לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה‎—Since they are not well versed in the requirement of לשמה O VERVIEW רבה states that the reason the חכמים require a שליח ממדה"י to say בפ"נ is because the people of מדה"י are not בקי in the requirement of לשמה‎. There are many requirements in הלכות גיטין, and תוספות wonders why is it that they are not בקי (only) in לשמה, but are בקי in all other הלכות גיטין‎. It is also necessary to understand how saying בפ"נ assures us that it was written לשמה‎. -------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי שנא לשמה דאין בקיאין משאר הלכות גיטין‎ – And if you will say; why is the requirement of לשמה different (from all other requirements of writing a גט) that the people are not well versed in this requirement more than the other laws of גיטין, that people are aware of – כגון מחובר ושינה שמו ושמה ונכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה‎ – for instance; the הלכות that these following גיטין are פסול: if the גט was written while it was attached to the ground; i.e. it was written on a leaf of a tree, or if he changed the husband’s name or the wife’s name in the גט and did not write the correct names, or if the גט was written in the daytime, and the witnesses signed it the following night. In all these cases the גט is פסול‎. However we do not mention that the reason the שליח says בפ"נ is to assure us that none of the above happened. Seemingly because we assume that whoever is involved in the writing of the גט is aware of all these פסולים‎. Why would they not be aware of the פסול of שלא לשמה as well? תוספות will now present a possible resolution to this question and refute it: ואין לומר דנקט לשמה דשכיח טפי‎ – And one cannot say that the reason רבה mentions that we are concerned that it was not written לשמה is because it is more common than the other פסולים mentioned above, for it may be likely – דמשכח גט ששמו כשמו ושמה כשמה ומשדר לה‎ – that a husband who wishes to divorce his wife may find a written גט that a stranger wrote to divorce his wife whose name of the husband in the גט is the same as his name, and the woman’s name is the same as his wife’s name and he will send this גט to his wife, without even going to a scribe, who would be aware that this גט is פסול‎ – וגם הסופר שרגיל לכתוב טופסי גיטין אגב שיטפיה מישתלי וכתב שמו ושמה‎ – And in addition even if the husband will go to a scribe for the גט, it is possible that the סופר who is accustomed to write the blank forms of גיטין; On account of his routine he may inadvertently forget and he will write this particulars husband’s and wife’s names filling in their names in the form (for practice). When the husband will come to this סופר to write a גט for him, the סופר may give him this finished גט, not realizing that he wrote it שלא לשמה‎. Therefore this problem of שלא לשמה is more likely than those that תוספות mentioned previously, and therefore that is why רבה mentioned just his problem. However in truth – והוא הדין שאר הלכות גיטין‎ – The same holds true for all the rest of the laws of גיטין, that the people of חו"ל are not בקי in them as well. Therefore, when the שליח states בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, he is testifying the גט is כשר in all respects, not only was it written לשמה, but also all the הלכות of גיטין, including those mentioned by תוספות previously, were strictly adhered to. This would seem to answer תוספות question; that there is no difference in the knowledge of the laws between לשמה and the other הלכות גיטין, it is just that it is more likely that a גט may written שלא לשמה, than other violations; therefore רבה mentioned שאין בקיאין לשמה‎. תוספות refutes this answer: זה אינו דהא אמר לקמן (דף ט, ב) בג' דרכים שוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים – This is not so, we cannot say that רבה was concerned about all הלכות גיטין and the testimony of בפ"נ ובפ"נ validates that all הלכות were adhered to, because later the גמרא quotes a ברייתא which says: that גיטי נשים are similar to the שטרות that are used to set free עבדים כנענים, in three ways – ופריך והא איכא לשמה‎ – And the גמרא asks on the ברייתא: but there is the requirement that both these שטרות have to be written לשמה‎. There is a fourth similarity between גיטי נשים and שחרורי עבדים, why does the ברייתא state only three?! The גמרא continues: בשלמא לרבה היינו מוליך ומביא‎ – It is understood, according to רבה, why the ברייתא did not mention לשמה, because לשמה is the same as מוליך ומביא which the ברייתא did mention. מוליך ומביא is the requirement to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ both by גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, when they are sent from either חו"ל לא"י or from א"י לחו"ל. Therefore according to רבה the ברייתא could not have said both לשמה and מוליך ומביא, since the whole חיוב to say בפ"נ by מוליך ומביא is on account of לשמה, therefore לשמה and מוליך ומביא are identical. אלא לרבא קשיא‎ – However according to רבא it is not understood why the ברייתא did not mention לשמה, since, according to רבא the saying of בפ"נ by מוליך ומביא is on account of קיום, and has no connection to לשמה‎. The גמרא continues with another question on the ברייתא: ותו בין לרבה ובין לרבא הא איכא מחובר‎ – And furthermore according to both רבה and רבא there is the פסול of writing the שטר while it is attached to the ground, which applies both to גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, so why does not the ברייתא mention it. This concludes the quote from the גמרא‎. From this dialogue we see that the previous contention that saying בפ"נ validates all הלכות גיטין including לשמה and מחובר etc. is incorrect, as תוספות continues – אלמא לרבה דוקא נקט לשמה בכלל מוליך ומביא ולא נקט מחובר‎ – It is evident that according to רבה, only the requirement of לשמה is mentioned in the גמרא as being included in מוליך ומביא, and therefore the ברייתא could not mention לשמה as an additional similarity because the requirement of לשמה and the saying of בפ"נ by מוליך ומביא are identical, however מחובר is not mentioned to be included in מוליך ומביא as לשמה is, as is evidenced by the fact that according to רבה there is no question why the ברייתא does not mention לשמה (because it is included in מוליך ומביא) but there is a question why the ברייתא does not mention מחובר, so obviously it is not included in מוליך ומביא‎. This proves conclusively that the בפ"נ only comes to validate that the גט was written לשמה and not the other הלכות גיטין‎. Therefore תוספות original question remains; why is it that they are בקי in all other דינים, but they are not בקי in the דין of לשמה‎. תוספות answers: ומפרש רבינו תם דבכל הלכות גיטין בקיאין‎ – The ר"ת explains that the people of חוץ לארץ are בקי in all of הלכות גיטין, including the הלכות of לשמה‎ – אלא דהך דרשא דוכתב לה לשמה אינה נראית להם עיקר דרשה‎ – however this דרשא that the חכמים derive from what the תורה writes וכתב לה ‘He should write for her’ which the חכמים interpret the word 'לה' to mean לשמה ‘for her sake’ that the גט must be written – specifically for her sake ; this דרשא does not appear to the people of חו"ל as being the substantive דרשה of the word 'לה'. This interpretation that the people of חו"ל know the דין of לשמה, it is just that they somehow feel that it is not a correct דרשה, seems to contradict that which the גמרא says, namely; that the people of חו"ל are אין בקיאין לשמה, they are not aware of the דין of לשמה‎. תוספות therefore continues: ואין בקיאין פירוש אין חוששין לדרשה דלשמה‎ – And the phrase 'אין בקיאין' – ‘ they are not 'well versed ’, is to be understood to mean that ‘they dismiss the דרשה of לשמה’. תוספות anticipates another question on this interpretation that אין בקיאין means אין חוששין: ולאחר שלמדו דלקמן‎ – And concerning that which the גמרא says later, that we are discussing a time period after the people of חו"ל learnt the דין of לשמה; this would seemingly indicate that prior to this time of 'לאחר שלמדו'; the people did not yet learn or know the דין of לשמה‎. This is in contradiction to the פירוש ר"ת. תוספות answers: פירוש לאחר שקיבלוה‎ – The meaning of לאחר שלמדו is not to be understood in its literal sense, but rather after they accepted the דרשה of 'לה לשמה'. Now that we know what the meaning of אין בקיאין לשמה is, תוספות will now discuss how the statement of בפ"נ ובפ"נ resolves this concern, for seemingly the שליח makes no mention of לשמה in his statement. והא דפירש הקונטרס דממילא שיילינן ליה אי הוי לשמה ואמר אין‎ – And that which רש"י explains concerning this question; how do we know that it was written לשמה; that inevitably we ask the שליח, once he says בפ"נ that he was present at the writing of the גט, whether it was written לשמה and the שליח says ‘yes’, that it was written לשמה‎. תוספות argues that this interpretation is – אין נראה דלא משתמיט בשום דוכתא שיהא צריך לישאל‎ – not