:הרב לביתן
(.משנה (ב
1) A שליח of the husband who brings a גט from overseas must say that he saw the גט as it was written and signed in front of him.
2) The תנא קמא holds that, that's only if it came from a faraway country, but if it crossed the border from a close by city and certainly if the city was surrounded by ארץ ישראל on three sides then he does not have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.
3) רב גמליאל agrees with the תנא קמא by a city that surrounded by three sides but he argues by a city that is on the border only on one side that he must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.
4)רב אליעזר argues even by a city surrounded on three sides and holds you must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.
5) The חכמים add that not only if the שליח comes from חוץ לארץ but even if he goes from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ he must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.
6) Two countries out of ארץ ישראל he must say ת''ק) בפנו''נ).
7) רב שמעון גמליאל holds not only 2 countries but 2 parts of a city ruled by 2 different governments he must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם.
8) ר' יהודה outlines the boundaries of ארץ ישראל that from רקם and eastward and רקם included is חוץ לארץ and from אשקלון southward and אשקלון is included and עכו northward and including עכו is חוץ לארץ.
9) ר' מאיר argues and holds that עכו regarding גיטין is included in ארץ ישראל.
10) A גט written and delivered in ארץ ישראל the שליח does not have to say, בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם but if the husband comes and claims that the גט is invalid, we must check if he checked the signatures then the גט is כשר.
(NOTE 1) (pr)
(.תוס' ד''ה "המביא גט" (ב
Q.1) The term גט is used by חז"ל to refer to any שטר so why does our משנה assume that it is obvious that our משנה is discussing a גט אשה.
A.2) Most places that גט is mentioned refers to a גט אשה.
S.3) The מנהג to make a גט with 12 lines is since ג equals 3 and ט equals 9 the total is 12. (ר"ת)
S.4) Another explanation given by the גאונים is because the תורה calls a גט a ספר כריתות and a תורה has an extra 4 lines and has 4 spaces between each ספר so add up the spaces that separate the ספרים excluding דברים since its just a repetition so you get 12 lines.
(Note 2) (pr)
(.תוס' כוין (ג
1) 'תוס explains that אשה isn't שכיח to bring the גט.
2) חס"ם asks why the silence, רבא says the same thing?
3) 'תוס explains that רבה is based on the פ"ב) משנה)
that says- 2 people who say בפני נחתב is כשר,
why doesn't the משנה say ידעינן; must be ידעינן doesn't work.
Asks the חס"ם, the reason it doesn't say ידעינן is because if a אשה
brings the גט, she must say בפני נחתם and ידעינן doesn't work.
A) The answer is that the אשה bringing a גט is לא שכיח (not common) so רבא doesn't have to answer that an אשה is לא שכיח because רבה is based on that premise (assumption) that אשה is bringing the לא שכיח) גט).
(Note 3)
(.ר' אלעזר (ג
Q. 1) The גמרא continues that our משנה that requires the שליח to say both the כתיבה and the חתימה were לשמה (according to רבה) can't be ר' אלעזר since he holds that only the כתיבה has to be לשמה.
(וכתב refers to the entire writing of the גט).
S. 2) The גמרא says don't try to explain that the שיטה of ר' אלעזר is that מדרבנן the חתימה must also be לשמה, and that's why the שליח must also mention the חתימה. NO, since we see that ר' אלעזר holds that even if there is no חתימה at all, the גט is כשר even מדרבנן.
S. 3) The place that we see that ר' אלעזר holds is from a משנה in the last פו.) פרק)
S. 4) The תנא קמא says there are 3 examples of a גט that is כשר מדאורייתא but the חכמים said it's פסול, yet it won't make ממזרים if used.
Case #1 A גט that was hand written by the husband but wasn't signed by any witnesses.
Case #2 - If the גט wasn't dated.
Case #3 - There was 1 signature in conjunction with the hand writing of the סופר.
