(a)What does the Mishnah say later in a case where the Shali'ach is unable to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
(b)Why can the Tana not be referring to a Cheresh whom the husband appointed a Shali'ach?
(c)Why are a Cheresh, Shotah and Katan not qualified to bring a Get?
(d)So how does Rav Yosef establish that Mishnah?
1)
(a)The Mishnah says later in a case where the Shali'ach is unable to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - that, if the Get has signatories, it can be validated by substantiating the signatures.
(b)The Tana cannot be referring to a Cheresh whom the husband appointed a Shali'ach - because the Mishnah later disqualifies a Cheresh, Shotah or Katan from the Shelichus of a Get.
(c)The reason for this is - because they do not have Da'as.
(d)Rav Yosef therefore establishes that Mishnah - when the Shali'ach brought the Get as a healthy person, and he became a Cheresh just before handing over the Get (see Tosfos DH 'Ileima').
2)
(a)How does this Mishnah create a problem for Rabah?
(b)We answer that the Mishnah is speaking after they learned to write a Get Lishmah. Then why is a Shali'ach who is able to speak obligated to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
(c)So why are we lenient in the case of a Pike'ach she'Nischaresh?
(d)We then ask from a woman who brings her own Get, which is certainly most unusual, yet she is required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '. How can the woman be a Shali'ach to transport her own Get? Why is she not divorced as soon as she receives it?
2)
(a)This Mishnah creates a problem for Rabah - because according to him, we would still have to suspect that the Get was written she'Lo Lishmah, and it ought to be Pasul, even if witnesses did subsequently substantiate it.
(b)We answer that the Mishnah is speaking after they learned to write a Get Lishmah. Nonetheless, a Shali'ach who is able to speak remains obligated to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - because (no Beis-Din rescinded the original decree which in turn is because) we are afraid that circumstances might revert to what they were.
(c)We are nevertheless lenient in the case of a Pike'ach she'Nischaresh - because a Pike'ach she'Nischaresh is rare, and Chazal tended not to include rare cases in their decrees.
(d)We then ask from a woman who brings her own Get, which is certainly most unusual, yet she is required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', case which is possible (i.e. she is not divorced as soon as she receives it) - if her husband stipulated that the divorce should not take effect until she arrived at such and such a Beis-Din.
3)
(a)Why indeed is a woman who brings her own Get required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' seeing as it is unusual?
(b)So why do we not apply the same Sevara when a Pike'ach she'Nischaresh is the Shali'ach?
(c)And on what grounds do we then absolve a husband who bring his wife's Get from saying 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
3)
(a)A woman who brings her own Get is required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' (despite the fact that it is unusual) - so as not to differentiate between one Shali'ach and another ('Lo P'lug') there where one Shali'ach brings the Get (Tosfos DH 'she'Lo') ...
(b)... and the reason that we are lenient by a Pike'ach she'Nischaresh is - because in fact, the Pike'ach she'Nischaresh is indeed obligated to make the declaration like everybody else, only he is unable to do so.
(c)We absolve a husband who bring his wife's Get from saying 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - on the grounds that Chazal obligated the Shali'ach to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' to offset the husband later arriving and claiming that the Get is a forgery, something that is not feasible in a case where he himself brought the Get.
4)
(a)When Shmuel asked Rav Huna whether two Sheluchim who brought a Get from overseas are required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' or not, he replied in the negative. What was his reason for this?
(b)How do we establish Rav Huna's ruling according to Rabah? Why are we not concerned that the Get may not have been written Lishmah?
(c)Then why is one Shali'ach required to make it?
(d)Then why should two Sheluchim not also be required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav' for the same reason?
4)
(a)When Shmuel asked Rav Huna whether two Sheluchim who brought a Get from overseas are required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' or not, he replied in the negative - because if they were to testify that her husband divorced her in their presence, they would anyway be believed (so we believe them with a 'Migo', on account of what they could have said).
(b)We establish Rav Huna's ruling according to Rabah - after they learned to write a Get Lishmah. Nor are we concerned that the Get may not have been written Lishmah - because it is unusual for two people to bring a Get (as we explained earlier with regard to a healthy Shali'ach who became a Cheresh).
(c)One Shali'ach is nevertheless required to do so - because of 'Lo P'lug' (as we explained earlier)
(d)Two Sheluchim are not also required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav' - because here too, it is unusual for two Sheluchim to bring a Get.
5)
(a)What does Beraisa say in the case of a Get that was brought by a Shali'ach who did not say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?