plausible for we do not find it mentioned anywhere that בי"ד is required to ask the שליח if it was written לשמה‎ – תוספות asks an additional question on פירש"י: ועוד דאם כן לימא איכא בינייהו אם צריך לישאל‎ – And furthermore, that if this is so as רש"י claims that we ask the שליח if it was written לשמה, let the גמרא say ‘that there is another difference between רבה and רבה’, namely if it is required to ask anything additional of the שליח, after he testifies that בפ"נ ובפ"נ. According to רבא this is sufficient to be מקיים the גט; according to רבה however, we are required to ask the שליח if it was written לשמה‎. Since the גמרא does not mention this difference, that proves that there is no difference, and even according to רבה, saying בפ"נ is sufficient. The question remains how through his testimony of בפ"נ do we know that it was written לשמה‎? תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דסתמא לשמה קא מסהיד – The ר"י says that it is assumable that his testimony of בפ"נ is regarding that it was written לשמה‎. כדפירש בקונטרס נמי בסמוך (דף ג, א ד"ה לא גייז)- as רש"י also explains it in this manner further in the גמרא. תוספות continues to ask: והא דאמר לקמן מי קתני בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לשמה‎ – And concerning that which the גמרא says later on why רבא does not agree with רבה that the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of אין בקיאין לשמה, for that cannot be the reason, for does the משנה teach us that the שליח is requires to say: בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לשמה, and since there is no requirement to add the word לשמה that proves that לשמה is not the reason for saying בפ"נ. This is sרבא' refutation of רבה‎. If however we understand that סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, as תוספות just told us, how are we to understand sרבא' refutation. There seemingly is no need to add the word לשמה since סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד‎. תוספות replies, that the refutation of רבא should be understood as follows: נהי דסתמא לשמה משמע- Granted that it is assumable that he is testifying that the גט was done לשמה מכל מקום כיון דעיקר תקנה משום לשמה הוא הוה ליה למימר בהדיא‎ – Nevertheless it is not sufficient to assume that לשמה קא מסהיד, because since (according to רבה) the main תקנה for saying בפ"נ is on account of לשמה, the שליח should be required to say it outright, so everyone will know without a doubt that it was done לשמה, and not to merely assume that it was done לשמה‎. S UMMARY The meaning of אין בקיאין לשמה is that the בני חו"ל in spite of knowing that there is a requirement that a גט be written לשמה, as derived from the פסוק וכתב לה‎ – לשמה, nevertheless they did not take it seriously. The חכמים were therefore מתקן that one who brings a גט ממדה"י must testify בפ"נ ובפ"נ, which is assumed to mean that it was נכתב ונחתם לשמה‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. According to the מסקנא is the פסול of שלא לשמה more apt to happen than the other פסולי גיטין‎? 2. Are all the סופרים in חו"ל בקי in לשמה‎? 3. How are לשמה and מוליך ומביא ‘identical’ according to רבה, and how are they ‘different’? 4. תוספות initially proposed to answer that the בני חו"ל are not בקי in all the דינים, and the reason he mentions לשמה is because לשמה is more שכיח than the others, but בפ"נ really is removing all the concerns. Why does not תוספות merely say that the פסול of לשמה is more שכיח, therefore the רבנן were concerned to prevent it, however the other פסולים happen so infrequently, that the רבנן saw no need to address them?! This would also resolve the difficulty from the ברייתא of מוליך ומביא which תוספות cites. 5. תוספות proves that the חשש is only on account of לשמה from the גמרא later (on ט, ב); indicating that we are assuming that which the גמרא concludes (here) that סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי‎. If we assume that ספרי דדייני are גמירי, then what is תוספות question that why are we not concerned about מחובר, etc., since the ספרי are גמירי, the only concern is for לשמה that perhaps he found a גט which was שמו כשמו וכו', but there can be no concern of מחובר,etc.!
לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה‎—Because they are not well versed in the requirement of לשמה O VERVIEW It would seem from the גמרא that רבה is of the opinion that the בני חו"ל, are not בקיאין לשמה and therefore we are (seriously) concerned that this גט from חו"ל may not be written לשמה‎. Our תוספות quotes a ברייתא that will disprove this concern. -------------------- תוספות asks: קשה דלקמן (דף ה, א) תניא הוא עצמו שהביא גיטו‎ – There is a difficulty; for later in the גמרא there is a ברייתא which states, ‘if the husband himself brought his גט for his wife from חו"ל and intends to divorce her now – אינו צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם- He is not required to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ’. This concludes the citation from the ברייתא‎. תוספות asks: מאי שנא הוא משלוחו אי חיישינן שמא לא נעשה לשמה‎ – How is he different than if his שליח brought the גט, if we are concerned that perhaps the גט was not prepared לשמה‎?! In either case, whether it is the שליח who brings the גט or the husband, they should both be required to say בפ"נ to assure us that the גט was written לשמה, since our concern is שאין בקיאין לשמה‎. תוספות offers a possible solution and rejects it; וטעמא דאמר לקמן מינקט נקט ליה בידיה ואיהו מערער עלויה‎ – And the reason which the גמרא says later, concerning this very ברייתא; why does not the husband have to say בפ"נ if he himself brought the גט from מדה"י, because since he is holding the גט in his own hand, which obviously tells us that he wants to divorce his wife, will he come later to contest this גט‎! Therefore the גמרא concludes that if the בעל himself brings the גט from מדה"י he is not required to say בפ"נ, because he will not be מערער later. This seems to be the same issue which תוספות is raising, and the גמרא answers it as just stated. תוספות is not satisfied with this explanation and תוספות asks: למה לא יערער אם מתחילה לא ידע דבעי לשמה והשתא ידע‎ – Why should he not contest the validity of the גט if originally he did not know the requirement of לשמה, and now he knows, and he realizes that there is no גט‎? The question remains why if the בעל himself brings the גט, is he exempt from saying בפ"נ‎? תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דמסקינן בסמוך דרוב בקיאין הן וסתם ספרי גמירי‎ – The ר"י says that the גמרא shortly concludes that most people are aware of the לשמה requirement and it is assumable that the scribes are knowledgeable in the לשמה requirement, therefore it is highly unlikely that the גט was written שלא לשמה. If this is the case, then why according to רבה must one say בפ"נ since there is no real חשש of שלא לשמה‎? תוספות continues: וליכא אלא לעז בעלמא דמסתמא שלא כדין יערער‎ – And the only concern is of loose gossip. In the event that the husband will claim that it was written שלא לשמה, people will gossip that she is still an אשת איש‎. However we are not concerned that it is really a גט פסול, for presumably his contention will be unjustified, for as we just said there is no real חשש of שלא לשמה, only לעז‎. והכא שמביאו הבעל בעצמו ליכא למיחש אפילו ללעז דתו לא מערער‎ – However here in the case where the husband himself brings the גט, there is no need to be concerned even for לעז, for he will not pursue to be מערער on this גט‎ – כדאמר בסמוך מנקט נקיט בידיה וכולי‎ – as the גמרא will shortly say, ‘he himself is holding the גט in his hand etc., will he be contentious about it!’ S UMMARY There is no real חשש of שלא לשמה, since רוב בקיאין and סתם ספרי גמירי, we are only concerned that the בעל, who sent the גט through a שליח, may reconsider and want to invalidate the גט by claiming that it was not written לשמה, and even though we will not accept his claim, nevertheless there will be a הוצאת לעז on this women and the subsequent children she may bear, therefore the חכמים were מתקן to say בפ"נ to prevent this לעז‎. On the occasion that the בעל himself brought the גט and is personally giving it to his wife there is no concern that he will reconsider and want to be מערער on this גט‎. Therefore there is no need for him to say בפ"נ. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Why does תוספות ask his question here? It would seem more logical to ask the question later when the גמרא teaches us the דין of הוא עצמו שהביא גיטו‎. 2. Why does תוספות limit his question on the statement מינקט נקיט ליה בידיה וכו', that he will still be מערער, when the question seemingly should be, even if he is not מערער, but we – בי"ד – have to verify that it was written לשמה‎? 3. Why if the בעל claims with definiteness that the גט was written שלא לשמה, do we not believe him; he is a ודאי and we are seemingly a ספק‎?
