ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 50
GITIN 49 & 50 - Sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri Turkel.
May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha, health and fulfillment, and
may they see all of their children and grandchildren follow them in the ways
of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
(a) Everyone agrees that the regular Areiv of a Kesuvah is not obligated to
pay - and they also agree that an Areiv Kablan of a debt *is*.
(b) The dual basis of this distinction - lies in the fact that whereas in
the former case, a. the Areiv is an ordinary Areiv and b. the woman did not
obligate herself anything (in the way that a creditor lends money on the
word of the Areiv).
(c) Amora'im argue by a S'tam Areiv of a debt or an Areiv Kablan of a
Kesuvah whether, or not, he obligates himself - even when the debtor does
not own any property (but when he does, they both agree that he obligates
(d) We rule that in all cases, the Areiv is obligated to pay except for the
Areiv of a Kesuvah (who is not an Areiv Kablan), who is not obligated (even
if the husband has property) - because a. he merely sets out to perform a
Mitzvah and b. the woman does not part with any money on account of him.
(a) Ravina asks one last Kashya on Mar Zutra who restricted the Din of
'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis' to when she claimed from the Yesomim. The Beraisa
attributes the Takanah confining a woman's claim to Ziburis to the fact -
that a woman wants to get married more than a man does; whereas according to
Mar Zutra, the Tana should rather have attributed it to the fact that one
can only claim Ziburis from Yesomim.
(b) We have no answer to this Kashya, and remain with 'Teiku'.
(a) Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman quoting his father rules that someone who
produces a Sh'tar Chov against Yesomim on the condition that the creditor
can claim Idis - may claim only Ziburis.
(b) The father of the Yesomim wrote the Sh'tar.
(c) Abaye attempts to prove this from the Din of a Ba'al-Chov - who claims
Beinonis from the debtor; yet from the Yesomim, he may only claim Ziburis.
In our case too, he says, the creditor, who would have claimed Idis from the
debtor, may claim only Ziburis from the Yesomim.
(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk "be'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh
Bo Yavi Eilecha ... " - that min'ha'Torah, a Ba'al-Chov may claim only
Ziburis (since when it is left to the debtor, as it is in the Pasuk, it is
obvious that that is what he will pay the creditor with?
(b) Chazal extended his claim to Beinonis - so as not to close the door on
future loans (as we explained earlier).
(c) These facts refute Abaye's proof - because when Chazal instituted that a
Ba'al-Chov can only claim from the Yesomim's Ziburis, they were in fact,
reverting to the Torah-law; whereas in Mar Zutra's case, where the borrower
spefically obligated himself to pay Idis, by nevertheless restricting the
creditor to Zuburis, one is changing Torah-law entirely.
(d) Rava refers to Mar Zutra's case as Torah-law - because (with regard to
Yehudah guaranteeing to bring back Binyamin) the Torah writes in Mikeitz
"Anochi E'ervenu", which teaches us that whatever a person obligates himself
to do, he must fulfill.
(a) Rava, who maintains that one only claims from the Ziburis of Yesomim in
cases which min ha'Torah, everyone claims from Ziburis, establishes the
Beraisa cited by Avram Chuza'ah, that even Nizakin may only claim from the
Ziburis of the Yesomim - when the Idis of the Nizak is equivalent to the
Ziburis of the Mazik, and the author is Rebbi Yishmael. Because in that
case, min ha'Torah, the Mazik may pay his own Ziburis, and the obligation to
pay his own Idis is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) We initially explain the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Eliezer Nivsa'ah 'Ein
Nifra'in mi'Nechsei Yesomim Ela min ha'Ziburis, va'Afilu Hein Idis' - to
mean that he wrote Idis in the Sh'tar, and as we saw earlier, Rava maintains
that in such a case, one could claim even from the Idis of the Yesomim
(clashing with the ruling of the Tana).
(c) Rava however, establishes the Beraisa by 'Shapa'i Idis' - when the very
best quality fields referred to in the Sh'tar (Idei Idis) subsequently
became unavailable (because they were taken by land-robbers), in which case
the Din of the claimant switches (min ha'Torah) to Ziburis and only
mi'de'Rabbanan, to Beinonis (see Tosfos DH 'Mai Idis').
(d) Rava said ...
1. ... Hizik Ziburis - Govah min ha'Idis.
2. ... Hizik Shapa'i Idis - Govah min ha'Beinonis.
(a) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asks whether the restriction of claiming from
Yesomim to Ziburis applies only to Yesomim Ketanim, or whether it extends to
Gedolim as well. If it (reverting to Torah-law by Yesomim) is merely a
Takanas Chachamim, it will only apply to Ketanim, basically because Gedolim
can look after themselves. The other Tzad of the She'eilah is - that it is
automatically the correct thing to do, since 'Ne'ilas De'les' (the reason
that the Chachamim authorized creditors to claim from Beinonis), does not
apply to Yesomim, because when issuing a loan, a creditor does not take into
account the possibility that the debtor might die (and consequently, decline
to lend him money because the Yesomim will restrict his claim to Ziburis).
