להולך לאו כזכי דמי—That the term ‘deliver it’ is not the same as the term ‘acquire it’

OVERVIEW When a person sends a gift through a שליח and says to the שליח: ‘acquire this gift for the recipient’ – [זכי]; as soon as the שליח receives the gift it belongs to the recipient. The owner can no longer retract this gift. The reason is that since it is beneficial for the recipient to receive the gift, the שליח can be זוכה the מתנה for the recipient even without his knowledge. This is known as 'זכין לאדם שלא בפניו’. Our גמרא teaches us that if the owner told the שליח ‘deliver this gift’ [הולך], then it is not כזכי and the recipient does not acquire the gift until it is in his possession. The term הולך is not equivalent to זכי. The owner by saying הולך instead of זכי is indicating that he is retaining the right to retract this gift until it reaches the recipient’s domain. The גמרא says that in this matter שליח מתנה is like שליח הגט. In both instances we do not say הולך כזכי. תוספות will be discussing, what the גמרא means that by גט we maintain that הולך לאו כזכי. Seemingly by גט saying הולך or זכי is the same. In both instances she will not be divorced until the גט is in her possession.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: בגט לא שייך לומר הולך לאו כזכי דמי דאפילו זכי נמי לא מהני¹ – Concerning a גט it is not appropriate to say that הולך is not the same as זכי for even when the term זכי is used it will not be effective that the woman become divorced as soon as the שליח receives the גט. The question is; how does the גמרא say that by גט, הולך is not כזכי? הולך is כזכי by a גט. It is ineffective in either case. תוספות responds: אלא נקטיה לסימנא בעלמא – However, he mentioned this phrase of 'הולך לאו כזכי as a general indication, not to be taken literally (by a גט); rather –

to teach us that just as the term 'הולך' does not function by a גט, that the woman be divorced as soon as the שליח receives the גט, similarly it does not function by a gift that the recipient should acquire it as soon as the שליח receives the שטר מתנה. Rather the owner can retract the gift until it reaches the possession of the recipient.

SUMMARY When the גמרא says that שליח מתנה כשליח הגט in that הולך לאו כזכי it meant to say that just like by גט the term הולך is inadequate (as is זכי), so too by מתנה the term הולך is inadequate (as opposed to זכי), because by מתנה we say הולך לאו כזכי דמי.

THINKING IT OVER When the גמרא says 'להולך לאו כזכי דמי' is it referring to גט, to מתנה or to both?

footnotes: ¹ The husband cannot be מזכה the גט to the אשה through the שליח (that it should be effective immediately). It is detrimental for the woman to be divorced. The rule is that we cannot effectuate something detrimental to a person, through the process of זכיה, without their consent. A woman may make a שליח לקבלה (where she becomes divorced as soon as the שליח receives the גט), for it is with her consent. The husband cannot make a שליח לקבלה.

מאי שנא מהרי הוא הקדש—Why is this different from stating**; ‘this is [הקדש] (sanctified)’.**

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that if one is מבטל a גט by saying הרי הוא חרס it is an effective ביטול. The גמרא compares it to הרי הוא הקדש, where it is an effective הקדש; similarly הרי הוא חרס is an effective ביטול הגט. תוספות questions this comparison, for by another expression we find that הקדש and ביטול הגט are dissimilar.

תימה דבריש אין בין המודר (נדים דף לד,ב) משמע דככר זה הקדש מועיל – This is astounding! For the גמרא in the beginning of פרק אין בין המודר implies that the statement, ‘this loaf is הקדש’, that is adequate to make it הקדש. However if one said – וגט זה חרס ודאי לא אמר כלום – ‘This גט is earthenware’, he certainly said nothing meaningful¹. The גט will not be בטל. We see that we cannot compare הקדש to ביטול הגט. By הקדש the statement ככר זה הקדש is effective and by גט saying גט זה חרס (which is similar to ככר זה הקדש), is ineffective. How therefore can the גמרא derive that הרי הוא חרס is a sufficient ביטול from הרי הוא הקדש, when we see that there is a difference between הקדש and גט. תוספות will now explain how we know that גט זה חרס is an invalid ביטול: דגרע מגט זה חרס הוא דאמר דלא אמר כלום – For the statement גט זה חרס is an inferior expression of ביטול than גט זה חרס הוא²; concerning which the גמרא said clearly**** that if he said גט זה חרס הוא it is meaningless; there is no ביטול. It certainly follows that if he said גט זה חרס (without the word הוא) it is certainly no ביטול (and by הקדש the expression ככר זה הקדש is effective). תוספות will now explain how we know that the expression גט זה חרס is inferior to the expression גט זה חרס הוא:

For if he said 'בטל הוא' his words are effective and the גט is בטל. However, – when he said ‘this גט is בטל’, and he did not add and say 'הוא'; i.e. 'גט זה בטל הוא' we had a query in the גמרא concerning this case of (גט זה) בטל and we concluded by saying 'תיקו'; this question remains unresolved. However בטל הוא is adequate. This shows that the addition of the word 'הוא' is a superior expression of ביטול. The original question remains if גט זה חרס is not effective (since גט זה חרס הוא is not effective) and ככר זה הקדש is effective that proves that the rules of הקדש and ביטול הגט are different. How can we resolve the question of הרי הוא בטל from הרי הוא הקדש?

