ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 87
(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains 'Chamishah she'Kasvu K'lal' in our Mishnah to
mean that one date covered all five Sh'taros, and 'Tofeis le'Chol Echad
ve'Echad', that each Get was dated independently. According to Resh
Lakish, even the former case is considered Tofeis.
He explains 'Klal' -
when they listed first all the men and then the women (i.e. 'P'loni u'P'loni
... Gershu P'lonis u'P'lonis').
(b) The Beraisa says that if witnesses signed after a greeting on the Get -
the Get is Pasul, because we are afraid that they signed on the greeting
rather than on the Get.
(c) To answer Rebbi Aba's Kashya why we are not worried that, according to
our Mishnah too, maybe the witnesses signed only on the last of the five
Gitin, we cite Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself - who said that as
long as the wording on the Get was '*ve*'Sha'alu bi'Sh'lom ... ' ('and not
just 'Sha'alu ... ') it is clear that this is no more than a clause, and
that the witnesses will therefore have signed on the entire Get.
(d) This also resolves our problem - because the Tana of our Mishah too,
speaks when he wrote 'P'loni u'P'loni (and not just 'P'loni').
(a) Mar Keshisha Rav Chisda's son asked Rav Ashi why it is that, if each
Get is dated independently, why are the first four Gitin not Pasul anyway,
because they were signed at a later date than they were written. Rav Ashi
replied - that our Mishnah speaks when all five Gitin were contained the
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Kasav *Lah*" - that one Get cannot cover two
divorces ("Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta').
(c) Ravina asked Rav Ashi ...
1. ... why it is that, according to Resh Lakish, who requires the men and
the women to be listed independently ('P'loni u'Ploni Gerashnu P'lonis
u'P'lonis'), all five Gitin should not be Pasul even in the case of K'lal,
because of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta'. Rav Ashi replied - that the
Mishnah must be speaking when he then listed them couple by couple, adding
'P'loni Giresh P'lonis, u'P'loni Giresh P'lonis'.
2. ... how, in light of the P'sul of "Lah" 've'Lo Lah u'le'Chaverta', we
justify the Beraisa 'ha'Kosev Nechasav li'Sh'nei Avadav, Kanu u'Meshachrerin
Zeh es Zeh' (in spite of the Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" from Ishah - Rav
Ashi replied that we already established the Beraisa by two independent
(a) In the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - both have the
support of a Beraisa.
(b) In the Beraisa that supports Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira
disagrees with the Tana Kama. He restricts the P'sul there - to where there
is a space between oe Get and the next, but where there is no space, all the
Gitin are Kasher.
(c) In the Beraisa that supports Resh Lakish ...
1. ... the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira. His disputant
is - Rebbi Meir (who maintains that the date is automatically an
interruption between the Sh'tar and the signatures).
2. ... the Tana needs to explain that the Sofer wrote the date on each of
the five Gitin - because he is speaking when he had previously listed the
couples together, in the way that we explained earlier, whereas Resh Lakish,
who invalidates five Gitin in one Sh'tar even if there is only one date, is
speaking when he did not do that.
(a) The difference between the way an Ivri (a Jew living elsewhere) signs
his name on the Get and the way a Greek Jew signs it is - that the former,
whom w shall call Yosef and his father's Shimon, will sign his name Yosef
ben Shimon, whereas the latter will sign it Shimon ben Yosef (meaning 'the
son of Shimon is Yosef').
(b) If, in a case where two documents are written side by side on one piece
of parchment, two Ivrim sign across the page from one side to the other, and
two Greek Jews sign the opposite way, our Mishnah validates - whichever
Sh'tar is undersigned by the first pair of names (the right-hand Sh'tar, if
the Ivrim signed first, the left-hand one, if the Greeks signed first -
assuming they signed in Lashon ha'Kodesh).
(c) If an Ivri signs first, then a Greek, then an Ivri and then a Greek, the
Tana declares both Sh'taros invalid. Each of the two Greeks signed his first
name at the end of the line, directly underneath the second name of the Ivri
above him, and 'ben' and the second name at the beginning of the next line,
underneath the first name of the Ivri (in which case, we would have expected
the Sh'tar to be Kasher).
(a) If someone signs his name as 'ben P'loni' - his signature is valid.
(b) The reason that, in the latter case in our Mishnah, we do not consider
the top signature as two, 'Re'uven' on the right, 'ben Ya'akov' on the left,
to combine with the signature beneath them is - because the Tana speaks when
he signed 'Re'uven ben' on the right, 'Ya'akov' on the left, and 'Ya'akov'
on its own is not a valid signature.
(a) A Sh'tar is Kasher if one of the signatories signed 'Re'uven ben' - on
the grounds that what he means is - 'Ani B'no shel Reuven'.
(b) And the reason that, in the Reisha of our Mishnah, only the one Sh'tar
is Kasher, and not both (by considering 'Reuven ben' as a witness on the
right-hand Sh'tar, and 'Ya'akov Eid', as a witness on the left-hand one and
likewise in the case of the second witness) is - because it speaks when the
signature that signed on the left of the Get (i.e. 'Ya'akov') is not
followed by 'Eid'.
(c) The Sh'tar will be Pasul even if he did sign 'Ya'akov Eid' - in a case
where we know that this is simply not Ya'akov's signature.
(d) We know that it was not Reuven who signed on the left-hand Sh'tar too,
but using his father's name - because a person does not use his father's
name when he can use his own.
