הא מקמי דאתו חברי לבבל—This is before the חברי came to בבל

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that before the חברי came to בבל, the פרסאי were better (to the Jews) than the ארומאי; however after the חברי came to בבל, then the פרסאי were worse than the ארומאי. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to who these חברי are, and when they came to בבל.

פירש בקונטרס¹ חברי היינו פרסיים – רש"י explained that חברי are Persians – ומקמי דאתו חברי לבבל היינו בימי כשדים נבוכדנצר ואויל מרודך ובלשצר – And when the גמרא states ‘before the חברי came to בבל’, that is in the days of the כשדים rulers, namely נבוכדנצר, אויל מרודך and בלשצר. When the גמרא states – ובתר דאתו היינו כשכבש כורש את המלכות ומלך בבבל – ‘And after the חברי came’, this is when כורש conquered the Babylonian kingdom and ruled in בבל as well as in Persia.² תוספות disagrees with פירש"י: וקשה לרבינו תם דעל כרחך חברים לאו היינו פרסיים – And the ר"ת has a difficulty with פירש"י;³ for perforce we must say**** that the חברים are not פרסיים – דאמר בפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין דף עב,ב) – Since the גמרא states in פרק עשרה יוחסין that רב said to לוי – הראני פרסיים דומין לחיילות של בית דוד הראני חברים דומין למלאכי חבלה – ‘Show me פרסיים’;⁴ לוי responded, they are similar to the soldiers of the house of דוד. ‘Show me חברים’; they are similar to the destructive angels. It is evident from that גמרא that חברים and פרסיים are different peoples.⁵ תוספות has an additional question on פרש"י that the חברי came to בבל in the time of כורש: ועוד דבפרק הבא על יבמתו (יבמות דף סג,ב) משמע דבימי רבי יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל – And there is an additional difficulty with פירש"י for in פרק הבא על יבמתו it seems that the חברי came to בבל during the time of ר"י – דאמרו ליה לרבי יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל שגא נפל⁶ – For when they told ר"י that the חברי came to בבל, he bent over and fell; indicating that the חברי came to בבל in the times of ר"י, and not during the reign of כורש, which was hundreds of years earlier.**** תוספות offers his interpretation regarding the חברי: ואומר רבינו יצחק דחברים הם אומה אחת שבאה בימי רבי יוחנן – And the ר"י maintains that the חברים are a distinct nation⁷ that came to בבל in the time of ר"י – וכשבאה לבבל הרשיעה את הפרסיים שהיו בבבל⁸ ואתקלקלו טפי מארומאי – And when the חברים came to בבל it caused the פרסיים who were in בבל to become more wicked, and the פרסיים became more degenerate that the ארומאי. תוספות asks (on פירש"י): ואם תאמר למאי דפירש בקונטרס דמימי כורש באו פרסיים לבבל – And if you will say; according to פירש"י the פרסיים came to בבל during the time of כורש – ובהגוזל בתרא (בבא קמא קיז,א) אמרינן דאמר ליה רב לרב כהנא⁹ – However in פרק הגוזל בתרא the גמרא states that רב said to רב כהנא – עד האידנא הוה מלכותא דיוונאי דלא קפדי אשפיכות דמים¹⁰ – ‘Up until now the kingdom of יון was here in בבל, who are not concerned regarding bloodshed – השתא פרסיים נינהו וקפדי אשפיכות דמים¹¹ משמע דבימי רב אתו פרסיים לבבל – However, now the פרסיים are the rulers and they are particular about bloodshed’. This seemingly indicates that the פרסיים came to בבל during the time of רב and not during the time of כורש (which was centuries before). תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהתם הכי פירושא עד האידנא הוה מלכותא דיוונאי – And the ר"י answers that the explanation of the גמרא there is that until now there was the kingdom of יון, meaning – שמושלים של בבל היו מיוונים ועכשיו המושלים הם פרסיים – That the rulers of בבל were from the יוונים, but now (during the time of רב) the פרסיים are the rulers – אבל לעולם פרסיים היו שם מימות כורש: However, in fact the פרסיים were there in בבל from the days of כורש (however they were not (always) the rulers, until the time of רב ורב כהנא).

SUMMARY The חברי were a nation which came to בבל during the time of ר"י and caused the Persians there to degenerate. The Persians came to בבל during the reign of כורש.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks on רש"י who maintains that חברי are פרסיים.¹² However, seemingly it appears that way from the גמרא as well, for initially it states the חברא came, and then the גמרא asks from פרסאה. Why did not תוספות ask his question directly on the גמרא?!¹³
2. According to תוספות that חברי and פרסיים are two distinct peoples,¹⁴ why is it that when the חברא took away the candle (and רבה בב"ח said או וכו' דבר עשו), the גמרא asked למימרא דארומאי מעלו מפרסאי; what connection do the פרסאי have here if it was the חברא that removed the candle.¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ ד"ה חברא and ד"ה הא and ד"ה לבתר. ² פרס and בבל are the forerunners of modern day Iran and Iraq respectively. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ לוי had an ability to characterize and describe people and events (see רש"י there ד"ה הראני). ⁵ See רש"י there in קדושין ד"ה חברין who states; אומה הסמוכה לפרסיים ומשחיתים הם וטרפנים הם יותר מפרסיים. ⁶ See רש"י there ד"ה נפל who states:מרוב צער שהיו בני הישיבה מסורים בידם . ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁸ The פרסיים may have indeed come to בבל during the reign of כורש (but not the חברי) See later this תוספות. ⁹ The story there was that someone threatened to be מוסר ממון ישראל to a גוי and רב warned him not to do so, and the מסור persisted that he would do it, so רב כהנא killed the מסור (which is permitted ע"פ דין). ¹⁰ They will not bother you (רב כהנא) even if they find out that you killed this מסור. ¹¹ רב כהנא had to run away to א"י (where he learnt by ר"י). ¹² See footnote # 3. ¹³ See מהרש"א (הארוך) and מהר"ם שי"ף. ¹⁴ See footnote # 7. ¹⁵ See נח"מ.

