Pe'ah on behalf of a particular poor man, the poor man acquires it.
According to the Chachamim however - we confiscate the Pe'ah and give it to
the first poor man who appears on the scene.
(b) Rav Chisda proposed - that these Tana'im argue over whether one is
permitted to seize a debt on behalf of one creditor at the expense of
another (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Rabbanan).
(c) We refute Rav Chisda's proposition however. Even if ...
1. ... Rebbi Eliezer would normally prohibit seizing a debt on behalf of one
creditor at the expense of another, he may well permit the owner to seize
Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man - because the owner himself could declare his
property Hefker (rendering himself a poor man) in which case we would apply
the principle 'Migu de'Zachi la'Nafshei, Zachi Nami le'Chavrei' ('since he
could acquire the Pe'ah himself, he may also acquire it on behalf of his
(d) Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from the juxtaposition of "Lo Selaket, le'Ani
... " - a warning for the poor man to leave Pe'ah in his own field, should
he own one.
2. ... the Rabbanan would normally permit seizing a debt on behalf of one
creditor at the expense of another, they might still forbid the owner to
seize Pe'ah on behalf of a poor man - because of the Pasuk in Kedoshim " ...
Lo Selaket, le'Ani ... ", from which they extrapolate that the owner is not
permitted to collect Pe'ah on behalf of any particular poor man.