ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 73
GITIN 73-75 - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter who wants the
Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.
(a) Rabah and Rava disagree with Rav Huna. In the case of a Shechiv-Mera who
recovered, assuming that ...
1. ... he did not say 'Im Meisi' - they hold that he cannot retract.
(b) They argue with him on the grounds that - Chazal decreed on account of
the fear that people will say that a Get is valid after death.
2. ... he did - they hold that he can (because it conforms with his
(c) Even though min ha'Torah, the Get is nullified, Chazal proclaim it
valid (permitting her to marry another man) - because when a person marries,
he automatically agrees to abide by all decisions of the Rabbanan with
regard to the marriage (in which case, they are merely revoking the first
Kidushin [retroactively] with the couple's prior consent).
(d) This is fine with regard to a case of Kidushei Kesef (where the
Chachamim's right of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' will apply). In the event that
he was Mekadesh her with Bi'ah, they declared the Bi'ah a Bi'as Z'nus.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh,
ve'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav O Hikisho Nachash, Eino Get' - because it is an O'nes
that is unforseeable, and which the stipulator would not have taken into
(b) In a similar case where, instead of 'Im Meisi', the husband said 'Im Lo
A'amod me'Choli Zeh' - the Tana rules - Harei Zeh Get'.
(c) The Seifa clashes with the Reisha - because, if one does anticipate an
unforseeable O'nes (as it would seem from the Seifa), then why should one
not do likewise in the Reisha?
(d) They issued a ruling in Eretz Yisrael, in the equivalent case to that
of the Seifa of the Beraisa - invalidating the Get (like in the Reisha).
(a) The man who sold his friend a field, undertook to compensate the
purchaser - for any O'nes that might occur.
(b) When the king ordered a river to be diverted through that field, Ravina
ordered the seller - to reimburse the purchaser in full.
(c) Rava concurred - with the opinion of Rav Acha bar Tachlifa.
(a) Ravina asked Rava from the Beraisa that we just quoted 'Im Lo A'amod
me'Choli Zeh, ve'Nafal Alav ha'Bayis ... Harei Zeh Get'. When Rava
retorted that we can answer from the Reisha, which says 'Eino Get', Rav Acha
mi'Difti asked Ravina - whether that is sufficient reason not to ask from
(b) Ravina answered him - that if the two sections of a Beraisa clash in
this way, it is a sign that the Beraisa has been misquoted (in which case it
cannot be considered conclusive).
(c) Consequently, we follow our logic, which dictates that one ignores any
O'nes which the stipulator would not have anticipated when stipulating the
(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua purchased - sunflower-seeds
(Ger'inim) by the banks of the River Malka.
(b) The sailors whom they hired to transport it across the river - accepted
full liability (for any O'nes that might occur).
(c) The sailors were prevented from delivering the barrels - due a royal
edict ordering the river to be drained. Consequently, Rav Papa and Rav Huna
B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua expected the sailors to hire donkeys to transport the
goods across the river-bed.
(d) Rava informed them that they were 'stripping people's coats off their
backs' - because this was another case of an O'nes which was unforseeable,
with which (as we just concluded) we do not contend. He referred to them as
'white geese' - because they were already old and their beards had turned
(a) he Tana of our Mishnah forbids a woman who has received a Get 'me'Hayom
Im Meisi', to reside with her husband without witnesses - either because
(seeing as they are familiar with each other) we suspect that they will be
intimate, and according to one opinion, we are afraid that they will do so
for the sake of Kidushin. But in any event, seclusion with an unmarried
woman is prohibited.
(b) One witness will suffice.
(c) Even a slave is eligible for this purpose. - and so is a maid-servant,
provided it is not her own.
(a) In the interim period, Rebbi Yehudah considers the woman to be married -
because he holds that, even assuming that he dies from his current illness,
the Get will only take effect from the moment prior to his death.
