אלא מעתה עובד כוכבים וישראל עומד כולי—But if that is so, by a Gentile where a Jew is standing, etc.

OVERVIEW ר"ה explained that a חש"ו can write a גט לשמה if there is a גדול עומד על גביו. On this ר"נ asked, in that case (that there is a געע"ג) a נכרי should also be כשר. It is apparent that sר"נ' question is on ר"ה who established the משנה by a געע"ג. Our תוספות explains why there is not a question on the משנה directly, regardless whether there is a געע"ג or not.

פירוש¹ בשלמא בלא עומד על גביו ניחא – The explanation of ר"נ saying אלא מעתה, is that granted if our משנה is in a case where there is no עע"ג it is understood why a נכרי is not included with the חש"ו – דקסבר רב נחמן דאיכא היכרא דכותבין לשמה על פי הבעל² – For ר"נ assumes that we can recognize that the חש"ו are writing לשמה, based on the husband’s instructions – אבל בעובד כוכבים ליכא היכרא דלשמה בהכי – However by a נכרי there is no such indication that he is writing לשמה based on these same circumstances – אבל למאי דאוקמא בגדול עומד על גביו אפילו עובד כוכבים נמי – However according to the way ר"ה established the משנה by a געע"ג and giving them instructions, and being ‘on top of them’ to make sure they are writing it properly לשמה, so even a נכרי should also be כשר, since we can see that he is following the instructions (of לשמה) –

Rather (in order to avoid this difficulty) we must conclude that the משנה is certainly in a case where there is no געע"ג,³ if so then the initial difficulty returns, how can this be a גט כשר by a חש"ו, since they are not intelligent!

SUMMARY Without ר"ה we could have established the משנה by אין געע"ג and distinguished between a נכרי and a חש"ו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. From תוספות it seems that sר"נ' question is that the חש"ו are לאו בני דיעה נינהו. However the reading of the גמרא (both in the question and answer) indicates that sר"נ' question was why is the נכרי פסול (and not why is the חש"ו כשר)!
2. Why was it necessary for תוספות to add the last line (אלא ודאי וכו' נינהו);⁴ without that line, ר"נ has a valid question on ר"ה; why is a נכרי different from a חש"ו in a case of געע"ג?⁵
3. How can תוספות add the last line, since according to ר"נ even if there is no געע"ג, it is understood why a חש"ו is כשר, and a נכרי is פסול, as תוספות explained previously?!⁶ Appendix Perhaps we can understand this תוספות as follows. ר"ה claims that the משנה is only in a case where there is a געע"ג. Otherwise a חש"ו is פסול. ר"נ challenges this assumption of ר"ה and argues that in my opinion there is no need to establish the משנה by a געע"ג, and we can distinguish between a חש"ו and a נכרי.⁷ However, according to you (ר"ה) that the only time a חש"ו is כשר is if געע"ג then a נכרי should also be כשר. However since we see that a נכרי is not included in the משנה, this proves that we cannot be discussing געע"ג.⁸ We must therefore conclude that we are discussing a case where there is no געע"ג, so the question on רב הונא is (if we accept the understanding of ר"ה that by אין געע"ג it cannot be לשמה), how can we understand our משנה that a חש"ו is כשר.⁹ The גמרא concluded that the premise of ר"נ is flawed, since נכרי אדעתיה דנפשיה קא עביד, therefore even with a געע"ג he is פסול.

footnotes: ¹ See the ‘Overview’ that תוספות is bothered why there is no question on the משנה directly (even) without ר"ה. ² A חש"ו do not normally write anything (meaningful) on their own; the fact they are writing this גט indicates to us that they are writing in accordance with the husband’s instructions (including לשמה). However a נכרי always writes; the fact that he is writing the גט does not indicate at all that he is following the instructions of the בעל. Therefore he is not כשר and is not included in the משנה. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ See footnote # 3. ⁵ See ‘Appendix’. ⁶ See מהר"ם וכו' and נחלת משה. See also ‘Appendix’. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ תוספות maintains that according to ר"נ if there is a געע"ג it must be כשר even by a נכרי. This idea is immutable. It is the foundation of sר"נ' challenge. He is convinced that ר"ה agrees to it. ⁹ If we accept the premise of ר"נ (that a נכרי is כשר by געע"ג) and the premise of ר"ה (that a חש"ו is כשר only if געע"ג); our משנה is not understood. Therefore argues ר"נ, we must do away with the premise of ר"ה and accept my premise.