S. 5) ר' אלעזר argues on the תנא קמא, that even if there are no signatures at all the גט is still כשר even מדרבנן since the whole idea of signatures on a גט is a מנהג that the world realized it's value but it doesn't invalidate the גט at all.
(Note 4) (pr)
(:תוס' ד''ה שלשה (ג
S. 1) There are 2 opinions in the פו.) גמרא) if the משנה of ג' גיטין פסולין is according to ר' מאיר or ר' אלעזר.
Q. 2) If it's ר' מאיר how can these 3 still be כשר. If ר' מאיר holds any change in the מטבע שטבעו חכמים (changed in what the חכמים said), the גט is פסול, and the children are ממזרים.
A. 3) רבינו תם explains that the חכמים built into these 3 פסולים that even if you don't do it, it won't create ממזרים.
Q. 4) If its ר' מאיר, then the וכתב of the תורה refers to the חתימה, so how can he hold that a גט with no signatures is כשר בדיעבד?
A. 5) The husbands handwriting is the greatest form of חתימה (equal to 100 עדים, he admitted).
S. 6) The last of the 3 cases is if you have עד אחד there is a מחלוקת in the פו:) גמרא) if the עד אחד is joined by the handwriting of the husband or just the סופר's handwriting.
Q. 7) According to the פשט that the עד אחד joins the handwriting of the סופר, how can we rely on his handwriting to testify that the גט is כשר maybe he wrote it to practice?
A. 8) 'תוס answers that most סופרים are careful when disposing גיטין which aren't כשר in order not to cause problems, even so, we can't rely on the handwriting of the סופר one hundred percent since it does happen occasionally, therefore the רבנן invalidated a גט signed by the handwriting of the סופר.
(Note 5) (Pr)
(:תוס' ד''ה "כתב" (ג
S. 1) 'תוס explains the reason why the handwriting of the husband is פסול מדרבנן is since the date can't be relied on and it's as if there is no זמן on the גט.
I. 2) There are two מן דאמרים in the גמרא on (.יז) why the חכמים required a זמן on the גט.
#1) Since he might try to cover up for his niece who was זונה.
#2) In order to establish a cutoff date for the husband's rights to the fruits of her field.
S. 3) According to reason #1 it applies to a handwritten גט as well since we are afraid that the husband will write the זמן to cover up for his niece.
Q. 4) But according to reason #2 (cutoff date) when the husband writes a date on the גט that is the cutoff date, so why is it פסול? (he won't write an earlier date since he will lose his rights too early and a later date won't be accepted by his wife, even if he forces her to accept it, she can run to בית דין and have them write up a שטר that she is now the owner.)
C. 5) And don't tell me that we are concerned that the husband wrote an early date and he made up with his ex-wife to split the profits of tricking the buyers who according to the date paid the wrong person and must now pay her for this, we don't need to invalidate the גט we can just make the date unreliable to collect from the buyers?
A.#1 6) True the date isn't reliable but this can cause the wife to lose too, since now the husband can sell the fruits from the time of the גט and the wife can't prove that it already belonged to her since the date isn't reliable therefore we don't allow such a גט to be written and even if it is written it won't give the wife the rights to the fruit.
A.#2 7) Even if the זמן isn't reliable and they can't rip off the buyers but it's still a ספק maybe the זמן is correct, therefore if she grabs the fruits away from the buyers, now we can't take it away from her, therefore we made the גט invalid and she may not use it to collect any fruits.
(Note 6)(pr)
תוס' ד"ה "יש" ג' גיטין פסולין (#1) (ג:)
I. 1) There are 2 ways to explain the last case of the משנה, that an עד אחד is פסול. One מאן דאמר explains that it's talking about עד אחד PLUS the husbands handwriting, Another מאן דאמר says it's PLUS the סופר's handwriting.
Q. 2) According to the מאן דאמר that it's the husbands, didn't we already know this from the 1st case in the משנה, so why do we need the 1st case at all.
