(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 62

GITIN 62 - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter who wants the Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.



(a) Rebbi Yossi ben Hameshulam testified in the name of his brother, who was citing Rebbi Elazar Chisma that a kneader Talmid-Chacham ay not undertake to separate Chalah be'Taharah on behalf of a Kohen Am ha'Aretz - in case the owner relies on the Talmid-Chacham, to consider the dough Tahor, when really it is already considered Tamei from the time that he kneaded it.

(b) He also testified that ...

1. ... undertaking to knead his dough be'Taharah and taking Chalah from it as well - is permitted, provided he places the dough in worn-out vessels in which one would not normally place them.
2. ... undertaking to separate Terumah from his olives that are ready for pressing - is forbidden (for the same reason as it is prohibited to separate Chalah be'Taharah in the previous case).
3. ... preparing his olives for a Kohen Am ha'Aretz in order to press them and separate Terumah from them- is permitted (for the same reason as he is permitted to knead his dough be'Taharah and take Chalah from it at the same time).
(c) He is obligated though, to place the Terumah olives - in his own vessels.

(d) The reason that they were so lenient in the Seifa, declining to decree and forbid the entire process, just in case the owner does touch it, despite the precautions, is) - because it would interfere with the basic livelihood of the kneader and the olive presser respectively.

2) Despite the similarity of the two cases, the Tana deemed it necessary to add the case of ...
1. ... the olives. We would not have known it from the case of the dough - because the kneader is poor and needs every penny that he earns.
2. ... the dough. We would not have known it from the case of the olives - because his work is sporadic, and it is not always easy to find work.
(a) We permitted the latter case in the Reisha provided the Talmid-Chacham places the Chalah in worn-out vessels (to remind him not to touch them inadvertently). We are not afraid that he will touch them on purpose - because we warn him that should he touch them, the dough will revert to being Tevel, as it was before.

(b) He is bound to pay heed to our warning - seeing as he approached the Talmid-Chacham in the first place, in order to rectify his produce, so why should we think that he will not follow our instructions.

(c) In similar vien, we establish the Seifa when he places the Terumah in his own vessels. Presumably, the Talmid-Chacham warns him there too not to touch it. We enure that he will not touch it inadvertently - by instructing the olive-presser to place the Terumah in stone vessels and the like, which are not themselves subject to Tum'ah; in addition, the unusual type of vessel that he is using will remind him to obey the warning. Nor is there any reason to suspect that he will render the contents of the vessel Tamei Masa like a Zav (by picking it up) - because Chazal did not decree Tum'as Zav on an Am ha'Aretz (like they did, on a Nochri).

(d) When the Tana obligates him to place the Terumah in his own vessels - he means vessels that are fit for a Talmid-Chacham (to use be'Taharah).

(a) Rav Dimi bar Shishna Amar Rav reconciles our Mishnah, which permits helping (Machzikin) a Nochri who is working in the Sh'mitah, with the Beraisa, which forbids digging together with him - by establishing the former when one only encourages him verbally, but without lending him any real assistance.

(b) Rav Yehudah and Rav Sheishes would say to Nochrim whom they found working the land in the Sh'mitah-year - 'Achzuku' and 'Asharta' (a verbal encouragement in Lashon Hakodesh and Arama'ic respectively).

(c) When Rav said 'Ein Koflin Shalom le'Akum' - he meant that one may not repeat 'Shalom' (which is a Name of Hashem) more than once when greeting a Nochri, as was customary when greeting a Jew.

(d) When ...

1. ... Rav Chisda met a Nochri, he would make a point of greeting him first (some say in order to avoid having to repeat the greeting, as was the custom when replying to a greeting).
2. ... Rav Kahana would say to them 'Shalma le'Mar' - he would have in mind Hashem, who is Master of the World (see Tosfos D.H. Shalma le'Mar').
(a) In spite of having taught us that one is permitted to encourage Nochrim in Shevi'is, the Tana finds it necessary to add 've'Sho'alin bi'Sheloman', to teach us that this is permitted even on the day of their festivals, as we have learned in a Beraisa.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa says with regard to a Nochri festival, that one is ...

1. ... forbidden to enter the house of a Nochri and greet him.
2. ... permitted to greet him if one meets him in the street, but in a subdued manner.
(a) When Rav Huna and Rav Chisda saw G'niva approaching, one of them suggested that they should rise before a Talmid-Chacham, to which the other replied that he saw no need to rise before a trouble-maker (see above 7a.).

(b) He greeted them with the words 'Shalma Alaichu, Malchi, Shalma Alaichu, Malchi'.

(c) He learned from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Bi Melachim Yimlochu" - that the Rabbanan are called 'kings'.
2. ... "ve'Ru'ach Lavshah es Amasai Rosh ha'Shalishim ... Lecha David ve'Imcha ben Yishai, Shalom Shalom Lecha ... " - that, when greeting a Talmid-Chacham, one repeats the greeting twice.
(d) When they offered him something to eat - he replied that he had not yet fed his animals, and, based on the Pasuk "ve'Nasati Eisev be'Sadcha li'Vehemtecha, ve'Achalto ve'Sava'ta", Rav Yehudah Amar Rav forbade eating before having fed one's animals.
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Nizakin' *****



***** Perek ha'Omer *****


(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits someone who says 'Hiskabel (or 'Holech') Get Zeh le'Ishti' to retract on the basis of - a Get being considered a Chov, and we have a principle 'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav' (in which case the Get cannot take effect before she received it).