עובד כוכבים לדעתיה דנפשיה קעביד—A Gentile does as he wants

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that if a נכרי writes a גט, even with a געע"ג, it is פסול, for since a נכרי is לדעתיה דנפשיה קעביד, it is not written לשמה. Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק דבפרק אין מעמידין (עבודה זרה דף כז,א) בעי רבי יהודה מילה לשמה¹ – The ר"י is astounded, for ר"י, in פרק אין מעמידין, requires לשמה by a ברית מילה – ואפילו הכי קתני² ימול ארמאי ולא אמר דלדעתיה דנפשיה קא עביד – And nevertheless ר"י teaches that a נכרי may be מל, and he does not say לדעתיה דנפשיה קא עביד, why here by a גט do we say that לדעתיה דנפשיה קעביד?! What is the difference between a גט (where a נכרי is פסול) and מילה (where a נכרי is כשר)? תוספות answers:** ואומר רבינו יצחק דהא דאמר דלדעתיה דנפשיה עביד היינו שעושה סתם³ –** And the ר"י answers that this which we say here that a נכרי is לדעתיה דנפשיה עביד, this means that he does it סתם, but not that he intends specifically⁴ שלא לשמה – וגבי גט סתם לאו לשמה קאי כדאמר בריש זבחים (דף ב,ב) – So regarding גט, writing it סתם does not make it לשמה, as the גמרא stated in the beginning of מסכת זבחים – משום דסתם אשה לאו לגירושין עומדת⁵ – Because a woman generally is not destined to be divorced – אבל מילה סתמא לשמה קיימא⁶ כדאמר בזבחים סתמן⁷ לשמן קיימי: However regarding מילה doing it סתם is considered לשמה as the גמרא states in מסכת זבחים regarding קרבנות that סתמן is considered לשמן, the same applies to the child that he is עומד to be נמול.

SUMMARY אדעתיה דנפשיה עביד means that the נכרי has no כוונה either way, therefore by מילה where סתמא לשמה קיימא (like זבחים) a נכרי is כשר; however by a גט where an אשה is לאו לגירושין קיימא a נכרי is פסול.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Will a נכרי be כשר for זבחים since סתמא לשמה קיימא (as he is by מילה)? Why?
2. תוספות writes that סתם אשה לאו לגירושין קיימא;⁸ however regarding this woman (where the husband is instructing the נכרי to write a גט for her [and a געע"ג]), how can we say that she is not לגירושין קיימא?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ He derives it from the פסוק (in שמות [בא] יב,מח) which reads וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַיהוָה הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל זָכָר וגו' ; that the מילה must be לה', meaning לשמה. ² See the סוגיא beginning on כו,ב there. ³ סתם means without any specific intent; there is no specific intent that it is לשמה for גירושין (or מילה), however there is no other intent to contradict that it is not for גירושין (or מילה). When the נכרי does an act that we request of him we assume that he has no specific intent, either positive or negative. ⁴ This is not like רש"י בד"ה לדעתיה who writes שמא הוא גמר בלבו לשם אחר. ⁵ Therefore in order to make it לשמה a positive כוונה of לשמה is required, which the נכרי does not have. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ This child is intended to be נמול (as opposed to the אשה [who is married and is not presumed to be heading for a divorce]), therefore סתם is כשר, unless there is a specific כוונה of שלא לשמה. ⁷ If a קרבן was נשחט without a specific כוונה לשמה, it is a קרבן כשר, because this animal was designated to be brought as a קרבן, and it cannot be disqualified unless we specifically uproot it from a קרבן by having a כוונה of שלא לשמה. ⁸ See footnote # 5. ⁹ See נחלת משה. (See תוס' זבחים ב,ב ד"ה סתם where תוספות writes, מ"מ לאו להתגרש בגט זה עומדת וכו'.)