A. 3) We need the 1st case that even when you don't have a עד אחד still the child won't be a ממזר.
Q. 4) So why can't we just write the 1st case?
A. 5) Since you might think that when you have an עד אחד together with the handwriting, the גט is כשר לחתחילה, say's the משנה, it's פסול לחתחילה. (The צד that it's כשר is that the עד אחד verifies the זמן and therefore the כתב יד is like 100 עדים).
(Note 7) (pr)
(תוס' ד"ה "יש" (#2
S. 1) The משנה sets up the last case of עד אחד in a גט that has a date.
S. 2) 'תוס tells us that the הלכה applies even in a case where there is no date.
Q. 3) So why does the משנה say there was a date?
A. 4) To tell us that even though there was a date the גט is פסול לכתחילה.
(Note 8) (pr)
(:תוס ד''ה וגובה (ג
I. 1) ר' אלעזר holds that a גט which has no עידי חתימה (signatures) is כשר, and it can be used to kick out לקוחות (buyers)
S. 2) רש"י has 2 ways of explaining what type of גט we are discussing;
#1) גט אשה regarding her rights from the כתובה (to collect what he promised in the כתובה from the husbands properties that were sold later).
#2) Even גיטי ממון (promissory notes) can be collected without signatures as long as there was עידי מסירה (who saw the transaction).
S. 3) רבינו תם holds like פשט number 2 in רש"י.
S. 4) רבינו תם proves this from the פו:) גמרא) later on that רב paskenes like ר' אלעזר by גיטין but not by ממון. The גמרא asks how can you split ר' אלעזר in half if he says clearly in our גמרא that you can collect from לקוחות even by ממון? So we see that the גמרא assumed our גמרא is discussing גט ממון too (like פשט number 2)?
Q. 5) The גמרא in פרק גט פשוט - קעו.) בבא בתרא) has a שאלה, if a promissory note was written in a well-known handwriting, can it be used to collect from לקוחות, even though there are no signatures. The גמרא attempts to prove that you can, from our גמרא, but it shlugs it up, since maybe in our גמרא you are collecting with the strength of the כתובה? So we see that our גמרא is only discussing a גט with a כתובה (like פשט number 1)?
A.#1- 6) The שם ב:) רשב"ם) has a different version of the shlug up, instead of כתובה it reads כתיבה meaning that when it was originally written it was with the intention of having 2 עדים present, therefore the עדים will take the loan seriously and make a קול (raise awareness) about the loan and the לקוחות can protect themselves from losing their purchase, but a handwritten I.O.U. without any further witnesses, won't create a קול and it's unfair to the לקוחות to allow the מלוה to take it away.
A.#2- 7) רבינו חננאל comes out that the 2 גמרות argue with each other and he paskens like the גמרא in בבא בתרא that only a גט that comes along with a כתובה can collect from לקוחות even without עידי חתימה and just עידי מסירה!
Q. 8) 'תוס asks on רבינו חננאל from the גמרא later on (.י''א) that wants a Persian שטר with עידי מסירה ישראלים to be able to collect from לקוחות, but רבינו חננאל doesn't pasken like this, so why is the גמרא assuming that the הלכה is so?
A. 9) The גמרא thought that the 2 Persians are taking their jobs seriously since there are 2 yidden watching them, so it's like a court document and you can use the שטר as if there are עידי חתימה.
S. 10) The י"א.) גמרא) ends off that the Persian שטר can't be used to collect from לקוחות since there is no real רש"י ,קול explains that only yidden signing creates a קול.
Q. 11) The גמרא on .י"א comes out that although the Persian שטר has עידי מסירה, nevertheless there is no קול and you cannot collect from לקוחות. According to רבינו תם that עידי מסירה is enough to make a קול, why does the גמרא say that there is no קול?
A. 12) The מהרש"א explains that רבינן תם holds that even though there is עידי מסירה since the שטר is written and signed in Persian they don't take the שטר seriously and don't create a קול based on the Persian שטר.
(Note 9) (pr)
(:תוס' ד''ה רב אלעזר (ג
I. 1) The גמרא proves that according to רב אלעזר there is no need for a תקנה of בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם since רב אלעזר holds that there is no need for חתימות at all.
