THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
GITIN 11 - Dedicated by Al and Sophia Ziegler (Har Nof) in loving memory of
Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov Ziegler.
1) A "SHTAR" WRITTEN IN PERSIAN
OPINIONS: The Gemara says that a Shtar written in Persian that was given
over in front of Jewish witnesses (Edei Mesirah) may be used to collect from
"Nechasim B'nei Chorin" but not from "Nechasim Meshubadim."
What type of witnesses signed on this Shtar?
(a) RASHI (DH Shtara) explains that Nochrim *Hedyotos* were signed on the
Shtar. He proves this from the Gemara later (19b) that says that a Shtar
signed by *Arka'os* of Nochrim is valid to collect even from Meshubadim.
Why, though, may a Shtar signed by Hedyotos be used to collect even from
Nechasim B'nei Chorin, if the Mishnah says that we trust only a Shtar signed
by Arka'os and not by Hedyotos? Rashi explains that since there are Edei
Mesirah who are Jewish, we may rely on the Shtar.
However, if there are valid Edei Mesirah to prove the details of the
transaction, then why is a Shtar necessary at all? Why should we need to
rely on the signatures of the Hedyotos in the Shtar? The Gemara should
simply say that one may collect based on the Jewish witnesses (the Edei
Mesirah), and we may ignore not only the the signatures on the Shtar, but we
may ignore the entire Shtar itself!
The TOSFOS RID asks this question and answers that the Shtar is necessary in
that it prevents the borrower from claiming that he already repaid the debt.
Even though the Shtar does not allow the lender to collect from Nechasim
Meshubadim, nevertheless, it does provide proof that the debt has not yet
been repaid. (According to the view of the RA'AVAD (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh
27:1), who maintains that a Shtar which cannot be used to collect from
Meshubadim cannot be used to prove that the debt was not repaid, we will
have to provide another explanation.)
(b) The RI (see TOSFOS, DH Lo Nechleku) rules that the Beraisa mentioned
earlier on this Daf disqualifies a Shtar signed by Hedyotos even when there
*are* Jewish Edei Mesirah, according to the Chachamim who argue with Rebbi
Akiva. Therefore, the Ri explains that the Persian Shtar of our Sugya was
signed by *Arka'os*. Even though it was signed by Arka'os, it may not be
used to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim because it does not have a Kol.
Because of this, the Ri changes the Girsa of the Gemara later (19b) in order
to make it consistent with this ruling. (ROSH 1:10)
(c) The ROSH himself explains that the Persian Shtar of our Gemara has *no*
Chasimos at all. Even though the Rabanan disqualified a Persian Shtar that
has Hedyotos signed on it even when there are Jewish Edei Mesirah (because
it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho"), they did *not* disqualify a Persian Shtar that
has *no* witnesses signed on it.
2) SIGNATURES OF FOREIGN-SOUNDING NAMES
QUESTIONS: Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan whether a Get is valid when it
has the signatures of witnesses who have names commonly used by Nochrim (and
we do not know whether those signatories are Jewish or not). RASHI explains
that Reish Lakish's question was whether we may accept the Get when there is
valid Edei Mesirah, or whether it will be invalid even with Edei Mesirah
because it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho."
Rebbi Yochanan answers that the only case that the Chachamim permitted, with
Edei Mesirah, was a Get that had signatures of "Shemos Muvhakim" of Nochrim
("Lukus" and "Lus") -- names that are used exclusively by Nochrim and not by
Jews. A Get that has signatures of "Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim" -- names of
Nochrim that are not used exclusively by Nochrim, but might also be used by
Jews -- is not valid.
(a) Why does Rashi explain that Reish Lakish was asking whether the Get is
valid because of its Edei Mesirah? The Gemara later cites a Beraisa that
states that when a Get is brought from Chutz la'Aretz with foreign names
signed on it, it is valid, since most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such
names. Rashi explains that the Beraisa permits Gitin with foreign names even
without Edei Mesirah, because we assume that the signatories are Jewish. The
Gemara attempts to prove from the Beraisa that even when a Get comes from
within Eretz Yisrael with foreign names signed on it, we may assume that the
signatories are Jewish.
Why, then, does Rashi not explain here that the reason why Reish Lakish
wanted to permit the Get was because we assume that the signatories are
Jewish? Why does Rashi explain instead that his question was whether or not
we rely on the Edei Mesirah? (TOSFOS, in fact, explains this way -- that
Reish Lakish wanted to permit such a Get because we assume that the
signatories are Jewish.) (MAHARAM SHIF)
(b) According to Rashi, the Gemara is questioning whether we permit a Get
with names of Nochrim which are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the
Edei Mesirah (according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon). Why is the Gemara
questioning whether we accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim according to Rebbi
Shimon? The Gemara earlier (10b) takes it for granted that Rebbi Shimon does
*not* accept Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of the invalidating factor of
"Mezuyaf mi'Tocho!" (RASHBA, PNEI YEHOSHUA)
(c) Regarding the Beraisa that says that Gitin that come from Chutz la'Aretz
with foreign names are valid because most Jews in Chutz la'Aretz have such
names, the Gemara concludes that the reasoning of the Beraisa does *not*
apply in Eretz Yisrael, since most Jews in Eretz Yisrael have
Jewish-sounding names. Rashi writes that since Jews in Eretz Yisrael have
Jewish-sounding names, and if a Get with foreign-sounding names is sent from
within Eretz Yisrael, we must suspect that the signatories are not Jewish,
and therefore the Get is invalid even with Edei Mesirah "like the Rabanan of
Why does Rashi attribute this opinion to the Rabanan of the Mishnah? The
names signed on the Get in that case are obviously not Shemos Muvhakim of
Nochrim, because Rashi writes that we are uncertain about the identity of
the witnesses who signed. In such a case, even Rebbi Shimon of the Mishnah
disqualifies a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim because of "Mezuyaf
mi'Tocho" (10b)! (MAHARSHA and others)
(a) Rashi explains that Reish Lakish wanted to permit the Get because of the
Edei Mesirah, because Rashi wants to explain the context of Rebbi Yochanan's
answer to Reish Lakish's question. Rebbi Yochanan answered that we permit a
Get with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim, but we do not permit a Get with Shemos
she'Einam Muvhakim. If Reish Lakish was asking whether we assume that the
signatories are Jews or Nochrim, then Rebbi Yochanan's answer about
permitting a Get with signatures of Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim is
completely unrelated to the question of Reish Lakish! Reish Lakish was only
asking about names that could be Jewish names! Why, then, did Rebbi Yochanan
mention that we permit Gitin with Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim?