מאי בינייהו‎—What is the difference between them O VERVIEW The גמרא asks what are the practical differences between רבה who gives the reason for saying בפ"נ, because אין בקיאין לשמה, as opposed to רבא who gives the reason of אין עדים מצויין לקיימו‎. The גמרא offers three differences. תוספות will ask that there are seemingly two additional obvious differences between רבה ורבא that the גמרא does not mention, תוספות will explain why the גמרא does not mention these differences. ------------------------ תוספות anticipates the following questions: לא מצי למימר מוליך איכא בינייהו‎ – The גמרא could not have said that there is a difference between רבה and רבא in regards to one who brings a גט from א"י to חו"ל; according to רבה who says that the reason for saying בפ"נ is because the people of חו"ל are not בקיאין לשמה, then it is understood that if one brings a גט from א"י where the people are בקיאין לשמה there is no need to say בפ"נ, according to רבא however who says the reason for saying בפ"נ is because אין עדים מצויין לקיימו, then it makes no difference if the גט is brought from חו"ל to א"י or vice versa, in all cases there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו, and one would need to say בפ"נ. This seemingly would be a נפק"מ between רבה and רבא‎. תוספות will now explain why the גמרא does not state this נפק"מ: דלרבה נמי לרבנן בתראי מוליך צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם‎ – For the view of רבה is also that according to last רבנן in our משנה in regard to מוליך מא"י לחו"ל one is required to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ, as stated clearly in the משנה. The reason for this is – דגזרינן מוליך אטו מביא – For the חכמים were גוזר that מוליך has to say בפ"נ on account of מביא מחו"ל לא"י. The גזירה is that if we would not require מוליך to say בפ"נ, people would mistakenly conclude that מביא also does not have to say בפ"נ. Therefore both רבה and רבא agree that according to the רבנן בתראי of our משנה, מוליך has to say בפ"נ. There is no difference between רבה ורבא in the case of מוליך according to the רבנן בתראי of our משנה‎. תוספות will now explain why even according to the ת"ק who does not state whether מביא is required to say בפ"נ, the גמרא still does not state specifically that this depends on the מחלוקת between רבה and רבא, even though according to the ת"ק there is a difference by מוליך between רבה ורבא: ולתנא קמא נמי הוי בכלל הא דאמר איכא בינייהו ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל‎ – And even according to the ת"ק also, the גמרא does not say that the difference between רבה ורבא is in a case of מוליך, because this difference that there is between them by מוליך is already included in one of the differences that the גמרא already said, namely there is a difference between רבה ורבא in a case were one brought a גט from a מדינה למדינה in א"י itself. According to רבה there is no need to say בפ"נ because the בני א"י are בקיאין לשמה, and according to רבא there is a requirement to say בפ"נ because אין עדים מצויין לקיימו‎. The exact same מחלוקת, with the same reasoning will be by המביא גט מא"י לחו"ל, therefore there is no need for the גמרא to repeat it. תוספות has another question concerning the נפק"מ between רבה ורבא: והא דלא קאמר גט מקויים איכא בינייהו‎ – And the reason why the גמרא did not say that there is a difference between רבה ורבא in a case where the גט was already מקויים when it was brought ממדה"י; according to רבה, one must say בפ"נ, because אין בקיאין לשמה, however according to רבא there is no need to say בפ"נ, since it is already מקויים‎. תוספות answers that the reason the גמרא did not say this נפק"מ is – משום דהוי בכלל דאתיוה בי תרי דדמי למקויים - because it is already included in another נפק"מ that the גמרא stated, namely when two שלוחים brought the גט ממדה"י. This case of אתיוה בי תרי is similar to the case of מקויים, which תוספות is now discussing. Regarding אתיוהו בי תרי, according to רבה, one must say בפ"נ, because אין בקיאין לשמה, however according to רבא there is no need to say בפ"נ, since these two שלוחים testify that the husband sent them with this גט, the husband will not be able to be מערער that he did not send this גט‎. The same argument that רבה ורבא have concerning אתיוה בי תרי applies to גט מקויים; according to רבה, one must say בפ"נ, because אין בקיאין לשמה, however according to רבא there is no need to say בפ"נ, since the גט is מקויים the husband will not be able to be מערער that he did not send this גט‎. Therefore the גמרא does not say this נפק"מ of גט מקויים, because it is included in the נפק"מ of אתיוה בי תרי‎. S UMMARY The גמרא did not mention מוליך מא"י לחו"ל as an איכא בינייהו, since according to the רבנן בתראי all agree that בפ"נ is required (גזירה מוליך אטו מביא), and according to the ת"ק the א"ב of מוליך is included in the א"ב of ממדינה למדינה בא"י. The גמרא did not either mention the א"ב by a גט מקוים, because it is included in the א"ב of אתיוהו בי תרי‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Why does the גמרא choose the נפק"מ of ממדינה למדינה בא"י, rather than המוליך מא"י לחו"ל‎? 2. Why does תוספות find it necessary to tell us the reason why the רבנן בתראי maintain that מוליך is required to say בפ"נ‎? 3. Why does the גמרא choose the נפק"מ of אתיוה בי תרי as opposed to the נפק"מ of גט מקויים‎? 4. Why does תוספות add the phrase דדמי למקוים at the end of תוספות as opposed to the case of מוליך where תוספות just says דהוי בכלל ממדינה למדינה בא"י‎?
