ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 16
GITIN 16 - dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory of his parents,
Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak and Leah bas Michal Mordechai
(a) The Mishnah in Taharos states 'ha'Nitzok, ve'ha'Ketapras u'Mashkeh Tofe'ach Eino
Chibur' Lo le'Tum'ah ve'Lo le'Taharah'.
The problem with establishing Ilfa's She'eilah (whether Yadayim Tehoros le'Chataza'in
or not) by combining half a hand that is still Tofe'ach al-Menas Lehatfi'ach with the
other half that he washes subsequently is - that we already know this from the
Mishnah 'Tofe'ach Lehatfi'ach, Chibur'.
1. 'Nitzok' is - water that is being poured from one receptacle into another through
(b) When the Tana says ...
2. 'Ketapras' is - when the water is being poured via something steep, such as a
1. ... 'Eino Chibur le'Tum'ah' - he means that if there is something Tamei in the
bottom receptacle which renders the water in it Tamei, the water in the top
receptacle remains Tahor.
2. ... 'Eino Chibur le'Taharah - he means that if two Mikva'os, neither of which
contains forty Sa'ah, are combined by means of a Ketapras, even someone who Tovels in
the lower one, will not be Tahor.
(a) The problem with two people who Toveled one after the other in a Mikvah that
contained exactly forty Sa'ah is - that the second one has Toveled in a Mikveh that
contains less than forty Sa'ah.
(b) According to the Tana Kama in Mikva'os, the second person remains Tamei.
According to Rebbi Yehudah - as long as the feet of the first one are touching the
water, the second one is Tahor.
(c) This Mishnah answers the Kashya that we just asked 'Ha Nami Tenina, Tofe'ach al
Menas Lehatfi'ach Chibur' - because it enables us to establish that Mishnah with
regard to Mikva'os, and the author, as Rebbi Yehudah, who considers 'Tofe'ach
al-Menas Lehatfiach' as joined with regard to Mikva'os.
(d) We cannot resolve our She'eilah regarding washing one's hands in halves from
Rebbi Yehudah's ruling - because his reason is the S'vara of 'Gud Acheis' (we extend
the water on the first man's body, as if it was joined to the Mikveh), which may well
join the two lots of water, but will not prove that one may wash one's hands in two
(a) What do the following have in common: 'ha'Ba Rosho ve'Rubo be'Mayim She'uvim' and
'Tahor she'Naflu Al Rosho ve'Al Rubo Sheloshah Lugin Mayim She'uvin' is - that both
become Tamei (mi'de'Rabbanan), as we learned in Shabbos.
(b) In keeping with the previous Sugyos, Rebbi Yirmiyah asks - whether someone who
entered into drawn water with half his body, and three Lugin of drawn water fell on
the other half, becomes Tamei or not.
(c) Chazal allowed a Ba'al Keri who is sick and who cannot go to Mikveh - to have
nine Kabin of water poured over him (to enable him to Daven - which he would
otherwise be forbidden to do due to Takanas Ezra).
(d) Rav Papa asks the same She'eilah regarding a Ba'al Keri who Tovels half of his
body and pours four Kabin of water over the rest. The outcome of both She'eilos is
- Teiku (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if one witness declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and the
other one, be'Fanai Nechtam', the Get is Pasul. Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi
Yochanan qualifies this - establishing it when only one of them was a Sheli'ach. If
both were Sheluchim however, then the Get will be Kasher.
(b) The same will apply even if they said nothing - because Chazal only issued the
decree of 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', with one Sheli'ach, but not with two (since there
are two witnesses available).
(c) The reason that we do not apply the same S'vara when there is only one witness is
- because of the S'vara 'Lo P'lug' (Chazal did not differentiate between one single
witness and another).
(d) In that case, we will be forced to explain the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Shenayim
Omrim be'Faneinu Nichtav, ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul ... ' - when only
one of them is actually a Sheli'ach. Otherwise, even the Rabbanan will agree with
Rebbi Yehudah that the Get is Kasher.
If, as we just explained, the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is
confined to where only one of the witnesses was a Sheli'ach, the basis of their
Machlokes is - whether we decree because of Kiyum Sh'taros (the Rabbanan) or not
(Rebbi Yehudah). According to the second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi
Yochanan establishes our Mishnah ('Echad Amar be'Fanai Nichtav, ve'Echad Amar
be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul') - even when both of them are Sheluchim.
(a) According to the second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah Amar Rebbi Yochanan
establishes 'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nichtav ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam' - even when
they are both Sheluchim.
(b) We can extrapolate from this that even two Sheluchim who bring a Get from
overseas - must declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
(c) When Rav Asi asked Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah whether this means that the Seifa
('Shenayim Omrim be'Faneinu Nichtav ve'Echad Omer be'Fanai Nechtam, Pasul, ve'Rebbi
Yehudah Machshir') speaks even when the two witnesses are both Sheluchim - he replied
in the affirmative.
(d) According to Rebbi Yochanan, we initially establish the basis of their Machlokes
- whether the reason for the Takanas Chazal to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' is
(also) on account of 'le'Fi she'Ein Beki'in Lishmah' (the Chachamim) or whether it is
(only) on account of 'le'Fi she'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo' (Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) Rava will certainly not be happy with this explanation, because it will mean that
the Rabbanan do not hold of 'Ein Beki'in Lichmah' (like Rabah) and *he* will be
following the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Consequently, he will establish the Machlokes
like the first Lashon, which establishes our Mishnah when only one of the witnesses
was actually a Sheli'ach (and in the Seifa, when the two witnesses on the Kesivah
(b) Rabah, who concurs with the second Lashon of Rebbi Yochanan - establishes the
Machlokes after they learned how to write a Get Lishmah, and they argue over whether
we are afraid that the situation will revert to the way it was before (the Rabbanan)
or not (Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) As a matter of fact, according to both opinions - Rebbi Yehudah argues in the
Reisha too (when one of the Sheluchim said 'be'Fanai Nichtav', and the other,
(b) The Beraisa 'Rebbi Yehudah Machshir be'Zu, ve'Lo ba'Acheres' does not come to
preclude the Reisha (proving what we just said wrong). It comes to preclude, Ula told
Rav Oshaya - when the Sheli'ach said 'be'Fanai Nichtav', but not 'be'Fanai
(c) We need a Beraisa to teach us this - because we might otherwise have thought
that, since Rebbi Yehudah is not worried that the situation might revert to what it
was, he is also not worried that people might confuse this with Kiyum Sh'taros.
(a) The second Lashon of Rebbi Yochanan is corroborated by Rav Yehudah, who said -
'Shenayim she'Heivi'u Get mi'Medinas ha'Yam Ba'nu le'Machlokes Rebbi Yehudah
(b) When Rabah bar bar Chanah was sick, and Rav Yehudah and the Rabbanan went to
visit him, they asked him whether two Sheluchim who brought a Get from overseas need
to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - he replied in the negative, because had they
said 'be'Faneinu Girshah', he explained, they would certainly have been believed
(though we will need to explain why the principle that 'Migu' does not apply in the
case of two witnesses, should not apply here).