Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be מסכתא גיטין דף ל״ג עמוד א׳, 10 lines from the top of the עמוד, after the two dots. And here the גמרא is going to explain the last few words of the משנה. At the end of the משנה it said מפני תיקון העולם, and this refers to the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן. And as the משנה explained, in the beginning the דין was that when a person wanted to be מבטל, to cancel a גט that he sent to his wife through a שליח, he was able to do it by gathering together a בית דין in the place where he was, and telling this בית דין that the גט that he sent to his wife should be בטל, and that was sufficient enough for the גט to become בטל. But רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that that shouldn't be done, and the only way a person is able to be מבטל a גט is if he reaches the שליח that he sent with the גט, or he sends a שליח after the first שליח, and he tells the שליח that the גט is בטל, or by coming to his wife, or sending a שליח to his wife and telling her that the גט that was sent to her through the שליח is בטל. But a person should not do it through gathering together a בית דין in his own place and being מבטל in front of them. And the משנה gives the reason why רבן גמליאל הזקן made this תקנה, מפני תיקון העולם, as a תקנה for the betterment of the world. And here the גמרא is going to explain what the משנה meant when it said מפני תיקון העולם. The

גמרא asks, מאי מפני תיקון העולם? What does the משנה mean that this תקנה was done for a תקנה of the world? The גמרא says, רבי יוחנן אמר, רבי יוחנן says, מפני תקנת ממזרים, this was in order to prevent the birth of ממזרים. וריש לקיש אמר, ריש לקיש says, מפני תקנת עגונות, this is in order to prevent that Jewish women should not remain עגונות, should not remain deserted. And the גמרא explains what they meant with this מחלוקת. רבי יוחנן אמר מפני תקנת ממזרים, רבי יוחנן said that the reason for the תקנה was to prevent the birth of ממזרים, סבר לה כרב נחמן, because he holds like רב נחמן, דאמר, that says, בפני שנים, that it was done in front of two. We learned earlier in the גמרא that there was a מחלוקת between רב נחמן and רב ששת, in front of how many people a person was able to be מבטל the גט. When the משנה said that בראשונה, in the beginning, they would get together a בית דין and he would be מבטל the גט in front of the בית דין, so רב נחמן says that when it says in the משנה in front of בית דין, it means that it was sufficient to do it in front of two people, while רב ששת says that it had to be done in front of three people. So the

גמרא says that רבי יוחנן holds like רב נחמן, that it was enough to do it in front of two people. So if not for the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, a person would be מבטל the גט in front of two people. And the כלל is, ובתרי לית להו קלא, anything that is done in front of two people has no קול, is not known. So therefore, people would not know that the husband was מבטל the גט, canceled the גט. So she too, והיא לא שמעה, she wouldn't have heard that the גט was בטל, ולא ידעה, she wouldn't know it, ואזלה, and she will go, ומינסבא, and she will remarry. ואיכא ממזרים, and there will be ממזרים, because really she is still an אשת איש, a married woman, because the גט was not valid, the גט was בטל, and she, when she will remarry thinking that the גט is a כשר גט, the children that will be born from the second marriage will be ממזרים. And in order to prevent this from happening, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that the only way you could be מבטל a גט is in front of the שליח or in front of the wife, so then this cannot happen, because she will definitely know that the גט is בטל. וריש לקיש אמר, ריש לקיש said, מפני תקנת עגונות, it was in order to prevent Jewish women from being עגונות. Why does he say that? Because סבר לה כרב ששת, ריש לקיש holds like רב ששת, דאמר, that he said, בפני ג׳, that even the way it was originally, that you were able to be מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין, it had to be done in front of three. ובתלתא אית להו קלא, and anything that is done in front of three people has a קול, will be known. And therefore, ושמעה, she will have heard that the husband was מבטל the גט, וידעה, and she will know that the גט is בטל, ולא מינסבא, and she will not remarry. So there is no חשש that there will be ממזרים, because she will not remarry knowing that this גט is בטל. ותקנת עגונות הוא ד... איכא, but there is a תקנה for עגונות, because since the husband was מבטל the גט, so now she remains an עגונה because she cannot remarry because the גט is בטל. So what רבן גמליאל הזקן did was, he was מתקן that it should be hard for the husband to be מבטל the גט. And the only way he can be מבטל it is if he is מטריח himself, he troubles himself to find the שליח, or to send a שליח to the שליח, or find his wife, or send a שליח to his wife. So we do not suspect that the husband will go through this trouble just in order to make her an עגונה. So since it is hard for the husband to be מבטל the גט, he probably wouldn't do it, and this woman will be divorced and she will be able to remarry. And even though usually when we use the term עגונה, it is concerning a woman who does not know if her husband is alive or not, a woman who cannot remarry because of a ספק, because of a doubt, but still, sometimes we refer with the term of עגונה to a woman who definitely cannot remarry, she is definitely an אשת איש, and still we call her an עגונה because she does not have her own husband, because obviously she will not go back to her husband because her husband doesn't want her, after all he sent her the גט. On the other hand, she cannot remarry because he was מבטל the גט. So this is also called an עגונה. One might ask a question concerning this גמרא here: that according to רבי יוחנן, who says that the reason is because תקנת ממזרים, so לכאורה, why was רבן גמליאל הזקן מתקן that you should have to be מבטל the גט in front of the שליח or in front of the wife, and you cannot do it in front of a בית דין, because we're afraid that she will not hear about it because you could do it in front of two, so she will remarry not knowing that the גט is בטל, לכאורה he could have made an easier תקנה. He could have been מתקן that you should do it in front of three. And the גמרא says that if it's done in front of three, it is known. So instead of being מתקן that you should not do it in front of the בית דין at all, in order to prevent the ממזרים would have been enough if he would have made a תקנה that you still could do it in front of a בית דין, but you should not do it in front of two, but you should have to do it in front of three, and then there will be no problem of ממזרים. And תוספות answers that באמת, according to רבי יוחנן, who says that the problem is תקנת ממזרים, he does not mean that we only worry about the ענין of ממזרים and we are not worried about her remaining an עגונה. What he meant was that he's worried about both things: he is worried about תקנת עגונות too, but even more than that, since you could do it in front of two, he is also worried about ממזרים. And therefore, it wouldn't have been enough if רבן גמליאל הזקן would have made a תקנה that you should do it in front of three, because then you would only prevent the problem of ממזרים, but the problem of עגונות would remain as it is according to ריש לקיש. And therefore, according to רבי יוחנן, רבן גמליאל הזקן had to be מתקן that you should do it in front of the שליח or in front of the wife, because according to that, you prevent both problems: the problem of ממזרים and the problem of עגונות. According to ריש לקיש, the problem לכתחילה was only a problem of עגונות, because according to him you would have to do it in front of three, so there is no problem of ממזרים, there is only a problem of עגונות, and that's why רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן his תקנה. So according to this, it comes out that the מחלוקת between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש is not that according to רבי יוחנן we're only worried about ממזרים and according to ריש לקיש we're only worried about עגונות, but that according to רבי יוחנן we're worried about both: we're worried about עגונות, and more than that, also about ממזרים, and according to ריש לקיש, there is no worry about ממזרים and there is only a worry about עגונות. Now

