ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 18
(a) We just proved that the Mishnah in Kesuvos ('Nisarmelah O Nisgarshah,
Bein min ha'Eirusin u'Vein min ha'Nisu'in, Govah es ha'Kol') must be
speaking when the man wrote his betrothed a Kesuvah (even if an Almanah min
ha'Eirusin is not normally entitled to one). In the Beraisa quoted by Rebbi
Chiya bar Ami, a man neither practices Aninus nor does he render himself
Tamei for his betrothed who died, nor does the betrothed woman for him. The
ramifications of 'Lo Onen Lah' are - that he is not permitted to eat
(b) The difference between the statements 'Lo Onen Lah' and 'Hi Lo Onenes
Lo' is - that the former is referring to a Kohen, and is in the form of a
prohibition, whereas the latter (seeing as a Kohenes is not included in the
prohibition of Tum'as Kohen) is referring even to a bas Yisrael, and is only
an exemption from the obligation to bury any of the seven relatives.
(c) He does not inherit her - because we learn that a man inherits his wife
from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ki Im li'She'eiro", and a betrothed woman is not
(a) There is no proof from the final statement of the Beraisa 'Meis Hu,
Govah Kesuvasah' that an Arusah is entitled to a Kesuvah - because here too,
the Tana might well be speaking when her betrothed wrote her a Kesuvah.
(b) There is no Chidush in this statement. However, the Tana nevertheless
inserted it, to balance the previous one 'Meisah Einah Yorshah', which does
contain a Chidush (as we just explained).
(c) Abaye ultimately agrees - that an Arusah is not entitled to a Kesuvah.
(a) Abaye retracts from his objection against Rebbi Yochanan (that in a
place where one writes a Kesuvah, the husband is not believed to say
'Para'ti', whereas the Mishnah in Kesuvos is speaking in a place where the
Minhag is not to), on the grounds - that if, on principle, the husband would
be believed to say Para'ti, then he ought to be believed even if his wife
produces a Get, seeing as Manah or Masayim are not written in the Get
(b) Even though the husband paid, he did not take back the Kesuvah and tear
it up - because his wife claimed that she needed it as proof of divorce,
should she decide to get married.
(c) And the reason that Beis-Din did not make a tear in the Kesuvah and
write on it that they did not tear it because it was Pasul, but to prevent
the woman from claiming a second time is - simply because the husband is
under no obligation to pay in front of Beis-Din (and what can they do if he
pays not in their presence?)
(a) We have already quoted our Mishnah which discusses someone who finds
Gitei Nashim, Shichrurei Avadim, Daytiki, Matanah and Shovrin. The Tana
rules 'Harei Zeh Lo Yachzir' - because we are afraid that they were written
with the intention of handing them over to the respective creditors, but
that for some reason, this was not done.
(b) In the event that the respective debtors admit that they have not paid -
the finder is obligated to return the Sh'taros.
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if a Sheli'ach loses the Get which
he is bringing from a man to his wife and which he finds again - the Get is
Kasher provided he finds it straightway (within the time it would take for a
caravan to stop and set up camp).
(d) The Beraisa now clashes with our Mishnah - which permits the return of
the Get even after a long time, according to Rabah, as we shall see.
(a) To resolve the discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Beraisa, Rabah
establishes the latter in a place where many caravans stop, and our Mishnah
in a place where they do not. The difference whether caravans stop there or
not is - that if they do, then we have to suspect that maybe one of the
travelers lost the Get, and that both his name and that of his wife tallied
with the names on the Get.
(b) In addition - we also require that another Yosef ben Shimon is known to
live in the same town.
(c) We are forced to say this - because Rabah requires both conditions, as
we shall now see.
(a) When they found a Get in the vicinity of his Beis-Din, which was written
in Sh'viri on the River Rachis, Rav Huna ordered the finder not to return
it - because he was Choshesh for another Sh'viri on the River Rachis.
(b) Otherwise, there would have been good reason to return the Sh'tar -
because the names of the man who claimed the Get and his wife tallied with
the names on the Sh'tar, and in addition, Beis-Din knew that there was
nobody else in Sh'viri with those names.
(c) Rav Chisda warned Rabah - to look into the matter, because on the
following day, Rav Huna would ask him for his opinion.