אחד¹ אומר בפני נכתב וב' אומרים בפנינו נחתם כשר—One said it was written in my presence and two said it was signed in our presence; it is כשר

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that if one said בפנ"כ and two stated בפנ"ח, it is a גט כשר according to everyone. תוספות explains that it can be כשר even without the בפנ"כ.

לרבא² אפילו ליכא מעיד על הכתיבה כשר³ – According to רבא even if no one testifies regarding the writing of the גט (that it was done in his presence), it is כשר – ולא נקט אחד אומר בפני נכתב אלא אגב רישא דתני אחד: And the משנה only mentions אחד אומר בפנ"כ (which is superfluous according to רבא), only on account of the רישא where it states אחד אומר בפנ"ח וב' אומרים בפנ"כ, where it is כשר according to ר"י only if one says בפנ"ח.

SUMMARY According to רבא if ב' אומרים בפנ"ח it is כשר even without a בפנ"כ.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Seemingly תוספות could have said that according to רבא, they need not say (even) בפנ"ח, all they need to say is either הבעל שלחנו or we recognize the חתימות!⁴
2. According to רבה, is the בפנ"כ necessary (and why), and who is/are the שליח of this גט; is it the שליח of בפנ"כ or the שלוחים/שליח of בפנ"ח?⁵

footnotes: ¹ The marginal note indicates that this תוספות is actually referencing the משנה on טו,א. ² רבא maintains that the חכמים instituted that the שליח הגט say בפנו"נ to assure the authenticity of the גט. ³ There is no need to say בפנ"כ at all if two עדים authenticate the signatures. The חכמים (according to רבא) instituted to say בפנ"ח to authenticate the signature (with even one שליח) and בפנ"כ is necessary so that לא אתי לאיחלופי; however if two עדים are מקיים the גט, this is all that is required (there is no concern of לשמה according to רבא). ⁴ See בית יהודה. ⁵ See בל"י אות שעט.

אמר ליה רבי אסי אלא מעתה רישא דקתני—רב אסי said to him; so now the רישא which states

OVERVIEW רב אמי אמר ר"י made two opposite statements regarding the case of א' אומר בפנ"כ וב' אומרים בפנ"ח, resulting in two different inferences regarding whether ב' שהביאו גט have to say בפנו"נ or not. רב אסי responded to both statements (respectively) asking what would be the position of the רבנן if the גט was (or was not) יוצא מתח"י שניהם. Our תוספות explains what רב אסי meant to ask.

The question of רב אסי wasn’t on the view of the רבנן (when are they פוסל or when are they מכשיר),² but rather his question was (according to each respective inference) what would be the basis of the argument between ר"י ורבנן (in each respective inference), as תוספות previously explained. However the גמרא did not explicitly say this, because it was reluctant to elaborate and specify the question since it was already mentioned in the previous סוגיא.

SUMMARY רב אסי (really) asked the same question as אביי, which is במאי פליגי.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות compares the two questions of ר"א to the two questions of אביי on טו,ב. However regarding אביי there were two separate לשונות, so we can say (as תוספות argues) that each לשון felt that the argument between ר"י ורבנן is better understood if we assume the opposite inference. However, here it is the same ר"א, asking each time that we should assume that the other inference is better; he cannot have it both ways!³

footnotes: ¹ דף טז,ב ד"ה הא. Review that תוספות for a better understanding of the ‘Thinking it over’ question. ² This cannot be the question, for if we assume each inference then obviously the רבנן will be מכשיר or פוסל accordingly; what is the meaning of אלא מעתה, which seems to indicate that if we assume this inference there will be a difficulty. ³ See מהרש"א הארוך and נח"מ.

נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול—It was written by day and signed by night; it is פסול

OVERVIEW The גמרא will shortly cite a dispute between ר"י ור"ל why the חכמים instituted that a גט should be properly dated. ר"י says because שמא יחפה על בת אחותו¹ while ר"ל maintains that it is because of פירות.² Our תוספות explains that similar concerns apply to a גט which was נכתב ביום and נחתם בלילה.

לרבי יוחנן משום שמא יחפה על בת אחותו³ – According to ר"י it is פסול because he may cover up for his sister’s daughter – ולריש לקיש משום פירי דסבורין הדיינים שביום הכתיבה נחתם – And according to ר"ל this גט is פסול because of ‘fruits’; for the judges will assume that it was signed on the day it was written – ותטרוף האשה מלקוחות שלא כדין פירות שמשעת כתיבה עד שעת חתימה:⁴ And so the woman will collect from the buyers illegally the fruits from the time of the writing of the גט till the time of the signing of the גט.

SUMMARY נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה is פסול because of שמה יחפה (according to ר"י) or פירי (according to ר"ל).