we'll continue in the גמרא: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, ביטלו מבוטל, דברי רבי, that if he was מבטל it in front of a בית דין, it is מבוטל, that's the opinion of רבי. In other words, after רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you should not do it in front of a בית דין, what would be if someone did not listen to the תקנה of רבן גמליאל and he did do it in front of a בית דין? So רבי says that even though he wasn't allowed to do it, but since he did it, בדיעבד it is מבוטל. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, but רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אינו יכול לא לבטלו ולא להוסיף על תנאו, that after the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, you are not able to be מבטל it in front of the בית דין, and if you did it, it is not בטל. And also you are not able to add on the condition, because the דין is that when you give a גט, you're allowed to put any condition you want to the גט. And what would be if a person would gather a בית דין together after he already sent away say the גט, and he wants to make a change in the condition. So רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that since רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה, that you cannot do anything to the גט after it was sent away by just getting a בית דין together, so therefore you also cannot add to the condition of the גט, make any change in the condition of the גט by just getting a בית דין together in your own place. And he gives the reason why you can't do it: שאם כן, because if so, if you're going to say that even though there was a תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן not to do it in front of a בית דין, if you did it, it is בטל, מה כח בית דין יפה? What kind of strength does a בית דין have? And therefore he says, in order to give the בית דין of רבן גמליאל its full authority, the דין is that even if you did it in front of a בית דין, it is not בטל. The גמרא asks, ומי איכא מידי, is there such a thing דמדאורייתא בטל גיטא, that מדאורייתא the גט should be בטל, ומשום מה כח בית דין יפה and just because of this סברא that we have to give the בית דין the complete authority, שרינן אשת איש לעלמא, we will allow a married woman, married, to marry someone else? In this case it comes out that מדאורייתא, if you were מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין, the גט is בטל, meaning that she is not divorced and she is an אשת איש, she's still a married woman, and מדרבנן, because of the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, we say that the גט is not בטל, the גט is a good גט and she is divorced and she could remarry. So it comes out that the חכמים are מקיל on the דאורייתא. A woman that מדאורייתא is considered an אשת איש, מדרבנן is not considered an אשת איש. How can the רבנן do such a thing? We know that the רבנן could add to the דאורייתא, that something that מדאורייתא is מותר, is allowed, the רבנן can say that we אסר it, we prohibit it, it should be אסור. But the חכמים cannot do it in the other direction. The חכמים cannot say something that מדאורייתא is אסור, they say it's מותר. And that's exactly what they're doing here. A woman that מדאורייתא is אסור to remarry because she is still an אשת איש, because the גט is בטל, the רבנן say that the גט is not בטל and she could remarry. They are מקיל on the דאורייתא. How can they do that? And the גמרא answers: אין, there is such a thing, because כל דמקדש, אדעתא דרבנן מקדש. Whenever somebody is מקדש a woman, gives קידושין to a woman, he is מקדש her on the דעת of the רבנן. It's as if when he gives the קידושין, he says that I'm giving you the קידושין on condition that the רבנן will not disagree to this קידושין, to this marriage. And therefore, if ever the חכמים disagree to that marriage, so retroactive, למפרע, the קידושין were never קידושין, like by any תנאי, any condition. When a person is מקדש a woman on condition, if the condition is not fulfilled, then the קידושין is not חל. And that's what happens here: that if the חכמים disagree to the קידושין, then retroactive, the קידושין לכתחילה were never קידושין. And that is the reason why we say by קידושין, כדת משה וישראל. We say הרי את מקודשת לי, you should be מקודש to me, and we finish off with the words כדת משה וישראל, like the laws laid down by משה רבינו and ישראל and the יידן, which is like a condition in the קידושין, that the קידושין are לכתחילה given on condition that it fits with the הלכות of the תורה, with the דעת of the רבנן. And therefore, if the חכמים ever disagree to the קידושין, the קידושין למפרע are no קידושין. And that's what the חכמים did here, too. If they have a reason to feel that they want this woman not to be an אשת איש, so even though they cannot say that the גט should be a good גט if מדאורייתא the גט is no good גט, but what they could say is that the קידושין למפרע should be no קידושין, because since you're מקדש on condition that we agree, and in the this case, because of what you did, we disagree to the קידושין, so therefore ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, the רבנן take away the קידושין retroactive from this person. And that's why this woman could remarry, not because the גט is a good גט, but because of what he did, the חכמים take away the קידושין למפרע. אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי, so רבינא said to רב אשי, תינח, that is okay, דקדיש בכספא, if the קידושין was through money, קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר, what would be if he was מקדש her with ביאה, what can you say there? Because the משנה says in the beginning of קידושין that there are three ways a person could be מקדש an אשה: one way is בכסף ובשווה כסף, through money or something which is worth money, or בשטר, through a document, if he writes on a document הרי את מקודשת לי and gives it to her, she becomes מקודשת to him, and the third way is through ביאה, through the act of relations, that itself is enough for קידושין. So the