(b) Should the woman say to her Sheliach 'Hiskabel Li Giti' - then the moment the Sheli'ach receives the Get, she is divorced, and the husband no longer has the right to retract.

(c) If, in the latter case, the husband wanted to reserve the right to retract, when his wife's Sheli'ach comes for the Get - then he would have to state that he did not accept the Sheli'ach as a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, and to re-appoint as a Sheli'ach le'Holachah.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - equates a woman who says to her Sheli'ach 'Tul Li Giti' with one who says 'Hiskabel Li Giti'.

(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ivya extrapolated from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Hiskabel (O Holech) Get Zeh le'Ishti ... Yachzor' - that if his wife would have appointed the Sheli'ach first, then the same Lashon would not permit the husband to retract. In other words, when he says 'Holech' it as if he said 'Z'chi' (like she said)'.

(b) Rav Ashi refutes this proof however - on the grounds that the Tana needed to insert 'Hiskabel Li Giti' for its own sake, to teach us that when the husband says 'Hiskabel ... ', he means 'Hiskabel ve'Holech' (and not 'Hiskabel' on its own, which is outside his authority to say).

(c) According to this, if the woman appointed a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, and her husband said to the Sheli'ach 'Holech Get Zeh le'Ishti' - he would be overriding her Shelichus, and the Sheli'ach would be transformed into a Sheli'ach le'Holachah.

(d) We cannot infer from the Seifa ...

1. ... 'ha'Ishah she'Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti Im Ratzah Lachzor, Lo Yachzor' that whether he responded with 'Hiskabel Get Zeh' or 'Holech Get Zeh' - because the Seifa refers to the case of 'Hiskabel ... ' (mentioned in the Reisha) only, and not to the case of 'Holech ... '.
2. ... 'Lefichach Im Amar ha'Ba'al I Efshi ... Ela Holech Lah', that had he not said 'I Efshi', he would not be permitted to retract (that 'Holech ki'Zechi') - because perhaps the wording ought to be (not 'Ela Holech Lah', but) 'Ela Heilech Lah', which implies that he conforms with whatever his wife said (whereas 'Holech' might well mean 'Holech' literally, and not like she said).
(a) We can take for granted that ...
1. ... a man can be Sheli'ach le'Holachah - because we find that a man can take a Get to his wife.
2. ... a woman can be a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah - because the woman accepts her Get from her husband (and in both of these cases, it stands to reason that a Sheli'ach can do whatever the Meshale'ach can do).
(b) We want to know whether a man can be a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, or a woman a Sheli'ach le'Holachah. We try to resolve part of this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'ha'Omer Hiskabel Get Zeh le'Ishti ... ha'Ishah she'Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti ... ' - by establishing both cases by the same Sheli'ach.

(c) We try and resolve that a man can be a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah as well as a Sheli'ach le'Holachah (but not the other half of the She'eilah, since we already find that a man can accept the Get for his daughter [making him a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah], but we have no precedent for a woman being a Sheli'ach le'Holachah).

(d) We refute this proof however - by establishing our Mishnah by two different Sheluchim, and not the same Sheli'ach as we initially thought.

(a) The source for a father to receive his daughter's Get - is the Hekesh of "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (in Ki Seitzei) from which we learn that, just as he can receive Kidushin on her behalf, so too, can he receive a Get.

(b) Rav Mari proves that even a woman can be a Sheli'ach le'Holachah, too - from he Mishnah in the first Perek which believes even women who are not eligible to testify that her husband died, to bring her Get (and we are talking there about a Sheli'ach le'Holachah).

(c) Rav Ashi brings a proof from the Seifa of that same Mishnah, which speaks about a woman bringing her own Get and saying 'be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanav Nechtam' - which we establish there when her husband specifically declared that she would not be divorced until the Get reached its destination.

(a) Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav said that in a case where the woman said to the Sheli'ach 'Havei Li Giti, the Sheli'ach quoted her as saying 'Hiskabel Li Giti', and the husband replied 'Heilech K'mo she'Amrah' - the woman will not be divorced, even when the Get reaches her hand.

(b) We try to prove from here that the husband relies completely on the Sheli'ach's words - because otherwise, why should she not be divorced at least when the Get reaches his wife's hands (seeing as that is what his wife had said).

(c) Rav Ashi repudiates this proof however, on the grounds that if that was the reason, then Rav should have reversed the case - meaning that, if the wife had appointed the Sheli'ach a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, the Sheli'ach had quoted her as saying 'Havei Li Giti' and the husband had replied 'Heilech K'mo she'Amrah', then had Rav Nachman ... Amar Rav ruled that she is divorced immediately, we could have proved that the husband believes his wife; and had he ruled that she is divorced only when she receives it, that he believes the Sheli'ach.

(d) Rav's real reason therefore, is not because the husband believes one or the other, but - because by stating that he was a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah (which is easier to fulfill than being a Sheli'ach le'Holachah) the Sheli'ach demonstrated that rejected the woman's Shelichus. He agreed to accept the Get only as a Sheli'ach la'Kabalah, and the Shelichus is Bateil, because the woman did not appoint him a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, and the husband is not in a position to do so.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,