1)
(a)We just suggested that the Tana of the Beraisa that compares Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim omits the two cases of 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' because they are d'Oraisa, whereas he only speaks about cases that are d'Rabanan. What problem does that create with regard to the case of Chazarah, which the Tana inserts according to Rebbi Meir?
(b)Why is the case of 'Chazarah' d'Oraisa? What is its source?
(c)So what new reason do we give to explain why the Tana omits 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' from the Beraisa?
(d)And how will we then explain 'Chazarah', which also applies to Kidushin?
1)
(a)We just suggested that the Tana of the Beraisa that compares Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim omits the two cases of 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' because they are d'Oraisa, whereas he only speaks about cases that are d'Rabanan. The problem with that is that the case of Chazarah, which the Tana inserts according to Rebbi Meir - is d'Oraisa, too.
(b)The case of 'Chazarah' is d'Oraisa - because once the husband retracts, the Shali'ach is no longer a Shali'ach, in which case, neither the husband nor his Shali'ach has placed the Get into the woman's hand (and the Torah writes "v'Nasan b'Yadah").
(c)The new reason we give to explain why the Tana omits 'Lishmah' and 'Mechubar' from the Beraisa is - because they are both Pasul by Kidushin too, and the Tana only lists cases that are unique to Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim (but which do not pertain to Kidushin).
(d)It may may well be that the husband can retract from the Shelichus by Kidushin too - but that is only when the Shali'ach is appointed with the woman's consent, whereas Rebbi Meir's case of Get and Shtar Shichrur are speaking even against her will (as we explained above). Consequently, it is correct to say that the Din of Chazarah does not apply to Kidushin.
2)
(a)Our Mishnah writes that 'All Sh'taros on which a Kuti has signed are Pasul, except for ... '. What are the two exceptions?
(b)What did Raban Gamliel rule with regard to the Get Ishah that they brought before him when he was in Kfar Osna'i, on which a Kuti had signed?
2)
(a)Our Mishnah writes that 'All Sh'taros on which a Kuti has signed are Pasul - except for Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim'.
(b)When they brought before Raban Gamliel a Get Ishah when he was in Kfar Osna'i, on which a Kuti had signed - he validated it.
3)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bo "u'Shemartem Es ha'Matzos" (with regard to the baking of the Matzos Mitzvah at the Seder)?
(b)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits Matzah baked by a Kuti on Pesach, because he is careful not to allow it to become Chametz. What about Matzos Mitzvah that he baked for the Seder?
(c)Rebbi Elazar forbids it. Why is that?
(d)What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel come to add to the words of the Tana Kama when he says 'Kol Mitzvah she'Hichziku Bah Kusim, Harbeh Medakdekim Bah Yoser mi'Yisrael'?
3)
(a)We learn from the Pasuk "u'Shemartem Es ha'Matzos" - that not only may the Matzos Mitzvah at the Seder not be baked Chametz, but they must also be baked 'le'Shem Matzos Mitzvah'.
(b)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits Matzah baked by a Kuti on Pesach, because he is careful not to allow it to become Chametz, and te same applies to Matzos Mitzvah that he baked for the Seder - because they are also careful to bake them 'Lesheim Matzos Mitzvah'.
(c)Rebbi Elazar forbids it - because in his opinion, Kusim cannot be trusted to bake them without their becoming Chametz.
(d)When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Kol Mitzvah she'Hichziku Bah Kusim, Harbeh Medakdekim Bah Yoser mi'Yisrael - he means to include even Mitzvos d'Rabanan, whereas the Tana Kama speaks only about Mitzvos d'Oraisa.
4)
(a)Why does our Mishnah not seem to follow any of the opinions in the Beraisa that we just quoted?
(b)What distinction does Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas, the Amora) make with regard to our Mishnah between one Kuti witness and two Kuti witnesses?
(c)Why does that prevent us from resolving the currant difficulty by answering that the Kusim were careful concerning Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim but not concerning other issues?
(d)We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa, and Gitei Nashim ... are different, because it speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti. So what if he did?
4)
(a)Our Mishnah does not seem to follow any of the opinions in the Beraisa that we just quoted - because, at first glance, there seems to be no reason to differentiate between one Shtar and another, according to any of the Tana'im.
(b)Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas, the Amora) - restricts our Mishnah, which permits Kuti witnesses by Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim, to one Kuti witness, but not two.
(c)That prevents us from resolving the currernt difficulty by answering that the Kusim were careful concerning Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim but not about other issues - because if that were so, even a Get that was signed by two Kuti witnesses ought to be Kasher.
(d)We establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa, and Gitei Nashim ... are different, because it speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti - indicating that the latter must have been a Kuti Chaver, who is reliable and can be trusted (otherwise the Yisrael would never have allowed him to sign before him).
10b----------------------------------------10b
5)
(a)If, as we just explained, the Tana of our Mishnah speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti (indicating that the latter must have been a Kuti Chaver) - why do we not say the same with regard to other Sh'taros? How does Rav Papa explain the distinction between Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim on the one hand, and other Sh'taros, on the other)?
(b)What reason does Rav Ashi give for Rav Papa's stringency, that all the witnesses must sign on Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim simultaneously?
