ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 28
GITIN 28 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for Torah and those who study it.
(a) The basis for our Mishnah, which rules that when a Sheli'ach brings a
Get on behalf of a man who is old or sick, we presume the husband to be in
the same state that he left him, and the woman is divorced is - 'Chazakah'
(we assume a person or situation to remain unchanged, until we hear to the
(b) A bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband went overseas - may continue to eat
(c) Similarly, the Kohanim are permitted bring the Chatas of a man who sent
it from overseas, on the assumption that he is still alive. If they knew
that the Chatas had died - they would have to let it die, and bury it.
(a) According to Rava, the above Chazakah will not apply in the case of a
man who is ...
1. ... old - once he reaches the age of eighty.
(b) The Tana says in a Beraisa that - if a man of a hundred sends his wife a
Get, the Sheli'ach nevertheless hands the Get to his wife on the assumption
that her husband is still alive.
2. ... sick - once he becomes a Go'ses (a man on his death-bed), because the
majority of Gosesin die..
(c) We nevertheless resolve Rava with the Beraisa - with the S'vara 'Ho'il
ve'Iflig, Iflig' (a person who survives till eighty is obviously very strong
and is no longer considered on the brink of death.
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that a woman whose husband gave her a Get
which was due to be valid only one hour before his death - is forbidden to
eat Terumah immediately.
(b) When Rami bar Chama pointed out this discrepancy to Rabah, he drew a
distinction between Terumah and Get - inasmuch as in the case of Terumah,
the woman has the option of eating Chulin (so we are strict), whereas in the
case Get, if we contend with the husband's death, it will never be possible
to send a Get through a Sheli'ach.
(c) This answer is unacceptable however, on the basis of another Mishnah in
Sucah, which rules that a bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband traveled
overseas - is permitted to eat Terumah on the assumption that her husband is
(d) Rav Ada Brei de'Rav Yitzchak therefore draws a different distinction.
Really the Tana is not worried that her husband may have died. The case of
'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Miysasi' however, is different -
because the is forbidden to eat Terumah one hour before her husband dies,
and, since that time is bound to arrive, we have to consider every moment of
being part of that hour.
(a) Rav Papa refutes Rav Ada Brei de'Rav Yitzchak's answer - on the grounds
that it is in no way certain, even in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah
Achas Kodem Miysasi', that the woman will be forbidden to eat Terumah -
since it is possible that her husband will die first and she will not be
divorced at all.
(b) So Abaye makes a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah.
Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim ... ' rules
'Meichal ve'Shoseh Miyad'. Rebbi Yehudah forbids this (because the flask
(c) The Machlokes there, says Abaye, is the same as the Machlokes here:
Rebbi Meir, who is not afraid that the flask might break is not afraid that
a person might die; whereas Rebbi Yehudah, who is afraid of the one, is also
afraid of the other.
(a) To explain the discrepancy between the Beraisa ('Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah
Achas Kodem Misasi ... ') on the one hand, and our Mishnah (ha'Meivi Get
ve'Hinicho Zakein O Choleh ... ') and the Mishnah in Sucah (Bas Yisrael
ha'Nesu'ah le'Kohen, ve'Halach Ba'alah li'Medinas ha'Yam ... ) on the
other - Rava draws a distinction between 'Shema Meis' (which we do not
suspect) and Shema Yamus (which we contends with - since everyone will die
(b) Rava makes his statement as if it was unanimous. Rav Yehudah from
Diskarta explains that in the Beraisa of 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin, which belongs
to the category of 'Shema Yamus', Rebbi Meir nevertheless holds 'Meichal
ve'Shoseh', and is not concerned that the jar may break - because it is
possible to hand the jar of wine to someone to look after (guaranteeing that
it will not break).
(c) When Rav Mesharshaya exclaimed 'Arvech Arva Ba'i', he meant - that the
Shomer himself will require a guarantee that he will not be careless, and
allow the jar to break).
(d) In light of this Beraisa, Rava finally explains - that nobody contends
with the possibility of 'Shema Meis', whereas 'Shema Yamus' is a Machlokes,
Rebbi Yehudah contends with it, and Rebbi Meir does not.
(a) The problem with sending a Korban with a Sheli'ach is - the Semichah on
the head of the Korban, which, as we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Samach
*Yado*", only the owner can perform, and not his son or his Sheli'ach.
