(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 15

GITIN 14 & 15 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not (the Chachamim, who hold Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami'). Like whom do the Tana Kama ('Biksho ve'Lo Matz'o, Yachzero li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Ya'akov ('Meis Meshale'ach, Yachzero le'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis') all hold?

(b) How do we know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar?

(c) Yesh Omrim ('le'Yorshei Mi she'Nishtalchu Eilav') clearly holds like the Chachamim (of Rebbi Elazar). What is the reason of the Chachamim (who say 'Yachloku')?

(d) If the Shechiv Mera recovers, is he entitled to retract?

(a) Like which of the above Tana'im does Rav Yosef rule?

(b) Was Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi actually a Nasi or was he just quoting the Nasi?

(c) How do we reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Damu'?

(d) On what grounds must Rav Yosef then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachzeru le'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachzeru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after all)?

***** Hadran Alach ha'Meivi Kama *****

*****Perek ha'Meivi Get (Tinyana) *****


(a) Will a Get be Kasher if the Sheli'ach who brings it declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam', or vice-versa?

(b) The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his presence but only half signed, or vice-versa.
What does half signed mean?

(c) Neither will the Get be Kasher if one person declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and another 'be'Fanai Nechtam'.
Is this necessarily because one of the two is not a Sheli'ach? Would it be any different if he was?

(a) According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav and a third witness, be'Fanai Nechtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees.
Why is that?

(b) What will Rebbi Yehudah hold in the previous cases in the Mishnah?

(a) In light of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ... Tzarich Lomar be'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nechtam', why does the Tana here find it necessary to invalidate the Get, should the Sheli'ach fail to make the full declaration?

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Does it make any difference which half?

(c) What is the significance of the first line of the Get?

(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'.
What does Rav Chisda say in such a case, should two witnesses then corroborate the signature of the second witness?

(b) What is his reason?

(c) What did we learn in the first Perek regarding a Sheli'ach who testifies on the witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nechtam)?

(d) Based on this, how does Rava reject Rav Chisda's ruling?

Answers to questions



(a) Rava does maintains however, that if the Sheli'ach himself testifies on the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul.
Why is that?

(b) What is the case by Kiyum Sh'taros (of Mamon) which is Pasul? What is the reason for the P'sul?

(c) How does Rav Ashi reject this ruling of Rava's?

(d) Which case is Pasul according to Rav Ashi, for the same reason that Rava invalidated his?

(a) 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, be'Fanai Nechtam Chetzyo, Pasul'.
Why can the Tana not be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness?

(b) Then what is the Tana coming to teach us? On whom is this a problem?

(c) Why can the Tana not be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi as well?

(d) Then on what grounds do we incorporate both the cases of Rava and of Rav Ashi. Why do we not then confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case, which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as well as on Rav Chisda)?

(a) Rav Chisda answers the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo be'Fanai Nechtam'.
What does he comment on that case?

(b) What does he then extrapolate with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u'be'Fanav Nechtam Chetzyo' (to answer the Kashya against himself)?

(a) What does Rav Chisda rule with regard to 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah'? What is Gidud?

(b) Mereimar disagrees.
What is the Halachah?

(a) Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves.
Why can he not be referring to ...
  1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shiur of) one Revi'is of water?
  2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other?
  3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other half?
(b) What do we mean when we refute the third Kashya with the words 'Lo Tzericha de'Ika Mashkeh Tofe'ach'?

(c) How do we refute the Kashya on that from the Mishnah in Taharos, which specifically lists 'Tofe'ach' among those things which are not considered joined (regarding Tum'ah)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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