(c)Why did Rebbi Elazar find it necessary to restrict the leniency of our Mishnah to one Kuti witness? Why could we not learn this ourselves from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Kol Get she'Yesh Alav Ed Kuti Pasul, Chutz mi'Gitei Nashim ... '?
(d)How will we reconcile Rebbi Elazar with our Mishnah, which relates that Raban Gamliel validated a Get Ishah that came before him ... even though the witnesses were Kusim, according to ...
1. ... Abaye?
2. ... Rava, who retains the original text of 'Eidav' (in the plural)?
5)
(a)Even if, as we just explained, the Tana of our Mishnah speaks when the Yisrael signed after the Kuti (indicating that the latter must have been a Kuti Chaver), we do not say the same with regard to other Sh'taros - because, as Rav Papa explains, it is only the witnesses of a Get who must all sign simultaneously (so that they all know who is signing with them), but when it comes to other Sh'taros, it may well be that the Yisrael who signed (first) at the end of the Shtar, thought that the Ba'Al ha'Shtar intended a Chashuv Yisrael to sign after him, so he left room on the Shtar in the space above his.
(b)Rav Ashi explains that the witnesses of a Get must all sign simultaneously on Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim - on account of a case where the husband uses the term 'Kulchem', where one of them writes the Get, and all the others must sign for the Get to be valid (as we will learn in the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer'), and we are afraid that some of them may not sign, rendering the Get Pasul.
(c)Rebbi Elazar found it necessary to restrict the leniency of our to one Kuti witness. We could not have understand this from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Kol Get she'Yesh Alav Ed Kuti, Pasul Chutz mi'Gitei Nashim ... ' - because the Tana may well have used that Lashon on account of the Reisha, to teach us that, even with only one Kuti witness, other Sh'taros are Pasul.
(d)We reconcile Rebbi Elazar with our Mishnah, which relates that Raban Gamliel validated a Get Ishah that came before him ... even though the witnesses were Kusim, according to ..
1. ... Abaye - by amending the Mishnah to 'Eido' instead of 'Eidav'.
2. ... Rava, who retains the original text of 'Eidav' (in the plural) - by turning it into a Machlokes Tana'im, and adding instead 've'Raban Gamliel Machshir bi'Shenayim, u'Ma'aseh Nami ... '.
6)
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates Sh'taros that are written in law-courts of Nochrim. Does it matter that the witnesses are Nochrim too?
(b)The two exceptions are Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim. What does Rebbi Shimon say?
6)
(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah validates Sh'taros that are written in law-courts of Nochrim - even if the witnesses are Nochrim, too.
(b)The two exceptions are Gitei Nashim and Shichrurei Avadim. Rebbi Shimon however, says - that even they are valid if the Shtar was written in Nochri law-courts, and it is only if they are written by a Nochri Hedyot that they are Pasul.
7)
(a)Our Mishnah validates all Sh'taros that are written in the law-courts of Nochrim, irrespective of whether they are documents of sale or of gift. On what grounds do we accept the Mishnah's ruling with regard to documents of sale, but query it vis-a-vis documents of gift?
(b)How do we know that the purchaser has already paid?
(c)Shmuel resolves this She'eilah with the words 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina'. What does he mean by that?
(d)What is the alternative answer?
7)
(a)Our Mishnah validates all Sh'taros that are written in the law-courts of Nochrim, irrespective of whether they are documents of sale or of gift. We have a problem with the latter however. We accept the Mishnah's ruling with regard to documents of sale, but query it vis-a-vis documents of gift - because whereas the former acquires the property anyway, with the money which he paid the seller (in which case the Shtar is no more than a proof), the latter, who did not pay money, acquires the property by means of the document, which, having been written by Nochrim, ought to have no validity.
(b)We know that the purchaser has already paid - because otherwise, the seller would not have strengthened the purchaser's rights by presenting him with a document.
(c)Shmuel resolves this She'eilah with the words 'Dina d'Malchusa Dina' - meaning that any document authenticated by a law-court of Nochrim is valid (even without any other Kinyan).
(d)Alternatively - we amend our Mishnah to read 'Chutz mi'ke'Gitei Nashim', which incorporates all Sh'taros that conclude the deal in the category of Gitei Nashim, which are Pasul if they are written in law-courts of Nochrim.
8)
(a)Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah validates even Gitei Nashim that are written in law-courts of Nochrim. How does Rebbi Zeira resolve the problem that Nochrim are not subject to 'Kerisus'?
(b)And how does Rebbi Aba resolve this with Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas), who explains that Rebbi Elazar concedes that when the Shtar is 'forged from within' it is Pasul (even when there are Eidei Mesirah)?
8)
(a)Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah validates even Gitei Nashim that are written in law-courts of Nochrim. Rebbi Zeira resolves the problem that Nochrim are not subject to 'Kerisus' - by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Elazar, who validates the Get with Eidei Mesirah (as we learned already on the previous Daf).
(b)And Rebbi Aba resolves this with Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas), in whose opinion Rebbi Elazar concedes that when the Shtar is 'forged from within' it is Pasul (even when there are Eidei Mesirah) - by establishing the case when the names of the witnesses are typical Nochri names (as we discussed above).