גמרא says here that if he gave her קידושין with כסף, with money, then we understand this concept that the חכמים are מבטל the קידושין למפרע. Because what happens to the money that was given? The money was given only לשם קידושין, for the sake of קידושין. Now that the חכמים say the קידושין are no קידושין, so the money really should be given back to the husband, because he only gave it for קידושין, and if it's not קידושין, it's his money. Nevertheless, she does not have to give back the money, because there is a כלל that הפקר בית דין הפקר, that the בית דין has a right to take away the ownership of a person on his possessions. So here too, even though the money now belongs back to the husband, but the חכמים have a right to say that the money should stay a מתנה, a present, in the wife's possession even though he didn't give it as a מתנה. But the חכמים have the jurisdiction over every person's money. So in the case of כסף, if he gave her money, we know what happens to the money: the חכמים made the money a מתנה to her. But קידש בביאה, if he was מקדש her with ביאה, what happens to the ביאה? If the חכמים make the קידושין should retroactive be no קידושין, so what happens to that ביאה that was done לשם קידושין? And the גמרא answers, שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות. The חכמים turned his בעילה into a בעילה of זנות. And even though when he made the ביאה, he intended it to be for קידושין, but now that the חכמים do not agree to the קידושין, so the condition of the קידושין was not fulfilled, so retroactive that ביאה is a בעילת זנות. And here is a קשיא that one might ask: that why does the גמרא say that תינח דקידש בכספא, that if the קידושין was done through money, then we understand what happens to the money. But if it's done through ביאה, then the קשיא of the גמרא is what happens to the ביאה? And the גמרא felt, obviously, that this סברא that the חכמים turn a ביאה into בעילת זנות, we cannot say. And the גמרא answered, no, that even that we could say, that the חכמים even have a right to turn a ביאה into בעילת זנות. But לכאורה, in the case of קידש בכספא, they are also turning ביאות into בעילת זנות. Because even though the קידושין itself was done through money, but since there were many years, for instance, between that קידושין till this time when the חכמים decided to disagree to the קידושין, and there were definitely ביאות in between that the husband had relations with his wife from the time of the marriage till the time when he sent this גט and was מבטל in front of the בית דין, what happens to all these ביאות? We must say that since the קידושין is no קידושין anymore, so she was never married to him, so all these ביאות are בעילת זנות. So we see already that the חכמים do have a right to turn ביאות into בעילת זנות. So then what is the גמרא's קשיא that קידש בביאה מאי איכא למימר, what can we do if the קידושין was through ביאה? The same thing: the ביאה would be a בעילת זנות. And תוספות in כתובות דף ג עמוד א answers that there is a difference between the case of קידש בכספא and the case of קידש בביאה. In the case where he is מקדש with כסף, even though automatically all the ביאות that he did later on are בעילת זנות, but that's indirect. The חכמים did not directly say that the ביאות are בעילת זנות. What they said was that the קידושין is not קידושין. And then, automatically, since it's not קידושין, so she is not married to him, so the ביאות are בעילת זנות. But in the case of קידש בביאה, the חכמים directly are dealing with the ביאה, and they are saying that the ביאה is a בעילת זנות. And that was the הוה אמינא of the גמרא, that to say directly that a ביאה should be turned into a בעילת זנות, the חכמים have no כח for that. And the answer of the גמרא is that even that the חכמים could do, they could even turn a ביאה directly into a בעילת זנות. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: אמר לעשרה, if a man, a husband says to ten people, כתבו גט לאשתי, write a גט to my wife, and the דין is that when a person says to ten people, write a גט to my wife, so one writes and two become witnesses. If he specifies כולכם, that all of you should write the גט, then they all have to sign. But if he doesn't say כולכם, he just sees a group of people and he says to them, write a גט to my wife, so one writes and only two of them sign. So the גמרא says here that if he said to ten people, write a גט to my wife, יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה, he's allowed to be מבטל one not in front of the others, דברי רבי, that's what רבי says. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אינו יכול לבטל אלא זה בפני זה, he's not not allowed to be מבטל only if he does it to one in front of the others, but he cannot be מבטל one not in front of the others. And the point of the מחלוקת is whether this is included in the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן. רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you have to be מבטל in front of the שליח, and you cannot do it someplace else in front of the בית דין. So רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that included in that תקנה was also that when you tell ten people to write a גט, you cannot be מבטל one without the others. It must be done in front of the others, they should all know about it. Just like רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you have to be מבטל in such a way that the שליח should know about it, here too, you cannot be מבטל one without the others knowing about it. Therefore, you must do it in front of the others. While רבי holds that this was not included in the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, and therefore, if you want, you can be מבטל one without the others. And there's another point to note here, that since it is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל who holds that it was included in the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, so he himself was the one that said before that if you do not follow the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, even בדיעבד the גט is not בטל. And the same here, according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, since this was included in the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, if a person did it, he was מבטל one of the ten not in front of the others, so then it is not בטל because of the סברא, מה כח בית דין יפה. And now the גמרא says, במאי קמיפלגי, what is the סברא for their מחלוקת? And the גמרא says, בעדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה קמיפלגי. Their argument is based on the סברא whether when you are מבטל part of an עדות, does that mean that the

