Amud 2b

תוס' ד"ה לפי - 1

Since they are not well versed in the requirement that a גט must be written for her sake - לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

Summary: The meaning of אין בקיאין לשמה is that the בני חו"ל in spite of knowing that there is a requirement that a גט be written לשמה, as derived from the פסוק וכתב לה – לשמה, nevertheless they did not take it seriously.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה לפי - 2

Because they are not well versed in the requirement of לשמה, etc. - לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

Summary: It would seem from the גמרא that רבה is of the opinion that the בני חו"ל, are not בקיאין לשמה and therefore we are (seriously) concerned that this גט from חו"ל may not be written לשמה. Our תוספות will quote a ברייתא that will disprove this concern.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה מאי

What is the difference between them - מאי בינייהו

Summary: The גמרא asks what are the practical differences between רבה who gives the reason for saying בפ"נ, because אין בקיאין לשמה, as opposed to רבא who gives the reason of אין עדים מצויין לקיימו. The גמרא offers three differences. תוספות will ask that there are seemingly two additional obvious differences between רבה ורבא that the גמרא does not mention. תוספות will explain why the גמרא does not mention these differences.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה דאתיוה

That two people brought the גט, etc. - דאתיוה בי תרי

Summary: The גמרא states that if two people were שלוחים to bring a גט ממדה"י, according to רבא they are not required to say בפ"נ. Our תוספות will be discussing the reason why they are not required to say בפ"נ.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ליבעי

Let us require two witnesses - ליבעי תרי

Summary: The גמרא asks; according to רבא who is concerned that the גט was written שלא לשמה, since the בני חו"ל are not בקיאין לשמה, we should require that two עדות testify that this גט was written לשמה and only then to permit the woman to get married. However we have already learnt in a previous תוספות that there is no real concern of שלא לשמה, only a concern of הוצאת לעז, why does the גמרא require two witnesses.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה מידי

As is wont to be in all testimony in the Torah - מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה

Summary: There are two גירסאות in our גמרא; whether we are comparing this שליח הגט to כל עדיות (as תוספות prefers), or to כל עריות.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה עד - 1

One witness is believed regarding laws concerning prohibitive acts - עד אחד נאמן באיסורין

Summary: The proof that ע"א נאמן באיסורין, in a situation similar to a שליח הגט that is testifying that it was written לשמה, can be derived from the fact that people are נאמן on ניקור הגיד and חלב. For in those two instances there is no חזקת איסור on this meat that it is either גיד הנשה or חלב.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה עד - 2

One witness is believed regarding laws concerning prohibitive acts - עד אחד נאמן באיסורין

Summary: The תרצן who explains that the reason why the שליח alone is נאמן to testify that the גט was written לשמה, is on account of the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין; it is his contention that merely testifying on the status of a גט, that it was properly drawn up, this testimony is not to be considered as a דבר שבערוה.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה הוי

It is a matter concerning illicit relationships - הוי דבר שבערוה

Summary: The גמרא in יבמות did not decide if an ע"א is נאמן in cases of איתחזק איסורא ולאו בידו, therefore our גמרא, needed to add that in our case of בפ"נ, not only is it איתחזק איסורא, but it is also a דבר שבערוה, and everyone agrees that an ע"א is not נאמן by a דבר שבערוה ואיתחזק איסורא.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה סתם

Generally the scribes of the judges are knowledgeable - סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי

Summary: When a חשש is limited to a case where two minorities have to coincide, even ר"מ, who in general is חושש למיעוטא, in such a case he is not חושש.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ורבנן

And it is the רבנן who require it - ורבנן הוא דאצרוך

Summary: The גמרא concluded that there is no real חשש that the גט was written שלא לשמה, since רוב בקיאין and סתם ספרי דדייני גמירי; the reason why we say בפ"נ on account of לשמה is because ורבנן הוא דאצרוך. The גמרא however does not explain why the רבנן required that the שליח say בפ"נ. our תוספות will quote s'רש"י explanation, refute it, and then state his own explanation.

[View / Print]