SUMMARY How can we derive that הרי הוא חרס is an effective ביטול, from הרי הוא הקדש which is an effective הקדש? The rules of הקדש and ביטול הגט are incomparable. This is evidenced by the fact that גט זה חרס is ineffective as ביטול (since גט זה חרס הוא is ineffective) and ככר זה הקדש is an effective הקדש.

THINKING IT OVER If the גמרא derives that הרי הוא חרס is a valid ביטול from הרי הוא הקדש; then previously when the גמרא queried, what is the ruling by גט זה בטל, why did not the גמרא derive that it is a valid ביטול from ככר זה הקדש?!³

footnotes: ¹ תוספות will shortly prove this. ² תוספות will shortly prove this. ³ See מהרש"א (הארוך).

רב ששת אמר אינו חוזר ומגרש בו—רב ששת maintains that he cannot divorce with this גט again

OVERVIEW רב ששת maintains that if the בעל is מבטל the גט, the גט itself is void. It cannot be ever used. תוספות quotes a גמרא in קידושין that states that a דיבור cannot be מבטל a מעשה. How is it that the ביטול בדיבור of the בעל can be מבטל the validity of this גט?!

תוספות asks: תימה והא ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן דפליגי בריש האומר בקידושין (דף נט,א( – This is astounding! For ר"ל and ר"י who argue in the beginning of פרק האומר in מסכת קידושין (whether a דיבור can be מבטל a דיבור)¹ – משמע דמודו דלא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה כמו שמוכיח שם – It seems that they both agree that words cannot come and nullify a deed as the גמרא proves there that לא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה – ממתניתין דכל הכלים יורדים לידי טומאה במחשבה כולי – from the משנה which states that all utensils descend to the status of becoming fit for טומאה, by thought alone etc². וכתיבת הגט לשמה הוי מעשה – And the writing of the גט לשמה is considered a deed; תוספות proves this – דאם כתב אדם ספר תורה לשמה אינו יכול לחזור ולבטל – For if someone wrote a ספר תורה לשמה he is not capable of retracting and nullifying the sanctity of the ספר תורה, similarly by גט, once it was written, a דיבור should not be able to nullify the כתיבה לשמה. It should remain a valid גט. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דכל זמן שלא הגיע ליד האשה לא חשיב גמר מעשה – And one can say that as long as it did not come into the hand of the woman, it is not considered completely done. Therefore רב ששת maintains that a דיבור can be מבטל an incomplete מעשה.

SUMMARY Writing a גט is not considered a completed deed, until it is given to the woman. Therefore the husband may nullify the גט.

THINKING IT OVER What would seem easier to be מבטל; the גט after it was given to the שליח, or the קידושין that was given to the woman with the understanding that it will be valid in thirty days?³

footnotes: ¹ The dispute there is concerning a case where a man gave a woman מעות קידושין and said to her you will be מקודשת to me in thirty days from now; if she can retract her agreement to the קידושין during these thirty days or not. Both ר"י and ר"ל consider this to be a question if אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור for there was no real מעשה קידושין. In our case however, as תוספות points out there is a מעשה of כתיבת הגט לשמה. See מהרש"א. ² The משנה states if one decides that the utensil that he is making is complete (even though it is possible to perfect it further), then it is considered a כלי, and is ראוי to be מקבל טומאה. If he wants to improve this כלי, it is not sufficient (to remove this status of ראוי לקבל טומאה) by merely thinking of the improvements he will make, but it is necessary from him to physically start making the improvements. Then it will not be ראוי לקבל טומאה, until these new improvements are completed. The reason why merely thinking about the improvements is insufficient, is because, as the גמרא says there, דלא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה. His thinking (or even saying) that he will improve the status of this כלי, cannot nullify the status the כלי achieved when he actually made it. עיי"ש בקידושין. ³ See תפארת יעקב.

התם דיבור ודיבור הוא—There it is a statement following a statement.

OVERVIEW There is a dispute in our גמרא whether the גט may be reused after the בעל was מבטל the גט. ר"נ maintains that the גט may be reused. It is not clear if he maintains that the גט may be reused in all circumstances, even if the בעל specifically stated that he is being מבטל the גט itself. Or does he maintain that the גט may be reused only if it was a general ביטול and it was not sufficiently clear if he was מבטל only the שליחות or if he was מבטל the גט itself. תוספות will be discussing this issue whether the בעל has the ability to be מבטל the גט itself, so that it may not be reused.

