ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 84
GITIN 83-85 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi Advancement
Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela Turkel, Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak Ozer,
(a) The Beraisa says 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Tinas'i li'P'loni, Harei
Zeh Lo Tinasei'. She is not permitted to marry P'loni - because Chazal
decreed in case people will jump to the conclusion that her husband gave her
as a gift to P'loni.
(b) According to Rav Nachman's initial explanation, when the Tana concludes
've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei', he means that if she married someone else, she
may remain with him, to which we object - because this constitutes
permitting a married woman to another man.
(c) Rav Nachman's second explanation of 've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei' is - that
if she married P'loni, she may remain with him (since the prohibition is
only based on a decree).
(d) Rava objects to Rav Nachman's explanation of the Reisha of the Beraisa
(that 'Harei Zu Lo Tinasei' means that she may not marry specifically
P'loni') - based on the implication that she is permitted to marry someone
else, which is impossible as long as she has not fulfilled her condition (as
we just explained).
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, if someone declares a Neder that he will not
sleep today should he sleep tomorrow, he is forbidden to sleep today -
because we suspect that he will sleep tomorrow, in which case he will have
contravened his Neder.
So Rava finally explains ...
(b) Rav Nachman says - that he is permitted to sleep today, because we are
confidant that he will manage to stay awake tomorrow.
(c) Rava suggests that Rav Nachman might establish our case in the same way
as he does there - by permitting the woman to marry someone else on the
basis that, when her husband divorces her, she will be able to fulfill the
T'nai of the divorce and marry P'loni.
(d) He immediately refutes this suggestion however, on the grounds - that
whereas it lies within a person's power to force himself to remain awake for
a day (by pricking himself with sharp objects) it does not lie within a
woman's power to force her husband to give her a divorce.
1. ... the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Tinas'i
li'P'loni, Harei Zeh Lo Tinasei' - to mean that she is not permitted to
marry anybody at all, not 'P'loni' nor anybody else (for the reasons that we
have already stated).
2. ... the Seifa 've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei' - to refer to P'loni, who is
only forbidden due to a decree.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if a man gives his wife a Get
on condition that his wife flies to heaven, travels to the depths of the
earth, or performs any other such impossible task, the Get is invalid. Rebbi
Yehudah ben Teimah say - that the T'nai is Bateil and the Get valid.
(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah. Rav Nachman
bar Yitzchak supports this ruling from a S'tam Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Kol
she'Efshar Lo Lekaymo be'Sofo ve'Hisnah Alav mi'Techilaso, Tena'o Kayam' -
implying 'Kol she'I Efshar Lo Lekaymo be'Sofo ... Tena'o Bateil'.
(c) Abaye maintains that the same will apply in the case of a man who gives
his wife a Get on condition that she eats Chazir. Rava disagrees - on the
grounds that it is physically possible for her to eat Basar Chazir (albeit
for the price of Malkos) in which case it cannot be construed as
(d) According to Abaye, 'K'lal Amar Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah ... ' comes to
include 'al-M'nas she'Tochli Basar Chazir'. Rava extrapolates from Rebbi
Yehudah ben Teimah's statement 'ka'Zeh Get' - to preclude the very same
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech ...
1. ... al-M'nas she'Tiba'ali li'P'loni - Niskayem ha'T'nai, Harei Zeh Get'.
(b) If he had said 'al-M'nas she'Lo Tiba'ali li'P'loni' - the Get would not
be valid (in case she once has relations with him) just like the case of
'al-M'nas she'Lo Teilchi le'Veis Avich Le'olam'.
2. ... al-M'nas she'Lo Tiba'ali le'Aba u'le'Avicha - Ein Chosheshin Shema
Niv'alah Lahem' (and she is permitted to remarry).
(c) The fact that the Tana omits the case of 'al-M'nas she'Tiba'ali le'Aba
u'le'Avicha' is no proof that Abaye is right and Rava wrong, Even Rava will
agree there that such a T'nai is Bateil - because whereas it might even be
possible to bribe P'loni into having relations with her, there is no way
that we can contend with her father or father-in-law condescending to
perform an act for which they will receive Chayav Kareis.
