(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 28

GITIN 28 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


(a) What is the basis for our Mishnah, which rules that when a Sheli'ach brings a Get on behalf of a man who is old or sick, we presume the husband to be in the same state that he left him, and the woman is divorced?

(b) May a bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband went overseas continue to eat Terumah?

(c) Similarly, the Kohanim are permitted to bring the Chatas of a man who sent it from overseas, on the assumption that he is still alive.
What would happen to the Chatas if they knew that he had died?

(a) According to Rava, when will the above Chazakah not apply in the case of a man who is ...
  1. ... old?
  2. ... sick?
(b) What does the Tana say in a Beraisa (regarding a man of a hundred who sends his wife a Get) that appears to refute Rava's ruling?

(c) How do we nevertheless resolve Rava with the Beraisa?

(a) What does the Tana of a Beraisa say (regarding Terumah) about a woman whose husband gave her a Get which was due to be valid only one hour before his death?

(b) When Rami bar Chama pointed out this discrepancy to Rabah, he drew a distinction between Terumah and Get.
What distinction did he draw?

(c) This answer is unacceptable however, on the basis of another Mishnah. What does the Mishnah in Sucah say about a bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband traveled overseas eating Terumah?

(d) Rav Ada Brei de'Rav Yitzchak therefore draws a different distinction. Why is the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi' different than the other two cases?

(a) On what grounds does Rav Papa refute Rav Ada Brei de'Rav Yitzchak's answer? Why is it in no way certain, even in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Miysasi', that the woman will be forbidden to eat Terumah?

(b) So Abaye makes a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kutim ... ' rules Meichal ve'Shoseh Miyad'.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(c) What does this Machlokes have to do with our Sugya?

Answers to questions



(a) What distinction does Rava draw between 'Shema Meis' and 'Shema Yamus', to explain the discrepancy between the Beraisa ('Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Miysasi ... ') on the one hand, and our Mishnah (ha'Meivi Get ve'Hinicho Zakein O Choleh ... ') and the Mishnah in Sucah (Bas Yisrael ha'Nesu'ah le'Kohen, ve'Halach Ba'alah li'Medinas ha'Yam ... ) on the other?

(b) Rava makes his statement as if it was unanimous.
How does Rav Yehudah from Diskarta explain the Beraisa of 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin, which belongs to the category of 'Shema Yamus', yet Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Meichal ve'Shoseh', is not concerned that the jar may break?

(c) What did Rav Mesharshaya mean when he exclaimed 'Arvech Arva Ba'i'?

(d) So how does Rava finally explain the difference between 'Shema Meis' and 'Shema Yamus' in light of this Beraisa?

(a) What is the problem with sending a Korban with a Sheli'ach? What do we learn from "ve'Samach *Yado*"?

(b) Rav Yosef therefore establishes our Mishnah, which talks about someone sending his Chatas with a Sheli'ach, by the Chatas of a woman.
From where do we learn that the Korban of a woman does not require Semichah?

(c) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah even by the Chatas of a man. How does he resolve the problem of Semichah?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists three cases which all teach us that we give a living man a Chezkas Chai.
Having told us this by ...
  1. ... Get, why does he need to repeat it by Terumah?
  2. ... Terumah, why does he need to repeat it by Chatas?
(b) So what does the combination of all three cases teach us?
(a) Rebbi Elazar ben P'rata taught the Din of Chezkas Chai with regard to a case of a city that has been besieged by the enemy and in the case of a ship that is floundering in the sea. There is a third case.
What is it?

(b) Did the Chachamim accept his teachings?

(c) He added that in the case of a city that has fallen to the enemy, a ship that has sunk and someone who is being taken out to be killed, we place on the inhabitants Chumrei Chayim ve'Chumrei Meisim.
What are the ramifications of ...

  1. ... 'Chumrei Meisim'?
  2. ... 'Chumrei Chayim'?
(a) Rav Yosef restricts the Din in our Mishnah (that we place on a man who is being taken out to be killed the stringencies of a live man) to a Beis-Din shel Yisrael.
Why is that?

(b) What will be the Din in the equivalent case by a Beis-Din shel Akum?

(c) Abaye the queried Rav Yosef on the grounds that Nochri judges are likely to change their minds when they are offered bribes.
What did he reply?

(a) What does the Tana of a Beraisa say with regard to a man who fled after Beis-Din had sentenced him to death, if witnesses subsequently testified in another Beis-Din that a previous Beis-Din had passed sentence?

(b) How will Rav Yosef, who suspects that in a Beis-Din of Yisrael, a sentenced man might still be acquitted, explain this Beraisa?

(a) What distinction does the Tana of another Beraisa make between a Jewish Beis-Din and a Nochri executioner who declared 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag' regarding giving his wife permission to remarry?

(b) 'Ish P'loni Neherag' means that he was executed by Beis-Din.
What does 'Ish P'loni Meis' mean?

(c) Why do we prefer not to take 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag' literally? Since when do we believe the testimony of a Nochri?

(d) How do we therefore propose to explain 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag'? Why does this present Rav Yosef with a Kashya?

12) So we accept the literal explanation (that we just rejected) to explain 'Ish P'loni Meis, Ish P'loni Neherag'.
Why is this case different than other cases where a Nochri is believed 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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