THINKING IT OVER

1. Seemingly תוספות is teaching us what the גמרא will shortly state, namely that ר"י ור"ל argue why זמן is necessary (either because of שמא יחפה or פירות); why is it necessary for תוספות to mention this?!⁵
2. In the case of נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה what is the concern of (an illegal) שמא יחפה;⁶ even if we assume that the husband is aware that she may be מזנה today (and he wants to be מחפה for her), let him have the גט signed today as well!⁷
3. The גמרא will shortly state⁸ that ר"י maintains that the בעל has פירות until the גט is delivered to the woman. Why did not תוספות say that according to ר"י if it is נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה it is פסול, because the בעל may lose the פירות between שעת כתיבה and שעת נתינה שלא כדין?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ If a man married his niece (בת אחותו) or anyone whom he really cares for and she was מזנה תחתיו, so in order to spare her from the death penalty he will write her a גט without a date, and when she will be accused of adultery she will show her undated גט and claim that she was already divorced when she was מזנה. However if there is זמן on the גט, then she cannot claim she was already divorced before the date on the גט. ² The husband has the right to ‘eat’ (or sell) the fruits of the נכסי מלוג properties which the wife brought into the marriage, until he divorces her. If there will be no זמן on the גט, the husband may continue to eat/sell the פירות נכסי מלוג, and by the time the divorcee realizes it and takes him to בי"ד he will claim that they were sold/eaten before the divorce. However now that there is a date on the גט she will be able to claim her פירות from that day onwards. ³ Let us assume the גט was written [and dated] Sunday ר"ח ניסן, however it was signed Sunday night which is ב' ניסן. The woman was still married on Sunday (for the גט was not (signed and) delivered to her until Sunday night. If she was מזנה on Sunday she will show the גט which is dated ר"ח ניסן and she will claim that she received the גט before she was מזנה. See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁴ The woman will reclaim from the לקוחות any פירות which they bought on Sunday ר"ח ניסן, even though in reality she was still married on ר"ח ניסן and the husband had the right to sell the פירות to these לקוחות. This is the reverse of the concern of a גט שאין בו זמן, for there we are concerned for the wife’s loss (see footnote # 2), however here we are concerned for the illegal loss of the לקוחות perpetrated by the wife. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ See מהרש"א הארוך. ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ See מהר"ם שי"ק and תפא"י. ⁸ ריש עמוד ב'. ⁹ See אמ"ה # 87 and בל"י אות שפג.

ורבי שמעון מכשיר—And ר"ש validates it

OVERVIEW ר"ש argues with the ת"ק and maintains that a גט which was נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה is כשר. Our תוספות explains why ר"ש does not consider the various concerns including שמא יחפה and פירות among others.

דלית ליה שמא יחפה כדאמר בגמרא¹ – For ר"ש does not agree that there is a concern that perhaps he will be מחפה, as the גמרא states – ומשום פירי נמי ליכא דקסבר משנתן עיניו לגרשה שוב אין לבעל פירות דהיינו משעת כתיבה And on account of פירי (which the woman may take away from the לקוחות שלא כדין)² there is also no concern, for ר"ש maintains that from the time the husband intends to divorce her, which means from the time of writing the גט, from that point on the husband has no longer the rights to the פירות. The woman may rightfully collect the פירות from the date of the כתיבה. Therefore since there is no concern of שמא יחפה or of פירות, that is why ר"ש is מכשיר by נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וניחוש שמא נכתב בלילה והקדימו הבעל והאשה וכתבו זמן של יום – And if you will say; and let us be concerned ([even] according to ר"ש), perhaps the גט was written by night and the husband and wife predated the גט and wrote the date of the day (instead of the night which is already the following day), they did this in order – לעשות קנוניא על הלקוחות³ – To perpetrate a swindle on the buyers, and that is why ר"ש should be concerned!⁴ תוספות responds to an anticipated question:⁵ ואף על פי שבא לגרשה כדחיישינן בסוף פרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יט,ב) גבי שובר – And even though the husband is preparing to divorce her, nevertheless there is the concern of a קנוניא, as the גמרא is concerned for a קנוניא in the end of the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ regarding a receipt⁶ – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלעולם אין חותמין העדים כשרואין הזמן מוקדם – And one can say; that the witnesses will never sign a גט when it is predated – אלא אם כן יודעים שביום הזמן נכתב⁷: Unless they know that it was written on that date.

SUMMARY ר"ש is not concerned for שמא יחפה, and maintains that the בעל forfeits the פירות from the time the גט is written, and עדים do not sign a predated גט unless the verify that it was written on that date.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks that we should be concerned for a קנוניא.⁸ Does תוספות mean that the גט should be פסול, or that one cannot collect from לקוחות unless we know when it was written?⁹
2. Why, in תוספות question, would we assume that עדים will sign a גט מוקדם?!¹

footnotes: ¹ On the עמוד ב' the גמרא states that ר"י admits that ר"ש does not agree with the reason of שמא יחפה (because זנות לא שכיחא). ² See previous תוס' ד"ה נכתב (footnote # 4 [in TIE]). ³ The גט was written (and signed) the night of ר"ח ניסן אור לב' ניסן, however they dated the גט as of ר"ח ניסן. According to ר"ש who maintains משנתן עיניו לגרשה שוב אין לבעל פירות, the woman can claim that as of ר"ח ניסן the בעל forfeits his rights to the פירות and any sale to לקוחות on that day is invalid. However truthfully there was no כתיבת הגט until ב' ניסן (the night after ר"ח), and the בעל did have the right to sell the פירות to the לקוחות. The woman will be מוציא from the לקוחות שלא כדין. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 (& 2). ⁵ In order to perpetrate this fraud it is necessary for the husband and wife to be in collusion (they must both agree to predate the גט); how can we expect them to work together when he is divorcing her?! ⁶ The case there is where a שובר (receipt) for a כתובה was found. If the woman admits that she received the כתובה payment, we return the שובר to the husband (as proof that he paid up the כתובה). The גמרא there asks how can we return the שובר to the husband, it is possible that the woman wrote and dated this receipt in ניסן תשע"ד (perhaps anticipating a כתובה payment), but did not give it to him until תשרי תשע"ה (when she received the payment), and this woman sold her כתובה between ניסן and תשרי (for a discount; the buyer may never collect it if the wife predeceases the husband and is not divorced). When the buyer of the כתובה will come to collect his payment from the husband, he will show the receipt that he already paid the כתובה in ניסן (and there was no sale to the buyer since the כתובה was already paid up). We see that even though the couple is divorcing, nevertheless they may be in collusion to perpetrate a swindle. (Their avarice may outweigh their misgivings.) ⁷ In our case when they are presented with the גט at night and the date is of the (previous) day, they will first ascertain that it was actually written by day. Therefore there is no concern of קנוניא, for since it was written by day, the husband forfeited his rights to the פירות. ⁸ See footnote # 4. ⁹ See נח"מ. ¹ See בל"י אות שפד.

