Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 17, 2015 | 讛壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Gittin 4

The Gemara continues to ascertain according to which tanna does the Mishna correspond when it requires that both the writing and the signing of the get needs to be li’shma? The possibility of it being Rabbi Meir is rejected. However there is a possible way to explain the Mishna like Rabbi Elazar – while he may not require signatures, if they are there, they need to be done li’shma. However, the Gemara brings in a third opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that both the writing and the signing need to be li’shma. If so, why didn’t the Gemara simply bring Rabbi Yehuda at the beginning of the sugya? There are two tannaitic debates in the Mishna – one regarding towns on the border with Israel and another regarding whether one who brings a get from Israel abroad needs to say “before me it was written…signed.” The Gemara first attempts to line up each of these debate with the debate between Raba and Rava but in the end concedes that it is not the case. After raising an additional question from the Mishna against Raba’s opinion, they concede that Raba must think that both are issues – making sure the get was done li’shma and that witnesses may not be around to verify the signatures. If so, what is the practical difference between Raba and Rava?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗谞谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

 

and he signed it and gave it to his wife, it is a valid bill of divorce? And if you would say that we learned that this statement of Rav Na岣an applies by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law Rabbi Meir concedes that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, if so, Rav Na岣an should have said: Rabbi Meir would say that by Torah law if a husband found a document in the garbage he may use it.

 

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻诇诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘注讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇

 

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous answer and states: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when does Rabbi Elazar not require that the signing must be for her sake? Where there are no witnesses at all on the bill of divorce. However, where there are witnesses, he does require that all their signatures must be for her sake. The proof for this is that Rabbi Abba says: Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, i.e., a document that is signed by disqualified witnesses, that it is invalid. This shows that although Rabbi Elazar maintains that a lack of signatures does not invalidate a bill of divorce, all signatures included in the bill of divorce must be valid; otherwise the document is rendered invalid.

 

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 注讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讬讘转讜 讜讞转讬诪转讜 讘转诇讜砖

 

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with a third opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (21b): Rabbi Yehuda invalidates a bill of divorce unless its writing and signing are performed on an item that is detached from the ground. According to this opinion, both the writing and the signing must be done for her sake.

 

讜诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

 

The Gemara asks: And initially, what is the reason we did not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn鈥檛 it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

 

诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚住转诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讙讬讟讬谉

 

The Gemara answers: We seek to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as there is a general principle that a ruling in an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Likewise, we seek to interpret the mishna in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, as we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to bills of divorce. For these reasons, the Gemara first attempted to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of one of these tanna鈥檌m, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.

 

转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛专拽诐 讜诪谉 讛讞讙专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻驻专 诇讜讚讬诐 诇诇讜讚 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注讬讬专讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜讘诇注讜转 讘转讞讜诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注住拽讬谞谉

 

搂 The Gemara continues to explain the mishna in light of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from 岣ger must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod. And Abaye said in explanation of this matter: We are dealing with towns that are not part of the land itself, but are near Eretz Yisrael and within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael.

 

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讗转专讗 讜讛讜讬 讻诪讘讬 讻讜讘讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

 

And Rabba bar bar 岣na said: I myself saw that place, i.e., the distance between the village of Ludim and Lod, and it was similar to the distance from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita, which is only a short distance.

 

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: One can derive by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that in these places the agent is not required to testify that the bill of divorce was written and signed for the woman鈥檚 sake. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for saying: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because people living overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and the residents of these places are learned in this matter, as they are near Eretz Yisrael. And one Sage, Rabban Gamliel, holds: The reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the residents of these places are also not frequently available, as they live on the other side of the border, and it is difficult to bring witnesses from one place to another.

 

诇讗 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讻讜转 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬

 

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no proof that this issue is a dispute among tanna鈥檌m, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara elaborates: Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. And here they disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna holds that since the residents of these cities are located near Eretz Yisrael, they are assumed to be learned in this halakha.

 

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 讙诪讬专讬 住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: Granted, the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are learned in this halakha, however, the residents of these cities that are only near Eretz Yisrael are not learned. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say, when he mentioned the village of Ludim and the town of Lod, that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not treated as learned, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of the country overseas. In other words, anywhere that is not part of the Jewish settlement of Eretz Yisrael is classified as outside, even if they are familiar with the halakhot of bills of divorce.

 

专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讻讜转 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

Likewise, Rava resolves the various opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And the first tanna holds: Since the residents of these cities are nearby they are frequently available.

 

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 砖讻讬讞讬 住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: The residents of cities within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are frequently available. However, the residents of places that are merely near Eretz Yisrael are not frequently available. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not considered to be like Eretz Yisrael in this matter, despite their proximity to the Jewish settlement, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of a country overseas.