rest of the עדות is automatically בטל too? רבי סבר, רבי holds, עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה, that if you're מבטל part of an עדות, it does not mean that the rest of the עדות are also בטל. And therefore in this case too, when he is מבטל one of the ten, the other nine are not בטל. So therefore, ואי אזלי הנך, if these others will go, כתבי, and they will write the גט, ויהבי, and they will give the גט, very good, לכתבו, let them write, וליתו, let them give, there is no תקלה, there is no problem that can come out of this, because the others who did not hear the ביטול are טאקע not בטל. And since they're not בטל, they are able to write the גט and give her the גט. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds, עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, that if you cancel part of עדות, automatically the rest are בטל. So in this case too, when he cancels one of the ten, automatically all other nine are cancelled. But since he didn't do it in front of them, והנך לא ידעי, so these will not know that they are cancelled, ואזלי, and they will go, וכתבי, and they will write the גט, ויהבו, and they will give it to her, ושרו אשת איש לעלמא, and they will be allowing an אשת איש to marry someone else without knowing it because they don't know that they are בטל, because the one that was בטל was not done in front of them. And that's why he says רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that you're not allowed to do that, and the only way you could be מבטל it is if you do it in front of them, so then they will know that this one was cancelled. And since one of them was cancelled, בטלה כולה, the whole thing is בטל, so they are cancelled too, and they will know about it, and if they will know about it, they will not write the גט. ואיבעית אימא, the גמרא says, if you want I can give you a different explanation in the מחלוקת between רבי and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, באמת דכולי עלמא, everyone holds, including רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה, that if you cancel part of the עדות, it does not automatically cancel the rest. So in a case like this, if he cancels one, it doesn't automatically mean that the rest are cancelled too. So then you might ask, so what is the problem? Why does רבן שמעון בן גמליאל say that you are not allowed to cancel one not in front of the others? והכא, here, היינו טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, this is the reason of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, קסבר, he holds, מילתא דמיתעבדא באפי עשרה, something that is done in the presence of ten people, צריכא בי עשרה למישלפיה, you must have ten people in order to undo it. So here, he cannot cancel one not in front of the others, because this one became the עדות in front of the others, so in order to cancel it, it must be done the same way, it must be done in front of the others. And

according to this פשט, when רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said that you cannot be מבטל one without the other, he did not mean that it's a דין that you're not allowed to be מבטל. What he meant was that you just can't do it, it is not בטל. Because since you wouldn't do it the same way it was done to appoint this person as an as a שליח, so then it is not valid to begin with. And that is the difference really between the first פשט in the גמרא and the second פשט in the גמרא. According to the first פשט in the גמרא, when רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said that אינו יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה, that you cannot be מבטל one not in front of the other, what he meant was that you're not allowed to do it. And because you're not allowed to, that's why it is not valid. But originally, you could have done it. רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה because of the problem that could come out, so he made this תקנה that you should not do it. But according to the second פשט, it is not that you can't you should not do it, you're not allowed to do it. What he said was the דין is it would not be valid anyway לכתחילה, because the only way you could be מבטל something that was done in front of ten is if it is בטל in front of ten. And therefore, he said you cannot cancel one of them if it was not done in front of the others. Now, the

גמרא continues, איבעיא להו, they asked in the בעיא, there was a question asked, כולכם מהו, what would be the דין if the husband said to ten people, כולכם כתבו גט לאשתי, all of you write a גט to my wife? And we said before that if he says כולכם, then the דין is that they all must sign. And if not all ten sign, then the גט is not a good גט. So, the שאלה is מהו, what is the דין, does רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in this case, too, hold that you cannot be מבטל one in front of the others? And the גמרא explains what the reason for the question is. It is all based on which of the two reasons the גמרא gave before is the real reason. Do we say that טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that the reason why רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said before that you are not allowed to be מבטל one without the other is משום דקסבר, because he holds as the first reason that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, that עדות that part of it is בטל, the rest of it is בטל. And the problem was, we said before, that the other ones who do not know that they are בטל will go ahead and give the גט. So, the reason for רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was that we're afraid of a תקלה. So, according to that, והני, in this case, כיון דאמר להו כולכם, since he said to them, "All of you should write the גט," לא מצו כתבי ויהבי, they cannot write it and give it anyway. Here, there is no חשש of a תקלה, because in the case of כולכם, anyway it cannot be given unless all ten of them sign. The one that was cancelled knows that he is בטל, so he will not sign the גט. So, anyway, the others, even if they do not know that they are בטל, will never give the גט anyway because the one that does know he's בטל will not sign it. So, there is no חשש of a תקלה. So, if the reason for רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was because of the תקלה, so in the case of כולכם where there is no תקלה, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל would admit that you could cancel one not in front of the others. או דילמא, or maybe טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, the reason for רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was not the first reason we gave, but the second reason, משום דקסבר, because he holds כל מילתא דמיתעבדא באפי עשרה צריכא בעשרה למישלפה, anything that is done in front of ten people must be undone also in front of ten people. הילכך, therefore, אפילו כולכם נמי. So, even if he said כולכם, where there is no תקלה, still he cannot cancel one without the others, because it has nothing to do with a תקלה. The reason for רבן שמעון בן גמליאל was that the only way you could cancel one is if it's done in front of the others because he was appointed in front of the others. So, in the case of כולכם would be the same דין, that you cannot cancel one unless you have the others present. And that's the גמרא's שאלה, what would רבן שמעון בן גמליאל hold in the case of כולכם? The גמרא says, תא שמע, come hear, I will answer this question. We

