21B22A

Mishna

1-You can’t write a Gett while it’s attached to the ground.

2-If you wrote it while it’s attached and then cut it off and signed it, it’s kosher….R’
Yehuda says it’d be pasul because it’s needs to be written and signed unattached.

3-R’ Yehuda BB says you can’t write a Gett on erased parchment or unfinished
parchment, because it can be forged…. The chachamim say it’s kosher (because we can

rely on the edei mesira).

Q- Why does the tana kama say that if you write it when it’s attached, and then cut
it off and sign it, it’s kosher?? The first Halacha of the mishna is that you can’t
write it when it’s attached??

A- R’ Yehuda says he was talking about a case where you didn’t write the main
parts of the Gett (names, places) until you cut it off.(4 other ppl also explain the mishna that way).

This goes like R’ Eliezer that says that the edei mesira are the ones that make the
Gett (so the kesiva that has to be lishma is the writing of the Gett- not the signing) and the way to
understand the mishna is, “Don’t write any part of the Gett when it’s attached
because you might come to write the main part (names, cities) when it’s attached,
but if you did write a minor part of the get while it’s attached, you can still cut it off
and write the main parts and give it to her.”

A2- Reish Lakish sys that the mishna says that you SIGNED it after it was cut off
(but it was written before) and the Mishna is going like R’ Meir who says that you
need the signing (not writing) to be lishma. So the Mishna is saying “don’t write the
main part of the Gett when it’s attached, because you might come to sign it when
it’s attached…If you did write it when it was attached, then you can cut it off and
sign it.

If you wrote it on pottery of a flower pot (w/ a hole), it’s kosher because you can
give her the whole flower pot.

If you wrote it on a leaf in a flower pot (w/ a hole)-

Abaye says it’s kosher, -because he can give her the whole flower pot.

Rava says it’s pasul -because you might cut off the leaf.

Background- Movable objects are acquired with meshicha (pulling) or hagbaah (picking
up). Land is acquired by a chazaka, or shtar, or money.

Case- A flower pot belongs to one person and the seeds in the pot belong to s/o else and
the owner of the flower pot sells the flowerpot to the owner of the seeds, he can acquire
the flower pot by pulling it (meshicha).

-If the seed owner sells the seeds to the owner of the flower pot, he can’t acquire the
seeds until he does a chazaka on it (not meshicha).

-If one guy owned the flower pot and the seeds and sold them both to s/o else, he can
acquire both by doing a chazaka on the seeds, because movable objects can be
acquired along with (agav) land…..If he does a chazaka on the flower pot, he hasn’t
acquired anything (until he does a chazaka on the seeds).

Background- fruit from EY is chayav in maaser. Fruits from outside EY aren’t.

If the hole of the flower pot is in EY and the branches grow outside EY- Abaye says you go by the
hole, Rava says you go by the branches.

If it grew roots in the ground, then everyone agrees that you go by the hole and not the
branches..

Q-How can you say there’s no argument if it has roots? I’m a case of one garden on top of
another, and a vegetable is sticking out of the side, it’s a machlokes whether it goes to the upper
guy (his roots) or the lower guy (his airspace).

A- In that case the reasoning is different- the upper guy can say that I can take away the dirt, and
the vegetable would come with it. The lower guy can say that I can fill up my airspace with dirt
and there would be no vegetable… but that reasoning wouldn’t apply by the flower pot.

Q- There’s another case that seems to show that they’d argue even if it grew
roots- If you have a tree that’s partially in EY and partially out of EY-

Rebbe says that each fruit of the tree is a mix of tevel (chayav to take off maaser)
and chulin (not chayav maaser)

RSBG says that the fruits that are growing in EY are chayav maaser and the ones
that are growing outside are not chayav maaser

Isn’t the case where some of the branches are in EY and some out of EY and they
still argue whether you go after the branches (even though a tree has roots)?

A- No, the case is talking about where part of the roots are in EY and part of the
roots are outside.

The reasoning for RSBG (each side is different) is because there’s a rock that’s
dividing it in the middle of the roots.

The reasoning for Reebe (each fruit is mixed) is because once it gets to the trunk,
the nutrients are mixed again.

What’s the source of their machlokes?

Rebbe says that the airspace mixed up the nutrients.

RSBG holds that the nutrients stay on one side.