(b)How do we initially explain the continuation of the Beraisa 'Hevi Lo Hutzr'chu Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... Lehachmir Ela Lehakeil'?
5)
(a)The Beraisa says that, in the case of a Get brought by a Shali'ach who did not say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - that as long as its signatures are substantiated, it is Kasher.
(b)We initially explain the continuation of the Beraisa 'Hevi Lo Hutzr'chu Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... Lehachmir Alehah Ela Lehakeil Alehah' - to mean that the Takanah was not to be strict, to make him testify that the Get was signed in his presence even when the Get has been substantiated, but to be lenient, to spare the need to search for witnesses to substantiate the Get when it has not.
6)
(a)Even though, according to Rabah, the Tana is speaking after they learned how to write a Get Lishmah, why do we nevertheless not make them declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' because of the possibility that the circumstances may revert to what they were?
(b)Then how do we explain the reason given by the Tana 'Hevi Lo Hutzr'chu Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... Lehachmir Ela Lehakeil' (and not 'Mishum d'Nises')?
(c)Why in fact, are we not stringent in the case of a married woman?
6)
(a)Even though, according to Rabah, the Tana is speaking after they learned how to write a Get Lishmah, we nevertheless do not make them declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' because of the possibility that the circumstances may revert to what they were - because he is speaking when the woman has already remarried.
(b)So we explain the reason given by the Tana 'Hevi Lo Hutzrechu Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav ... Lehachmir Ela Lehakeil' - to mean that they did not require 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' to be stringent with a woman who has already remarried (and to force her to accept a divorce), but to be lenient initially, to avoid the need to bring witnesses, should her first husband claim that the Get was forged.
(c)The reason that we are not stringent in the case of a married woman - because when all's said and done, her first husband has not claimed the Get to be a forgery, so why should we be?
5b----------------------------------------5b
7)
(a)What are we initially told about the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan?
(b)When Rebbi Shimon bar Aba came before Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with a Get that he brought from Medinas ha'Yam, and asked whether he needed to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', what did the latter reply? What does this prove?
(c)What problem do we nevertheless have with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's ruling?
(d)Does this Kashya have any bearing on our proof that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like Rabah?
7)
(a)We are told - that the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan is equivalent to that of Rabah and Rava, though we do not initially know which is which.
(b)When Rebbi Shimon bar Aba came before Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with a Get that he brought from Medinas ha'Yam, and asked whether he needed to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', he replied - that it was no longer necessary to make this declaration, because the Sofrim from overseas had learned to write Gitin Lishmah, in which case Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi clearly holds like Rabah, and Rebbi Yochanan, like Rava.
(c)The problem that we nevertheless have with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's ruling is - that Rabah concedes to Rava's reason of 'Le'fi she'Ein Edim Metzuyin Lekaymo' (in which case, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi will have to agree with it too - since it is based on Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah), so how could he absolve Rebbi Shimon bar Aba from the declaration?
(d)This Kashya has no bearing whatsoever on our proof that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like Rabah - which remains intact.
8)
(a)How do we resolve our problem regarding the Kashya 've'Ha Rabah Is Lei d'Rava'?
(b)Why was the second witness omitted when the episode was related?
8)
(a)We resolve our problem regarding the Kashya 've'Ha Rabah Is Lei d'Rava' - by pointing out that there was a second witness who accompanied Rebbi Shimon bar Aba (and even Rava agrees that two witnesses who bring a Get do not need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ...').
(b)The second witness was omitted when the episode was related - in deference to Rebbi Shimon bar Aba.
9)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan also argue over how many people need to be present when the Shali'ach hands over the Get and makes his declaration. What did Rebbi Yochanan instruct Ravin bar Rav Chisda to do when he came before him with a Get from overseas? What will Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi then hold?
(b)On what basis do we suggest that their Machlokes is tied up with the Machlokes between Rabah and Rava. What makes us now think that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who requires three people, will hold like Rava?
(c)We reject this theory on two scores, one of them because Rabah too, agrees with Rava's reason of 'Lefi she'Ein Edim Metzuyin Lekaymo' (in which case, Rebbi Yochanan will agree with it too). What is the other objection?
9)
(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan also argue over how many people need to be present when the Shali'ach hands over the Get and make his declaration. When Ravin bar Rav Chisda came before Rebbi Yochanan with a Get from overseas, he instructed him - to take it in front of two people, in which case Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi will require three.