דאתיוה בי תרי‎ — גט That two people brought the O VERVIEW The גמרא states that if two people were שלוחים to bring a גט ממדה"י, according to רבא they are not required to say בפ"נ. Our תוספות will discuss the reason why they are not required to say בפ"נ. ------------------ פירש הקונטרס למאן דאמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו אלו יקיימוהו‎ – רש"י explains that according to the one (רבא) who maintains that the reason we say בפ"נ is because אין עדים מצויין לקיימו, then it is not necessary to say בפ"נ because these two people who brought the גט, and seemingly would be familiar with the witnesses who signed the גט, they will be מקיים the עדי הגט, and since the purpose of saying בפ"נ is to assure us of קיום עדי הגט, in this case בפ"נ is not necessary. תוספות has difficulties with this interpretation. וקשה דאטו בכיפא תלו להו שיהו מזומנין לקיימו כשיבא הבעל ויערער‎ – And it is difficult to understand this interpretation. Are we indeed going to hold these two שלוחים in a cell so that they can be at the ready to be מקיים the גט when the husband will come and contest the validity of this גט‎?! תוספות has an additional question: ועוד דלמה לי דאתיוה בי תרי- And furthermore why is it necessary to present this difference (between רבה and רבא) in a case where two people brought the גט (which may be somewhat unusual) כך שוים שנים מן השוק שמכירין חתימת העדים‎ – It would be the same if there are two people (not שלוחים) from the street that recognize the signatures of the witnesses; in that case there would also be no reason (according to רבא) to say בפ"נ, since these people can be מקיים the עדי הגט. תוספות offers a different explanation of the גמרא: ומפרש רבי יצחק בן אשר דאתיוה בי תרי ואמרי שהבעל שלחם‎ – And the ריב"א explains that two people brought the גט a nd they said that the husband sent them to give this גט to his wife. This is sufficient (according to רבא), for this is tantamount to קיום הגט. דתו לא מהימן לומר לא שלחתים- for the husband will not be believed anymore to say ‘I did not send them’ and the גט is a forgery made up by someone else, since they say that the husband himself sent them. תוספות bolsters his point by quoting the גמרא: דהכי אמר לקמן (דף ה, א) שנים אין צריכין לומר בפני נכתב וכולי‎ – For this is what the גמרא says later, ‘two people who brought a גט ממדה"י are not required to say בפני נכתב, etc. The גמרא gives a reason – ומה אלו יאמרו בפנינו גירשה מי לא מהימני‎ – For what would be if they would say that ‘He divorced his wife in our presence’ would they not be believed! Therefore since these two people have the power to render the woman a divorcee, we believe them as well when they claim that the husband sent them. תוספות will now clarify an anticipated objection: ולהא לא חיישינן שמא החתים במזיד עדים פסולין – However we are not concerned that perhaps the husband intentionally signed on the גט invalid witnesses. תוספות answers that this is of no concern: דמסתמא כיון דשלח לה גט כדין עשאו ואינו חשוד להכשילה‎ – For presumably since he sent her a גט, and this we know from the שלוחים who testify that he sent her a גט, therefore we may assume that he made the גט properly, for he is not suspect to purposely harm her. S UMMARY רש"י states that two שלוחים are not required to say בפ"נ according to רבא, because they themselves could be מקיים the גט‎. תוספות raises two objections; a) How can we be sure that the שלוחים will be here when the בעל is מערער; and b) The גמרא should state that if there are two witnesses in the area who are familiar with the signatures there is no need for בפ"נ. תוספות explains the גמרא to mean that if they are two שלוחים, all that is required of them is to say that the husband sent them, and that would be in place of בפ"נ. תוספות concludes that we are never concerned that the husband will willfully send a גט פסול to harm his wife. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Why does רש"י assume that the שלוחים know the חתימת העדים‎? 2. Why is it necessary for the גמרא to give a reason, that the שלוחים are believed because of a מיגו; they should be believed because they are עדים‎! 3. Why does the second question on רש"י, pose no problem to the ריב"א‎?
ליבעי תרי‎—Let us require two witnesses O VERVIEW The גמרא asks; according to רבה who is concerned that the גט was written שלא לשמה, since the בני חו"ל are not בקיאין לשמה, we should require that two עדים testify that this גט was written לשמה and only then to permit the woman to get married. However we have already learnt in a previous תוספות that there is no real concern of שלא לשמה, only a concern of הוצאת לעז, why does the גמרא require two witnesses. ----------------------- אכתי לא ידע הא דפרישית דלא הוי טעמא אלא משום לעז עד לבסוף: The גמרא did not know at this point (of questioning that we should require two witnesses) that which I previously explained that the reason for saying בפ"נ on account of אין בקיאין לשמה is not that we actually are concerned that the גט was written שלא לשמה, but rather we are concerned only on account of false gossip; the גמרא did not know this until the end of the סוגיא, when the גמרא realizes that there is no real concern of שלא לשמה only of לעז that if the husband will claim that it was not written לשמה people will gossip about this woman and any children she may bear in the future. S UMMARY When the גמרא asks that we should require two עדים, the גמרא thought there is a real חשש of שלא לשמה‎. Only later was it made clear that there is only a חשש of (ערעור and) הוצאת לעז‎. T HINKING IT OVER It seems obvious (as stated in the previous תוספות referenced here) that only after the גמרא concludes רוב בקיאין הן וסתם ספרי גמירי, do we realize that it is only a חשש of לעז; why does תוספות need to reemphasize it?
מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה‎—As is wont to be in all testimony in the Torah O VERVIEW The גמרא contends that we should require two witnesses to confirm that the גט was written לשמה, since that is what is usually required when we need witnesses. The תורה writes: לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת וגו' על פי שני עדים וגו' יקום דבר‎. From the words לכל עון ולכל חטאת we derive that neither a monetary loss, nor a physical punishment can be meted out without the testimony of two עדים‎. Similarly the Torah writes concerning a גט that כי מצא בה ערות דבר‎. We derive from the גזירה שוה דבר דבר, that also by דיני אישות, such as גיטין וקידושין we require two עדים‎. However in other matters of איסור והיתר, like כשרות etc. as will be learnt in the גמרא, one עד is נאמן‎. This is the issue we are discussing here; is this testimony that the גט was written לשמה, similar to those that require two עדים, or those for which one עד suffices. ---------------- בדלי"ת גרסינן‎ – The text should read עדיות with a דלי"ת (referring to testimony), not עריות with a רי"ש. The meaning of כל עדיות is – כגון עדות דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות‎ – For instance the testimony in monetary matters and in capital punishment matters, in both these instances, two witnesses are required to either compel one to pay, or to punish someone convicted of a capital crime. The גמרא contends that the same standard of two עדים should apply to the testimony in this concern of אין בקיאין לשמה, since it too is a testimony. תוספות presents an alternate גירסא: ואית דגרס עריות ברי"ש – And there are those who render the text עריות with a רי"ש, meaning testimony concerning (illicit) marriage relationships, in which two witnesses are (also) required. ולא נהירא דאם כן מאי משני עד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎ – This rendering of the text does not seem correct, for if this reading would be correct ( that we are comparing this שליח הגט to a דבר שבערוה), what does the גמרא answer; that ‘a single witness is to be believed in matters of איסור’, and therefore the שליח is believed as an עד אחד‎. However the גמרא is not addressing the question – והא ערוה נמי איסור הוא‎ – for the laws of ערוה are also laws of איסור, and we require two witnesses, and since this שליח is seemingly testifying concerning a דבר שבערוה which was the contention of the מקשן, we should also require two witnesses. והכי הוה ליה למימר לא דמי לשאר עריות והוה ליה ליתן טעם‎ – And this is the way the גמרא should have responded to the question (that we should require two עדים since it is a דבר שבערוה), that this testimony is not similar to all other cases of עריות and the גמרא should continue and give a reason why this testimony is different than all other עריות, and one עד is sufficient. Had the גמרא answered in this fashion, it may have been acceptable to be גורס אכל עריות‎. However since the גמרא merely answers עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, that shows that the original question did not deem to compare this testimony to עריות, but rather to compare it to testimony in general, which under certain circumstances (specifically דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות), requires two עדים‎. The גמרא answers that since this עדות is only concerning איסור and is not like דיני ממונות and דיני נפשות; therefore for איסור one עד is sufficient. תוספות attempts to justify the גירסא of עריות: ומיהו יש לומר דהכי קאמר עד אחד נאמן באיסורין להתיר‎ – However perhaps one can say that this is what the גמרא meant with its answer that an ע"א is נאמן when there is a concern of איסורין‎ – he is believed to permit the איסור even by a דבר שבערוה‎ – והא דבעי תרי הני מילי לאסור דחד לאו כל כמיניה‎ – And that which is an accepted fact that by a דבר שבערוה, two witnesses are required that was said only in regards to place a prohibition, that is when we require two עדים, because one witness cannot be believed to place a prohibition on a person, who up to this point of testimony was not under this prohibition, therefore we require two עדים to create a איסור; however to remove a suspected איסור, the גמרא says, one עד is sufficient. תוספות presents a question of semantics on this גירסא of כל עריות: אבל הא דקאמר כל עריות לא אתי שפיר דמאי כל – However, that which the גמרא says, according to this גירסא, all עריות, this is not properly worded; f or what is the meaning of the word כל‎ – all. Seemingly the word כל would indicate all עריות that are mentioned in the תורה, but this is not correct, for – עיקר דבר שבערוה אין פחות משנים זהו באשת איש בגיטין ובקידושין‎ – The main rule that a דבר שבערוה requires no less than two עדים this is (only) concerning the ערוה of אשת איש concerning גיטין and קידושין, where we require two עדים that it be a valid גיטין or קידושין וזנות דאשת איש לאוסרה על בעלה‎ – And also establishing the adultery of a married woman requires two עדים, who witnessed the adultery in order to prohibit her from living with her husband. However concerning all other עריות we do not find the requirement of אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים‎. The question therefore remains why does the גמרא say אכל עריות, the גמרא should have said מידי דהוי אאישות or something similar. S UMMARY There are two גירסאות in our גמרא; whether we are comparing this שליח הגט to כל עדיות (as תוספות prefers), or to כל עריות‎. The difficulty with the גירסא כל עריות is, if the גמרא maintained originally that the שליח הגט is comparably with עריות, the proper response should have been that in some way he is different than all עריות, and explain why. The text ע"א נאמן באיסורין is seemingly not appropriate, according to this גירסא, for עריות are also איסורים and (yet) they require two עדים‎. However תוספות concedes that the גמרא means to say that even in עריות if the purpose is to be מתיר an איסור then even an ע"א is believed, as opposed to creating an איסור, where two עדים are required. Nonetheless one problem remains with this גירסא of כל עריות, namely that the word כל (which means literally all types of עריות), is superfluous, for the requirement of two עדים, by עריות is generally limited to the ערוה of אשת איש, and not the remaining עריות‎. T HINKING IT OVER Why according to תוספות גירסא is the word כל, proper. Not all עדיות require two, as seen from ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎?
