ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 60
GITIN 59 & 60 - 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) When the B'nei Galil asked Rebbi Chelbo 'Achareihen Mi', they meant -
whether, once the Kohen and Levi have been called up, the remaining five
Aliyos follow any order of priority?
(b) Rebbi Chelbo did not know the answer, so he took the She'eilah to -
Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha gave them a list of five orders of priority. The
first two are Talmidei-Chachamim who have been appointed over the Tzibur and
Talmidei-Chachamim who are fit to be appointed over the Tzibur (even though
their appointed has not yet been made). The requirements for a
Talmid-Chacham to be appointed over the Tzibur are - to be able to answer
any She'eilah in Halachah that he is asked.
(d) Bearing in mind that the last on the list is the rest of the people,
number three and number four on the priorities list - are the sons of
Talmidei-Chachamim who have been appointed over the Tzibur and the leaders
of the community (respectively).
(a) When the B'nei Galil asked Rebbi Chelbo whether one is permitted to Lein
from a Chumash (one of the five Sefarim written on a Kasher scroll), neither
he nor Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha knew the answer. We reject the proof of the
B'nei Beis-Hamedrash from Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan who
disqualified a Sefer-Torah with one section missing (that Leining from a
Chumash should be Pasul too), on the grounds - that there the Sefer-Torah is
incomplete, whereas in our case, the Chumash is complete (and may well be
(b) Rabah and Rav Yosef forbade Leining from a Chumash - on the basis of
(c) The reason that ...
1. ... Rabah and Rav Yosef forbade Leining from a book of Haftaros on
Shabbos, is - because it should not have been written.
(d)We took our cue from Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who - based on the
Pasuk in Tehilim "Eis La'asos la'Hashem Heiferu Torasecha", used to learn
from Sifrei Agadah (even though the Torah forbids writing Torah she'be'Al
2. ... Mar bar Rav Ashi forbade even handling it is - because it is
forbidden to Lein from it.
3. ... we reject both stringencies is - because Chazal permitted both
writing and reading such a Sefer, since it is impossible to do without it.
(a) Abaye asked Rabah about writing a Parshah or two on a piece of parchment
for children to learn from. This might be ...
1. ... forbidden, even according to those who maintain that the Torah was
written piece by piece as it was told to Moshe - because that was only
before the Torah was completed, but once it was completed in the fortieth
year in the desert, it became forbidden.
(b) Rabah replied - 'Ein Kosvin', because once the Torah was completed, it
became forbidden to write it in sections (see also the Mesores ha'Shas).
2. ... permitted, even according to those who maintain that the Torah was
written altogether at the end - because since it is impossible to write a
whole Sefer for every child, maybe Chazal permitted it.
(c) According to Rabah, the Beraisa ...
1. ... which describes how Hilni ha'Malkah made a tableau of gold on which
the Parshah of Sotah was written (from which they copied for the use of the
Sotos who were brought to the Beis Hamikdash) - is referring, not to the
entire Parshas Sotah, but to the first letters of each word (in the form of
(d) Abaye's She'eilah is also a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama
categorically forbids it. Rebbi Yehudah - permits writing from Bereishis
until the Flood, and from Vayikra until Parshas Shemini (because they are
2. ... which, with reference to the same tableau, explains that they wrote
on it "Im Shachav", "ve'Im Lo Shachav" - refers only to the first words in
each Pasuk, but the rest of the Pasuk, they wrote as abbreviations.
(a) What ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Ban'ah learns from the Pasuk "Az
Amarti Hinei Ba'si *bi'Megilas Sefer* Kasuv Alai" is - that one is permitted
to write the Torah topic by topic.
(b) What David ha'Melech was referring to in the Pasuk in Tehilim "Az Amarti
... ) is - the Parshah of the daughters of Lot, who were spared from the
destruction of S'dom on his merits, as is hinted in the word "Sh'tei
Benosecha *ha'Nimtza'os*" (and in Tehilim, it is written "*Matzasi* David
2. ... Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "Lako'ach es Sefer ha'Torah ha'Zos
is - that one may only write a complete Sefer-Torah, but not topic by topic.