learn in a ברייתא, אמר לשנים, if the husband says to two people, תנו גט לאשתי, give a גט to my wife, יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה דברי רבי. רבי holds that he is allowed to be מבטל one not in front of the other. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, but רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אינו יכול לבטל אלא זה בפני זה, he is not allowed to be מבטל but if it's done one in front of the other. And this is in a case when he said it only to two people. והא שנים דכי כולכם דמי, when you say to two people, "Write a גט to my wife," it is similar to the case of כולכם. Why did we say before was כולכם different than if he did not say כולכם? Because if he said כולכם, all ten must sign, so there is no תקלה. In the case of שנים, even without saying the word כולכם, if he says to two people, "Write a גט to my wife," cancel one without the other, the other one not knowing that the first one is canceled, which means he is canceled too, but since he doesn't know it, he will go ahead and give the גט. And he will not wait for the other one, because by the דין of הולכה of taking the גט, you do not have to have them both take the גט. So therefore, in the case of שנים, there is a תקלה. And that's what רב אשי said: If it would be talking about two people who were appointed to write the גט and sign the גט, then since one cannot do it without the other, there is no תקלה. But since he says we're talking about עדי הולכה, where one could do it without the other, and on the other hand, if you're מבטל one, the other one is בטל, so there is a תקלה. And that is the reason maybe why רבי שמעון בן גמליאל says that even in the case of two, you are not allowed to do to be מבטל one without the other. So there is no proof to what רבי שמעון בן גמליאל would hold in the case of כולכם. And he adds even more: הכא נמי מסתברא, we even have a סברא, a proof, that the ברייתא is not talking about the case of עדי כתיבה, people who were appointed to write the גט, but rather about people who were appointed to take the גט. Where do we see that? Because דקתני סיפא, it says in the end of that ברייתא: אמר לזה בפני עצמו ולזה בפני עצמו, if he appointed them separately, he had told one first to give the גט, and then he separately he told the other person to give the גט. In a case like that, יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה. Even רבי שמעון בן גמליאל says that you are allowed to be מבטל one without the other. So he says like this: אי אמרת בשלמא בעדי הולכה, if you're going to say that the ברייתא is talking about עדים that were appointed to take the גט, שפיר, we understand how there is such a possibility of appointing one separately and the other one separately. אלא אי אמרת בעדי כתיבה, but if you would tell me, as you thought before, that when it says he told to two people give the גט, he meant they should write and sign the גט, they should actually be the witnesses of the גט, מי מצטרפי, are they combined? How can you combine the two? How can you appoint two עדים separately? והא אמר מר, don't we have a דין: אין עדותם מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד, that when two people want to testify, the only way you could combine them two and turn them both into one group of עדים, if they both saw together. But if one saw by himself separately, and the other one saw a different part of it separately, then these two are not one group עדים, but they are two separate עד אחד's, they're two separate single עדים. Because in order to have one group of עדים, it must be done together. And the same thing when you appoint two people to sign a גט, to become the witnesses of the גט, they must be appointed together. So if the ברייתא would be talking about עדים that were appointed to write and sign the גט, it is impossible to appoint them separately. And since the ברייתא says that if you appointed them separately, then you are able to be מבטל one without the other, that proves that the ברייתא is not talking about עדי כתיבה, but about עדי הולכה, when you appointed שלוחים to take the גט. And when you appoint שלוחים to take the גט, there you are allowed to appoint them separately, because they're not really עדים, they're only messengers, agents to take the גט. So this proves that the ברייתא is talking about עדי הולכה, and that this proves the ראיה we wanted to bring from the ברייתא concerning כולכם. And the גמרא says: No, you have no ראיה that the ברייתא is speaking about עדי הולכה and not עדי כתיבה, because דילמא maybe, כרבי יהושע בן קרחה סבירא ליה. Maybe the ברייתא holds like רבי יהושע בן קרחה, because רבי יהושע בן קרחה holds in the גמרא in second פרק of כתובות and in סנהדרין, that even in a regular case of עדים, if they saw it separately, you could be מצרף them, you could combine them. So then it could be that this ברייתא, where it says that if he appointed them separately, it is okay and you could be מבטל one without the other, it is because this ברייתא holds like רבי יהושע בן קרחה, that even regular עדים could be appointed separately. And if so, the ברייתא could be speaking about עדי כתיבה. And if the ברייתא is speaking about עדי כתיבה, then we would have a ראיה to the case of כולכם, because two עדים by עדי כתיבה have the same דין as ten people when you say כולכם. Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב שמואל בר רב יהודה, רב שמואל בר רב יהודה said: שמעית מיניה דרב אבא תרתי, I heard from רב אבא two דינים, and this is concerning the two arguments between רבי and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that we learned before. One מחלוקת was whether ביטלו מבוטל or not, that if a person did not follow the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, בדיעבד, is it מבוטל or not? And then the second מחלוקת, that if you say to ten people, write a גט to my wife, whether you're allowed to be מבטל one not in front of the other. So he says he heard from רב אבא the הלכה in both arguments: חדא כרבי, in one of the two מחלוקות'ן, the הלכה he said was like רבי, וחדא, and in the other one, כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. But the problem is, ולא ידעינן, "I don't know," he said, הי כרבי והי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, in which of the two he פסק'נד like רבי, and which one he פסק'נד like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל.