מפני מה תיקנו זמן בגיטין—Why did they institute a date by גיטין

OVERVIEW The גמרא introduces us to the two different reasons why the חכמים instituted that a גט needs to be dated. תוספות negates other reasons for זמן בגיטין, and explains why a גט שחרור requires זמן.

לא מצי למימר דתקינו זמן – The גמרא could not have said that the חכמים instituted זמן by גיטין – כדי שתוכל להוציא האשה מן הבעל מזונות שלוותה ואכלה קודם זמן הכתוב בגט¹ – In order that a woman should be able to collect from her husband the payment for her food, for which she borrowed and ate for the time which precedes the date written in the גט, in order – שלא יוכל לומר לה גירשתיך מקודם לכן – That the husband should not be able to say to her; ‘I divorced you prior to that time’.² This seemingly explains the need for זמן in גיטין. תוספות explains why this is not a valid reason to be מתקן זמן בגיטין: דבלאו הכי נאמנת אשה על כך³ – For even without the זמן on the גט, the woman is believed as to the date of her גט, and that he owes her for her prior מזונות. The reason she is believed because she has a – מיגו⁴ דאי בעי תטמין את גיטה ולא ידעו שהיא גרושה⁵ ולא תראנו עד שתרצה להנשא – מיגו that she could have hidden her גט and no one will know that she is divorced, and she will not show it until she wants to remarry – תוספות replies to an anticipated question: ואם יביא הבעל עדי מסירה אז לא תפסיד האשה שידעו העדים מתי נמסר – And even if the husband will bring עדי מסירה that she was divorced (thereby seemingly voiding her מיגו that she can conceal the גט), nevertheless, in that case, the woman will still not lose her legitimate claim, for the עדי מסירה will know when the גט was transferred, ⁶ and until that time she is entitled to מזונות. תוספות anticipates another difficulty: אף על גב דבעל שאומר גירשתי את אשתי נאמן – Even though the ruling is that when a husband states, ‘I divorced my wife’, he is believed, so this seemingly destroys her מיגו of concealing the גט, because the husband will claim I divorced you (a while ago) – תוספות responds: היינו דווקא מכאן ולהבא⁷ כדאמרינן ביש נוחלין (בבא בתרא דף קלד,ב) – This trusting is only for the future as the גמרא states in פרק יש נוחלין – ואפילו מכאן ולהבא לא מצינו שיהא נאמן כשאשתו מכחישתו – And even regarding the future we do not find that the husband should be believed if his wife contradicts him. Therefore she has a מיגו of concealing her גט (and denying that she is divorced) and receiving the מזונות (she is entitled to). תוספות offers another explanation why it is not necessary to be מתקן זמן by גיטין because of מזונות: ועוד דמשום מזונות לא היו צריכין לתקן זמן כמו שאפרש על רבי יוחנן בסמוך⁸ – And in addition, as I will shortly explain regarding ר"י, it was not necessary to be מתקן זמן by גיטין because of מזונות – דאפילו אין בו זמן יכולה האשה לבקש עדי מסירה שיעידו בפני בית דין או עדים⁹ – For even if there is no זמן in the גט, the woman can ask the עדי מסירה that they should testify before בי"ד or other witnesses – שהיום נתגרשה ויכתבו לה שטר אחר – That she was divorced today, and they (בי"ד or the עדים) will write for her a separate note when the divorce took place; it is not necessary that it should be in the גט. תוספות reconsiders this last explanation: (ומיהו¹⁰ שמא לא יתרצו עדי מסירה לבא עמה לבית דין – However this explanation may not be sufficient, for perhaps the ע"מ will not be willing to come with her to בי"ד – או לומר לעדים¹¹ ויכתבו לה שטר אחר שמאותו יום נתגרשה – Or to tell other witnesses, so that they can write for her a שטר that she was divorced from this day (therefore it may be necessary to have זמן in the גט so she should not lose her מזונות) – תוספות offers a third reason why we do not say that they were מתקן זמן because of מזונות: ואדרבה על ידי הזמן פעמים היא תפסיד מזונות שלא כדין כשלא גרשה בשעת הכתיבה) – And it may be just the opposite that through writing the date on the גט she may occasionally lose out on the מזונות unfairly, in a case where he did not divorce her at the time of writing the גט.¹² תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וגט שיחרור למה תיקנו בו זמן – And if you will say; and why did they institute זמן by an emancipation note of an עבד כנעני – תוספות anticipates a possible reason and rejects it:** דאי משום מעשה ידיו בלא זמן נמי יוכל לבא לבית דין ויכתבו לו שמאותו יום נשתחרר –** For if it is because of his handiwork (that his previous master should not claim his מעשה ידיו after he was freed); this cannot be the reason, for even without the זמן written in the גט שיחרור, the עבד can come to בי"ד with his גט שחרור and בי"ד will write on his behalf that he was freed from this day onward, so there is no need for זמן in the גט שחרור – תוספות rejects another suggestion why there should be זמן in a גט שחרור: ואפילו למאן דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו¹³ אינו זוכה במעשה ידיו מיום הכתיבה – And even according to the one who maintains that עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו, nevertheless in this case, the עבד will not own his מעשה ידיו from the day the גט שחרור was written and signed by the עדים – כיון שאין בו זמן¹⁴ ואין מוכיח מתוכו מתי נכתב – Since there is no זמן in the document and it is not evident from this document when it was written and signed – תוספות proves his point that the עבד is not זוכה במעשה ידיו משעת כתיבה if there is no זמן: כמו בשני שטרות היוצאין ביום אחד¹⁵ – Just like a case of two notes that have the same date, where the ruling is – דאפילו לאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו זה שמסר לו תחילה קנה¹⁶ – Even according to אביי who maintains עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו, that the one who received the שטר first acquires it – דבפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין דף כח,ב) משמע דאביי סבר כרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי¹⁷ – For in פרק זה בורר it seems that אביי agrees with ר"א who maintains ע"מ כרתי¹⁸ – ולרבי אלעזר על כרחך זה שמסר לו תחילה קנה כדמוכח בפרק מי שהיה נשוי¹⁹ (כתובות צד,ב) – And according to ר"א perforce you must say, that the one who received the שטר first acquires it, as is evident in פרק מי שהי' נשוי – והיינו משום דלא אמרינן עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו אלא היכא דמוכח מתוכו – And the reason for this²⁰ is because we do not say עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו unless it is evident from the שטר; however by the ב' שטרות it is not evident מתוך השטר which שטר was signed first and therefore עדיו בחתמיו does not apply – והוא הדין הכא באין בו זמן כלל – And the same rule applies here where there is no זמן at all, that there is no rule of עדיו בחתומיו. Therefore the עבד is not suffering any loss if there is no זמן. The question remains why were the חכמים מתקן זמן by a גט שחרור. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דתקנו זמן דאי לא הוי ביה זמן פעמים שהיה אדם מוכר עבדו – And the ר"י answers; that the חכמים were מתקן זמן by גט שחרור, for if there would not be זמן by a גט שחרור, it may come to pass that occasionally a person will sell his עבד – ואחר כך כותב לו גט שיחרור בלא זמן – And later this same owner would write a גט שיחרור for this עבד without זמן – והיה אומר העבד לרבו שני אייתי ראיה ששטר מכר שלך קדם לשחרור – And this עבד would say to his second master, ‘bring proof that you bill of sale was written before my שטר שחרור’ – תוספות explains why the new buyer would have to prove that his שטר מכר precedes the שטר שחרור: שהעבד הוא מוחזק בעצמו והלוקח בא להוציא ממנו השעבוד – For the עבד is in possession of himself, and the buyer is coming to extract from him this lien on the עבד, so we would say to the buyer, the עבד is the מוחזק and you are the מוציא, therefore המוציא מחבירו עליו הראי'. That is why זמן is required for a גט שחרור – תוספות responds to an anticipated question:²¹ אבל הכא הבעל מוחזק ולא האשה:²² However, here the husband is the מוחזק, but not the wife.