מתוך הלשון משמע דאפילו ביטלו בפירוש אינו מבוטל – From the syntax of the גמרא it would seem that even if he explicitly nullified the גט, not only the שליחות, nevertheless the גט itself is not nullified, and it may be reused. תוספות will now explain how this is indicated in the גמרא: מדקאמר התם דיבור ודיבור הוא – Since the גמרא says that the reason why ר"י maintains by קידושין that she may retract, is because there by קידושין it was a דיבור that followed a previous דיבור. Therefore the latter דיבור**** can nullify the former. משמע דהכא לאו דיבור ודיבור הוא אלא דיבור ומעשה – This indicates that here by a גט, it is not one דיבור following another דיבור but rather it is a דיבור that follows an action of writing the גט לשמה; therefore there can be no ביטול of a מעשה through דיבור (alone). תוספות offers an additional proof that even a specific ביטול will not be effective: וגם מדקאמר גט גופיה מי קא בטיל משמע דאין לו כח לבטל – And additionally we may infer that ביטול הגט is ineffective, since the גמרא states ‘was he מבטל the גט itself?!’ This indicates that he does not posses the ability to nullify the גט itself. If he would have the power to be מבטל the גט, then how can the גמרא claim 'גט גופיה מי קא בטיל'; he was indeed מבטל the גט for he said גט זה בטל הוא. Therefore we are to understand the phrase 'גט גופיה מי קא בטיל' to mean ‘can he be מבטל the גט!?’ תוספות presents an opposing view: אבל בקידושין בריש האומר (דף נט,(א)[ב]) אין שם כל זה האריכות – However in מסכת קידושין in the beginning of פרק האומר, this lengthy answer does not appear there. The גמרא in קידושין asks the same contradiction as here between ר"נ and ר"י and the גמרא there does not answer as we do here, 'התם דיבור ודיבור הוא והכא וכו' גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל'. The גמרא does not mention either of the two phrases (דיבור ודיבור הוא or גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל) which we used to prove that he cannot be מבטל the גט itself), but rather – וכתוב בכל הספרים נהי דבטליה מתורת שליחות מתורת גט לא בטליה – It is written in the text of all the גמרות in קידושין ‘granted that he annulled him from being a שליח, but he did not annul the legality of the גט’. This last phrase – משמע דאם ביטלו בפירוש מודה רב נחמן דבטל – Indicates that if he indeed nullified the גט specifically, then ר"נ would agree that the גט is בטל and may not be reused.¹ תוספות offers his view: וכן צריך לומר דגט לא חשיב מעשה כל זמן שלא הגיע ליד האשה – And it is necessary to agree to this latter opinion; that one can be מבטל the גט itself for a written גט itself is not considered an accomplished deed (which would prevent a דיבור to be מבטל it) as long as it did not reach the woman’s ‘hand’; therefore it itself can be nullified. דאי לאו הכי תיקשי לרב ששת כדפירשנו לעיל – For if it is not so; but rather the writing of the גט is considered a מעשה, there will be a difficulty to רב ששת who maintains that the גט itself is בטל, as we explained previously². If a written גט is considered a מעשה then everyone would agree that it cannot be בטל. The only way we can explain רב ששת is if we maintain that a written גט is not a גמר מעשה.³ תוספות anticipates that there may be additional support for this opinion, and rejects it. ומדקאמר בפרק ב' (לעיל יח,א) גבי נכתב ביום ונחתם בלילה – And from that which the גמרא states in the second פרק concerning a גט that was written by day and signed the following night -. The משנה there states that such a גט is פסול; however רבי שמעון maintains that it is כשר. Concerning the opinion of ר"ש the גמרא there qualifies – דלא הכשיר רבי שמעון מיכן עד עשרה ימים דחיישינן שמא פייס – that ר"ש did not say that such a גט is כשר if the time between the כתיבה and the חתימה extended from now until ten days later. In this case ר"ש would agree that the גט is פסול. The reason is for we are concerned that during such an extended period of time perhaps he was appeased – פירש שמא ביטל את הגט כדפירש רבינו תם – The explanation of שמא פייס is that perhaps he was מבטל the גט as the ר"ת explained the meaning of 'שמא פייס'. We see that, according to the ר"ת, he can be מבטל the גט itself. תוספות rejects this proof: אין ראיה כדפרישית בפרק ב' – This is no proof that he can be מבטל the גט itself, as I explained in the second פרק⁴ תוספות offers an additional rejection of this proof: ועוד דשמא התם דלא נחתם לא חשיב גמר מעשה – And furthermore perhaps we can say that there since the גט was not signed yet it is not considered as a completed deed and therefore one can be מבטל such a גט. However where the גט was already signed, there can be no ביטול הגט.

SUMMARY There are two opposing viewpoints whether according to ר"נ the בעל has the ability to be מבטל the גט. Those who maintain that he does not have the ability, find support from the text of our גמרא which states: a) 'התם דיבור ודיבור הוא'; this indicates that our גמרא is דיבור ומעשה and all agree that לא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה; and b) 'גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל', which indicates he does not have to power to be מבטל the גט. Those who maintain he can be מבטל the גט itself should he so desire, find proof from the גירסא in קידושין which states: 'נהי דבטליה בתורת שליחות מתורת גט לא בטליה'; indicating that he was not מבטל the גט, but not that he cannot be מבטל. The crux of the issue is whether כתיבת הגט is a מעשה or not. תוספות states that he has already proven that it is not a מעשה since ר"ש maintains אינו חוזר ומגרש בו. The proof from שמא פייס was rejected, either because there he is only being מבטל the עדים, not the גט; or there it is not a גמר מעשה since the גט was not signed.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Would the explanation concerning the dispute between ר"נ and רב ששת, if חוזר ומגרש בו or not, be the same, whether we maintain that according to ר"נ he cannot be מבטל the גט at all regardless, or if we maintain that even according to ר"נ, if ביטלו בפירוש then it is בטל?
2. How is תוספות proving the opinion of ר"נ from the opinion of ר"ש?⁵ Perhaps the dispute between ר"נ and ר"ש is whether a written גט is considered (גמר) מעשה?⁶

footnotes: ¹ The phrase מתורת גט לא בטליה indicates a fact, that he was not מבטל the גט. He only intended to be מבטל the שליחות. If however he would be specifically מבטל the גט it would be בטל. The phrase גיטא גופיה מי קא בטיל, on the other hand, indicates a ruling that he cannot be מבטל the גט. ² תוספות ד"ה רב ששת. ³ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁴ See תוספות יח,ב ד"ה שמא. There תוספות explains that the meaning of שמא פייס וביטל את הגט is that he was מבטל the appointment of the עדים to sign the גט. The גט itself may still be valid and he may appoint other witnesses to sign it, עיי"ש. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ See נחלת משה.