אימא שנחתם שלא לשם אשה—Say; that it was signed not for the sake of a woman

OVERVIEW רבא challenged ר"נ who stated that according to ר"מ a גט need not be written לשמה, but we learnt¹ in a משנה that any גט which was not written לשום אשה is פסול. The גמרא answered, according to ר"מ, the משנה should read שנחתם (not שנכתב). Our תוספות discusses the need for this answer and the validity of this answer.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דסיפא קתני יתר על כן² כולי ומוקי לה בגמרא כרבי אלעזר³ – Even though in the סיפא of this משנה, it is taught, ‘even more so, etc.’, and the גמרא there establishes that ruling according to ר"א, so we can also establish this רישא like ר"א,⁴ why do we need to change the משנה and answer אימא שנחתם?! תוספות responds: מכל מקום מה שיכול לדחוק ולהעמיד כרבי מאיר מעמיד – Nonetheless as much as it is possible to conform the משנה like ר"מ (even in an unseemly manner), we conform it according to ר"מ – משום דקיימא לן דסתם מתניתין רבי מאיר היא⁵ – Because we have established that an anonymous משנה is the view of ר"מ. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והיכי קאמר שנחתם והא קתני כיצד⁶ שמע קול סופרים מקרין⁷ – And if you will say; but how can we answer that the משנה reads שנחתם instead of שנכתב, but the משנה continues, ‘how is it so (that it was שלא לשום אשה), he heard the sound of the scribes calling out’, etc. ובגמרא⁸ מפרש בסופרים העשויין להתלמד – And in the גמרא it is explained that the משנה when it stated קול סופרים מקרין it means, scribes who are learning how to write גיטין; when they write a practice גט, it is פסול even if they write the correct names. Obviously we are talking about the writing of the גט, not the signing (which is not done by scribes but by witnesses), so how can we answer אימא שנחתם, when we are discussing כתיבת הגט?! תוספות answers:

And one can say that it is the custom of these apprentice סופרים to both write and sign a גט in order to learn how to do it properly.

SUMMARY We try to establish a סתם משנה like ר"מ. Apprentice סופרים practice writing and signing a גט.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that the apprentice סופרים sign the גט.¹⁰ In that case where someone signs a document without being told to by the בעל השטר, the פסול is not because it is not לשמה, but it is not considered signing a document; it is completely fraudulent, however from the משנה it seems that the פסול is on account of שלא לשמה?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ כד,א. ² The משנה there stated that not only if it was completely שלא לשמה is it פסול, but even in a case where he had two wives with the same names, and he wrote it לשמה to divorce the older wife, he cannot use this גט to divorce the younger wife instead. The גמרא (on כד,ב) there inferred that he can still divorce the older wife with this גט (even though it is not evident from the גט, which wife he is divorcing [see תוס' there ד"ה בעדי]), and subsequently established this ruling (that he can be מגרש the older wife) according to ר"א (who maintains ע"מ כרתי), but not according to ר"מ. ³ ר"א maintains ע"מ כרתי and the 'וכתב לה' in the תורה refers to the writing of the גט. There is no requirement for עדים to sign the גט. However ר"מ maintains that עדי חתימה כרתי for the 'וכתב לה' refers to חתימת העדים. ⁴ There is no question on ר"נ; indeed ר"א (the תנא of that משנה) requires כתיבה לשמה, while ר"מ does not require כתיבה לשמה. In fact the last איבעית אימא offer this answer exactly! ⁵ The aforementioned משנה is a סתם משנה (no name of a תנא is mentioned), so even though we cannot establish the entire משנה like ר"מ, we try to establish at least part of the משנה (the רישא) according to ר"מ. ⁶ The משנה is asking how can it be that a גט was written שלא לשום אשה; who would write such a גט?! ⁷ The husband heard them saying, ‘write this גט for this man and wife’, and it was his and his wife’s name, so he wanted to use it to divorce his wife. ⁸ כד,ב. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁰ See footnote # 9. ¹¹ See זיו הים and נחלת משה.