SUMMARY A woman is believed as to when she was divorced, regarding מזונות (for she has a מיגו to conceal her גט). A husband is believed that he divorced his wife, only regarding the future, provided his wife does not deny it. עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו only if there is זמן in the שטר. They were מתקן זמן by גט שחרור so the עבד should not challenge his new owner (that his שטר שחרור preceded the שטר מכר).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that even with a גט without זמן the woman will be believed to collect her מזונות from her husband.²³ Why do we not say, that this is the reason we need זמן בגיטין for otherwise the woman will illegally collect מזונות for the time after her divorce, because as תוספות states she is always believed with a מיגו?²⁴
2. תוספות states that even with a גט without זמן the woman will be believed to collect her מזונות from her husband because she has a מיגו of concealing her גט.²⁵ However, there is a rule (according to תוספות) that מיגו להוציא לא אמרינן!²⁶
3. How can we reconcile what אביי maintains עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו indicating (seemingly) that ע"ח כרתי with that which תוספות assumes that אביי maintains²⁷ ע"מ כרתי?²⁸

footnotes: ¹ Let us assume that the divorce took place on ר"ח ניסן תשע"ה. For one month prior (the month of אדר) the husband did not supply food (מזונות) for his wife (as he is obligated to do). The woman borrowed money to feed herself. The husband owes her this money. If there was no זמן on the גט, the husband can claim I divorced you in שבט תשע"ה and I was not obligated to feed you in אדר. However now that there is a זמן in the גט (of ר"ח ניסן), the woman will be able to collect from her husband for her food in אדר, for which she borrowed. ² In this case the woman may be considered the מוציא and she would have to prove when she was divorced (which she may not be able to, causing her a loss). ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ If the woman conceals her גט she can claim she is still married and the husband is required to feed her; therefore even if she shows the גט, she is believed to claim that he owed her מזונות until whatever date she claims. ⁶ The concern is that the woman should not lose out on the מזונות which she is entitled to. תוספות explains that she will never lose out; if the husband does not bring ע"מ that she was divorced, then she can conceal the גט and receive מזונות for as long as she wants (even illegally), and if he brings ע"מ, she will receive the מזונות she is entitled to. ⁷ The reason he is believed מכאן ולהבא and not למפרע because it is בידו to divorce her as of now, but he cannot divorce her retroactively. ⁸ See עמוד ב' תוס' ד"ה עד. ⁹ See רש"ש that תוספות does not mean that the ע"מ should testify before other עדים and they should write the שטר, for then it is עד מפי עד which is פסול, but rather תוספות means the woman should approach other עדים who saw the מסירת הגט even though they were not the designated ע"מ. ¹⁰ The מהרש"ל omits this entire parenthesis [from ומיהו until הכתיבה] and claims it is a gloss. The מהרש"ל deletes this because later (see footnote # 8) תוספות uses this סברא to explain ר"י and does not mention this ומיהו וכו'. However the מהרש"א sustains this גירסא of ומיהו וכו' הכתיבה and differentiates between our case and ר"י later. Regarding ר"י who maintains יש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה it is understood that she cannot lose the פירות, for as soon as she receives the גט, she will ask two people to write her a שטר that they saw the גט by her on this date. However here (where we are discussing her מזונות) even if two עדים testify that the saw the גט on her possession on this date, nevertheless the husband can still claim that he divorced her previously. Her only option is to find the עדי מסירה who will testify when she actually received the גט; regarding the עדי מסירה it is possible that they will not want to go to בי"ד, etc. ¹¹ See footnote # 9 and נח"מ. ¹² He wrote the גט and dated it on ר"ח ניסן and did not divorce her until ר"ח אייר; she will lose out on the פירות of the entire חודש ניסן (if she had to borrow for that month). ¹³ אביי maintains (ב"מ יג,א) that עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו, which means that when עדים sign a שטר הלואה (for instance), even though the loan did not take place as of yet (it took place sometime later), nevertheless since the עדים already signed