(b) The ramifications of Rebbi Yehudah's ruling are - that if someone
commits adultery with the woman during that period, he (and the woman) will
receive Chenek (strangulation), or to bring a Chatas, if they transgressed
(c) Rebbi Yossi says - 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' (meaning that she is
only a Safek Eishes Ish), in which case they will only be obligated to bring
an Asham Taluy, nor will they be Chayav Chenek, should they transgress
(d) He argues with Rebbi Yehudah - inasmuch as, in his opinion, in the event
of the husband's death, the Get will have taken effect the moment it was
handed to the woman.
(a) To explain a meaningless Beraisa 'Ra'uhah she'Niv'elah Imo ba'Afeilah
... ' - Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah makes a distinction (where
witnesses saw the couple mentioned in our Mishnah in a state of intimacy),
between when the man did not subsequently give the woman money, in which
case we suspect that he meant to betroth her again, and where he did - when
we ascribe their behavior to nothing more than a frivolous act.
(b) 'Chosheshin Mishum Z'nus' in the latter case (implying a Chumra) cannot
be taken literally - because which Chumra can this be referring to (seeing
as she is divorced anyway, and Terumah is permitted to her, unless she
commits adultery with a man who is forbidden to her.
(c) The Tana nevertheless says it - to balance with the continuation 've'Ein
Chosheshin Mishum Kidushin'.
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Af Chosheshin Mishum Kidushin'.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, commenting on the Machlokes
between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (regarding whether a man who divorced
his wife and stayed overnight with her in a hotel requires a second Get or
not), 'Machlokes ke'she'Ra'uhah she'Niv'alah, Aval Lo Ra'uhah she'Niv'alah,
Divrei ha'Kol Ein Tzerichah Heimenah Get'. According to Rav Nachman Amar
Rabah bar Avuhah's interpretation of the Beraisa, this concurs with both
opinions in the Beraisa (since both are only worried about Kidushin if the
witnesses actually saw the Bi'ah).
(b) Bearing in mind that this interpretation differentiates between a
husband who gave his wife money and one who did not, Abaye refutes it on the
grounds - that the Tana of the Beraisa does not mention money (so how can we
base a Machlokes Tana'im on something which the Tana makes not the least
(c) So Abaye interprets the Tana Kama of the Beraisa - to mean that, even if
the witnesses saw them in a state of intimacy, we assume it to have been a
mere act of frivolity, and not having Kidushin in mind.
(d) And Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that - once they actually see the
Bi'ah, we assume that they had Kidushin in mind.
(a) According to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa - Rabah bar bar
Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement concurs with the opinion of
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who also equates the Bi'ah with Kidushin).
(b) Based on the Seifa 'Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah Omer Af be'Zu Chosheshin
Mishum Kidushin', Rava refutes Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa - due
to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah use of the word 'Af', seeing as the Tana Kama
maintains that we are not afraid that they had Kidushin in mind, and *he*
is, all he needed to say was 'Chosheshin le'Kidushin' ('Af' implies that the
Tana Kama is strict, and that he is stricter still).
(c) So Rava explains - that according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, even
if the witnesses did not actually see the Bi'ah, we are concerned that Bi'ah
may have been performed with Kidushin in mind.
(d) We conclude that, according to Rava's explanation, Rabah bar bar Chanah
Amar Rebbi Yochanan will concur with neither of the Tana'im in our Beraisa -
because according to the Tana Kama, even if the witnesses saw them intimate,
we do not suspect that they had Kidushin in mind, and according to Rebbi
Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, even if they did not, we do.
(a) We establish 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' in our Mishnah - when the
husband dies from his illness.
The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi is -
whether we hold 'Yesh Bereirah' (Rebbi Yehudah) or 'Ein Bereirah' (Rebbi
Yossi, because once he survives the first moment, it is a matter of
(b) In the event that he does not - he will be Chayav Chatas.
(c) We have already learned that a Get cannot take effect after the
husband's death. We therefore rule that if the husband said 'Harei Zeh
Gitech Im Meisi' - the Get is invalid.
(d) Rabah therefore amends the wording of the case in our Mishnah over which
Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi argue to - 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Eis she'Ani