והוא ששייר מקום התורף¹—And provided that he left over the essential part

OVERVIEW After רבא asked numerous questions on רב נחמן, the גמרא continues that רב יהודה אמר שמואל stated that the גט is valid if he left over the מקום התורף. Our תוספות clarifies what ר"י אמר שמואל is referring to.

ר"י אמר שמואל is coming to answer this which was previously asked, ‘but they are not intelligent’, so how can a חש"ו write a גט לשמה. The answer is that they only wrote the טופס (which does not require לשמה) and the תורף was written by a ‘normal’ person.

SUMMARY ר"י אמר שמואל is answering the original question of והא לאו בני דעה נינהו.

THINKING IT OVER What else could have ר"י אמר שמואל meant that תוספות needs to explain to us that it does not mean this other possibility, but rather אמאי דאקשי לעיל וכו'?²

footnotes: ¹ The מקום התורף is the essential part of the גט which contains the names of the husband and wife and the statement of 'הרי את מותרת לכל אדם' (as opposed to the טופס הגט which is the standardized text of the גט). ² See אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 75.

עובד כוכבים נמי דלאו בר היתרא הוא¹—A Gentile, as well since he is not a בר היתרא

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that a נכרי cannot be a שליח to bring a גט, since he is not a בר היתרא. Our תוספות explains why the גמרא did not offer another reason.

הוה מצי למימר משום דבעינן שלוחכם בני ברית² – The גמרא could have said that a נכרי is פסול to be a שליח to bring a גט, because we require ‘שלוחכם בני ברית’ your agents should be of the covenant (Jewish) – אלא ניחא ליה למימר האי טעמא דשייך אף בעבד:³ However he prefers to offer this reason of לאו בר היתרא because it is applicable even by a slave, since he too is not a בר היתרא, he cannot be a שליח to receive a גט.

SUMMARY A נכרי cannot be a שליח (also) because we require שלוחכם בני ברית, however an עבד cannot be a שליח, only because he is not a בר היתרא.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the advantage of using תוספות reason (שלוחכם בני ברית) over the sגמרא' reason (לאו בר היתרא) that תוספות suggests it?⁴

footnotes: ¹ A Gentile is not subject to the rules of divorce which a Jewish woman is subject to; therefore he cannot act as an agent to execute a divorce. ² See on the עמוד ב' and in רש"י there ד"ה לאו. The תורה writes (in במדבר [קרח] יח,כח) concerning תרומת מעשר that כן תרימו גם אתם, we derive from the word גם to include שלוחכם, but we say since the תורה compares the גם (the שליח) to the אתם (the ישראל), so we expound it to mean that just as the אתם are ב"ב, so the שלוחכם must also be ב"ב, which excludes a נכרי from the capability of being a שליח (for a ישראל). See ‘Thinking it over’ ³ See later on the very bottom of this עמוד, where there is a query whether an עבד כנעני can be שליח to receive a גט for a woman. An עבד כנעני can be considered a ב"ב, since he is מחוייב במצות כאשה, nevertheless he is not a בר היתרא since he is not בתורת גיטין וקידושין as the גמרא concludes on the עמוד ב'. ⁴ See זיו הים.

ממי נוטלו ולמי נותנו—From whom he takes it and to whom he gives it

OVERVIEW רב ששת explained the reason why a blind person is פסול to bring a גט is because he does not know whether he is taking the גט from the husband and he also does not know whether he is delivering the גט to the wife. תוספות qualifies the inference from this ruling.