the שטר, they grant to the מלוה (for whom the שטר is being written), the שעבוד on the קרקע of the לוה. If the לוה sells his קרקע after the שטר was signed (even before the loan took place), the מלוה can collect this קרקע for his debt. Similarly here we may assume that as soon as the עדים signed on the גט שחרור, the עבד is זוכה במעשה ידיו, even though he did not receive the גט שחרור yet (as the case is by a שטר הלואה). Therefore it is necessary that there be זמן on the שטר שחרור so the עבד can reclaim his מעשה ידיו from that date onwards, for if he relies solely on the בי"ד (without זמן), then he will only be able to retrieve his מעשה ידיו from the date he received the שטר שחרור, but not from the day it was written, which would cause a loss for the עבד. ¹⁴ תוספות rejects this reasoning, for if there is no זמן on the גט שחרור, the עבד is not זוכה במעשה ידיו from the time of the כתיבה on account of עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו, for since there is no זמן, we do not know from the שטר when it was signed. The עבד is not losing anything by not having זמן, because if there is no זמן, he is not entitled to מעשה ידיו until he receives the שטר, and then he can go to בי"ד and have them verify the date of his שחרור. ¹⁵ ראובן sold the same field to שמעון ולוי (individually) and the date was the same on both שטרות, the question is who acquires the field. ¹⁶ Seemingly one would assume that if we maintain עדיו בחתומיו כו', then we should verify which שטר was signed first and that person should acquire the field (or if it cannot be verified it should belong to both of them). תוספות rejects this notion. ¹⁷ The גמרא there discusses a שטר מתנה that was signed by two brothers-in-law; רב יוסף ruled that if there are עדי מסירה כשרים (besides the עדי חתימה) it is a valid מתנה. However אביי challenged him that מודה ר"א במזויף מתוכו, that it is פסול. It would seem from his question that אביי agrees that ע"מ כרתי. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁸ There is a מחלוקת by גיטין (and all other שטרי קנין) between ר"מ ור"א as to what makes the שטר effective (which עדים make the קנין or גירושין effective). ר"מ maintains ע"ח כרתי, while ר"א maintains ע"מ כרתי. ¹⁹ The גמרא there cites a מחלוקת between רב ושמואל regarding ב' שטרות היוצאין ביום אחד (see footnote # 15); רב maintains יחלוקו and שמואל maintains שודא דדיינא (the דיין decides whom to give it to). The גמרא concludes that רב agrees with ר"מ that ע"ח כרתי and therefore they both have an equal right to it. However שמואל agrees with ר"א that ע"מ כרתי (we just do not know who received the שטר first) so we rely on שודא דדיינא. ²⁰ How can we give it to the one who received it first, if we maintain as אביי does that עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו, so it should belong to either both of them, or the one whose שטר was signed first! ²¹ Let us say the same reason by גט, that if there would be no זמן by גט, the woman would be מוציא the פירות from the לקוחות or the בעל by claiming she was divorced earlier. תוספות rejects this question. ²² When the woman marries, the פירות are in the possession of the husband; there she must prove when she was divorced in order to be מוציא פירות from the בעל or לקוחות. ²³ See footnote # 3. ²⁴ See מהרש"א (הארוך) and נח"מ. ²⁵ See footnote # 4. ²⁶ See חי' הרי"ם. ²⁷ See footnote # 17. ²⁸ See נח"מ.

משום בת אחותו—Because of his sister’s daughter

OVERVIEW ר' יוחנן maintains that the reason the חכמים were מתקן זמן by גיטין is because of ‘his niece’; meaning that we are concerned for a cover up. תוספות explains how there can be a cover up (if there would be no זמן)

שלא יחפה עליה כשאין בו זמן¹ – So that he should not cover up for her, if there will be no זמן – תוספות responds to an anticipated question:² דלא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקת אשת איש והשתא הוא דאיגרשה³ – For we do not say, place her on the presumptive status of an אשת איש and therefore presumably she became divorced just now (we do not make the presumption) כיון שהיא גרושה לפנינו⁴ – Since she is presently divorced (as she stands) before us – ועוד⁵ אדרבה אוקמה בחזקת כשרה⁶ שלא נבעלה כשהיא אשת איש: And in addition (we cannot presume her to be בחזקת א"א) for on the contrary, place her in the presumptive status of an אשה כשרה (this חזקה asserts), that she was not נבעלה while she was married.

SUMMARY We do not assume that she was מזנה while she was an א"א because she is a גרושה בפנינו and has a חזקת כשרות.

