כ"ג אדר א' תשעו“  Thursday, March 3 2016

גיטין פ“א OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Defining “immediately” and “after a time” (cont.) Bringing fruit into the house through the roof דורות האחרונים וכו ‘ לפוטרן מן המעשר -The resolves the challenge to Shmuel’s explana tion of the terms “immediately” and “after a time.” R abbi Yanai teaches the halacha that the produce of one’s 2) : Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree farm is subject to the laws of tithes only once it is brought into whether not delivered or delivered with an unfulfilled the house through the front gate. He derives this law from the condition prohibit a woman from marrying a kohen. verse in Devarim (26:13) when a farmer declares that he has re-

3) If a rumor says that a kohen divorced his wife moved all his ma’aser “from the house”. This leads Rabbah bar Shmuel ruled that if a rumor says that a kohen divorced bar Channa to observe, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila’ei, his wife they must separate and the matter requires further that earlier generations used to bring their fruits into the house research. through the front gate to proudly obligate them in this mitzvah. The exact point that requires further research is ex- Later generations, however, sought to avoid this obligation. They plained. took advantage of the loophole which was available, and they brought the fruit from the field and brought it into the house 4) Differences between earlier and later generations through the roof and through the back yard, all of this in order R’ Yehudah bar Ilai is cited as noting the contrast between to avoid having the fruit become obligated to have tithes taken the ruling of Beis Shammai in the Mishnah and R’ Dosa’s rul- from them. ing in the Baraisa and how this illustrates how the stature of The poskim deal with the question whether this behavior of later generations has declined. seeking to avoid an obligation to separate tithes is prohibited, or Another observation cited in the name of R’ Yehudah bar is it a legitimate move, correctly using a loophole for those who Ilai about the descent of generations is presented. choose to do so. The Yerushalmi (Ma’asros 3:1) cites a list of 5) MISHNAH: The Mishnah presents a dispute between Amoraim who used to bring their fruit from the field into their Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel whether a divorced couple that houses through the roofs of their houses. When Rabbi Yehuda -bar Ila’ei saw this, he made his aforementioned statement com . גט stayed together in a hotel require a new

6) Clarifying the dispute paring earlier generations to later ones. The question is what was Rabbah bar bar Chanah in the name of R’ Yochanan meant by this comment? Should we conclude that since several identifies the parameters of the dispute between Beis Sham- Amoraim did this, it is obviously allowed, or should we say that mai and Beis Hillel. Rabbi Yehuda bar Ila’ei criticized them, this means that it is not This explanation is successfully challenged and it is sug- permitted. gested that R’ Yochanan’s statement was made in reference to Meiri in Berachos (35b) writes that it is prohibited for a per- a different source. son to avoid tithing by bringing his produce into the house in a The Gemara explains the point of the dispute according manner where he will be exempt from doing so. This is also to its present understanding of the Mishnah. seems to be the opinion of Ramban. Others suggest that even A contradiction is noted and confirmed regarding R’ according to those who prohibit avoiding tithing, this is not a Yochanan’s position on these matters. formal sin, but they mean that such conduct is inadvisable in times when we are in such dire need of the merit of such mitzvos. 7) MISHNAH: The Mishnah presents the halachos related . גט קרח and then defines a , גט קרח - גט to a bald

גט A bald (8 is invalid is explained. REVIEW and Remember גט The reason a bald

9) Clarifying the dispute between Ben Nanas and R’ Akiva 1. What is the point of dispute between Beis Shammai and The Gemara after a number of attempts explains why, Beis Hillel? ______. גט קרח according to R’ Akiva, a slave cannot sign on the R’ Ada bar Ahavah qualifies the dispute between Ben 2. Cite two ways that later generations are different than Nanas and R’ Akiva. earlier generations? (Overview...Continued on page 2) ______? גט קרח What is a .3 Today’s Daf Digest is dedicated ______In loving memory of ?Explain the dispute between Ben Nanas and R’ Akiva .4 מרת פייגע בת ר' דוד ע"ה Mrs. Florence Bodanis o.b.m ______גיטין פ“א—Number 1310