Q. 2) 'תוס asks maybe רב אלעזר agrees you need some form of חתימות, he only argues that a handwriting of the husband or a סופר's handwriting + an עד אחד is enough?
A. 3) (#1) The way he argues is even if there are no עדים it's good not that it's considered like 2 עדים.
(#2) The reason רב אלעזר gives is that עדים on a שטר is just a תיקון עולם, he doesn't argue and say that this is considered just 2 עדים.
S. 4) רב אלעזר holds that even לכתחילה you don't need עידי חתימה, the proof is from a כ''א:) גמרא) that says according to רב אלעזר even if the paper can be erased it's OK since we anyway rely on the עידי מסירה.
Q. 5) 'תוס asks that the ל''ד:) גמרא) says that רבן גמליאל was מתקן to have עידי חתימה, according to רב אלעזר it's only a מנהג not a תקנה?
A. 6) The תקנה was to teach people to encourage the use of חתימות not that it's a חיוב לכתחילה.
(Note 10) (pr)
(:תוס' ד''ה וכי (ג
I. 1) The גמרא attempts to say that our משנה that requires a שליח to say both בפני נכתב ונחתם is רבי מאיר, and even though he holds that וכתב refers to the חתימה nevertheless the חכמים added on the כתיבה and both must be לשמה.
S. 2) 'תוס explains that the חכמים said if it's not לשמה then the גט is תוס' !פסול refers back to what he explained in the top 'דתנן) תוס) that unless the פסול is a real problem the חכמים wouldn't require a שליח to discuss it, so if we want our משנה to be רבי מאיר and בפני נכתב is to address the פסול מדרבנן, it must be a real פסול.
Q. 3) Now that 'תוס explained that a גט that was written שלא לשמה the חכמים made it תוס' ,פסול is bothered why is this any different then the חכמים requiring it to be written on a detached paper, there the משנה says clearly even if you write it in on מחובר it's still כשר so why here
is it פסול?
A. 4) Really any פסול in a גט even if it's only a תקנת חכמים, will invalidate the גט. The reason why the משנה says that even if you
wrote the גט on a מחובר לקרקע it's כשר is since we are going according to the שיטה who explained the משנה there (:כא) according to ר' אלעזר and the משנה is referring to the writing of the טופס (the side details) and therefore it's not part of the actual גט so even if you mess up,it won't פסיל the גט! Number 10
(ABP)
(.תוס' ד''ה וחתמו (ד
S. 1) ר' מאיר holds that a גט that was found in the garbage (שלא לשמה) is 100% - כשר מנהדרין .
P. 2) Proof #1 - 2 גמרות prove that we don't care if a שטר appears to be שקר (since it was written before the story happened) from this הלכה of ר' מאיר so we see ר' מאיר holds it's 100% כשר.
P. 3) Proof #2 - The כו:) גמרא) later, says that a סופר should leave the names blank for 2 reason's (1) fight (2) עיגונא neither apply by a גט found in a garbage, so we see there is no reason not to use this גט.
P. 4) Proof #3 - The גמרא later (שם) first tries to say that only according to ר' אלעזר must you leave it blank, it seems that according to ר' מאיר you don't have to leave it blank at all.
Q. 5) Why then does the גמרא tell us whole story, it should just tell us the פסק that you may sign and give it to her לכתחלה?
A. 6) If it would tell us that you should sign it, you might think you must use it (בעל תשחית) so we just told you if you do use it, it's כשר.
Q. 7) 'תוס explains that according to ר' מאיר even לכתחלה you may write the שלא לשמה ,גט, so why regarding a כתיבה on מחובר לקרקע (attached to the ground) does the כא:) משנה) say that it shouldn't be done לכתחילה and some explain (ר' לקיש) that the משנה is ר' מאיר?
A. 8) Regarding לשמה just because it was written in China, won't confuse the עדים who sign it since they know it must be signed לשמה, but regarding