ורב נחמן אמר בפני שנים דלתרי נמי בית דין קרי להו—And ר"נ said: ‘in the presence of two, for two are also called a בי"ד’.

OVERVIEW Our משנה stated that originally (before תקנת ר"ג הזקן) one would be able to be מבטל the גט in the presence of a בית דין. It was not necessary to be מבטל the גט either בפני השליח or בפני האשה. The גמרא quotes a מחלוקת between רב נחמן and רב ששת whether this בי"ד must consist of three people, or that two people are also sufficient. It would seem that since the משנה states clearly that it was performed בפני בי"ד and a בי"ד consists of three people, that there should be no dispute. All should agree that it must be בפני שלשה. Why does ר"נ maintain that it may be בפני שנים contrary to what the משנה says בפני בי"ד?

תוספות anticipates a possible solution (to the question stated in the ‘overview’): אין לומר דרב נחמן לטעמיה דאמר בפרק קמא דסנהדרין (דף ה,ב) משמיה דשמואל – We cannot say that ר"נ follows his own opinion, where he stated in the first פרק of מסכת סנהדרין, in the name of שמואל, that – שנים שדנו דיניהם דין – Two people who judged a case, their verdict is a valid judgment. That is why ר"נ maintains here that two are considered a בי"ד, since בדיעבד two people who tried a case and issued a verdict, we accept their verdict as if it was issued by a regular בי"ד of three. The משנה, when it states בי"ד may be referring to a בי"ד of two. תוספות rejects this reasoning: דהא רבא לית ליה התם (דף ג,א) דשמואל – For רבא disagrees there with שמואל that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין, but rather רבא maintains that שנים שדנו it is not a valid judgment. Three דיינם are required for a בי"ד. ועל כרחך רבא אית ליה הכא כרב נחמן דאמר בפני שנים – And perforce you must say that רבא agrees here with ר"נ who says you may be מבטל the גט in the presence of only two people. תוספות will now explain why רבא must agree with ר"נ – דהא פליגי רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש בסמוך בפלוגתא דרב נחמן ורב ששת – For shortly in the גמרא there is a dispute between ר"י and ר"ל¹ which is the same dispute that is between ר"נ and ר"ש, namely whether ביטול can be בפני שנים or it must be בפני שלשה ורבא פסיק בריש החולץ (יבמות דף לו,א) בכולי ש"ס כרב יוחנן לגבי דריש לקיש – And רבא ruled in the beginning of פרק , החולץ that in the entire ש"ס we follow the opinion of ר"י when he opposes ר"ל לבר מתלת – Except in three disputes where we follow the opinion of ר"ל² – ורבי יוחנן קאי כרב נחמן – And ר"י follows the opinion of ר"נ that two are sufficient for ביטול הגט. רבא must therefore also agree that two are sufficient (since רבא always follows the opinion of ר"י). However רבא maintains that שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין. Therefore we cannot say that the reason that מבטלו בפני שנים is because we maintain that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין. תוספות will bring a more direct proof that we cannot connect the דין of מבטלו בפני שנים with the דין of שנים שדנו דיניהם דין. ועוד אמר בירושלמי דסנהדרין רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרווייהו – And furthermore in the תלמוד ירושלמי on מסכת סנהדרין it says that both ר"י and ר"ל maintain that – שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין – Two people who judged, their verdict is not valid. We see from this ירושלמי that ר"י himself maintains שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין. Nevertheless he maintains that ביטול בפני שנים like ר"נ. תוספות offers an additional proof that ר"י maintains that a בי"ד consists of three: ובהחולץ (שם דף מו,ב) נמי אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך שלשה משפט כתיב ביה – And in פרק החולץ also, ר"י said that conversion requires three people to officiate, that the גירות be valid. The reason is because the word משפט is written by conversion. Just as a usual משפט or court case requires three, so too does conversion require three. We can infer from this that by every משפט that requires a בי"ד, three are required. The question remains why does (ר"נ and especially) ר"י maintain that for the ביטול בפני בי"ד, two are sufficient, when the משנה states clearly 'בי"ד'! תוספות answers: ועל כרחך צריך לומר אף על גב דתרי אין דיניהם דין – And perforce one must say that even though the judgment of two is not valid, nevertheless – כיון דפרוזבול סגי בתרי קרי להו בית דין – Since to enact a פרוזבול two are sufficient they can be called a בי"ד³. When the משנה said בפני בי"ד it may mean two as well. תוספות asks a question: ואם תאמר בפרק זה בורר (סנהדרין ל,א) דפריך גבי אודיתא – And if you will say; that in פרק זה בורר where the גמרא asks concerning a writ of admission. [Only] two people signed on the note wherein it was stated that one party made a specific admission to his litigant⁴. If the term בית דין is mentioned in the writ, we assume that it was enacted by three people and one was not able to sign. The גמרא challenges this. The fact that it said 'בי"ד' in the אודיתא is not sufficient to prove that it was prepared by three people, for – דילמא בית דין חצוף