אמר רב יוסף, so רב יוסף said, נחזי אנן, let us see ourselves, let us try to figure out ourselves in which one the הלכה is like רבי, and in which one the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. דכי אתא רב דימי, because when רב דימי came, אמר, he said, מעשה, there was a story, ועשה רבי כדברי חכמים, and רבי did like the חכמים. This is concerning the מחלוקת between the חכמים and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל in כתובות דף ק: שום הדיינים שפיחתו שת או הוסיפו שת. When the דיינים, the judges, the בית דין, had to evaluate the value of someone's property, and they made a mistake by a sixth: or they over-evaluated with a sixth, or they under-evaluated with a sixth. So the חכמים hold that this evaluation is cancelled, and they have to re-evaluate it. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says no, that if the בית דין did it, even though it was a mistake, it stays that way. For the reason, because אם כן, מה כח בית דין יפה? Cuz if not, if you're going to say that they have to re-evaluate it, so we're taking away the authority of the בית דין. So there was a story that רבי פסק'נד like the חכמים, that once the בית דין made a mistake and they made a wrong evaluation by a sixth, and רבי said that they should re-evaluate it again. אמר ליה פפא בר פרטא בנו של רב אלעזר בן פרטא בן בנו של רב פרטא הגדול, so רב פרטא, who was the son of רב אלעזר, who was the son of בן פרטא, who was the grandson of רב פרטא הגדול, so he said to רבי: אם כן, if so, that you're going to פסק'ן like the חכמים, that you have to re-evaluate it, מה כח בית דין יפה? What kind of authority does the בית דין have? And because of the question of רב פרטא, וחזר רבי, רבי changed his mind, ועשה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and he did like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and he said that the original evaluation should stay. So we see here that רבי himself, later on, accepted the סברא of אם כן, מה כח בית דין יפה. So when we go back to our מחלוקת here between רבי and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, in the case of ביטלו, if a person was מבטל not following the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, that רבי said that בדיעבד it is בטל, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל used the סברא אם כן, מה כח בית דין יפה, and he said it is not בטל. So from that story that רב דימי told, we see that later on רבי himself accepted the סברא of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל of אם כן, מה כח בית דין יפה. So obviously that in our מחלוקת here, רבי himself later admitted to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that if a person was מבטל not following the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, it should not be בטל. So we already have resolved part of the question: that which one of the two מחלוקות'ן the הלכה is like רבי and which one is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל? So we see that in the first מחלוקת, definitely the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, because רבי himself later admitted to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. ומי דהא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and since the first מחלוקת we said the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, הא, the second מחלוקת, כרבי, is definitely like רבי. Since we know that in one it's like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and in one it's like רבי, and we know for sure the first one is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, so that resolved the other problem too, that the second one is definitely the הלכה like רבי. Then the גמרא continues: ואף רבי יאשיה דמן אושא, also רבי יאשיה of אושא סבר, also holds that חדא כרבי וחדא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that in one of the מחלוקות'ן the הלכה is like רבי, and one the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. Where do we see that? דאמר רבה בר בר חנה, רבה בר בר חנה said, חמישה סבי הווינן קמיה דרבי יאשיה דמן אושא, we were five חכמים in front of רבי יאשיה of אושא. אתא ההוא גברא קמיה, while we were there, this person came to him, ואשקליה גיטא בעל כורחיה, and רבי יאשיה forced him to give a גט. And

while he forced him to give a גט, אמר להו, he said to the witnesses, זילו, go, איטמרו, you should hide, וכתובו לה, and write a גט for her. Why did he want the עדים to hide? Because if they would be around, he was afraid the person who was forced to give the גט, since he didn't really want to give the גט, he could have been מבטל them from writing the גט. So he said to them, hide so he won't be able to find you and write the גט. ואי סלקא דעתך כרבי, and if you're going to think that the הלכה is like רבי רבי, that בדיעבד, if a person is מבטל in front of a בית דין the גט is בטל, כי מיטמרי, even if they hide, מאי הוה, what will happen? What did he gain by telling them to hide? This man, who didn't really want to give the גט, could have gathered a בית דין together, and been מבטל the גט without them being there. אלא שמע מינה, this proves, כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבירא ליה, that רב יאשיה holds like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that after the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, even if you would do it in front of a בית דין, it would not be בטל. And therefore he said, "Hide, he won't find you, so he has no way of being מבטל the גט." ואי סלקא דעתך אידך נמי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, and if you're going to think that in the second מחלוקת, he also פסקנס like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that you are not allowed to be מבטל one without the other, למה להו איטמורי, why did he tell them to hide? ליבדרו איבדורי, he could have told them just to scatter, not to be together. And the only way he would have been able to be מבטל would be by finding one separately and the other one separately. And if the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that you cannot be מבטל one in front of the other, so if they would just scatter, that would prevent him from being מבטל, because he couldn't be מבטל them together because they wouldn't be together, he would only be able to do it separately, and separately, according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, it doesn't help. So רב יאשיה should have told them just make sure that you're not together. אלא שמע מינה, this proves that חדא כרבי, in one מחלוקת he פסקנס like רבי, in the second מחלוקת he פסקנס like רבי, that you are allowed to be מבטל one without the other. And therefore, if they would have just scattered and not been together, he still could have been מבטל them. He would have found one and would have מבטל him, and found the other one and would have מבטל him. And חדא, and in one מחלוקת, he פסקנס כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he פסקנס like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. This is the first מחלוקת. And therefore, by hiding, he cannot be מבטל, because if he would get a בית דין together where he is, it would not help. And the