 

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讜诇讬讱 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛

 

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. The Gemara analyzes this statement: One can learn by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to say this declaration. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for the declaration is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake,

 

讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

 

and these people are learned with regard to this halakha, as a bill of divorce sent from Eretz Yisrael was certainly written in the correct manner. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The reason for the testimony is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these witnesses who travel from Eretz Yisrael overseas are also not frequently available.

 

专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专转 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

 

The Gemara again rejects the suggestion: One cannot prove that this issue is a dispute of the tanna鈥檌m, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as follows: It may be that everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and here they disagree with regard to a decree applied in the case of one who delivers a bill of divorce to Eretz Yisrael due to the concern that it will be confused with the case of one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael.

 

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗

 

The Gemara explains that the first tanna holds: The Sages do not decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings. In other words, although one who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas need not state this declaration.

 

讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗

 

And the later Rabbis hold: The Sages do decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings the bill of divorce from overseas. The reason for this decree is that one might err and think that just as an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence, so too, one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael need not state this declaration. Consequently, the Sages decreed that even one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

 

讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

 

And Rava also resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. How so? He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the later Rabbis do not disagree with the previous opinion. Rather, they come to explain the reasoning of the first tanna. In other words, the first tanna agrees that one who takes a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must state the declaration, and he simply taught the halakha in a concise manner.

 

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

 

搂 The Gemara attempts to cite another proof: We learned in the mishna: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers: But if he brought a bill of divorce within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state this declaration. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as witnesses are available in the same region. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, the matter is difficult, as overseas residents are not experts in the halakha and therefore it does not matter how closely they are located to each other.

 

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabba, do not say that the correct inference is: Within one region in a country overseas, he is not required to state the declaration. Rather, say that one should infer from the mishna: From region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to do so.

 

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

 

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: But that halakha need not be derived by inference, as the mishna is teaching it explicitly: One who brings a bill of divorce from one place to another within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara answers: If this halakha were to be derived from that statement alone, I would say: This applies only after the fact, i.e., if someone acted in this manner then the bill of divorce is not invalidated. However, it might have been thought that one should not act in this manner ab initio; rather, the agent should state the declaration. Therefore, the mishna teaches us by means of this inference from its first section that he need not state the declaration even ab initio.

 

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

The Gemara offers an alternate version of this discussion: And some raise this objection like this, by inferring differently from that ruling of the mishna. The mishna teaches: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers from here that if he brings the document from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to state the declaration.

 

诇专讘讛 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

This works out well according to the opinion of Rabba, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects this inference: Do not say that the mishna is teaching that from one region to another region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required. Rather, say: Within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state the declaration.

 

讗讘诇 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谞讬 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 住转诐

 

The Gemara questions this interpretation: However, if that is so, with regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, what is the halakha? Is he required to state the declaration? If so, let the mishna teach simply: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region must state the declaration, without specification, and this would apply both overseas and in Eretz Yisrael.

 

诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara answers: Actually, one who brings from region to region within Eretz Yisrael is also not required to state the declaration even according to the opinion of Rava, for the following reason: Since there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival, witnesses are frequently available and they can come even from one region to another.

 

转讬谞讞 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讚拽讘讬注讬 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well when the Temple is standing, as there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival at that time. However, when the Temple is not standing what can be said? The Gemara answers: Since there are central courts that are fixed in a permanent location where everyone goes, witnesses are frequently available to ratify the bill of divorce.

 

转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜注住住讬讜转 砖诪讛 讜讛讬讜 讘讛 砖谞讬 讛讙诪讜谞讬讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪拽驻讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗

 

The Gemara suggests a different proof: We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one district to another district must say that it was written and signed in his presence. And Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael, and Asasiyyot was its name, and it contained two districts that divided the city. And its two governors were so particular with each other that they enacted travel restrictions that made it impossible to cross through the city, and consequently they were required to say the declaration when bringing a bill of divorce from district to district.

 

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

 

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who holds that the reason is due to witnesses, as the witnesses could not pass from one district to another. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he maintains that there is no need to state the declaration in Eretz Yisrael because its residents are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. The Gemara answers: Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, i.e., Rabba agrees that one of the reasons for this halakha is because witnesses are not available to ratify the bill of divorce. He adds another reason, that they are not experts in the halakha of writing the document for her sake.

 

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗转讬讜讛 讘讬 转专讬

 

The Gemara asks: Rather, what then is the difference between them, i.e., between Rava鈥檚 explanation and that of Rabba? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a case where two people bring the bill of divorce from a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rava they do not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as additional witnesses are not needed to confirm this bill of divorce. However, it is still necessary to declare that the document was written for the sake of the wife.