עד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎—One witness is believed concerning prohibitive acts — O VERVIEW An עד אחד is believed to testify on matters of איסור והיתר‎. He can testify that this piece of meat is כשר and not נבילה, or whether this מקוה has the proper שיעור or not, etc. There is a qualification to this rule. If there is a חזקת איסור, then (it is questionable if) an ע"א is [not] believed to contradict the חזקת איסור‎. Were he to testify regarding a woman, whom we know that she was married, that she is now divorced, we may not accept his testimony. This qualification itself is subsequently qualified. An ע"א can be believed even when he contradicts a חזקת איסור, if he is capable of rectifying and removing the איסור‎. He can say that he was מפריש תרומה from this grain, even though there is a חזקת איסור טבל on it, nevertheless he is believed to say that he was מפריש תרומה since it is בידו to be מפריש תרומה‎. In regards to a שליח הגט who says בפ"נ that it was written לשמה, this seems to be the regular case of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, where there is no איתחזק איסורא‎ – we do not assume the גט was written שלא לשמה, and it is not בידו of the שליח\עד to write the גט לשמה‎. ----------------------- פירוש הקונטרס שהרי האמינה התורה כל אחד ואחד‎ – רש"י explains; where do we see that ע"א נאמן באיסורין for the תורה believes every individual – על הפרשת תרומה ושחיטה וניקור הגיד וחלב‎ – Concerning separating תרומה, ritual slaughtering of an animal, removal of forbidden sinews ( גיד הנשה) and veins, and forbidden fats of an animal. A person, who is invited to a friend’s house to eat, may do so on the say so of the host that the food is kosher, and none of the abovementioned items presents any problem. Even though there are no two witnesses that the host was מפריש תרומה or the meat was נשחט properly etc. We believe the testimony of the single host. This proves that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎. תוספות comments on sרש"י' explanation: ולא היה לו להזכיר הפרשת תרומה ושחיטה דבהנהו נאמן אף על גב דאיתחזק איסורא‎ – However, רש"י should not have mentioned תרומה ושחיטה among the items he listed to prove ע"א נאמן באיסורין, for in these two items he is believed even though there is a חזקת איסור originally on the food. This is highly unusual that an ע"א should be believed when איתחזק איסורא‎. Therefore we must say the reason why an ע"א is נאמן by תרומה ושחיטה even though that it is איתחזק איסורא, is – משום דבידו לתקנם‎ – Because the ע"א has the capability to correct this איסור, by being מפריש תרומה and being שוחט the בהמה‎ – כמו שפירש הקונטרס בסמוך והכי אמר בהאשה רבה (יבמות פח, א) – as רש"י will shortly comment. And similarly this is said in פרק האשה רבה‎. Therefore, this type of ע"א נאמן באיסורין where it is בידו לתקנם has no bearing on our case of the שליח testifying that it was written לשמה, where he does not have any capability at all to change the לשמה status of the גט‎. תוספות challenges his own assumption that שחיטה is בידו לתקן: ושחיטה אף על גב דהשתא אין בידו לתקנו‎ – and concerning שחיטה, which תוספות claimed that רש"י should not have included it since it is בידו, תוספות asks, even though that presently, when he is serving the meat, he is no longer capable to correct the problem of נבילה, so why is he נאמן, since it is איתחזק איסורא‎? תוספות answers, that nevertheless since – מעיקרא היה בידו לשחוט‎ – Originally he was capable of שחיטה (either by himself or arranging for someone else to be שוחט), that is sufficient to be considered בידו לתקנו‎. תוספות offers proof for his contention – דאם לא כן אמאי מהימן כיון דאיתחזק איסורא‎ – For if you will not agree that this is considered בידו, but rather insist that it must be בידו now, then why indeed is anyone solely believed that this is בשר שחוטה, since it was איתחזק איסורא. One cannot say that indeed the only way that one is permitted to eat meat is only if two people will testify that it was נשחט properly – דלא מצינו בשום מקום שיצטרך בגדול אחד עומד על גביו‎ – For we do not find it mentioned anywhere that there is a requirement that another adult should be standing together with the שוחט, so that we can have two witnesses testifying that it is בשר שחוטה‎. Therefore that proves that we do not require that it be בידו now, rather it is sufficient that originally it was בידו‎. תוספות continues to prove his point, indicating a possible rebuttal to this logic: One may challenge תוספות proof by saying that the נאמנות of בידו is only if it is בידו now, and not if it was only previously בידו, and the reason why we may eat on the testimony of the שוחט, is because there is a רוב (a ‘majority) that tells us it was נשחט properly, namely that the רוב people that are שוחט are competent שוחטים‎. Therefore it has nothing to do with the נאמנות of an ע"א, but rather on account of רוב‎. תוספות responds that this is not so, for there is a נאמנות of an ע"א by שחיטה even when we cannot utilize this רוב‎ – ומעשים בכל יום דמהימן‎ – And it is an everyday occurrence that the שוחט alone is believed (on account that it was previously בידו). ואף על גב דלא שייך רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן‎ – Even in a situation where this rule that ‘most people who frequent at places of שחיטה are competent שוחטים’ does not apply – כגון שנחתך כל הראש ואין בית השחיטה ניכר‎ – If for instance the entire head was cut off and the place of שחיטה cannot be discerned, nevertheless if someone claims that he was שוחט it properly, he is believed. In this case we cannot say that the reason he is believed is because רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן; for we do not know that this animal was נשחט, since its head was severed and we cannot tell if it was נשחט or not. This proves that the only נאמנות is because he is an ע"א, and regardless that there was a חזקת איסור מחיים on this animal nevertheless he is now נאמן to say that it was נשחט properly, since previously it was בידו that he could be שוחט the animal properly. תוספות asks an additional question: ומה שאנו סומכין על הנשים בשחיטה אף על פי שאין יודעות הלכות שחיטה‎ – And the reason why we depend on women concerning שחיטה, i.e. if a woman serves meat we trust her that it is בשר שחוטה, even though they do not know the laws of שחיטה, therefore seemingly it is not בידה, not now and not previously, for they do not know how to be שוחט‎. The question is how can we depend on them, for they are only an ע"א, and it is איתחזק איסורא‎? תוספות replies: כיון שבידה ללמוד לשחוט או להשכיר אחרים שישחטו לה כבידה דמי‎ – Since she is capable of learning how to be שוחט (the שחיטה of a woman is a שחיטה כשרה) or she is capable of hiring others (valid שוחטים) that they do the שחיטה for her, this is considered as if it is בידה‎. It is not necessary that the persons themselves do the שחיטה‎. If, for instance, (s)he can see to it that the food is prepared in a כשר manner it is considered בידו‎. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומנלן דעד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎ – And if you will say; from where do we derive this דין that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎. We have proof that ע"א נאמן באיסורין from ניקור הגיד וחלב, however what is the source מן התורה that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דגמרינן מנדה דדרשינן בפרק המדיר (כתובות עב, א) וספרה לה לעצמה‎ – And one can say; that we derive it from הלכות נדה, for we have a דרשה in פרק המדיר that when the תורה states, concerning a זבה; ‘and she shall count for her (self)’ the דרשה of the word לה is to be understood, that she may count it by herself, and she will be believed to say that the required seven days have passed and she was טובלת and is טהורה‎. We see that we believe an ע"א, that she is טהורה‎. תוספות poses a question: ואם תאמר אם כן אפילו איתחזק איסורא‎ – And if you will say; if we are deriving the דין of ע"א נאמן באיסורין from נדה, then an ע"א should be believed even in a case where it is איתחזק איסורא‎. When the אשה sees דם she becomes a נדה (or זבה), and is בחזקת איסור, and nevertheless she is believed to say that she is טהורה against a חזקת איסור‎. תוספות responds: ויש לומר דאינה בחזקת שתהא רואה כל שעה‎ – And one can say; that there is no חזקה by this woman that she will continually see דם, on the contrary, she will see דם naturally only for a limited period and then cease seeing דם‎ – וכשעברה שבעה טהורה ממילא ולא איתחזק איסורא‎ – And once the seven days pass and she is not seeing דם, as is the natural state of affairs, that דם נדה does not last seven days, she becomes טהורה automatically and therefore there is no real חזקת איסור, as opposed to טבל for instance, where the איסור טבל will not go away on its own, only if you are מפריש תרו"מ, here however the איסור will automatically disappear in the allotted time when she will not see דם‎. Therefore when she says that her seven days of נדה have passed, she is not testifying against any חזקת איסור, for we expect the seven days to pass at one point or another; she is merely informing us that the time is now. There is still a question remaining: After the seven days passed she is still בחזקת איסור נדה, since she was not טובלת‎. How can we believe her that she is completelyטהורה, against this חזקת איסור‎?! To which תוספות responds in his conclusion: וגם בידה לטבול‎ – And concerning the completion of her טהרה‎ – she is certainly capable of being טובלת in a מקוה, and as was stated earlier, that when it is בידו, then an ע"א is believed even against a חזקת איסור‎. S UMMARY The proof that ע"א נאמן באיסורין, in a situation similar to a שליח הגט who is testifying that it was written לשמה, can be derived from the fact that people are נאמן on ניקור הגיד and חלב‎. For in those two instances there is no חזקת איסור on this meat that it is either גיד הנשה or חלב‎. The fact that people are believed for הפרשת תרומה and שחיטה is irrelevant to our discussion here, since in both those cases there is a חזקת איסור, and the reason the ע"א is נאמן, is only because it is בידו‎. This cannot apply to our case of שליח הגט, where it is definitely not בידו to write the גט לשמה‎. The נאמנות of בידו is not limited to a situation where it is only presently בידו; it applies even if it was בידו in the past. This explains why people are נאמן to state that this meat is שחוטה, since in the past they were capable of either themselves being שוחט the animal properly or hiring others to be שוחט properly. We derive the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, from the פסוק concerning a [זבה] (נדה), which says וספרה לה, that the woman can count by herself and tell us when she is a טהורה, we see from here that even one person is believed to testify that there is no איסור‎. We cannot assume that since by a נדה she was בחזקת איסור once she saw דם, therefore the fact that she is believed to say she is a טהורה, proves that an ע"א is נאמן even against a חזקת איסור‎. This is incorrect for the חזקת איסור by a נדה is a חזקה that will automatically become nullified as soon as she ceases to see דם, which is the natural state of affairs, therefore her testimony that she is no longer seeing דם, is not contradicting any חזקה; and we subsequently believe her that she was טובל, even though she is still בחזקת איסור נדה (even after seven days), because in regards to טבילה, it is obviously בידה‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Why is בידו believed even if איתחזק איסורא‎? Is it because בידו removes the איתחזק איסורא, or because בידו is a special נאמנות‎? 2. How shall we explain the difference between the בידו of a שוחט in the past, to the בידה of a woman concerning שחיטה‎? 3. How can we derive ע"א נאמן באיסורין from נדה, perhaps by נדה she is believed because it is הפה שאסר הפה שהתיר (she had the option of not informing anyone that she is a נדה)?
עד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎—One witness is believed concerning prohibitive acts — O VERVIEW The גמרא originally asked that two עדים should be required to testify that the גט was written לשמה as is the case whenever witnesses are required. One may assume that this מקשן maintained that here by גט we also require two עדים, since it is a דבר שבערוה, one of the categories where two עדים are required. The subsequent answer that since ע"א נאמן באיסורין, therefore the שליח alone is believed, may leave us perplexed. We are discussing a גט, which is a דבר שבערוה, how can the גמרא compare this to איסור‎. Our תוספות discusses this issue. ------------------ תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו תם מה תשובה היא זאת‎ – The ר"ת has a difficulty; what is this answer that the גמרא gave; that the שליח is נאמן, because ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎. This seemingly does not address the question at all. We cannot use the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, in this case. This is not a case of איסור והיתר; this is a case of עריות, which requires two עדים‎. To prove that this is not a case of איסור והיתר where one עד is נאמן; תוספות continues – עיקר הגט יוכיח שצריך לחותמו בשנים‎ – The main execution of this very same גט will prove that this is not a case of איסור והיתר, for it is necessary that the גט be signed by two witnesses. If it were merely איסור והיתר, we would not require two עדים‎. We require two עדים because by a גט we are dealing with a דבר שבערוה; therefore how did the גמרא state that this is merely a matter of איסור and the שליח alone is נאמן on the כשרות of this גט‎?! תוספות answers: ותירץ דהכי קאמר דעד אחד נאמן באיסורין בכהאי גוונא‎ – And the ר"ת answered; this is what the גמרא is saying: that an ע"א is נאמן by איסורין even by a דבר שבערוה, provided that it is in such a manner – שעיקר הגט נעשה כבר ושוב אין צריך אלא גילוי מילתא לידע אם לשמה נכתב: Where the main execution of the גט was already completed properly with two עדים, as is required for a דבר שבערוה and subsequently all that is required is merely information to notify us whether it was written לשמה‎. S UMMARY The תרצן who explains that the reason why one שליח alone is נאמן to testify that the גט was written לשמה, is on account of the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין; it is his contention that merely testifying on the status of a גט, that it was properly drawn up, this testimony is not to be considered as a דבר שבערוה‎. Rather this should be considered as all other testimonies of איסור והיתר, where one עד is sufficient. It is only when creating a גט originally that the rules of דבר שבערוה apply, necessitating two witnesses to sign the גט, but not however to merely testifying as to its validity. T HINKING IT OVER 1. How should we understand תוספות question as opposed to his answer? 2. Is a דבר שבערוה considered איסורין‎?