גמרא continues, ורבא אמר רב נחמן, רבא says in the name of רב נחמן, הלכה כרבי בשתיהן, that the הלכה is like רבי in both מחלוקות. In the first מחלוקת, the הלכה is like רבי, that if בדיעבד he was מבטל in front of a בית דין, it is בטל, and in the second מחלוקת, it is also the הלכה like רבי, that you are allowed to be מבטל one without the other. And the גמרא asks, ולית ליה לרב נחמן, but does not רב נחמן hold of the סברא, מה כח בית דין יפה, that we say, what is the authority of בית דין? If we say that רב נחמן פסקנס like רבי in both, also in the first, obviously רב נחמן feels that we do not accept the סברא of מה כח בית דין יפה, and therefore, even though רבן גמליאל הזקן made a תקנה, if a person doesn't follow it, בדיעבד it is בטל. But how can we say that? והא אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל, רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל, יתומים שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהן, if orphans, קטנים, who are under בר

מצוה, want to divide the estate, the property, the possessions of their father, בית דין מעמידין להן אפוטרופוס, בית דין would appoint for them a guardian, ובוררין להן חלק יפה, and this guardian would choose for each one a good part. But when הגדילו, when they grow up, יכולין למחות, they could protest, and then they would be able to change the parts that each one took. That's what רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל. But רב נחמן דידיה אמר, רב נחמן on his own said, הגדילו אין יכולין למחות, that even when they grow up, they cannot protest, and whatever the אפוטרופוס, the guardian, chose for them before, that's how it stays. And the reason for that is דאם כן, if not, if so, if we're going to say that they do have a right to protest on that חלק that was given to them by the אפוטרופוס who was appointed by the בית דין, מה כח בית דין יפה, what kind of strength does a בית דין have? And because of the authority of בית דין, whatever the אפוטרופוס in the name of בית דין chose, that's how it stays. So we see that רב נחמן himself does accept the סברא of אם כן מה כח בית דין יפה. So how can he say in our case that the הלכה is like רבי, that בדיעבד, if he did not follow the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, it is בטל, and he does not accept the סברא of אם כן מה כח בית דין יפה? And the גמרא answers, התם ממונא, הכא איסורא. There, it's talking about ממון, about money, that the בית דין did something concerning monetary things, and concerning money we have a כלל that הפקר בית דין הפקר, that בית דין has the right over the possessions of a person. And therefore, since בית דין decided that this is the way they should divide divide the estate, and it stays that way, even though later on when they grow up they don't like it, but בית דין has a right to tell a person, "This is yours, and that is not yours." So because of the כח of בית דין, we say that they cannot protest. But in this

case of a גט, it is איסור, it is concerning question of what is allowed and what is not allowed, not a monetary question. So here the בית דין does not have that strength, and therefore, all the בית דין could do is אסר a person from being מבטל the גט in front of a בית דין. But they cannot say that if you did do it, בדיעבד it should not be בטל. And therefore, רב נחמן holds that in a case like this, the הלכה is like רבי, that ביטלו, if he was מבטל in front of a בית דין, it is מבוטל, בדיעבד it is בטל. Concerning the גמרא that we learned before, in the ענין of כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, that a person is מקדש on the דעת of the רבנן, and therefore the רבנן have a right to be מפקיע, to take away the קידושין retroactive, as if he never was מקדש her. And then the גמרא asks that תינח דקידש בכספא, that if he gave the קידושין through כסף, we understand what happened, but if he was מקדש בביאה, what do we say there? And the גמרא's answer is that the חכמים turned his ביאה into a ביאת זנות, so רש״י brings in the name of his רבי'ס a different פשט in the גמרא than we learned before. They said that when the גמרא asked, תינח דקידש בכספא, that if he was מקדש with money, it's okay, the reason why the גמרא felt that there is more כח for the בית דין to be מבטל קידושין that was done through כסף than the קידושין that was done through ביאה, because קידושי כסף is דרבנן. The דין that a person is allowed to be מקדש a woman through money is only a דין דרבנן. But the