Consequently, there would be no reason to distinguish between Yesomim
Ketanim and Yesomim Gedolim.
(b) We cannot resolve Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami's She'eilah from the Beraisa
cited by Abaye Keshisha 'Yesomim she'Amru Gedolim, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar
Ketanim' - because the Tana might be referring to the Din 'ha'Ba Lipara
mi'Nechsei Yesomim, Lo Yipara Ela bi'Shevu'ah' (and not to that of 'Ein
Nifra'in mi'Nechsei Yesomim Ela mi'Ziburis').
(c) We conclude however - that there is no difference between Yesomim
Gedolim and Yesomim Ketanim in either issue.
Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asked whether the restriction of claiming from
Meshuba'dim when there are B'nei Chorin available extends to a gift. It
might not apply there, because the beneficiary of the gift does not lose
anything (and the purpose of the Takanah is to safeguard the purchaser, who
paid for the fields) - but on the other hand, it might, because to receive
such a precious gift, the beneficiary must have done the donor a favor of
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that if a Shechiv-Mera left instructions to
give two hundred Zuz to Reuven, three hundred, to Shimon and four hundred,
to Levi and the donor's creditor produced a Sh'tar that the donor owed him a
Manah - they would have to pay in direct proportion to what they received
(two ninths, three ninths and four ninths respectively).
(b) They would be obligated to pay according to the order they received
their gift (i.e. the last one first, the second last, second ... .) - if the
donor specifically stated 'first to Reuven, then to Shimon and then to
(c) Based on the fact that the Shechiv-Mera said 'T'nu', we extrapolate from
here that - even if the first beneficiary received Beinonis and the second
one, Ziburis, the creditor may only claim the Ziburis from the last one,
from which we see that 'Ein Nifra'in mi'Nechasim Meshu'badim ... ' applies
even to Matanah.
(d) We first refute this proof - by establishing the Beraisa (not by
Matanah, but) by a Ba'al-Chov, and 'T'nu' means 'T'nu be'Chovi'.
(a) In the previous case, the date on their respective Sh'taros does not
determine the order in which they pay - because the Tana is speaking when
the loan is an oral one.
(b) 'Kol ha'Kodem bi'Sh'tar' means (not a Sh'tar Chov, but) - the Sh'tar
Tzava'ah (written by the Shechiv-Mera). See Tosfos DH 've'Ha'.
(c) We refute the initial proof in two additional ways, even if the Tana is
referring to Matanah. When we say ...
1. ... 'Mai Govah min ha'Acharon, Ein Nifsad Ela Acharon', we mean - that it
may well be that 'Ein Nifra'in ... ' does not apply to Matanah, and 'Govah
min ha'Acharon' means (not that the creditor claims from the last one, but
that whoever he claims from has the right to reimburse his losses from the
last one, because) he is the one who has to lose (since the donor
specifically bequeathed him his donation after the others had received
2. ... 'de'Shavu Kulhu Lehadadi', we mean - that the Tana is speaking in the
Seifa when all the Matanos are of equal quality.
(a) Ula Amar Resh Lakish explains that the purchaser cannot claim the Peiros
from the thief's Meshuba'dim because they were not written - and it is only
when there is a Sh'tar that the creditor has the authority to claim from
Meshu'badim (since it is the Sh'tar which produces the Kol which enables
would-be purchasers to safeguard themselves.
Rebbi Chanina answers to explain why one cannot claim Achilas Peiros from
Meshu'badim - because the amount of Peiros is not fixed, and there would be
no way for the purchasers to know how much B'nei-Chorin to leave over for
that purpose (see Tosfos Rid at foot of page).
(b) In fact, the thief had stated that he would reimburse the Sh'vach and
the Peiros, and when Ula said that they were not written - he means that
since the Peiros were not yet in the world there was no Kol on them (and it
was as if they had not been written).
(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from 'Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos', which are
considered as if they are written, even though they are not, yet they are
not authorized to claim from Meshuba'dim. When he said 'they are considered
as if they are written' he meant -that they are a T'nai Beis-Din, and every
T'nai Beis-Din produces a Kol no less than a Sh'tar.
(d) Rebbi Asi answered Rebbi Zeira - that the T'nai Beis-Din was for the
wife and daughter to claim from B'nei-Chorin (and not from Meshuba'dim),
because otherwise, nobody would want to purchase a field from a friend whose
wife and daughters might be claiming sustenance at any time.