1. ... 'K'lal Amar according to Rava ... ' now comes to include - the case
of Aba ve'Avicha' of the Beraisa.
2. ... 'ka'Zeh Get' according to Abaye comes to preclude 'she'Tiba'ali
(a) Abaye reconciles his opinion (that 'al-M'nas she'Tochli Basar Chazir'
the T'nai is Batel, and the Get valid) with the Beraisa, which specifically
states 'Niskaymah ha'T'nai Harei Zeh Get ... ' - by establishing the author
of the Beraisa as the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah (who validate all
conditions that are impossible to fulfill), whereas his opinion is based on
that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah.
(b) The Tana also includes a case of 'al-M'nas she Tochli bi'Terumah -
(assuming that she is a Kohenes), and (assuming that she is a Nezirah)
'al-M'nas she'Tishti Yayin.
(a) The other reason for the T'nai to be Batel in the previous case
(according to everyone) - is that of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'.
(b) The classical case of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' is - where a
man betroths a woman 'al-M'nas she'Ein Lach Alai She'er, K'sus ve'Onah'
(food, clothes or conjugal rights), where the Kidushin is valid and he
remains obligated to provide all three.
(c) Ravina reject Rav Ada B'rei de'Rav Ika's suggestion that in this case,
it is not the Masneh (the husband) who is fulfilling the condition that
contravenes Torah law, but the other party (the wife) - by pointing out
that, when all's said and done, since it his *his* condition that she is
fulfilling, what difference does it make as to who contravenes the Torah
law? When he stipulated, he was 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'!
(d) Ravina finally explains why the Tana does not make an issue of 'Masneh
al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' - because, since she remains with the option of
not eating and not being divorced, it does not constitute 'Masneh al Mah
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that, in the case of 'Harei At Muteres
le'Chol Adam Ela li'P'loni', the husband must take back the Get and return
it to his wife. Chizkiyah establishes the Mishnah - like Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar, who said the same in the Beraisa regarding the case of 'Kinsi Sh'tar
Chov' in the previous Perek.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rav Kahana disagrees. He establishes Mishnah
even like the Chachamim there - because they only validate the Sh'tar
(without the need to return it) *there*, where the Get is completely
ineffective in its current state; but here, where the Sh'tar (unlike the
earlier case, was handed over in the form of a Get and was) effective in
forbidding her to marry a Kohen, and which she has therefore already
acquired, even *they* will agree that he must first take if back before
returning it to her.
(c) He referred to Rav Kahana as 'Dilchon' (one of yours, one of the B'nei
Bavel to whom he was speaking) - because Rav Kahana originally came from
Bavel to learn by Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) With regard to a Get in which the man actually *wrote* 'Harei At Muteres
le'Chol Adam', the Tana of our Mishnah disqualifies the Get completely. When
Rav Safra says 'Kasvo be'Socho T'nan' (despite the fact that the Tana has
specifically validated the oral declaration to the same effect), he means -
that under no circumstances will declaring this orally invalidate the Get,
even if he said it before the Toref (the main part of the Get) was written.
(b) Rava disagrees. According to him - such a declaration will indeed
invalidate the Get, if it is said before the Toref has been written.
(c) Rava's reasoning is that - the major part of the Get was written under
(d) Rava would instruct the Sofrim - that, when they wrote a Get, they
should stop the husband from making any conditions until after the Toref was
(a) Rebbi invalidates a Get that contains any conditions - the Rabbanan say
that whatever invalidates the Get orally will also invalidate it in writing,
and whatever will not invalidate the former, will not invalidate the latter.
(b) According to them ...
1. ... 'Chutz' (which is a Shiyur) - will invalidate the Get both orally and
when it is written in the Get.
2. ... 'al-M'nas' (which is a T'nai) - will not invalidate it.