(Continued from page 1) R’ challenges this explanation. HALACHAH Highlight Rabbah bar Sheilta answers this challenge. Performing kiddushin at night A Baraisa is cited that supports this explanation of R’ Ada .bar Ahavah המגרש את אשתו ולנה אמו בפונדקי One who divorces his wife and lodged with her in an inn. An alternative version of R’ Ada bar Ahavah’s qualifica- tion is cited. eis Yosef 1 cites authorities who maintain that one should גט B 10) A bald not divorce at night. Teshuvas Re’em 2 explains that divorcing is R’ Yochanan asserts that only one relative can sign on a and judgments ( תחילת דין ) considered the beginning of judgment .but no more גט קרח may not be conducted at night. Precedent for this is R’ Eliezer’s R’ Ashi cites a Baraisa that supports this assertion. ruling that chalitzah may not be performed at night since it is considered the beginning of judgment. Teshuvas Re’em then that there should be a restriction against performing kiddushin at writes that it is possible that one should not perform kiddushin at night. equate Sefer Pashut 4 also disagrees with Teshuvas Re’em ” ויצאה והיתה “ night since the juxtaposition of the words the halachos of kiddushin and divorce. regarding this stringency and cites the Gemara in Kiddushin that Rav Akiva Eiger 3 disagrees with this assertion for a number of makes explicit reference to the performance of kiddushin at night Rav Akiva Eiger 5, despite his opposition to .( דקידשה בליליא) -reasons. Firstly, the Mishnah discusses a case of a divorced cou ple who slept in an inn and the possibility that kiddushin was Teshuvas Re’em’s ruling, defends the objection put forward by implies that they Sefer Get Pashut. Since the stringency is based on the ruling of ” ולנה “ performed. The language of the Mishnah slept in the inn at night. Secondly, one could contend that the R’ Eliezer which is disputed by Rabanan one could assert that the juxtaposition that equates marriage and divorce does not apply in Gemara in kiddushin follows Rabanan and thus since halacha this case. Had the Torah stated explicitly that one may not di- follows R’ Eliezer it could still be maintained that kiddushin may vorce at night one could accept that the halacha of kiddushin and not be performed at night.

the halacha of divorce are the same. However, since the halacha 1 בית יוסף אה"ע סי' קנ"ו. 2 שו"ת הרא"ם המכונה מים עמוקים סי' ל"ה. i.e. the divorce ,( סברא ) of divorce is derived only from logic 3 שו"ת רעק"א ח"ב סי' ע"א. begins the kesubah proceedings, one could argue that since this 4 4 ספר גט פשוט סי' קכ"ג ס"ק כ"א. logic does not apply to kiddushin there is no reason to assume 5 שו"ת רעק"א שם. no one could be trusted, who would risk giving her a divorce… Beis Hillel says that torture or death for a halachic ceremony? he must give her a second writ.’ It would STORIES Off the Daf One young crypto-Jewish couple mar- appear as though our case is the same, Living under Duress ried in the usual fashion. A few months since everyone knew that they were living after the wedding they managed to get out as man and wife. This is at least as effective "ובה"א צריכה הימנו גט שני..." of Spain. Sadly, when the two finally ar- in establishing a relationship as mere wit- A fter the expulsion from Spain, the rived at a free port, the husband decided nesses. This is incorrect, however. In the only Jews to remain had to pose as non- to abscond. He left his pregnant bride sud- case mentioned earlier, we are relying on Jews. Any evidence of observance was kept denly and was never heard from again. the established precedent that a man will extremely private since fulfillment of the After waiting a time she realized that not do that which is against halachah. It Torah’s commands would render a person he would likely never return, but what follows that if a man is intimate with his or proof of ex-wife (or perhaps any other woman), he גט subject to the horrors of the Inquisition. could she do? Without a All rituals were only observed with imme- demise a married woman may not remarry. intends the intimacy be for the sake of diate family present, since it presented As is well known, there is no halachic way kiddushin. such a risk. Any mitzvah that required wit- to circumvent this. The Rivash concluded, “In our case, nesses who were not close relatives was not But then someone suggested that since there wasn’t even a in the town fulfilled, since this was a danger to life and she never halachically married, perhaps where the couple lived! Clearly, if the laws of taharas hamishpachah are not essential . גט limb. The Church was always trying to she didn’t need a catch hidden Jews “backsliding” into Jew- They decided to consult with the Ri- to this couple, there is no chazakah that he ish practice. Most of the weddings of vash, zt”l, on this sensitive matter. “On the meant to marry her to avoid a prohibition. at גט anusim (“coerced ones”) were performed surface, it appears as though this should be It follows that this woman needs no in a church with no corresponding ha- just like the Mishnah in Gittin 81: ‘If a all.” 1 .1 שו"ת הריב"ש, סימן ו' lachically valid ceremony. Since virtually man spent the night with his wife after

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.