כדשמואל דאמר שנים שדנו כולי – Perhaps it was a brazen בי"ד as שמואל maintains for שמואל said that two who judged, etc. their verdict is valid. Perhaps here too, even though it said 'בי"ד' in the אודיתא there were really only two people, nevertheless they wrote 'בי"ד' since they may agree with שמואל that two are also a בי"ד. However in reality there were no three people. The אודיתא should not be valid. This concludes the quote from the גמרא in סנהדרין. תוספות now proceeds with his question: בלא שמואל נמי איכא למיפרך – Without agreeing with שמואל that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין, we can also question the assumption that since it said 'בי"ד' in the אודיתא that proves that there were three דייינים present – דהא רבי יוחנן ורבא לית להו דשמואל וקא סברי דלתרי בית דין קרי להו – For ר"י and רבא disagree with שמואל; they maintain that שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין, and nevertheless they maintain that two may also be called a בי"ד; as is the case concerning ביטול הגט בפני בי"ד where both רבא and ר"י agree that two are sufficient, because they are (somewhat) considered a בי"ד. The גמרא in סנהדרין could have asked that how can we rely on the words 'בי"ד' that is written in the אודיתא, we see that ר"י ורבא agree that sometimes two are called a בי"ד.⁵ וכי האי גוונא פריך גבי קיום שטרות בפרק ב' דכתובות (דף כב,א) – And the גמרא asks in a similar fashion concerning the authentication of notes in the second פרק of מסכת כתובות. קיום שטרות requires three דיינים. If only two signed on a קיום without indicating that there were actually three דיינים involved, it is a proper קיום provided that it states that it was performed in a בי"ד. The גמרא in כתובות asks the same question as the גמרא in סנהדרין; perhaps it was a בי"ד חצוף in accordance with sשמואל' view. תוספות is asking that the גמרא did not need to ask the question only according to שמואל; the same question can be asked according to ר"י ורבא as mentioned previously. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם כיון דבעינן שלשה באודיתא ובקיום שטרות – And one can say; that over there (by אודיתא וקיום שטרות), since there is a requirement to have a בי"ד of three דיינים both by the אודיתא and by קיום שטרות; there is no doubt about it, all agree that there must be a בי"ד of three. Therefore – אין שייך לגבי ההוא מילתא לקרות לתרי בית דין – It is not relevant concerning these matters (אודתיא וקיום שטרות) to consider only two as a בי"ד; if we maintain that שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין**.** It is known that אודיתא וקיום שטרות require a בי"ד of three. The fact that we consider two a בי"ד by פרוזבול or ביטול הגט will not lead anyone to think that by קיום שטרות or אודיתא two are sufficient. By פרוזבול and ביטול הגט there is no clear precedent that requires specifically that there be three. It is not a משפט or דין. Therefore we may maintain that in these two cases, two are sufficient. However, קיום שטרות ואודיתא require a regular בי"ד, which consists (according to ר"י ורבא) of three – משום הכי קאמר דלמא לא בעי התם ג' כדשמואל – Therefore the גמרא there says perhaps the two who signed the שטרות thought that three are not required even**** for קיום ואודיתא because of שמואל, who maintains that two is a valid בי"ד in all instances. Therefore these two thought that even though אודיתא וקיום שטרות require a בי"ד, nevertheless the two are a בי"ד. Therefore we cannot depend on the fact that the term 'בי"ד' is inserted; because perhaps the people who inserted the term 'בי"ד' agree with שמואל. However in truth one cannot validate such a שטר אודיתא or שטר קיום, since there were no three דיינים. תוספות poses a different question: ואם תאמר ומאי נפקא מינה השתא בפלוגתא דרב נחמן ורב ששת בפני כמה מבטלו – And if you will say; of what import is it now concerning the dispute between ר"נ and ר"ש in the presence of how many can he nullify the גט. It is seemingly irrelevant (even) in the days of ר"נ ור"ש – הא תיקן רבן גמליאל שלא יהו עושין כן – For ר"ג had already instituted prior to ר"נ ור"ש that people should not do so; to be מבטל בפני בי"ד. What is the relevance of the dispute between ר"נ ור"ש? תוספות responds: ואומר רבינו יצחק דנפקא מינה לרבי דאמר לקמן אם ביטלו מבוטל – And the ר"י says there is a difference whether we follow the opinion of ר"נ or ר"ש, according to רבי who maintains later in our גמרא⁶ that if one was מבטל a גט בפני בי"ד the דין is that the גט is nullified⁷. Despite that he transgressed the תקנה of ר"ג הזקן. ופסק לקמן רב נחמן כוותיה – And ר"נ ruled further in our גמרא⁸ in accordance with רבי that ביטלו מבוטל. Therefore it is very relevant to know, in front of how many people the ביטול must take place, in order that it be a valid ביטול (בדיעבד). It seems that there were three stages in ביטול הגט. There is the דין מדאורייתא where seemingly one may be מבטל a גט even שלא בפני בי"ד and שלא בפני האשה והשליח⁹. This was the first stage. Afterwards came the stage concerning which the משנה states that 'בראשונה היה עושה בי"ד במקום אחר ומבטלו'. The ביטול