הוי דבר שבערוה‎—It is a matter concerning illicit relationships O VERVIEW The גמרא states that we cannot use the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, to allow one עד to be believed that the גט was written לשמה, because an ע"א is נאמן when לא איתחזק איסורא; here however ‘since it was איתחזק איסורא דאשת איש (therefore), it is a דבר שבערוה etc’. Once the גמרא says that an ע"א is not נאמן by regular איסורין (even if it is not a דבר שבערוה) if it is איתחזק איסורא, all the גמרא needed to say was that here there is a חזקת איסור, without adding that it is a דבר שבערוה (in which case seemingly the ע"א will not be believed even if לא איתחזק איסורא). Our תוספות discusses this issue. -------------------------- תוספות anticipates the following question: הא דנקט דבר שבערוה‎ – The reason the גמרא specifies that we are discussing a דבר שבערוה, when seemingly it would have been sufficient to state only what the גמרא said initially, namely that in this case of אמירת בפ"נ it is איתחזק איסורא, for we wish to change her present marital status, and as the גמרא began saying that we only know that an ע"א is נאמן when לא איתחזק איסורא‎. Why therefore did the גמרא find it necessary to strengthen its question by claiming that in addition to איתחזק איסורא, it is also a דבר שבערוה‎? תוספות responds: אומר רבינו יצחק משום דבהאשה רבה (יבמות דף פח, א) – The ר"י says, because in פרק האשה רבה‎ – the גמרא there when discussing – בשאר איסורי כגון טבל והקדש וקונמות‎ – various איסורים, for instance טבל and הקדש and vows, where there is (a possibility of) איתחזק איסורא; the גמרא there – מספקא ליה אי מהימן אפילו איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו או לא‎ – is unsure whether an ע"א would be believed even in a case of איתחזק איסורא, and it was not בידו to remove the איסור; or he would not be believed. Therefore the גמרא could not have said here merely that it is איתחזק איסורא, because it may be that even by איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו an ע"א is still נאמן, therefore the גמרא added that it is also a דבר שבערוה, and in such a case where it is (איתחזק איסורא and) a דבר שבערוה, everyone agrees that an ע"א is not נאמן‎. תוספות questions the view that an ע"א will be נאמן by איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו: ואם תאמר אי עד אחד נאמן בשאר איסורין אפילו איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו‎ – And if you will say; if an ע"א is נאמן by other איסורין, even in cases where it is איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו‎ – אמאי איצטריך וספרה לה לעצמה- Why do we need the תורה to write the פסוק וספרה לה, from which we derive from the word לה, that she is believed to count by herself? We already know, according to this view, that even by איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו an ע"א is נאמן, so seemingly certainly in this case of וספרה לה by a נדה\זבה, which תוספות already explained previously that it is not איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידה, she will surely be believed. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דסלקא דעתין דחשיב כמו דבר שבערוה: And one can say; that we may think that the case of a נדה declaring that she is טהורה, is considered like a דבר שבערוה, and therefore even though an ע"א may be נאמן by איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו, that does not prove that he will be נאמן even by a דבר שבערוה, therefore we need the פסוק וספרה לה, according to this view, to teach us that נדה is not a דבר שבערוה, and therefore she is נאמנת‎. S UMMARY The גמרא in יבמות did not decide if an ע"א is נאמן in cases of איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו, therefore our גמרא, needed to add that in our case of בפ"נ, not only is it איתחזק איסורא, but it is also a דבר שבערוה, and everyone agrees that an ע"א is not נאמן by a דבר שבערוה ואיתחזק איסורא‎. Even according to the viewpoint that an ע"א is נאמן even if איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו, it still would not be proof that a נדה is believed that she is already טהורה, for we may consider this איסור נדה as a דבר שבערוה, which requires two עדים‎. The פסוק וספרה לה teaches us that she is נאמן, for this is not considered a דבר שבערוה‎. T HINKING IT OVER 1. Are we to understand the גמרא to be asking one question: דאיתחזק איסורא דאשת איש והוי דברי שבערוה, or two questions: a) איתחזק איסורא and b) דבר שבערוה‎? 2. What can we infer from this תוספות as to the דין in a case of a דבר שבערוה ולא איתחזק איסורא, according to תוספות‎? 3. Why should or should not a נדה be considered a דבר שבערוה‎? 4. תוספות explains that if not for וספרה לה we might assume that a נדה is a דבר שבערוה and therefore she will not be believed. However, since a נדה is not איתחזק איסורא, and תוספות is assuming here that only by איתחזק איסורא and דבר שבערוה an ע"א is not believed, but not by a דבר שבערוה where it is not איתחזק איסורא, why should I think that a נדה will not be believed?!
סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי‎—Generally the scribes of the judges are knowledgeable O VERVIEW The גמרא said that even according to רבי מאיר who is concerned about the minority, nevertheless we are not concerned that the גט was written שלא לשמה since (רוב בקיאין הן and also) סתם ספרי גמירי‎. However, seemingly all it does is to make it a smaller מיעוט, but a מיעוט nonetheless. ר"מ does not distinguish between the sizes of the מיעוט for which he is חושש, so what have we accomplished by minimizing the מיעוט‎? ----------------------- תוספות explains: והוי כמו מיעוטא דמיעוטא‎ – And the concern that a גט was written שלא לשמה is like a minority within a minority, since a majority of all people are aware that a גט must be written לשמה, therefore it is only a minority that are not aware, and this member of the minority, when he will go to a סופר to write the גט, he (the סופר) will presumably be aware of the לשמה requirement, therefore there is only a slight probability that this person who is not aware of לשמה will happen to find a discarded גט that a סופר wrote להתלמד (or he will happen to go to a סופר who also is not aware of לשמה); this is extremely unlikely – דלא חיישינן אפיו לרבי מאיר‎ – Therefore even ר"מ, who is concerned about a minority possibility, but such a distant possibility of a מיעוטא דמיעוטא, even ר"מ is not concerned at all about it. S UMMARY When a חשש is limited to a case where two minorities have to coincide, even ר"מ, who in general is חושש למיעוטא, in such a case he is not חושש‎. T HINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות refer to our situation as: " כמו מיעוטא דמיעוטא"?