fact that a person is allowed to be מקדש a woman through ביאה, that is a דין דאורייתא. In the תורה it says בפירוש in פרשת כי תצא, "כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה," that if a person will take a wife, "ובעלה," and he will have ביאה with her. So from there we see that how do you take a wife, what is a form of קידושין? ביאה. That is something that is מפורש clearly in the תורה. But how do we know that a person is allowed to be מקדש בכסף? The גמרא says in the beginning of קידושין, we learn it out from a גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון. So that is only, according to the רבי'ס of רש״י, only a דין דרבנן. And that's what the גמרא meant to ask. If he is מקדש with כסף, if he only gives her קידושין מדרבנן, then we understand that the רבנן have a right to be מבטל the קידושין that he did, which themselves were only דרבנן. But if he was מקדש בביאה, if he was מקדש with a קידושין דאורייתא, how do the רבנן have a right to be מבטל the קידושין which is דאורייתא? And the גמרא answers that שוויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות. That means that the חכמים turned, anytime a person is מקדש בביאה, that that ביאה should be a ביאת זנות. This does not refer to this specific case. According to this פשט, it refers to all קידושין בביאה, because the גמרא says in קידושין that רב מנגיד אמאן דמקדש בביאה. רב would give מלקות, would give lashes to a person who was מקדש בביאה. Even though מדאורייתא you are allowed to be מקדש בביאה, but since it is not דרך צניעות to do it through ביאה, so רב said you shouldn't do it, and not only that, if someone did do it, רב would give מלקות for that קידושין. So we see that the חכמים did not want a person to מקדש בביאה. So the גמרא here says that not only didn't they want that, but they said that anytime a person is מקדש בביאה, the ביאה should not be valid as קידושין, but the ביאה should be turned into a ביאת זנות. And that's what the גמרא answers. When you ask, how do the חכמים have a right to be מבטל the קידושין that was done מדאורייתא, קידושי ביאה, and say it's not קידושין, so the גמרא answers, anyway the קידושין that is done through ביאה is not קידושין, because the חכמים said that anybody is מקדש בביאה, his ביאה is a ביאת זנות. But רש״י himself writes that he has many קושיות on this פשט, and the first קושיא is, where did they take it from that קידושי כסף is only קידושי דרבנן? Even though it is true that the תורה clearly does not say that you could be מקדש בכסף, but it is learned out with a גזירה שוה, and גזירה שוה is גופא תורה היא. It is part of the תורה. Many דינים that are דאורייתא are learned out from the תורה with a גזירה שוה. And also, if קידושי כסף is only קידושין דרבנן, so let's say a woman got קידושין כסף, and then she was מזנה, you shouldn't be able to kill her for that, because she really מדאורייתא, she is not married. And why is the דין that a woman who was מקודש through כסף would get סקילה? So that's proves that קידושי כסף is דאורייתא. And another thing רש״ש says, the תירוץ of the גמרא according to their פשט, that the חכמים turned all the people who are מקדש בביאה, that their ביאה should be a ביאת זנות, how can we say that? Even though the גמרא does say that רב would give מלקות to somebody who was מקדש בביאה, but it doesn't mean that the woman was not מקודשת. Since מדאורייתא this woman is מקודשת, the רבנן could not say that she is not מקודשת. If מדאורייתא she is an אשת איש, so the רבנן did not say that she is not an אשת איש. They gave the person מלקות for doing it, but at the same time she was מקודשת. And therefore רש״ש says we cannot learn the פשט of his רביס, and he learns the פשט as we explained it before when we learned the גמרא. But it is interesting to know that the רמב״ם in הלכות אישות in the beginning calls קידושי כסף קידושין מדברי סופרים, קידושין מדרבנן. But as the מפרשים say there, he does not mean that קידושי כסף is only מדרבנן, but the רמב״ם has a כלל that sometimes a דין that is learned out from the תורה with one of the ways שהתורה נדרשת, with one of the rules that we're supposed to דרשן the תורה, and is not בפירוש in the תורה, he calls it מדברי סופרים, because סופרים refer to the חכמים, and this is a דין that the חכמים learned out from the תורה. And

that's why he calls it דברי סופרים, but he does not mean that קידושי כסף is actually only מדרבנן and not מדאורייתא. But we could say, in order to answer what the רבותיו של רש״ש had in mind, at least to answer the first קשיא of רש״ש, we're able to say that when they said that קידושי כסף is only מדרבנן, they meant what the רמב״ם meant, that it is learned out from a לימוד that the רבנן learned out, but they did not mean that it is actually מדרבנן. And we're able to say that they learned the פשט in the גמרא as follows. When the גמרא says, "כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש," they learned like רש״ש, that when someone is מקדש, he has in mind on condition that the חכמים should not disagree. And therefore, when the חכמים disagree, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, the רבנן take away the קידושין retroactively as if what he did before was not קידושין. And then the גמרא asks, התינח דקדיש בכספא, that if you're מקדש בכסף, since כסף is not written בפירוש in the תורה, כסף we know from a גזירה שוה that the חכמים learned out, so by כסף, the only way a person could be מקדש בכסף is because he relies on the לימוד of the חכמים. It is definitely a דין דאורייתא, but how do we know that it's a דין דאורייתא? Because the חכמים learned it out with a גזירה שוה. So the גמרא felt that if you're מקדש בכסף, so the person who was מקדש בכסף relied on the חכמים that this is קידושין, so here we could say that he was מקדש אדעתא of the חכמים. Since the קידושין he did comes from the חכמים, so therefore he was מקדש on condition that they agree to this קידושין. But קדיש בביאה, if he was מקדש בביאה, and ביאה is something that you do not have to come on to the חכמים to know that this is קידושין—a person who just learns חומש knows that you could be מקדש בביאה, because it says in the תורה, "כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה"—so a person who was מקדש בביאה, maybe this person does not give his קידושין on condition that the חכמים will not disagree, because he doesn't rely his קידושין on the חכמים to begin with. And that's what the גמרא meant: תינח דקדיש בכספא, if he was מקדש בכסף, here we would say אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, but קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר? What can we say if he's מקדש בביאה? Do we say there too that he gives the קידושין on the דעת of the חכמים? And the גמרא's answer is yes, שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות, that he there too is מקדש on the דעת of the חכמים, and therefore if the חכמים disagree, automatically his קידושין retroactively, למפרע, are not קידושין, and she is not an אשת איש. But as I

said before, this only explains the beginning, the first half of the פשט of רבותיו של רש״ש, but does not explain the second half when they said that when the גמרא says שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות, this refers to all מקדש בביאה, that the חכמים made all קידושין בביאה into ביאת זנות.