Therefore, Rashi explains that Reish Lakish indeed was questioning whether
we can rely on Edei Mesirah even when the names signed on the Get are Shemos
of Nochrim that are *not* Muvhakim. Rebbi Yochanan replies that we only rely
on foreign-sounding names when they are Shemos Muvhakim.
(b) Even though Rebbi Shimon normally does not permit a Get signed with
names of Nochrim that are not Muvhakim because of the Pesul of "Mezuyaf
mi'Tocho," this Pesul is only a Pesul *d'Rabanan*. Therefore, when there is
a possibility that the witnesses signed on the Get are actually Jewish (and
the Get is not Pasul), perhaps we may be lenient since it is only a Safek
d'Rabanan. That is why Reish Lakish is asking what the Halachah is when the
names signed on the Get are Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim and we do not know
whether the witnesses who signed are Jewish or not. (RASHBA, PNEI YEHOSHUA)
(c) The RASHBA explains that Rashi means to say that Rebbi Yochanan and
Reish Lakish are not necessary ruling like Rebbi Shimon. (After all, since
the Rabanan, the majority, argue with Rebbi Shimon, the Halachah should
follow their opinion.) Rashi is suggesting that *even* the Rabanan -- who
invalidate a Get both when it has Shemos Muvhakim and when it has Shemos
she'Einam Muvhakim because of the Pesul of "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho" -- might
permit the Get in the case of Reish Lakish since it is only a *Safek*
whether it is "Mezuyaf mi'Tocho," since the persons signed on the Get might
actually be Jews.
The Rashba explains that even names like "Lukus" and "Lus" -- which are
Shemos Muvhakim of Nochrim -- do not preclude the possibility that the
signatories are really Jews. The Gemara says only that it is very uncommon
for Jews to bear such names, but not that it is impossible or unheard of
The MAHARAM SHIF, however, points out that from the context of Rashi's words
it seems that Rashi is explaining *not* why the Get of our Sugya would be
valid *even* according to the Rabanan, but why a Get with Shemos she'Einam
Muvhakim would be invalid according to the Rabanan, and the Rabanan *only*.
Why should Rashi limit this to the opinion of the Rabanan -- even according
to Rebbi Shimon, Safek Nochrim with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim should
invalidate a Get, and Safek Nochrim with Shemos Muvhakim should not!
The MAHARSHA also says that Rashi is trying to explain the entire Sugya
according to the opinion of the Rabanan. The Maharsha explains that the only
reason the Rabanan invalidate a Get that has foreign-sounding names signed
on it is because we might rely on the Nochrim who signed it to serve as the
Edei Mesirah as well. When a Get comes from Medinas ha'Yam, though, then it
is impossible to use the witnesses who signed it as the Edei Mesirah (since
they are out of the country). Therefore, the Rabanan have reason to be more
lenient and say that when the names are Shemos Muvhakim the Get is valid,
and only when the names are *not* Muvhakim do they invalidate the Get.
Rebbi Shimon, though, would accept the Get even when the names are Shemos
she'Einam Muvhakim. Since Rebbi Yochanan accepted only a Get from far away
that was signed with Shemos Muvhakim, Rashi understands that he must be
following the opinion of the Rabanan.
Another possibility (see MAHARAM SHIF) is that when Rashi writes that a Get
with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim is invalid "like the Rabanan of our Mishnah,"
he is not referring to the *Tana Kama* of the Mishnah, but rather he is
referring to *all* of the Tana'im (the "Rabanan" of the Mishnah (that is,
the Tana Kama as well as Rebbi Shimon)! That is, Rashi is trying to point
out that we should not think that the Gemara here is following a minority
view, but rather that this opinion is accepted by all of the Tana'im of the
Mishnah. However, this is only the opinion of the Rabanan of the *Mishnah*,
not the Rabanan of the *Beraisa*.
That is, Rashi is following his own view as expressed earlier (10b, DH Teni
Chutz), where he explained that the Tana Kama of our Mishnah holds like
Rebbi Meir, that "Edei Chasimah Karti." Hence, we do not find a Tana in the
*Mishnah* who would say that according to *Rebbi Elazar*, a Get with Shemos
Muvhakim is invalid. All of the Tana'im of the Mishnah agree that a Get with
Shemos Muvhakim is valid (with Edei Mesirah) according to Rebbi Elazar. The
Tana'im of the *Beraisa* (9b), though, argue whether Rebbi Elazar would
permit a Get with Shemos she'Einam Muvhakim, as the Gemara there explained.
That is why