(a) Rav used to sign his name with the symbol of a fish, Rebbi Chanina with
that of a branch of a date-palm. The symbol used by ...
1. ... Rav Chisda was - 'a Samech'.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna did not use a letter like the previous two Amora'im,
but a symbol like the first two - a ship's mast.
2. ... Rav Hoshaya was - 'an Ayin' (letters from their respective names).
(c) We know that Reuven in the Seifa of our Mishnah, did not use his
father's name 'Ya'akov' as a symbol - because people do not have the
Chutzpah to use their parents names as symbols.
(a) We prove that the reason in the Seifa of our Mishnah (that not both
Gitin are Kasher - the right-hand one, by means of the Ivri witnesses, the
left-hand one, by means of the Greek ones) cannot be because of the space
between the left-hand Sh'tar and the Greek witnesses, because of Chizkiyah,
who said that a Sh'tar whose space one filled with witnesses who are
relatives - is Kasher (despite the space between the contents of the Sh'tar
and the Kasher witnesses. This proves that a space between the Sh'tar and
the Kasher witnesses does not matter as long as it is filled-in.
(b) Ze'iri therefore amends 'Sheneihem Pesulim' in our Mishnah to
read -'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.
(c) We nevertheless reconcile our Mishnah with Chizkiyah by suggesting that
perhaps they signed 'Gundelis' - meaning that the Greek witnesses took their
cue from their Ivri counterparts, signing their on names before the names of
their fathers, (in which case, the left-hand Get is Pasul because it has no
witnesses, whereas the right-hand one has four.
(a) A Sh'tar that is signed by an Ivri and a Greek Jew - is Kasher (despite
their different methods of signing).
(b) Ze'iri cites a Beraisa which reconciles our Mishnah with this ruling.
The Beraisa says - 'Sheneihem Kesheirim'.
(c) Our Tana however, specifically rules that the second Get is Pasul -
because he suspects that perhaps one of the two Greek witnesses signed
'Gundelis', as we explained earlier (i.e. either the first one took his cue
from the first Ivri witness, to sign his own name first [but on the second
column], or the second one took his cue from the previous Ivri witnesses
[signing his own name first]), leaving us with three witnesses on the second
Sh'tar and only one on the second, or vice-versa, respectively.
(d) We refute the contention that the Seifa of our Mishnah speaks when all
four witnesses signed across the line - because then, there would not be an
Ivri witness on the second Get (and it is clear from both the Mishnah and
from the Sugya that there is).
(a) Our Mishnah validates a Get which is written in two columns, which is
dated at the beginning of the first column and signed at the end of the
second. We are not afraid ...
1. ... that the two columns may have actually contained two Gitin that were
not originally written on the same level (i.e. the first Get was written
higher up than the second), and that someone cut off the signatures from the
foot of the first Get and the date from the top of the second one is -
because the Tana is speaking when there is a space at the foot of the first
column (proving that it is still intact).
(b) The two reasons for invalidating the Get in the previous 'Havah Amina'
(the contention that he changed his mind about giving a Get after the first
column) are - either because, having changed his mind about giving his wife
a Get, what he wrote to date would then be Batel, or because it was then not
written on the same day as it was signed.
2. ... that he changed his mind about the text of the Get and scrapped the
first column, began afresh with a new date on the second, which he then cut
off to make it appear like one Get - because the Tana is speaking when there
is also a space at the top of the second column, proving that it too, is
3. ... that after beginning the Get on the first column, he changed his mind
about divorcing his wife, and then reconsidered and continued with the Get
on the second column - because the first column ends with 'Harei At', and
the second begins with 'Muteres' (indicating that the second column is a
continuation of the first, and that he did not retract from the first
column, because a person would not retract in the middle of a phrase).
(c) Rav Ashi offers one answer for all three Kashyos - by establishing our
Mishnah when it is evident from the appearance of the Sh'tar (by the
standard thickness of the parchment) that neither column has been cut. In
this way, he eliminates all three problems in one sweep.
(a) If the witnesses signed on top of the page, at the side or at the back
of a regular Get (to preclude a Get Mekushar where the witnesses had to sign
on the back) - it is not Kasher.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if two Gitin are written one above the
other, but one facing upwards and the other downwards, and the witnesses
signed on the space in between ...
1. ... if the two beginnings are facing each other - both Gitin are Pasul
(seeing as the set of signatures does not pertain to either Sh'tar).
2. ... if the two ends are facing each other - then the one with which the
witnesses' signatures coincides is Kasher.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that ...
1. ... a Get that is written in Ivris and the witnesses signed in Greek - is
(b) If the witnesses signed ...
2. ... if the Sofer wrote it and one witness signed it - the Get is Kasher
(though this will be explained later in the Sugya).
1. ... 'Ish P'loni Eid' (omitting his father's name, which is generally
inserted) - the Get is Kasher.
(c) The Neki'ei ha'Da'as in Yerushalayim used to sign on documents - 'Ish
P'loni ben Ish P'loni'. The 'Neki'ei ha'Da'as' were people who would speak
2. ... 'ben Ish P'loni Eid' - it is Kasher.
3. ... 'Ish P'loni ben Ish P'loni' - the Get is Kasher.
(d) The Tana rules that if just the family nickname (presumably
incorporating the modern surname) of the man and woman were written in the
Get, together with their main name - it is nonetheless Kasher.