1. Rebbi Yochanan will explain the Pasuk "Lako'ach es Sefer ha'Torah
ha'Zos" - to refer to after it was written (but until that time, Moshe wrote
it Parshah by Parshah).
2. And according to Resh Lakish, the Pasuk - "Az Amarti Hinei Ba'si
*bi'Megilas Sefer* Kasuv Alai" (based on the Pasuk "Vayomer Eilai Mah Atah
Ro'eh, va'Omar, Ani Ro'eh Megilah Afah") - refers to the whole Torah which
(as we see) is sometimes referred to as a Megilah.
(a) According to the second answer, 'Megilah' refers to specific Parshiyos
that were written on a specific day - eight Parshiyos on Rosh Chodesh
(b) These Parshiyos were permitted to be written - because they were all
connected with the Mishkan, which had now been built.
(c) The rest of the Torah is also referred to as 'Megilah' - because, like
those eight Parshiyos, it was not written consecutively (since they would
skip over what was already written).
(a) If ...
1. ... the first of these Parshiyos is Parshas Kohanim (Parshas Emor), the
second is - Parshas Levi'im.
(b) Parshas ...
2. ... the third of the Parshiyos is Parshas Temei'im, the fourth is -
Parshas Shilu'ach Temei'im.
3. ... the fifth and the sixth Parshiyos are Acharei-Mos and Shesuyei Yayin,
the seventh and the eighth are - Parshas Neiros and Parshas Parah Adumah?
1. ... Levi'im - refers to their purification in Parshas Beha'aloscha.
(c) With regard to the Parshah of Shilu'ach Temei'im, the significance of
the rolling up of the Paroches is - that once that took pace, Zavin and
Zavos were permitted to enter the Machaneh.
2. ... Temei'im - to those who were Tamei and therefore unable to bring the
Pesach Rishon (also in Beha'aloscha).
(d) It was necessary to say/write the Parshah of ...
1. ... Acharei-Mos on that day - because it contained the warning not to
enter the Kodesh Kodshim.
2. ... Parah Adumah on that day - in order to prepare the Parah Adumah (on
the second of Nisan) to purify those who needed it in time for Pesach. They
could not prepare it earlier - because part of the process entails
sprinkling it in the direction of the Ohel Mo'ed, which means that it had
first to be built.
1. Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk "Echtov Lo Rubei Torasi K'mo Zar
Nechshavu" - that the larger part of Torah is contained in the written
Torah, and the smaller part in the oral teachings.
(b) The meaning of ...
2. Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Ki al-Pi ha'Devarim
he'Eileh Kara'ti Itcha B'ris" - that the majority is contained in the oral
teachings ... .
1. ... 'bi'K'sav' in this context is - the Halachos that are learned from
the thirteen Midos of the Beraisa of Rebbi Yishmael.
2. ... 'be'al-Peh' - Halachah le'Mosheh mi'Sinai.
1. Based on the second half of the Pasuk ("K'mo Zar Nechshavu"), Rebbi
Yochanan explains the Pasuk "Echtov Lo Rubei Torasi ... as a question
('Would it not be wrong to commit the majority of the Torah to writing'?).
(d) Rebbi Yehudah bar Nachmeini, Resh Lakish's translator, reconciled the
seemingly contradictory Pesukim "K'sov Lecha es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh", and
"Ki al-Pi ha'Devarim ha'Eileh Kara'ti Itcha B'ris ... " - by extrapolating
from the first that the written Torah may not be learnt by heart, and from
the second that the oral Torah may not be committed to writing.
2. Rebbi Elazar explains the Pasuk "Ki al-Pi ha'Devarim he'Eileh Kara'ti
Itcha B'ris" - to refer to fact that the oral Torah is more difficult to
learn, but not because they constitute the larger part of Torah.