(a) Following Rav Chisda's warning, Rabah concluded (based on the following
Mishnah 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din ... )' - that as long as we know that there
are not two Yosef ben Shimons in that town, we return the Sh'tar, even
though the Sh'tar was found in a place where caravans stop (as we shall see
(b) We extrapolate from here - that we return the Sh'tar (in those
circumstaces), even though it was found in a place where caravans stop (as
we shall see shortly [not like Rav Huna]).
(c) And he ruled accordingly too, because he returned a Get that was found
by the flax-house in Pumbedisa, though we are uncertain whether it was
beside the place where they *sold* flax (which is a place where caravans
stop), in which case they must have known that there were not two Yosef ben
Shimons in that town, or where they *soaked* it (a place where caravans did
not stop), in which case, it could even be speaking when it was not known
whether there were two Yosef ben Shimons in that town or not.
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked on the Mishnah (that we quoted earlier) which
distinguishes between a Sheli'ach who finds the Get immediately, and one who
finds it after a while, from the Beraisa 'Matza Get Ishah be'Shuk, bi'Z'man
she'ha'Ba'al Modeh Yachzir la'Ishah ... ' (implying even after a long time).
To resolve this discrepancy, Rebbi Zeira establishes the Beraisa in a place
where caravans stop, and our Mishnah, in a place where they don't.
(b) We would establish the Beraisa ...
1. ... further to reconcile Rebbi Zeira like Rabah - when they also knew
that there were two Yosef ben Shimons in that town.
(c) Rabah obviously prefers to ask on the Mishnah in Gitin from our Mishnah
(rather than from a Beraisa). When a Beraisa clashes with a Mishnah (and
cannot be reconciled with it), we say - that if Rebbi did not know it, where
would Rebbi Chiya (his star disciple) know it from?
2. ... assuming Rebbi Zeira argues with Rabah - when they did not.
(d) Rebbi Zeira chose to ask from the Beraisa rather than from our Mishnah -
because our Mishnah, he says, gives no indication that they found the
Sh'taros after a long time (the basis of Rabah's Kashya in the first place),
whereas the Beraisa, which talks about returning the Get to the woman,
implies that there is no difference (by virtue of its failure to
differentiate). True, our Mishnah does not differentiate either, but our
Mishnah only refers to returning the Sh'tar by inference, in which case, it
is not required to go into such detail.
(a) Assuming that Rebbi Zeira argues with Rabah ...
1. ... they argue over a Get that is found in a place where the caravans
stop, even though we do not know of two Yosef ben Shimons living in the same
(b) According to Rebbi Yirmiyah, the Mishnah speaks even if the Sh'tar was
found inside Beis-Din, yet he is far more stringent than Rabah. He permits
the return of this Sh'tar - only if witnesses testify that they did not sign
on more than one Sh'tar containing these names.
2. ... the basis of their dispute the Mishnah 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din
Yachzir' - which Rabah interprets to mean that the Sh'tar was actually found
in the Beis-Din (which is a place where caravans stop). Yet, as long as
there not two Yosef ben Shimons in the town where the Get was written, one
returns it to the woman. Rebbi Zeira disagrees. According to him, there is
nothing to suggest that the Sh'tar was found in Beis-Din.
(c) The Chidush then is - that, besides another Yosef ben Shimon, we do not
also contend with another pair of witnesses with the same names who also
signed on a Get containing the same names.
(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Mishnah when the Sh'tar has a clear Si'man (a
Si'man Muvhak) - such as a hole beside a certain letter.
(b) He would not require such a powerful Si'man before returning a lost
article (where even just a hole [wherever it was] would suffice to return
(c) The reason for this is - because Rav Ashi is in doubt whether 'Simanim'
is 'd'Oraysa, in which case any Si'man will suffice to return even a Get,
let alone a lost article; or whether it is de'Rabanan, in which case a
regular Si'man will only suffice by Mamon, but not by Gitin (which requires
a Si'man Muvhak, which everyone agrees is d'Oraysa).
(d) The Rabbanan are more lenient with regard to Mamon in this regard -
based on the principle 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' which gives the Rabbanan
authority to declare a person's property Hefker (which is what they did in
the case of a Si'man she'Eino Muvhak, should the article really belong to