ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 72
GITIN 72 (27 Nisan) - has been dedicated to the memory of ha'Rav Shmuel (ben
Aharon) Grunfeld of Jerusalem/Efrat. Rav Shmuel was a truly great Torah
scholar, whose tragic death left all who knew him with an inconsolable sense
(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi, and the reason that
the Tana did not say 'Kesuvu' and not 'T'nu' or 'Imru', or stress that he
speaks even if he said it to three people was (not to extrapolate from his
words that then the Get would be valid, but) - because he meant to add that
even where, over and above 'T'nu', he added 'Kesuvu', and even where he
added 'Imru' and where he said it in front of three, the Get is nevertheless
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa 'Kasav Sofer Lishmah, ve'Chasmu Eidim Lishmah
Af-al-Pi she'Kasvuhu ve'Chasmuhu ve'Nasnuhu Lo ve'Nasnu Lah, Harei ha'Get
Batel ad she'Yishme'u Kolo she'Yomar le'Sofer K'sov ... '. We infer from ...
1. ... 'ad she'Yishme'u' - that, according to Rebbi Yossi, the witnesses
must hear the instructions directly from the husband, and that consequently,
saying 'Imru' make no difference.
2. ... 'Kolo' - that he must be able to speak in order to give a Get to his
wife (proving that the Rabbanan argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
(a) The following have in common ...
1. ...' Zeh Gitech im Meisi'; 'Zeh Gitech me'Choli Zeh'; 'Zeh Gitech
le'Achar Misah' - that the Get is invalid, because of the principle 'Ein Get
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah adds that if the husband says 'me'Hayom
u'le'Achar Misah, Get ve'Eino Get' - because he is uncertain whether
'u'le'Achar Misah' is a condition or a retraction.
2. ... 'me'Hayom Im Meisi'; 'me'Achshav Im Meisi' - that the Get is valid,
since it takes effect immediately.
(c) Should he die leaving no children - his brother performs Chalitzah.
(d) In a case where the husband says 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli
Zeh', and he subsequently got up from his sick-bed, walked in the street,
became sick again and died - the Tana rules that we have to ascertain
whether it was the first illness that caused his death (in which case the
Get is valid, and his wife *does not* require Yibum), or not (in which case
the Get is invalid).
(a) We just saw how in the Reisha of our Mishnah, 'Im Meisi' implies after
death, whereas in the Seifa, it implies 'from now'. Abaye explains - that
'Im Meisi' has dual implications; 'S'tam', it implies 'after death', whereas
when it follows 'me'Hayom', it implies 'from now'.
(b) According to Rav Huna, in the case of our Mishnah 'Zeh Gitech Im Meisi',
the Tana holds 'Choletzes' - because he has a Safek whether it is a Get or
not (as we shall now see).
(c) When the Tana he Tana conclude 'Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, *Lo Amar K'kum*' -
he means, to allow her to get married, but in fact, she is forbidden to the
Yavam as well.
(a) Rav Huna explains the fact that the Seifa of the Mishnah (in the case of
'me'Hayom u'Le'achar Misah') rules 'Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes', implying
that the Reisha does not, goes like the Rabbanan (refuting our previous
understanding of Rav Huna, including the previous answer) - whereas he holds
like Rebbi Yossi.
1. The Rabbanan say in the Mishnah in Bava Basra - that someone who writes
all his property to his son - must specifically write 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar
Misah' (because 'Im Meisi' alone would imply that he is giving him the gift
after death, and a gift after death is not valid).
(c) The problem with establishing Rav Huna like Rebbi Yossi is - that,
according to Rebbi Yossi, even Chalitzah should be unnecessary (like we
learned later in our Mishnah 'me'Hayom Im Meisi, Harei Zeh Get').
2. Rebbi Yossi says there - that it is not necessary to write 'me'Hayom
u'le'Achar Misah', because 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav' (the date on
the Sh'tar automatically implies that the gift is to take effect
(d) We refute the suggestion that Rav Huna has a Safek whether to rule like
Rebbi Yossi or not - because he accepted the specific ruling of Rabah bar
Avuhah, that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi (as we shall now see).
(a) When Rav Huna and Rav Nachman went to visit Rabah bar Avuhah on his
sickbed, the former ...
1. ... asked the latter to ask him - whether the Halachah was like Rebbi
Yossi or not.
(b) Rabah bar Avuhah ruled like Rebbi Yossi - upon which Rav Huna explained
that Rebi Yossi holds 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav' (like we said
2. ... retorted (when the latter initially replied that, seeing as he did
not understand Rebbi Yossi's reasoning, how could he possibly ask whether
the Halachah was like him) - that meanwhile he should ask the Rebbe, and
after receiving a reply, he (Rav Huna) would supply Rebbi Yossi's reason.
(c) We suggest that Rav Huna's Safek is whether Rebbi Yossi's ruling extends
even to where the T'nai was stated orally, and not inserted in the Sh'tar.