had to take place in the presence of a בי"ד or בפני האשה והשליח. This was a תקנת חכמים (prior to the תקנה of ר"ג הזקן). They were concerned that if the ביטול would be שלא בפני בי"ד, the woman might not be aware and remarry. Her children from the new husband would then be ממזרים. It is concerning this stage (also) that there is the מחלוקת between ר"נ ור"ש whether this בי"ד consists of two or three people. The final stage was the תקנה of ר"ג הזקן that there be no ביטול בפני בי"ד, only בפני האשה והשליח. There are two opinions as to the reason for this תקנה, depending whether we follow the view of ר"נ or ר"ש. If we maintain that the ביטול בפני בי"ד was בפני שנים (like ר"נ), the concern was that there will not be sufficient publicity and the woman may remarry and her children will be ממזרים (identical to the reason for the original תקנת חכמים). If, however we follow the opinion of ר"ש that ביטול בפני בי"ד requires three people, then there is no חשש ממזרות for by three there is a sufficient קול. The reason for תקנת ר"ג הזקן, is because of תקנת עגונות. We want to make it difficult for the husband to be מבטל the גט. He cannot be מבטל by just gathering three people and make a בי"ד. He must pursue either the שליח or the אשה and be מבטל it בפניהם. It is concerning this last stage that רבי maintains that regardless of תקנת ר"ג הזקן not to be מבטל a גט בפני בי"ד לכתחילה, nevertheless if one was מבטל a גט בפני בי"ד then בדיעבד the גט is מבוטל. תוספות continues to explain that even though רבי does not take into consideration בדיעבד the תקנה of ר"ג הזקן and maintains בטלו מבוטל, nevertheless concerning the first תקנת חכמים that ביטול שלא בפני השליח והאשה must take place בפני בי"ד, that תקנה invalidates the ביטול שלא בפני בי"ד even בדיעבד: ומודה רבי דאם ביטלו בפני ב' לרב ששת או בפני אחד אפילו לרב נחמן דאינו מבוטל – And רבי will admit that if he was מבטל the גט in the presence of two people according to ר"ש or in the presence of one person even¹⁰ according to ר"נ; either way רבי will admit that the גט is not מבוטל. Even though we do not take the תקנה of ר"ג into consideration בדיעבד if there was a ביטול, but rather we maintain that ביטלו מבוטל. Nevertheless רבי admits there is no ביטול if there was no בי"ד, for this uproots the original תקנת חכמים. The reason why it is not מבוטל in these instances, is – דאפילו קודם תקנת רבן גמליאל לא היה מבוטל – For even before the תקנה of ר"ג; when a ביטול בפני בי"ד was permitted, even though it was not בפני השליח or בפני האשה, nevertheless the גט would not be מבוטל (if there were less than two or three people according to ר"נ ור"ש respectively),**** even according to רבי, who disregards the תקנה of ר"ג בדיעבד, and says ביטלו מבוטל. However in these cases the consequences are too dire and even בדיעבד there is no ביטול; as תוספות goes on to explain. דדוקא בפני ג' לרב ששת מבוטל דליכא חשש ממזרות¹¹ – For only in the presence of three will רבי maintain according to ר"ש that the גט is מבוטל for there is no concern of ממזרות – אבל בפני שנים דאיכא למיחש לממזרות לא – Howeverת if the ביטול took place in the presence of only two (which is not a בי"ד), where there is not sufficient publicity, so there is a concern of ממזרות (which is the reason for the original תקנת חכמים that a ביטול שלא בפני האשה והשליח take place בפני בי"ד), then רבי agrees that the ביטול will not be valid according to ר"ש. The concern here is sufficient to warrant that we do not validate the ביטול. The original תק"ח holds up even בדיעבד. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ולרב נחמן אף על גב דבפני שנים איכא למיחש לממזרות כדאמרינן בסמוך – And according to ר"נ even though that when the ביטול takes place in the presence of two there is a concern of ממזרות, as the גמרא **will shortly state¹² (**for there is not sufficient publicity to assure us that the woman will be aware of the ביטול before she remarries), nevertheless ר"נ maintains that even though there is a חשש ממזרות by a ביטול בפני שנים, it will still be a valid ביטול, according to רבי. Why therefore should not a ביטול בפחות משנים also suffice? רבי maintains (according to רב נחמן) that a ביטול בפני בי"ד של שנים is a good ביטול בדיעבד. We do not take into consideration בדיעבד, that there is a חשש ממזרות. It follows that even if the ביטול was בפחות משנים which the first תקנת חכמים did not permit, nevertheless בדיעבד it should be a valid ביטול. What concern is there by a ביטול בפחות משנים more than a ביטול בפני שנים? Why should the first תקנת חכמים be any stronger than the תקנה of ר"ג הזקן? In both instances the תקנה was (according to ר"נ) because of ¹³חשש ממזרות. תוספות responds: מכל מקום בפחות משנים דאיכא למיחש טפי אינו מבוטל – Nevertheless when the ביטול takes place in the presence of less that two people that there is an even greater concern for ממזרות than a ביטול בפני שנים, which definitely has more publicity than a ביטול בפחות משנים; then there is no valid ביטול. There is a much greater probability that the woman will not hear of the ביטול if it was בפחות משנים that if it was בפני שנים.

