REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 3
GITIN 3 - dedicated by Marcia and Lee Weinblatt to the merit of Mr. and Mrs.
Israel and Gisela Turkel (Yisroel Shimon ben Reb Shlomo ha'Levy, Golda bas
Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), of blessed memory.
(a) What is 'Kiyum Sh'taros'? How is it performed?
(b) What problem does this create in our Mishnah according to Rava, who
explains our Mishnah because of 'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo'?
(c) The truth of the matter is that documents should not need to be
substantiated at all, due to a statement of Resh Lakish.
What did Resh
Lakish say about witnesses who signed on a document?
(d) How does this enable us to understand why, according to Rava, one
Shelia'ch is sufficient?
(a) On what grounds does Rava disagree with Rabah's reason (of 'Le'fi
she'Ein Beki'in Li'shmah')?
(b) According to Rabah however, Chazal had good reason for not obligating
the Sheli'ach to add the word 'Li'shmah'.
What is it?
(c) Why are we more afraid to make the Sheli'ach say 'be'Fanai Nichtav
Li'shmah' than 'be'Fanai Nichtav'?
(d) Then how will we know that the Sh'tar was indeed written Lishmah?
(a) On what grounds does Rabah disagree with Rava's reason (of 'Le'fi
she'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo')?
Answers to questions
(b) How does Rava counter Rabah's argument?
(c) Rabah however, replies that for three reasons, nobody will confuse our
case will Kiyum Sh'taros: 1. because here, Chazal insisted on using the
Lashon 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', whereas by 'Kiyum Sh'taros', the witnesses
only need to say 'We know ... '. 2. because even a woman is believed,
whereas by Kiyum Sh'taros she is not.
What is Rabah's third proof?
(d) Rabah's second and third Kashya do not perturb Rava (see Tosfos DH
On what grounds does he refute his first Kashya?
(a) In a Mishnah in the second Perek, the Tana forbids (Lechatchilah)
writing a Get on something that is attached to the ground.
On what grounds
is that Pasul? Why do we assume the author of this Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir?
(b) Under what circumstances does he validate a Get that was?
(c) How does Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk "ve'Kasav ... ve'Nasan" (by the
same token "ve'Kasav Lah" regarding writing the Get Li'shmah)? In what
connection are both of these Pesukim written?
(d) Rebbi Elazar argues with Rebbi Meir. According to him, "ve'Kasav Lah"
pertains to the Kesivah, and not to the Chasimah.
From which statement of
Rebbi Elazar do we learn this?
(a) What problem does this pose on Rabah, who attributes 'be'Fanai Nichtav
u'be'Fanai Nechtam' to 'Le'fi she'Ein Beki'in Li'shmah'?
(b) How do we try to reconcile Rabah with Rebbi Elazar, and establish our
Mishnah like the latter?
(c) What does the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Bava Basra say about a Get
which is written in the husband's handwriting but on which witnesses did not
sign, or even if they did, if it was not dated?
(d) What is the third case mentioned by the Tana together with these two?
(a) Are the Gitin in the Mishnah there Pasul d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan?
Rebbi Elazar concludes his statement 've'Govah mi'Nechasim Meshubadim'. This
appears to mean that the woman may claim her Kesuvah from Nechasim
(b) What does Rebbi Elazar say?
(c) How does this disprove our suggestion to establish our Mishnah like
(d) Why then, according to Rebbi Elazar, do witnesses need to sign on a Get
What else might it mean?
(a) We concluded (for the time being) that, according to Rabah, the author
of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Elazar.
Answers to questions
How do we attempt to establish it
like Rebbi Meir, despite the fact that he does not require Kesivah Li'shmah?
(b) We refute this theory however, with a statement of Rav Nachman.
did Rav Nachman say in the name of Rebbi Meir regarding a Get that someone
found in a trash-heap (that disproves it)?
(c) How do we know that Rebbi Meir is not speaking about Torah-law, but that
mi'de'Rabbanan, the Get is Pasul?