(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 4

GITIN 4 & 5 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) We finally establish the author of our Mishnah (which, according to Rabah, requires both the Kesivah and the Chasimah Li'shmah), as Rebbi Elazar. To reconcile this with the fact that Rebbi Elazar does not generally require Eidei Chasimah at all, we cite a statement by Rebbi Aba.
What did Rebbi Aba say?

(b) What other cases of Pasul witnesses, besides witnesses who signed she'Lo Li'shmah, will invalidate a Sh'tar even according to Rebbi Elazar?

(c) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say (regarding the Din of a Get Mechubar)?

(d) Considering that Rav Ashi's explanation of our Mishnah is so obvious, why did we not present it earlier (to answer the Kashya on Rabah)? Why did we prefer to establish our Mishnah like ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... Rebbi Elazar?
(a) In what way is a town which is 'Muvla'as be'Soch ha'Techum' different than one which is 'Samuch la'Ir'?

(b) Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah requires a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from Rekem and Chagar to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '; whilst Rebbi Eliezer adds even one who brings it from K'far Ludim to Lud.
What does the Tana Kama hold?

(c) What is the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer?

(d) We suggest that the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and the Tana Kama is the equivalent Machlokes to that of Rabah and Rava.
What is then the reasoning behind the opinion of ...

  1. ... the Tana Kama?
  2. ... Raban Gamliel?
  3. ... Rebbi Eliezer?
(a) We conclude however, that both Rabah and Rava will explain all the Tana'im like their own respective opinions.
According to Rabah, what is the reasoning of ...
  1. ... the Tana Kama?
  2. ... Raban Gamliel?
(b) According to Rava, what is the reasoning of ...
  1. ... the Tana Kama?
  2. ... Raban Gamliel?
(c) Like whom does Rebbi Eliezer hold according to Rabah and Rava?
(a) 'va'Chachamim Omrim Eino Tzarich she'Yomar be'Fanai Nichtav ... Ela he'Meivi mi'Medinas ha'Yam ve'ha'Molich'.
What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah then apparently hold?

(b) How do we initially attempt to explain their Machlokes?

(c) We conclude however, that Rabah and Rava explain both opinions according to their own respective views.
How does ...

  1. ... Rabah explain the Chachamim? Seeing as the Sofrim in Eretz Yisrael are expert in writing a Get Li'shmah, why should 'Molich' be required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
  2. ... Rava explain the Tana Kama, in view of the Chachamim, who require 'Molich' to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
Answers to questions



(a) The Tana of our Mishnah obligates someone who brings a Get from one Medinah to another in Chutz la'Aretz to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '. What can we extrapolate from this? Why is it a Kashya on Rabah?

(b) We answer this Kashya by changing the inference.
What inference will we now make?

(c) How can we say that, seeing as the Tana has already specifically taught that a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from one Medinah to another in Eretz Yisrael is not required to make the declaration? Why do we require an additional inference to teach the same thing again?

(a) In another version, we ask from the same Mishnah, not on Rabah, but on Rava. What is the Kashya on Rava? What inference do we then make from the Mishnah?

(b) Rava will reply that the inference is not 'mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael, Lo Tzarich', but 'be'Osah Medinah bi'Medinas ha'Yam, Lo Tzarich'. In that case, 'mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael' does need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
What problem do we have with this regarding the original statement of our Mishnah?

(c) We finally conclude that even Rava will concede that from Medinah to Medinah in Eretz Yisrael, the Sheli'ach is not required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
What is the reason for this ...

  1. ... in the time of the Beis Hamikdash?
  2. ... at other times?
(a) 'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer, Afilu me'Hagmunya le'Hagmunya'. To illustrate this, Rebbi Yitzchak cites an episode that took place in the town of Asasiyun, which had two mayors.
What does he prove from there?

(b) Why is this a proof for Rava, and a Kashya on Rabah?

(c) What are now forced to change our presentation of the Machlokes between Rabah and Rava.
What is the new version of the Machlokes? Who is more stringent?

(a) Why will Rabah and Rava no longer argue from one Medinah to another in Eretz Yisrael?

(b) They argue in two cases, one of them, from one location to another in the same Medinah (where Rabah requires 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and Rava does not).
In which other case do they argue?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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