ורבנן הוא דאצרוך‎—And it is only the רבנן who require O VERVIEW The גמרא concluded that there is no real חשש that the גט was written שלא לשמה, since רוב בקיאין and סתם ספרי דדייני גמירי; the reason why we say בפ"נ on account of לשמה is because ורבנן הוא דאצרוך‎. The גמרא however does not explain why the רבנן required that the שליח say בפ"נ. תוספות will quote sרש"י' explanation, refute it, and then state his own explanation. Concerning a גט (as well as other שטרות), there is an argument between רבי מאיר and רבי אלעזר, what validates the גט; is it the עדי חתימה, the witnesses that sign on the גט, or is it the עדי מסירה, the witnesses that observe the handing over of the גט from the husband to the wife. ר"מ is of the opinion that עדי חתימה כרתי, and it is necessary to have witnesses sign the גט‎. Therefore since the validity of the גט is based on their signature, we accept only the testimony as is apparent from the document which they signed. If the document which they signed is ambiguous, it is not a valid document. ר"א who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי, does not require that witnesses sign the document, it is sufficient that they observe the transfer of the document. He is of the opinion that as long as the עדים can testify and clear up any ambiguity in the גט, then that is sufficient to render it a valid גט‎. -------------------- פירש בקונטרס משום דאיכא דאשכח כתוב ועומד‎ – רש"י explained; why indeed did the רבנן require saying בפ"נ, because there is a possibility that this person who is not בקי לשמה found a written גט, that he thinks he can use – כגון שנכתב לשם אחד מבני עירו ששמו כשמו ונמלך מלגרש‎ – For instance; the גט was written for another one who lived in the same city, whose name and wife’s name are the same as the finder’s name and the finder’s wife’s name and he (the original מגרש, for whom the גט was written) decided not to divorce his wife. Therefore he discarded the גט, and this other person (who is not בקי לשמה) happened to find it and sent it with the שליח to his wife. The רבנן were concerned perhaps this is what happened to this גט that is coming to us from מדה"י, therefore they instituted that the שליח say בפ"נ, to remove even this remote possibility. תוספות questions this interpretation: וקשה‎ – And it is difficult to understand this interpretation, for if בי"ד is not aware of two people (and their wives) with identical names (in the city where the גט was written), then we are not concerned that perhaps there are two people with identical names, and there is no reason to say בפ"נ. If בי"ד is aware of two such people with identical names then בפ"נ will not accomplish anything – דבהוחזק שני יוסף בן שמעון אפילו נכתב לשמו פסול לגרש בו לרבי מאיר‎ – For when it is established that there are two people named יוסף בן שמעון (i.e. two married couples who have identical names) in one city, even if it was written לשמו it is פסול for גירושין according to ר"מ – כדאמרינן בריש כל הגט (לקמן כד, ב) כתב לגרש בו את הגדולה לא יגרש בו את הקטנה‎ – As we say in a משנה in the beginning of פרק כל הגט in a case where a person had two wives with identical names if he wrote a גט with the intent of divorcing the older wife, and subsequently changed his mind before giving her the גט, he should not divorce the younger wife with this גט, because it was not written לשמה for the younger wife. וקאמר בגמרא קטנה הוא דלא מצי מגרש הא גדולה מגרש‎ – And the גמרא comments and infers from the משנה, which limits the prohibition of using this גט (only) to the younger wife; ‘ he cannot divorce the younger wife with this גט‎. The משנה explicitly states: לא יגרש בו את הקטנה, from which we may infer but he may divorce the older wife with this גט‎. The difficulty with using this גט even with the intended older wife, is, than when we read this גט we do not know who is the intended recipient; the older or the younger wife, since they have the same names. In order to resolve this difficulty – מוקי לה כרבי אלעזר‎ – We establish that this משנה is following the view of ר' אלעזר, who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי‎. The witnesses that validate a גט are (not the witnesses that sign on the גט, but rather) those that actually witness the giving of the גט from the husband to the wife. These witnesses definitely know and can testify who is being divorced, for they see the handing over of the גט from the husband to the wife. However that משנה‎ – ולא כרבי מאיר‎ – cannot follow the ruling of ר"מ, who maintains עדי חתימה כרתי, that (only) the witnesses that sign on the גט, they validate the גט‎. The reason why that משנה cannot follow the ruling of ר"מ, is because since עדי חתימה כרתי, therefore – דבעינן שיהא מוכיח מתוך עדי חתימה הי מינייהו מגרשה‎ – It is required that it be apparent from the document which the עדי חתימה signed which of the two he is divorcing. Their signed testimony does not enlighten us in this regard, for we do not know, by looking at the document they signed, which of the two wives they are referring to, since their names are identical. We derive from this that according to ר"מ it must be apparent from the גט, whom we are divorcing. Therefore if there are two people in a city that they and there wives respectively, have identical names, then neither can divorce their own wife. Therefore we cannot explain our משנה, according to ר"מ. For if it was not הוחזק שני יב"ש, then we are not חושש, and if it was הוחזק שני יב"ש, then saying בפ"נ is meaningless because according to ר"מ, he cannot divorce his wife. Seemingly this question of תוספות can be answered, that this משנה does not follow the opinion of ר"מ, but rather of ר"א, as the גמרא says concerning the abovementioned משנה in כל הגט‎. תוספות responds and concludes his question on רש"י – ובסמוך בעי לאוקומי מתניתין כרבי מאיר‎ – And shortly the גמרא wants to establish that our משנה follows the opinion of ר"מ. How can the גמרא suggest that the משנה follows the ruling of ר"מ, when according to ר"מ, there is no point in saying בפ"נ, according to רבה‎. Either it was not הוחזק שני יב"ש, then there is no חשש of שלא לשמה, or if הוחזק שני יב"ש, then indeed they cannot divorce their wives and בפ"נ will certainly not accomplish anything. תוספות is not yet satisfied with his refutation of רש"י, for we can say that our משנה is following the opinion to ר"א who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי, and as to the fact that the גמרא wanted to establish our משנה according to ר"מ, in truth the גמרא could have refuted this suggestion, in the manner that תוספות proposed, however the גמרא found a different method of refuting this suggestion which was more pertinent to the issue being discussed there. Therefore תוספות concludes – ואפילו לרבי אלעזר‎ – and even if you will establish the משנה according to ר"א, who maintains עדי מסירה כרתי, as in the case of the other משנה in פרק כל הגט, where he may use the גט to divorce the intended wife; nevertheless in our case it would not be a valid גט, because – צריך עדי מסירה שידעו שעשאו הבעל שליח וליכא‎ – We require that there be עדי מסירה who know that the husband made a שליח to deliver the גט, and there are no עדי מסירה that can testify that the husband of this wife actually made this individual for a שליח‎. In the case of כתב לגרש בו את הגדולה, where the husband and wife are both before us, and the עדי מסירה see the husband giving the גט to the (older) wife, then we have proper עדי מסירה that know the man and the woman and the מעשה הגירושין‎. Here when a שליח brings a גט that states that יב"ש is divorcing his wife (if it was הוחזק שני יב"ש), the עדי מסירה do not know which יב"ש it is. Therefore it cannot be a valid גירושין‎. תוספות therefore rejects sרש"י' interpretation why the רבנן required the שליח to say בפ"נ on account of לשמה‎. תוספות will now offer his interpretation as to the meaning of ורבנן הוא דאצרוך: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהא דאצרוך רבנן הכא היינו כדי שלא יערער הבעל‎ – And the ר"י says; the reason the רבנן required here the saying of בפ"נ it is in order that the husband should not contest the גט‎ – ויאמר שכתבו הסופר כדי להתלמד‎ – saying that the סופר wrote this גט for practice, and he wrote this couple’s name on the גט‎. The husband did not instruct the סופר to write the גט, thereby rendering this גט שלא לשמה‎. The סופר then discarded this גט and the husband found it – והוא החתים עליו עדים שהוא לא היה בקי לשמה: And then the husband found witnesses to sign this גט, and it is totally שלא לשמה, for he (the husband) is not בקי in the requirement of לשמה, therefore he did not realize that a (found) גט that was written for practice is invalid. Therefore the רבנן require that the שליח testify בפ"נ ובפ"נ that it was done לשמה and the husband will not be able to claim that he found this גט already written. S UMMARY According to רש"י the reason the רבנן require saying בפ"נ, is because we are concerned that an individual who is not בקי לשמה, may find a גט that was written (and signed) for another person who has the same name(s) as the finder and his wife have, and he will use it to divorce his wife. תוספות rejects this interpretation; for this concern of two יב"ש is only when it is הוחזק שני יב"ש, and in that case, the דין is according to ר"מ that they cannot divorce their (own) wives, since it is not מוכח from the גט who is divorcing whom. Even according to ר"א who maintains that they can divorce their wives, however in our case where the husband is not present, the עדי מסירה cannot testify as to whom the husband is, and therefore it will not be a valid גט‎. There is no purpose therefore in this תקנה of saying בפ"נ. תוספות opinion is that we are concerned that the husband will claim that he is not בקי לשמה, and he found a גט that the סופר wrote for practice and ‘happened’ to write this husband’s, etc. name on it, and subsequently the husband had witnesses sign this גט‎. Now he became aware of his ‘mistake’ and therefore he is contesting this גט‎. To avoid such incidents, the חכמים instituted that the שליח say בפ"נ, to insure that no one claims ‘I happened to find a גט’. T HINKING IT OVER 1. What are the similarities and differences between the scenarios of רש"י and תוספות concerning ורבנן הוא דאצרוך‎? 2. Why does תוספות say that we are concerned that the בעל will claim etc.; why cannot תוספות say that we are concerned that he actually found a גט להתלמד etc.? 3. Why did not תוספות say that we are concerned that the husband will claim that both he and the one who wrote the גט were אין בקיאין לשמה‎?