That might be worse than if it was - because, unlike when the condition
stands beside the date in the Sh'tar (where it looks as if the one
complements the other), it conveys the impression that the condition comes
to negate the date on the Sh'tar (since he did not add 'me'Hayom').
(d) We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Yossi
clearly declines to differentiate between a written condition and an oral
one, as we shall now see.
(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah later rules that if a man said to his wife
'Harei Zeh Gitech Im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'Ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh' and dies
within twelve months 'Eino Get' (and she remains obligated to perform
Yibum). 'Raboseinu' who permit her to marry, says Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel -
are the same Beis-Din that rescinded the decree of oil manufactured by
(b) They hold like Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav,
and it is as if he specifically said 'me'Achshav' refuting the suggestion
that this might be Rav Huna's Safek).
(a) Rava say that if a man said to his wife ...
1. ... Harei Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, ve'she'Ani Meis - the Get is valid.
(b) We initially decline to establish Rava's first statement when he said
'me'Hayom', and Rava holds like the Rabbanan - because that would be no
Chidush, seeing as we already learned in our Mishnah 'me'Hayom Im Meisi,
Harei Zeh Get'.
2. ... ke'she'Amus, u'le'Achar Misah' - the Get is invalid.
(c) Then we will establish Rava - when he did not say 'me'Hayom', and Rava
holds like Rebbi Yossi (even though the husband made the condition orally).
(d) In spite of this, we conclude that Rav Huna's Safek is whether we rule
like Rebbi Yossi when the condition was made orally or not - because Rav
Huna (who has a Safek) is not obligated to agree with Rava (who does not).
(a) Alternatively, Rava speaks when the husband said 'me'Hayom' and he holds
like the Rabbanan. And Rava is coming to teach us that 'she'Ani Meis' is the
equivalent of 'Im Meisi' and 'ke'she'Amus', like 'le'Achar Misah'.
(b) This resolves our Kashya on Rav Huna - because now, he does not clash
with Rava (or more accurately, Rava does not clash with him).
(a) Others, learn Rav Huna's statement (Choletzes) on the Seifa 'Zeh Gitech
le'Achar Misah, Lo Amar K'lum'. We ask on this 'P'shita!' - because whatever
the Rabbanan holds in a case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', Rebbi Yossi
will hold even when he omits 'me'Hayom', and the Rabbanan say in the Seifa
in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', Choletzes.
(b) We answer that Rav Huna needs to inform us that Rebbi Yossi does not
hold like Rebbi - who says in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah, ka'Zeh
Get' (because, in his opinion, 'le'Achar Misah' is definitely a condition).
(c) Rav Huna extrapolates that Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi because of
the Lashon 'ka'Zeh Get', implying that there is a case where the Get is not
valid, and that case can only be 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah'. Rebbi Yossi
needs to inform us that such a Get is invalid - because we might otherwise
have compared it to the equivalent case by a gift, where the gift is valid,
inasmuch as the recipient receives the field immediately, though he may only
eat the fruit after the donor's death.
(a) Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Yossi - with regard to 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar
(b) We know that he argues with him - from the fact that he too, uses the
Lashon 'ka'Zeh Get' (to preclude Rebbi Yossi's Din).
(a) When Rav Huna said 'Gito ke'Matanaso' - he meant that a Shechiv-Mera who
gives a Get and recovers may retract from the Get (because it is clear that
he only gave it in order to release his wife from the obligation of Yibum),
in the same way as he may retract from a gift that he made.
(b) Nor does it make any difference whether the husband said 'Im Meisi' when
he gave the Get (where it is obvious that he can retract) or not.
(c) And when he said 'Matanaso ke'Gito', he meant - that if the Shechiv-Mera
said 'T'nu', the gift takes effect even though no Kinyan accompanied the
gift, just like by Get, which takes effect when the Shechiv-Mera said
'K'suvu', even though he did not add 'T'nu'.
(d) We ask on the first of Rav Huna's two Dinim, from our Mishnah, from the
case of 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh, ve'Amad ve'Halach
ba'Shuk, ve'Chalah u'Meis, Omdin Oso ... ' - where the Shechiv-Mera
recovered, yet it requires an Umd'na (an assessment) as to what caused his
(a) Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef answers that the Mishnah speaks when he went from
one illness to another without actually recovering in between. He interprets
the Tana's use of ...
1. ... the word 'Amad' - to mean that he recovered from one illness, but not
that he got better.
(b) We can now extrapolate from the Mishnah the Chidush of Rebbi Elazar Amar
Rav - who says that the gift of a Shechiv-Mera who went from one illness to
another without recovering sufficiently to get up and go outside without his
stick, is valid (even without an assessment).
2. ... the phrase 've'Halach ba'Shuk' - to mean 've'Halach Al Mish'anto'
(that he walked with the aid of a stick without recovering fully).