מכאן משמע דצריך שיכיר השליח שזהו הבעל וזו היא אשתו¹ – From this reasoning of רב ששת it seems that it is necessary for the שליח to recognize that this is the husband and this is his wife, otherwise he is just like the סומא who does not recognize the parties – תוספות reconsiders:

And perhaps one can differentiate between a סומא and one who does not know the parties, that it is specifically a סומא who can be tricked that he is פסול, for there is a greater concern that perhaps he will be tricked, however a sighted person who does not know the parties he will be כשר, because he will not be tricked and he can more easily verify the parties involved.

SUMMARY A sighted person may not need to be aware of who the parties are in the גט.

THINKING IT OVER How can תוספות consider that a שליח must recognize the parties in a גט, but the משנה merely states that a סומא is פסול, but not someone who does not know them?!³

footnotes: ¹ The סומא is פסול because he is not certain that the husband of this wife gave him the גט or that the wife of this husband received the גט, it is possible that he is not her husband or she is not his wife, therefore we should make sure that the שליח know personally who is the husband and who is his wife (and not rely that the witnesses tell him that this is the couple, for if we can rely on witnesses then a סומא should also be כשר if he relies on the עדים [see נחלת משה]). ² תוספות is saying there is no inherent requirement that the שליח know the husband and wife; rather if he does not know them, it is possible that for instance the man does not wish to divorce his wife so they find another person to write a גט for this woman and since the שליח does not know, he will give her a false גט. This concern is mainly by a סומא who can easily be fooled, but no one is willing to try this by a sighted person for he may verify who the true husband is, and they will become proven liars. ³ See בית אהרן.

הוא הדין אף על גב דלא חזר ונתפתח כולי—The same rule is even if he did not become sighted again, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that a sighted person (who received the גט as a שליח), who became blind afterwards can deliver the גט and say בפני נכתב ובפ"נ, even if he did not regain his sight. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמר ביש נוחלין (בבא בתרא דף קכח,א) – And this which the ברייתא states in פרק יש נוחלין – היה יודע לו עדות עד שלא נסתמא ונסתמא פסול לעדות¹ – ‘he knew testimony for him before he became blind and he became blind later, he is פסול to testify’ (unless he regains his sight); so why here is he כשר even if he did not regain his sight? תוספות responds: שאני הכא דגבי גט אפילו אשה נאמנת² – Here it is different, for by a גט even a woman is believed to bring a גט and say בפ"נ ובפ"נ, even though a woman is פסול לעדות –**** תוספות proves his point:

You should know that it is so that we are lenient by שליח הגט, for even regarding one who was blind initially when he received the גט, the גמרא here asked, but why is a סומא not כשר to deliver the גט, proving that we are lenient by a סומא as we are lenient by an אשה.

SUMMARY The הגדת עדות of שליח הגט is less strict than regular הגדת עדות therefore a פתוח ונסתמא is כשר even if לא חזר ונתפתח.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות proves that we are less strict by שליח הגט from the fact that the גמרא initially asked אלא סומא אמאי לא.⁵ However at that point in the גמרא we did not assume that we are discussing a שליח הגט in חו"ל where he is required to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ, we assumed we are discussing a גט בא"י, where no הגדת עדות is required, and therefore the גמרא rightfully asked אלא סומא אמאי לא; how does this prove anything regarding הגדת עדות of בפ"נ ובפ"נ?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ See the תוספות הרא"ש who adds; ומדקאמר פסול לעדות סתם משמע לכל מיני עדות אפילו להעיד על מלוה שראה עד שלא נסתמא. The saying of בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם by a שליח is like a הגדת עדות, so it should have the same ruling as הגדת עדות. ² We are not that strict by שליח הגט as we are by other הגדת עדות, therefore even though he is blind, it is כשר. ³ תוספות is seeking to prove that we are not only lenient regarding an אשה, but that we are also lenient regarding a סומא. ⁴ How can the גמרא ask, אלא סומא אמאי לא, when we know that a סומא is פסול לעדות, this proves that the גמרא understood (even initially) that regarding the הגדת עדות of a שליח הגט we not as strict as regular הגדת עדות. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 4. ⁶ See אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 97-100.