THINKING IT OVER Generally what is stronger; a חזקה דהשתא or a חזקה דמעיקרא?⁷

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה משום. ² We (presumably) know that this woman was מזנה with someone else. The question here is when the divorce became effective (since there is no זמן). Seemingly since the woman was an אשת איש, the burden of proof should be on her that she was divorced when she was מזנה. How can he be מחפה? תוספות addresses this issue. ³ Were we to make this presumption then there could not be any יחפה, for she will be presumed an אשת איש up until the present (or whenever there are עדים that saw her with the גט). ⁴ Since she is currently a גרושה, we will assume that this is her status retroactively until we can prove with certainty at some point that then she was married then. Since this is difficult to prove, the husband will be able to be מחפה. ⁵ See פנ"י (and others) that the two reasons of גרושה בפנינו and חזקת כשרות together outweigh the חזקה דמעיקרא; however either one of these reasons alone could not remove the חזקת א"א. See (however) אמ"ה # 120, that others disagree and maintain that they are two separate answers, עיי"ש. ⁶ Every person has a חזקת כשרות until we can determine with certainty, that they lost that חזקת כשרות. Regarding this woman her חזקת כשרות asserts that there was no זנות. Being with someone while she is a פנויה does not destroy her חזקת כשרות. ⁷ See אמ"ה # 127.

ריש לקיש אמר משום פירות—ר"ל said because of fruits

OVERVIEW ר"ל said the reason the חכמים were מתקן זמן by גיטין is in order that the woman should not lose any פירות which is rightfully hers. תוספות discusses when the בעל has the right to the פירות and when not.

כדי שתדע האשה מתי נכתב ונחתם¹ ולא תפסיד פירות עד שעת נתינה² – In order that the woman should know when the גט was written and signed, and so she will not lose the פירות from the date the גט was signed until the time it was given to her. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר גט מאוחר יפסל מהאי טעמא³ ובפרק גט פשוט (בבא בתרא קס,א) מוכח דכשר – And if you will say; for this same reason, a post-dated גט should be פסול, however, in פרק גט פשוט it is evident that a גט מאוחר is כשר – דאמר גט⁴ מקושר⁵ שכתבו עדיו מתוכו כשר מפני שיכול לעשותו פשוט⁶ – for ר' חנינא בן גמליאל there states that if the עדים on a גט מקושר signed on the inside it is כשר because he can make it into a גט פשוט – ואז יהיה מאוחר דמקושר אמרינן התם (קסד,ב) מלך שנה מונין לו שתים – but then it will be a מאוחר because regarding a גט מקושר the גמרא there states if it is in the first year of the king’s reign we count two years, however by a גט פשוט we write the actual year (מלך שנה מונין לו שנה) – ועכשיו ימנו מזמן הכתוב בו כדין פשוט שלא ידעו דתחילתו מקושר היה – So now regarding this מקושר which became a פשוט they will count from the actual time which is written in it as the rule is by a פשוט, for they will not know that initially it was a מקושר. The woman will lose the פירות from the time of the חתימה.⁷ תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דבמאוחר אין הבעל מפסיד פירות משעת חתימה – And the ר"י says that by a גט מאוחר the husband does not lose the פירות from the time of the signing of the גט – אלא משעת הזמן דאין ראוי לגרש בו אפילו נתנו לה לאלתר ואין הגירושין חלים עד הזמן⁸ – But rather he loses the פירות from the time of the date on the גט, for until that date the גט is not fit to divorce with it even if he gave it to her immediately (right after it was signed), and the גירושין will not be in effect until the date on the גט. תוספות responds to an anticipated question:⁹ אבל נכתב ביום לרבי שמעון ראוי לגרש בו מיד¹⁰ אף על פי שלא נחתם על ידי עדי מסירה – However, a גט which was written by day is fit to be used for a divorce immediately according to ר"ש, through the ע"מ even though it was not signed- דרבי שמעון סבר כרבי אלעזר דעדי מסירה כרתי כדאמרינן בפרק קמא (לעיל ט,ב) – For ר"ש agrees with ר"א that ע"מ כרתי as the גמרא states in the first פרק – ולרבנן אף על גב דראוי לגרש בו כיון דליכא נמי קול¹¹ אין הבעל מפסיד פירות¹² – And the רבנן (even if they maintain ע"מ כרתי), even though this גט is fit for divorcing, nevertheless since there is not even any publicity, the husband does not lose the פירות until it is delivered to her – אבל כשעסוקים באותו ענין דיש קול וראוי לגרש בו – However in a case of נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה) where they are still involved in the גט (from the time of the כתיבה until the חתימה), where there is a ¹³קול and therefore this גט is fit for divorcing, in this case – מפסיד הבעל פירות משעת כתיבה כדאמר לקמן¹⁴ – The husband loses the פירות from the time of the writing of the גט as the גמרא states later (therefore the גט will be כשר). תוספות asks: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דאמרינן לקמן (דף יח,ב) אמר לעשרה כתבו גט לאשתי – And the ר"י has a difficulty; for the גמרא states later; ‘he said to ten people ‘write a גט for my wife’ – וחתים בו בי תרי מינייהו ביומיה ואינך מכאן עד עשרה יומי – And two of them signed on that day and the remainder signed up to ten days later’, in which case – דריש לקיש אמר כולם משום עדים ופסול¹⁵ – ר"ל maintains that all of them were intended to sign as witnesses and therefore the גט is פסול. This concludes the גמרא. תוספות asks – ואמאי והרי יש לו קול והרי ראוי לגרש בו – But why is it פסול, for this גט has a קול (since two עדים signed) and it is fit to divorce with it – דאם היה רוצה הבעל לא היה מקפיד על העשרה¹⁶ – For if the husband would have wanted he could not have been particular regarding the ten people signing – ויפסיד פירות משחתמו ב' הראשונים ויהא כשר לגרש בו – And the husband should lose the פירות, once the first two witnesses signed and it should be כשר to divorce with this גט! תוספות answers: ויש לומר כל זמן שהבעל מקפיד ולא חתמו כולם אין קול עד שיחתמו כולם¹⁷ – And one can say; as long as the husband is particular that all ten should sign, and they did not all sign, there is no קול until all ten sign – או שיהו עסוקין לחתום: Or at least they are involved and**** preparing to sign.

