POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 51
GITIN 51 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out
of love for Torah and those who study it.
1) WHAT MAY BE COLLECTED FROM MORTGAGED PROPERTY
(a) Question: Does R. Chanina also require that the debt be
written, or is it sufficient that it has a limit?
2) ONE WHO FINDS A LOST OBJECT
(b) Answer: We can derive R. Chanina 's opinion from the
following: A man died and left 2 daughters and a son. The
first daughter took Parnasah (a 10th of the estate as a
dowry); the son died before the second took Parnasah.
1. (R. Yochanan): The second daughter forfeits her
claim to Parnasah.
(c) Rejection: People hear about Parnasah, therefore it is
considered as if it is written.
2. Question (R. Chanina ): Parnasah may be collected
from mortgaged property, unlike food for the
daughters - how can you say that she does not
i. Parnasah is limited, but it is not written, and
we see that R. Chanina says that it may be
collected from mortgaged property!
(d) Question (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): (When Leah married
Reuven, she stipulated that he feed her daughter Dinah
(from a previous marriage) for 5 years; she made the same
stipulation when she married David). If Reuven and David
died, their own daughters are fed from unmortgaged
property (of their fathers), Dinah is fed from even
mortgaged property, for she is as a creditor. (Even
though the debt was not written!)
(e) Answer: The case is, formal acquisitions were made to
obligate Reuven and David. (Rashi - and presumably, this
was written; Tosfos - this is as good as being written.)
(f) Question: If so, acquisitions should also enable their
own daughters to eat from mortgaged property!
(g) Answer: The case is, acquisitions were only made for
Dinah, not for their own daughters.
(h) Question: Why does the Tana pick such a case, that
acquisitions were made only for Dinah?
(i) Answer #1: Dinah was alive when Leah got married, so an
acquisition helps for her; the husbands' own daughters
were not alive at the time, so acquisitions would not
help for them.
(j) Objection: Why must we say that the husbands' daughter
were not yet alive? Perhaps they were previously married
to Leah, and have daughters from the previous marriage!
(k) Answer #2: Rather, since their own daughters are entitled
to be fed by a stipulation of Beis Din (the enactment of
Kesuvah), an acquisition does not help for them; Dinah,
for whom there is no stipulation of Beis Din, an
acquisition helps for her.
(l) Objection: Why should the stipulation of Beis Din weaken
the power of acquisition for the daughters?!
(m) Answer #3: Rather, because their daughters are entitled
to food by a stipulation of Beis Din, we do not allow
them to take mortgaged property, because we are concerned
that their fathers left money for them.
(n) Question (Beraisa - R. Noson): When do we say that
consumed produce and improvements to stolen land may not
be collected from mortgaged property? When the land was
bought before the produce and improvements;
1. If the produce and improvements came first, they may
be collected from land sold later! (Rashi - even
though they are neither written nor limited - this
opposes all the Amora'im! Tosfos - even though they
are only limited but not written - this challenges
Ula, and shows that R. Chanina must hold that it
suffices to be limited.)
(o) Answer: Tana'im argue on this.
1. (Beraisa): We do not collect consumed produce,
improvements to stolen land, food for the widow and
daughters from mortgaged property because they are
not written - this is an enactment to fix the world;
2. R. Yosi says, even without an enactment we do not
collect these from mortgaged property - they are
unlimited! (Rashi; Tosfos - the enactment to fix the
world is not because they are not written rather
because they are unlimited!)
(a) (Mishnah): One who finds a lost object does not swear...
(b) (R. Yitzchak): Reuven claims that he lost 2 wallets tied
together and that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he
only found 1 - Shimon must swear;
(c) Reuven claims that he lost 2 oxen tied together and that
Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1 -
Shimon need not swear.
(d) Question: Why does the law change?
(e) Answer: Wallets do not come untied by themselves, oxen
(f) [Version #1 - Rashi - (R. Yitzchak): Reuven claims that
he lost 2 oxen tied together and that Shimon found them;
Shimon admits to finding them, but claims that he
returned 1 of them - Shimon must swear.]
(g) [Version #2 - Tosfos - Support (Beraisa): Reuven claims
that he lost 2 oxen tied together and that Shimon found
them; Shimon says that he only found 1 - Shimon need not
(h) Reuven claims that he lost 2 wallets tied together and
that Shimon found them; Shimon says that he only found 1
- Shimon must swear.]
(i) Question: Does R. Yitzchak not agree that an enactment to
fix the world exempts the finder of a lost object from
(j) Answer: R. Yitzchak holds as R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): Sometimes a person
swears on his own claim: Reuven says, 'Shimon's
father deposited 1 Maneh by me; I returned half' -
he must swear;
(k) Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Yakov not hold that one who
returns a lost object is exempt?
2. Chachamim say, he is as one that returns a lost
object, he is exempt.
(l) Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, Shimon, a minor, claims
that Reuven owes the full Maneh.
1. Question: The claim of a minor means nothing!
i. (Mishnah): We do not swear to counter the claim
of a deaf person, lunatic or minor.
2. Answer #1: Rav meant, Shimon is an adult, but in his
father's affairs he is (ignorant) as a minor.
i. Question: If so, why does R. Eliezer ben Yakov
say that Reuven swears on his own claim - he
swears on Shimon's claim!
3. [Version #1 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question l:1):
Really, Shimon is a minor; R. Eliezer ben Yakov and
Chachamim argue regarding Rabah's teaching,]
ii. Answer #1: It is Shimon's claim, but Reuven's
iii. Objection: Every case of the oath (of partial
admission) is when one admits to another's
4. [Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (to Question
l:2:i): R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that Reuven swears
on what Chachamim call Reuven's own claim; they
argue regarding Rabah's teaching,]
i. (Rabah): The Torah required one who makes a
partial admission to swear, because a person is
not brazen enough to lie and deny his
5. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that likewise, a person
cannot be brazen to deny the claim of his creditor's
son; therefore, he is not as one who returns a lost
object (and must swear).
ii. Really, the borrower would like to deny the
whole claim, but he lacks the audacity to deny
his creditor's claim.
iii. Since he lacks the audacity, he would prefer to
admit to the entire claim; he is not doing
this, because he cannot pay the whole claim
now; he is stalling until he can pay it all.
iv. The Torah says that we impose an oath on him so
he will admit to the whole claim.
6. Chachamim say that a person cannot be brazen to deny
his creditor's claim, but he can be brazen against
his creditor's son;
i. Since he could have denied the whole claim, but
did not, he is as one who returns a lost object
(and need not swear).