(a) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael extrapolates from the Pasuk "K'sov Lecha es
ha'Devarim *ha'Eileh*" - that it is only the written Torah that may be
written, but not the Halachos.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns that Hashem made a covenant with Yisrael on
account of Torah she'be'al Peh - from the Pasuk "Ki al'Pi ha'Devarim
ha'Eileh Karati Itcha B'ris ve'es Yisrael".
(a) We reject the contention that one may not change the location of the
Eiruv because of (lack of) Kavod - on the grounds that they changed the
location of the Shofar that announced the advent of Shabbos (or the
Tzedakah-box) from one house to another (as we shall see), and were not
concerned with a lack of Kavod regarding the family where it had previously
(b) They changed the location of the Shofar that they blew on Erev Shabbos
from Rav Yehudah's house to that of Rabah, from Rabah's to that of Rav Yosef
and from Rav Yosef's house to that of Abaye - because each one was the
subsequent Rosh Yeshivah, following his predecessor died.
(c) After Abaye's death - the Shofar was moved to Rava's house.
(d) Our Mishnah forbids changing the location of the Eiruv - because of
'Chashad', meaning that people who see that the Eiruv is no longer where it
used to be, will suspect the residents of that town of carrying without an
(a) Neither those who live up-stream nor those who live down-stream have the
first right to draw water from a flowing River - it is a matter of first
come, first served.
(b) Rav and Shmuel argue over this point - only when there is not sufficient
water to provide all parties.
(c) Their Machlokes is whether those living up-stream have the right to dam
the river until they have filled their pits with water (Shmuel) or whether
those living down-stream have the right to stop them.
1. Shmuel's reason for saying that those living up-stream have the first
right to draw is - because they live closest to the rivers source.
2. Rav's reason for saying that those living down-stream have the right to
stop them from damming the river is - because they are entitled to demand
that the river continues along its normal course.
(a) Shmuel reconciles Rav with our Mishnah which gives those living nearest
the source of the stream the first right - by establishing the case when the
river actually flows through their pit, without their having to do anything.
(b) The Chidush will then be - that those living down-stream cannot ask them
to divert the course of the river from their pit, forcing them to draw water
with buckets like they do.
(c) Rav Huna bar Tachlifa rules - that since no official ruling has been
issued, we apply the principle 'Kol de'Alim G'var' (the strongest wins).
(a) When Rav Shimi bar Ashi asked Abaye to fix a time to learn with him ...
1. ... by day - he replied that his day-schedule was already full.
(b) So Rav Shimi bar Ashi proposed that *he* (Rav Shimi) water Abaye's
fields for him by day, so that he could learn with him by night.
2. ... by night - that this was when he watered his fields.
(c) When Abaye accepted - Rav Shimi went to those living up-stream and told
them that the Halachah is like Rav, and those living down-stream, that the
Halachah is like Shmuel. Then he drained the river, and watered the fields
of Abaye (who lived in the middle) first.
(d) Abaye was unhappy with Rav Shimi's achievements - declining to partake
of that whole year's crop (see Tosfos D.H. 'ke'Bei').
(a) The residents of Chermach (whose fields were down-stream) planned to
divert part of the river Shinv'sa - so that the part of the water would flow
round their fields before rejoining its original course.
The Chachamim in our Mishnah argue with Rebbi Yossi regarding the degree of
ownership that one has over fish that one catches (as will be explained
shortly). Their Machlokes is confined to traps that have no inside (such as
fishing hooks) - because once fish are caught inside receptacles, they
automatically belong to the owners of the vessels, and taking the fish from
them constitutes Gezel (d'Oraysa), according to all opinions.
(b) When the owners of other fields complained to Abaye that this slowed
down the flow of water (depriving them of their needs), he advised them to
deepen the river at the point where the river now branched off, increasing
the flow along its original route. This was not a good idea however -
because, as they explained to him, deepening the river would result in less
water reaching their irrigation canals.
(c) So Abaye ruled - that the residents of Chermach were not permitted to
divert the water.