(b) Rav Yosef therefore establishes our Mishnah, which talks about someone
sending his Chatas with a Sheli'ach, by the Chatas of a woman, whose Korban
does not require Semichah, as the Torah writes "Daber el B'nei Yisrael
ve'Samach" ("B'nei Yisrael ve'Samach", 've'Lo B'nos Yisrael ve'Samach').
(c) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah even by the Chatas of a man - and the
Chatas referred to by the Tana, is a Chatas ha'Of, which does not require
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists three cases which all teach us that we
give a living man a Chezkas Chai). Having told us this by ...
1. ... Get, he nevertheless needs to repeat it by Terumah - because whereas
Get has no alternative, Terumah does (his wife can eat Chulin), as we
(b) The combination of all three cases teaches us - that the Chezkas Chai is
not a Safek, but a Vaday.
2. ... Terumah, he needs to repeat it by Chatas - because on the one hand,
there are times when even in the case of Terumah, there is no alternative
(when his wife is poor and needs to be fed by taking Terumah in the
granaries), and on the other, we will not allow Chulin to be brought into
the Azarah when there is a Safek.
(a) Rebbi Elazar ben P'rata taught the Din of Chezkas Chai with regard to a
case of a city that has been besieged by the enemy and in the case of a ship
that is floundering in the sea. The third case is - with regard to a man who
is on his way to be judged for the death-sentence.
(b) The Chachamim - accepted his teachings.
(c) He added that in the case of a city that has fallen to the enemy, a ship
that has sunk and someone who is being taken out to be killed, we place the
inhabitants Chumrei Chayim ve'Chumrei Meisim. The ramifications of ...
1. ... 'Chumrei Meisim' are - in the case a bas Yisrael who is married to a
Kohen (who is considered dead, forbidding her to eat Terumah on his merit).
2. ... 'Chumrei Chayim' are - in the case of a bas Kohen who is married to a
Yisrael (who is considered alive, preventing her from returning to her
father's house to eat Terumah).
(a) Rav Yosef restricts the Din in our Mishnah (that we place on a man who
is being taken out to be killed the stringencies of a live man) to a
Beis-Din shel Yisrael - who are liable to find a merit for the sentenced man
and to declare him innocent even after the death-sentence has been passed.
(b) In the equivalent case by a Beis-Din shel Akum - the sentenced man will
have a Chezkas Meis only, because once they have sentenced him to death,
under no circumstances will they bring him back to re-judge his case.
(c) Abaye then queried Rav Yosef on the grounds that Nochri judges are
likely to change their minds when they are offered bribes, to which Rav
Yosef replied - that this is only before the sentence has been passed, but
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that, if a man fled after Beis-Din had
sentenced him to death, and witnesses subsequently testified in front of
another Beis-Din that a previous Beis-Din had passed sentence - the second
Beis-Din will carry out the death-sentence on the basis of their testimony.
(b) Rav Yosef reconciles his own opinion, where he contends with the
likelihood that in a Beis-Din of Yisrael, a sentenced man might still be
acquitted, with this Beraisa - by differentiating between a regular case and
someone who flees from Beis-Din, who stands no chance of being acquitted.
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa makes a distinction between a Jewish
Beis-Din and a Nochri executioner who declared 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni
Neherag' regarding giving his wife permission to remarry. The former is
believed to allow the woman to remarry, whereas the latter is not.
So we accept the literal explanation (that we just rejected) to explain 'Ish
P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag', and this case in different than other
cases where a Nochri is believed 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' - inasmuch as here,
where the executioners are personally involved, they are liable to lie, in
order to boast of their judicial integrity.
(b) 'Ish P'loni Neherag' means that he was executed by Beis-Din. 'Ish
P'loni Meis' - that after twice transgressing a La'av which is subject to
Malkos, he was placed in a narrow room and fed raw barley until he died.
(c) We prefer not to take 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag' literally -
because then even the Nochri executioners would be believed to say that
so-and-so was executed, seeing as they did not testify in an official
capacity, only 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' (and we have a principle that in cases
where two official witnesses are not required, 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' is
(d) We therefore propose to explain - that the Tana must mean, not that he
had actually been executed, but that he had been taken out to be executed (a
Kashya on Rav Yosef, according to whom this would be no proof that he had
actually been executed).