 

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

Alternatively, the difference between the two explanations involves a case where one agent brought the bill of divorce from one place to another within a single region in a country overseas, where witnesses are available to ratify it. According to Rabba it is still necessary for the agent to utter the declaration so that he can confirm that the bill of divorce was written for her sake. According to Rava, he does not have to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as witnesses are readily available if needed.

 

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专

 

We learned in a mishna (9a): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and he is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce has witnesses signed on it then it shall be ratified by its signatories, i.e., it can be ratified by validating the witnesses鈥 signatures. And we discussed this halakha: What is the meaning of the phrase: And he is unable to say?

 

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Li鈥檚hma for a Get – What and Why? – Gefet for Gittin 2

We generally recognize the term li鈥檚hma in the context of Limmud Torah and observing mitzvot but surprisingly, in Masechet Gittin...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 4: Who Knew the Law?

On the dispute between Rava and Rabbah - why a shaliach needs to proclaim that the get was written and...

Gittin 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 4

讜讞转诪讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讛 讻砖专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗谞谉 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

 

and he signed it and gave it to his wife, it is a valid bill of divorce? And if you would say that we learned that this statement of Rav Na岣an applies by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law Rabbi Meir concedes that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, if so, Rav Na岣an should have said: Rabbi Meir would say that by Torah law if a husband found a document in the garbage he may use it.

 

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞转讬诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讻诇诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘注讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇

 

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous answer and states: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when does Rabbi Elazar not require that the signing must be for her sake? Where there are no witnesses at all on the bill of divorce. However, where there are witnesses, he does require that all their signatures must be for her sake. The proof for this is that Rabbi Abba says: Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, i.e., a document that is signed by disqualified witnesses, that it is invalid. This shows that although Rabbi Elazar maintains that a lack of signatures does not invalidate a bill of divorce, all signatures included in the bill of divorce must be valid; otherwise the document is rendered invalid.

 

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 注讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讬讘转讜 讜讞转讬诪转讜 讘转诇讜砖

 

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with a third opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (21b): Rabbi Yehuda invalidates a bill of divorce unless its writing and signing are performed on an item that is detached from the ground. According to this opinion, both the writing and the signing must be done for her sake.

 

讜诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

 

The Gemara asks: And initially, what is the reason we did not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn鈥檛 it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

 

诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚住转诐 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讗专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讙讬讟讬谉

 

The Gemara answers: We seek to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as there is a general principle that a ruling in an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Likewise, we seek to interpret the mishna in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, as we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to bills of divorce. For these reasons, the Gemara first attempted to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of one of these tanna鈥檌m, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.

 

转谞谉 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪讘讬讗 诪谉 讛专拽诐 讜诪谉 讛讞讙专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻驻专 诇讜讚讬诐 诇诇讜讚 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘注讬讬专讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讜讘诇注讜转 讘转讞讜诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注住拽讬谞谉

 

搂 The Gemara continues to explain the mishna in light of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from 岣ger must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod. And Abaye said in explanation of this matter: We are dealing with towns that are not part of the land itself, but are near Eretz Yisrael and within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael.

 

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 讛讛讜讗 讗转专讗 讜讛讜讬 讻诪讘讬 讻讜讘讬 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

 

And Rabba bar bar 岣na said: I myself saw that place, i.e., the distance between the village of Ludim and Lod, and it was similar to the distance from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita, which is only a short distance.

 

诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: One can derive by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that in these places the agent is not required to testify that the bill of divorce was written and signed for the woman鈥檚 sake. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for saying: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because people living overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and the residents of these places are learned in this matter, as they are near Eretz Yisrael. And one Sage, Rabban Gamliel, holds: The reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the residents of these places are also not frequently available, as they live on the other side of the border, and it is difficult to bring witnesses from one place to another.

 

诇讗 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讻讜转 诪讬讙诪专 讙诪讬专讬

 

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no proof that this issue is a dispute among tanna鈥檌m, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara elaborates: Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. And here they disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna holds that since the residents of these cities are located near Eretz Yisrael, they are assumed to be learned in this halakha.

 

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 讙诪讬专讬 住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: Granted, the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are learned in this halakha, however, the residents of these cities that are only near Eretz Yisrael are not learned. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say, when he mentioned the village of Ludim and the town of Lod, that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not treated as learned, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of the country overseas. In other words, anywhere that is not part of the Jewish settlement of Eretz Yisrael is classified as outside, even if they are familiar with the halakhot of bills of divorce.

 

专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讜讻讜转 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

Likewise, Rava resolves the various opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And the first tanna holds: Since the residents of these cities are nearby they are frequently available.

 

讜讗转讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 砖讻讬讞讬 住诪讜讻讜转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 诪讜讘诇注讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇讗 转讞诇讜拽 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: The residents of cities within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are frequently available. However, the residents of places that are merely near Eretz Yisrael are not frequently available. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not considered to be like Eretz Yisrael in this matter, despite their proximity to the Jewish settlement, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of a country overseas.