SUMMARY By a גט מאוחר the woman becomes divorced at the date written in the שטר and the בעל has the פירות until then. ר"ש maintains that ראוי לגרש is sufficient to render the גט כשר and the בעל loses the פירות from שעת כתיבה, while the רבנן maintain that it also requires a קול otherwise the בעל can still eat the פירות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks that a גט מאוחר should be פסול but we know that it is כשר from the case of גט מקושר וכו'. Seemingly by a גט מקושר there is no problem with פירות for as soon as she receives the גט she can go to בי"ד, etc. to verify the זמן הנתינה. However by a גט מאוחר (where he gave her the גט on the זמן המאוחר), there the woman loses the פירות from זמן התחימה until the זמן הנתינה and indeed it would be פסול!¹⁸
2. תוספות states that by a גט מאוחר she is not divorced until the זמן written in the גט, and the בעל has the פירות until then.¹⁹ What is the situation regarding a גט מקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו that it is כשר because שיכול לעשותו פשוט. Is the woman divorced as of now (since if it would be a גט מקושר she would be divorced currently) and then she would seemingly lose the פירות until the זמן נתינה; or is she divorced the following year (as it would be if it is a גט פשוט), and we need to understand why is she not divorced currently, for since it was a גט מקושר the intent of the husband was to divorce her now (even though the זמן is a year later)!²⁰
3. Why does not תוספות ask the same question on ר"י that a גט מאוחר should be פסול, because he can be מחפה? When he gives her a גט מאוחר before the date written on the שטר, it is obvious that the date is invalid; therefore the woman can claim that she was divorced before the זנות took place!²¹

footnotes: ¹ ר"ל maintains that as soon as the גט is signed the husband has no longer the rights to the פירות (even if he did not give her the גט yet). If there would be no זמן, the husband would sell the פירות after the גט was signed before she received it, and the woman will have no recourse for those פירות. ² We are not concerned however regarding the פירות after the שעת נתינה (not as it seems from פרש"י ד"ה משום פירות); for as soon as she receives the גט, the woman has the option of having בי"ד (or any two עדים) write her a note that she had the גט in her possession as of this date. ³ If the גט is post-dated, then the woman loses the פירות from the time the גט was actually signed until the false post dated זמן on the גט (or until the שעת נתינה if he gave her the גט before the post-dated זמן). ⁴ In this context גט refers to any שטר (not only a גט אשה). ⁵ A גט מקושר is a שטר written in a particular manner; after one line is written, the שטר is folded over on the writing and the following blank line and is then sewn together, and the עדים sign on the outside (the back) of the writing. And this continues until the שטר is completed (see רש"י there ד"ה מקושר). ⁶ The stiches can be torn and the שטר will be a regular גט פשוט. ⁷ She was actually divorced on ר"ח ניסן of the first year of the king. However in the גט it will be written that she is divorced as of the second year (ר"ח ניסן). If the husband will give her the גט after the second year (even on ר"ח ניסן), she will still lose a whole year of פירות (or a partial year if he give her the גט before the זמן מאוחר). ⁸ It is considered (since it is post-dated) as if he made a stipulation that the גט should not be effective until the date written in the גט. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. The woman , therefore, is not losing פירות, since legally the פירות still belong to her husband (and she is not divorced yet) ⁹ תוספות just concluded that the husband does not lose the פירות until the גט is ראוי לגרש בו; how is it that ר"ש maintains נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה is כשר (by גיטי נשים), seemingly the woman will receive the פירות from the day while she should only receive the פירות from at night since that is when the גט is effective (with the חתימת העדים). ¹⁰ Therefore, since it is ראוי לגרש בו ביום, the בעל loses the פירות ביום and it belongs to the woman. ¹¹ It is the עדי חתימה that cause there should be a קול. In this case of נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה there were no עדי חתימה by day. Therefore the לקוחות were not aware that a divorce is pending (so they should refrain from buying these פירות). The חכמים therefore extended the rights of the בעל to the פירות (for the day) so the לקוחות should not incur any loss. However if there would be a קול before the חתימה (as תוספות will shortly discuss), then indeed the בעל loses the פירות משעת כתיבה, since there is a קול and there will be no unfair loss to the לקוחות. According to the רבנן there are two requirements for the בעל to lose the פירות; it must be ראוי לגרש בו and יש לו קול. ¹² Therefore it is פסול because the woman will collect the פירות from the date of the כתיבה, even though the בעל still has the rights to the פירות (as תוספות just explained). ¹³ The עדים are ready to sign (during the day); however they are held up by the details involved in the גט. In this case these עדים cause a קול even before they sign. See תוספות יח,א ד"ה אבל. ¹⁴ דף יח,א (towards the bottom of the עמוד). ¹⁵ The עדים signed after the זמן on the גט; it is a גט מוקדם (see רש"י there ד"ה ומ"ד). ¹⁶ After the first two signed the husband could have changed his mind and released the other eight from signing. Therefore once two signed it should be considered ראוי לגרש בו (see נח"מ). ¹⁷ The husband told all ten to sign, so even after the first two sign they are not מוציא a קול; for they presume that nothing is happening until all ten will sign. ¹⁸ See מהרש"א. ¹⁹ See footnote # 8. That it is as if the husband stipulated that the גירושין should be חל on the post-dated זמן. ²⁰ See נח"מ. ²¹ See בל"י אות שצה בד"ה אבל.