And it this case even רבי admits that we say we cannot override the תקנה of בי"ד; for**** if we will override the תקנה of the חכמים בדיעבד then – of what value is the power of בי"ד, if they cannot execute their תקנות. In a case where overriding the תקנה of בי"ד will probably bring to dire consequences רבי admits that we do not override the תקנה even בדיעבד.

SUMMARY The reason ר"נ maintains ביטול בפני בי"ד of two is sufficient is not because he maintains שנים שדנו דיניהם דין. For רבא ור' יוחנן both agree with ר"נ concerning ביטלו בפני בי"ד של שנים even though they maintain שנים שדנו אין דיניהם דין. The reason ר"נ maintains ביטול בפני שנים is sufficient is because by a פרוזבול two are also considered a בי"ד. Even if we maintain that by a פרוזבול and ביטול הגט two are considered a בי"ד, this would not lead us to conclude mistakenly that by אודיתא וקיום שטרות two are sufficient. However if we maintain שנים שדנו דיניהם דין, then we may mistakenly conclude that by אודיתא וקיום שטרות two are sufficient. רבי will maintain בטלו מבוטל only if it was in a בי"ד of two (according to ר"נ) or in a בי"ד of three (according to ר"ש). Less than that, it will not be a ביטול even בדיעבד. The תקנה that a בי"ד was necessary was based on very serious concern of ממזרות. Such a תקנה is not to be trifled with.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות is searching for an explanation why ר"נ maintains ביטול בפני שנים is a ביטול בפני בי"ד. The answer that תוספות ultimately gives is (seemingly) the same answer the גמרא gives (namely פרוזבול)¹⁴. Why was not תוספות satisfied with this answer originally?
2. Can we connect תוספות question¹⁵ with what תוספות taught us previously in this תוספות?
3. Did not תוספות realize in the question¹⁶ that רבי maintains בטלו מבוטל, so there will be a נפק"מ between ר"נ ור"ש according to רבי?

footnotes: ¹ דף לג,א. They are arguing why ר"ג stopped the ביטול בפני בי"ד. ר"י who maintains that it is because תקנת ממזרים follows the opinion of ר"נ that בטלו בפני שנים; while ר"ל who maintains מפני תקנות עגונות follows the opinion of ר"ש that ביטול בפני שלשה, עיי"ש בגמרא. ² Needless to say this is not one of those three הלכות. ³ This is (seemingly) the explanation the גמרא gives. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ When one admits something in the presence of two witnesses it does not give them the right to put it in writing. However when someone admits in the presence of three it is considered as if he made them a בי"ד and they may put it in writing and sign it. When a בי"ד issues any writ it is signed by the three דיינים. If for whatever reason one of the דיינים cannot sign, בי"ד writes that we were three דיינים sitting in judgment and one is missing. This is considered a valid writ. In the case being discussed this phrase did not appear. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁶ דף לג,א. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over # 3. ⁸ דף לג,ב בסופו. ⁹ It is questionable if he may be מבטל the גט by himself or others have to hear him. In any event it need not be a בפני בי"ד according to דין תורה. See מהרש"א הארוך וכו'. ¹⁰ The insertion of the word 'אפילו' – ‘even’, by ר"נ will become clear further in this תוספות. See footnote # 12. ¹¹ When we are מבטל the גט בפני שלשה even though it was not בפני האשה והשליח, nevertheless we are assured that the woman will find out about the ביטול and she will not remarry (which would have resulted that the new children are ממזרים). There is sufficient publicity in a ביטול בפני שלשה, that there is no concern of ממזרות. There is only the תקנת עגונות. It is the opinion of רבי that the תקנת עגונות is not sufficient reason to annul the ביטול בדיעבד. Since מן התורה it is a valid ביטול. ¹² דף לג,א. The reason why ר"ג was מבטל the ביטול בפני בי"ד according to ר"י ור"נ, is because it was done in the presence of two. That is insufficient publicity to prevent the woman from remarrying. ¹³ This question clarifies why תוספות previously said 'אפילו לר"נ'. See footnote # 10. ¹⁴ See Footnote # 3. ¹⁵ See Footnote # 5. ¹⁶ See footnote # 7.