(b)We suggest that their Machlokes is tied up with the Machlokes between Rabah and Rava. We now think that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who requires three people, will hold like Rava - because it is logical that the one who requires three is the one who requires the Shtar to be substantiated, since three constitutes a Beis-Din.
(c)We reject this theory on two scores, one of them because Rabah too, agrees with Rava's reason of 'Lefi she'Ein Edim Metzuyin Lekaymo' (in which case, Rebbi Yochanan will agree with it too). The other objection is - based on our previous conclusion that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds like Rabah, in which case Rebbi Yochanan must hold like Rava, in which case, he ought to be the one who requires three witnesses, and not Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
10)
(a)So we suggest that they argue over whether 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed v'Ed Na'aseh Dayan' or not. What exactly does this mean?
(b)What will then be the opinion of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan?
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?
(c)On what grounds do we refute this suggestion?
(d)We finally base their Machlokes on the occasions that a woman brings the Get. What is then the basis of their Machlokes?
10)
(a)So we suggest that they argue over whether 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed v'Ed Na'aseh Dayan' or not - meaning that they argue over whether or not, 'Ed Na'aseh Dayan', just as it is unanimously agreed that 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed'.
(b)The opinion of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan is - 'Ed Na'aseh Dayan', in which case two people will suffice to hand over the Get in their presence), because the Shali'ach himself can combine with them to make up three.
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - will hold 'Ein Ed Na'aseh Dayan' (and three people are therefore required).
(c)We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that when it comes to issues that are mid'Rabanan (such as Kiyum Shtaros [and to which category 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' belongs]) - everyone agrees that 'Ed Na'aseh Dayan'.
(d)We finally base their Machlokes on the occasions that a woman brings the Get - and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is afraid that, if one normally presents it in front of witnesses, relying on the Shali'ach to complete the Beis-Din, then they will also rely on the woman to become the third Dayan; whereas Rebbi Yochanan maintains that everyone knows that a woman is not Kasher to sit on a Beis-Din.
11)
(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules that if a Shali'ach brings a Get from overseas, and forgets to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', the Get is Pasul and the children are Mamzerim. Why is that?
(b)What do the Rabanan say one should do? In front of how many people should the Shali'ach then hand it to the woman?
11)
(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules that if a Shali'ach brings a Get from overseas, and forgets to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', the Get is Pasul and the children are Mamzerim - because as Rav Huna quoted Ula as saying, Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that in the realm of Gitin, whenever someone changes from the way the Chachamim 'minted the coin' of a Get, the Get is Pasul.
(b)According to the Rabanan - the woman should return the Get to the Shali'ach, who must then present her with the Get in the presence of two people (corroborating the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan), and declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
12)
(a)When bar Hedya, who had been appointed a Shali'ach to take a Get to another town, came before Rebbi Achi in his town, the latter told him to attend the writing of the Get from beginning to end. Why did bar Hedya come before Rebbi Achi? What was the latter's function with regard to Gitin?
(b)Why was such an appointment necessary?
12)
(a)When bar Hedya, who had been appointed a Shali'ach to take a Get to another town, came before Rebbi Achi in his town, the latter told him to attend the writing of the Get from beginning to end. bar Hedya came before Rebbi Achi - because he was the Rav in charge of Gitin in that town.
(b)Such an appointment was necessary - because we have learned that unless one is an expert in matters concerning Gitin and Kidushin, one should not get involved with them.
13)
(a)What did Rav Ami and Rav Asi (see Rashash) subsequently tell bar Hedya when he informed them what Rebbi Achi had said?
(b)Why would one even be ill-advised to go l'Chumra in this regard?
(c)What did Rebbi Elazar reply when Rabah bar bar Chanah asked him about a Get, half of which was written in his presence and half of which was not?
(d)Rav Ashi is even more lenient. What does he say?
13)
(a)When bar Hedya subsequently informed Rav Ami and Rav Asi (see Rashash) what Rebbi Achi had said - they subsequently told him that it was unnecessary to be present for the writing of the entire Get.
(b)In fact, one would even be ill-advised to do so - because that would create aspersions on all other Gitin where this was not performed, as it would imply that wherever the Shali'ach did not witness the writing of the entire Get, it is invalid.
(c)When Rabah bar bar Chanah asked Rebbi Elazar about a Get, half of which was written in his presence and half of which was not - he replied that, as long as he witnessed just one line being written, it would be Kasher.
(d)Rav Ashi is even more lenient. According to him - that even hearing the scratching of the pen, which signifies that the Sofer is writing the Get, will suffice.