לתרי נמי בית דין קרי להו—He also refers to בי"ד two as a

OVERVIEW Our גמרא concludes that (according to ר"נ) the תנא may call two people a בי"ד. תוספות will quote another גמרא which seemingly rejects this idea, and infers from the fact that a משנה says 'בי"ד', that it is referring to a בי"ד of three only, and does not mean a בי"ד of two.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דבסוף פרק ב' דיבמות (דף כב,ב) גבי מיאנה או חלצה בפניו ישאנה – And if you will say; that in the end of the second פרק of מסכת יבמות regarding the case where a woman performed the rite of מיאון¹ or חליצה² in the presence of a דיין, this דיין may subsequently marry this woman who performed מיאון or חליצה in his presence. We are not concerned of any impropriety that he may have performed it unlawfully, in order to marry this woman.- מפני שהוא בית דין – Since he was part of a בי"ד. He did not perform this rite on his own; there was a בי"ד present. If there was anything untoward they would have intervened. This concludes the quote from the משנה. תוספות continues to quote the גמרא on this משנה. ומדייק טעמא דבית דין הא בי תרי לא – And the גמרא there infers; the reason he may marry her is because there is a בי"ד which means that three people officiated however had only two people officiated at the מיאון וחליצה, he would not be permitted to remarry. [The גמרא goes on to argue that even by two people there is no concern of impropriety³.] This concludes the relevant quote from the גמרא. תוספות questions the דיוק of the גמרא from the word 'בי"ד'. Why does the גמרא assume, that since the משנה said 'בי"ד', that there were three (officiating) – והא אמר הכא דלתרי נמי בית דין קרי להו – But the גמרא states here that the תנא refers to two people also, as a בי"ד. Perhaps, in יבמות, when the תנא there said בי"ד, it also meant only two⁴. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהתם דייק מדלא קאמר מפני שהם שנים – And the ר"י says; that there the גמרא infers that the משנה means three specifically and two are not sufficient since the משנה did not state: ‘because there are two דיינים’. אלא תלי טעמא בבית דין שמע מינה דלא סגי התם בתרי – But rather the משנה ascribed the reason for the permission to marry, only on account that there was a בי"ד we may derive from this that there, two are not sufficient. If two are sufficient to quell any hint of impropriety, why mention בי"ד, (even if a בי"ד may mean two)? Simply state ‘because there are two’! That proves that a בי"ד of three is required to allow him to remarry.⁵ תוספות offers another answer why we cannot say that the משנה in יבמות meant a בי"ד of two: אי נמי מיאון דומיא דחליצה ובית דין דחליצה היינו ג' – Or you may also say**;** the case of מיאון must be similar to the case of חליצה; for the משנה teaches them together and the בי"ד that performs חליצה consists of three. Two are not acceptable by חליצה⁶. Even though by מיאון others maintain that two would be acceptable⁷. Why therefore does the גמרא infer that by two he would not be permitted to remarry? Perhaps by the case of מיאון there were only two?! Nevertheless, since the משנה joins חליצה ומיאון together and says מפני שהם בי"ד concerning both מיאון and חליצה. Therefore just as in the case of חליצה the term בי"ד means three, so too in the case of מיאון the בי"ד is also comprised of three. תוספות is aware that not everyone maintains that חליצה requires a בי"ד of three:

The משנה cannot follow the view of the one who maintains that a חליצה is כשרה even if performed by one for one person is certainly not called a בי"ד and secondly there will certainly be gossip if the single person who performed חליצה will later marry the חלוצה. The משנה must therefore follow the ruling of those who maintain that three are required for חליצה (and also in this case of מיאון). This explains the דיוק of the גמרא; for there cannot be here, neither by חליצה not by מיאון, a בי"ד of two.

SUMMARY The גמרא in יבמות infers from the משנה there, which states 'מפני שהוא בי"ד', that if there were only two דיינים by the חליצה ומיאון, then neither of the officiating דיינים would be permitted to marry her. תוספות offers two explanations that distinguish the גמרא in יבמות from here in גיטין where we say that two are also called a בי"ד. A. If the term 'בי"ד' there means a בי"ד of two, why did not the משנה state clearly, ‘because there are two’?! B. חליצה definitely requires three (the option of one is unacceptable); therefore by מיאון we must also be discussing a בי"ד of three.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does not our משנה also state 'שנים' instead of 'בי"ד', according to ר"נ?⁹
2. Both answers of תוספות explain that the term בי"ד in יבמות cannot mean a בי"ד of two. Explain the different method that each answer employs in order to derive this.
3. When the גמרא there infers that since it states בי"ד, that proves that בשנים he cannot marry her, is this inference from the case of מיאון, or the case of חליצה, or both cases?
4. Similarly (to #3) when תוספות asks that perhaps מפני שהן בי"ד means only two, is he referring to the case of מיאון, or the case of חליצה, or both cases?
5. If the משנה there would have stated only the case of חליצה (and not mention the case of מיאון), could the גמרא have made the same דיוק, that בשנים he may not marry her?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ A קטנה who has no father may be married off by her mother or brothers מדרבנן. She needs no גט to dissolve this marriage as long as she is a קטנה. If she appears before a בי"ד and states she refuses – ממאנת to live with him further, the marriage is dissolved. ² A married woman, whose husband died and left no children, cannot remarry if her husband is survived by brothers. One of the brothers has to either marry her (יבום) or perform the rite of חליצה (where she removes a shoe from his foot, etc), thereby enabling her to marry whomever she chooses. ³ The conclusion of the גמרא there is that by two he may also marry, the reason the תנא says 'בי"ד' is to teach us that מיאון requires three. ⁴ Not necessarily that the חליצה ומיאון was performed by only two, but rather the reason he may marry her is because (at least) two were present at the rite. [Or perhaps מיאון requires only two.] See ‘Thinking it over #s 3-5. ⁵ The reason the משנה states מפני שהוא בי"ד instead of מפני שהם שלשה is because that is how we know that there were three, since there was a בי"ד which universally consists of three. We cannot say this concerning two, for a בי"ד normally does not consist of two. See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁶ Concerning חליצה there is a מחלוקת in מס' יבמות (דף קד,ב) whether three are required or if even one alone is sufficient. The משנה in יבמות that we are discussing certainly cannot maintain that for חליצה, one is sufficient, as תוספות will shortly explain. ⁷ . Concerning מיאון there is a מחלוקת (שם קז,ב) whether three are required or if two are sufficient. ⁸ If the משנה would follow that view, then there would be no דיוק that by two it is אסור to marry her. ⁹ See footnote # 5. See נחלת משה. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4.