 

转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讜诇讬讱 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛

 

We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. The Gemara analyzes this statement: One can learn by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to say this declaration. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for the declaration is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake,

 

讜讛谞讬 讙诪讬专讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬

 

and these people are learned with regard to this halakha, as a bill of divorce sent from Eretz Yisrael was certainly written in the correct manner. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: The reason for the testimony is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these witnesses who travel from Eretz Yisrael overseas are also not frequently available.

 

专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘拽讬讗讬谉 诇砖诪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专转 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

 

The Gemara again rejects the suggestion: One cannot prove that this issue is a dispute of the tanna鈥檌m, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as follows: It may be that everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and here they disagree with regard to a decree applied in the case of one who delivers a bill of divorce to Eretz Yisrael due to the concern that it will be confused with the case of one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael.

 

讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗

 

The Gemara explains that the first tanna holds: The Sages do not decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings. In other words, although one who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas need not state this declaration.

 

讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 住讘专讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讗讟讜 诪讘讬讗

 

And the later Rabbis hold: The Sages do decree with regard to one who delivers due to one who brings the bill of divorce from overseas. The reason for this decree is that one might err and think that just as an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence, so too, one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael need not state this declaration. Consequently, the Sages decreed that even one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

 

讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 讘转专讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗转讜

 

And Rava also resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. How so? He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the later Rabbis do not disagree with the previous opinion. Rather, they come to explain the reasoning of the first tanna. In other words, the first tanna agrees that one who takes a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must state the declaration, and he simply taught the halakha in a concise manner.

 

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

 

搂 The Gemara attempts to cite another proof: We learned in the mishna: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers: But if he brought a bill of divorce within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state this declaration. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, as witnesses are available in the same region. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, the matter is difficult, as overseas residents are not experts in the halakha and therefore it does not matter how closely they are located to each other.

 

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabba, do not say that the correct inference is: Within one region in a country overseas, he is not required to state the declaration. Rather, say that one should infer from the mishna: From region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to do so.

 

讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

 

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: But that halakha need not be derived by inference, as the mishna is teaching it explicitly: One who brings a bill of divorce from one place to another within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara answers: If this halakha were to be derived from that statement alone, I would say: This applies only after the fact, i.e., if someone acted in this manner then the bill of divorce is not invalidated. However, it might have been thought that one should not act in this manner ab initio; rather, the agent should state the declaration. Therefore, the mishna teaches us by means of this inference from its first section that he need not state the declaration even ab initio.

 

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

The Gemara offers an alternate version of this discussion: And some raise this objection like this, by inferring differently from that ruling of the mishna. The mishna teaches: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers from here that if he brings the document from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required to state the declaration.

 

诇专讘讛 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗 爪专讬讱

 

This works out well according to the opinion of Rabba, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects this inference: Do not say that the mishna is teaching that from one region to another region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required. Rather, say: Within one region in a country overseas he is not required to state the declaration.

 

讗讘诇 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 爪专讬讱 诇讬转谞讬 讛诪讘讬讗 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 住转诐

 

The Gemara questions this interpretation: However, if that is so, with regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, what is the halakha? Is he required to state the declaration? If so, let the mishna teach simply: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region must state the declaration, without specification, and this would apply both overseas and in Eretz Yisrael.

 

诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讚讬谞讛 诇诪讚讬谞讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara answers: Actually, one who brings from region to region within Eretz Yisrael is also not required to state the declaration even according to the opinion of Rava, for the following reason: Since there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival, witnesses are frequently available and they can come even from one region to another.

 

转讬谞讞 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讚拽讘讬注讬 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬

 

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well when the Temple is standing, as there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival at that time. However, when the Temple is not standing what can be said? The Gemara answers: Since there are central courts that are fixed in a permanent location where everyone goes, witnesses are frequently available to ratify the bill of divorce.

 

转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讬专 讗讞转 讛讬转讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜注住住讬讜转 砖诪讛 讜讛讬讜 讘讛 砖谞讬 讛讙诪讜谞讬讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪拽驻讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讜诪专 诪讛讙诪讜谞讬讗 诇讛讙诪讜谞讬讗

 

The Gemara suggests a different proof: We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that even an agent who brings a bill of divorce from one district to another district must say that it was written and signed in his presence. And Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael, and Asasiyyot was its name, and it contained two districts that divided the city. And its two governors were so particular with each other that they enacted travel restrictions that made it impossible to cross through the city, and consequently they were required to say the declaration when bringing a bill of divorce from district to district.

 

诇专讘讗 谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗 专讘讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讗

 

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who holds that the reason is due to witnesses, as the witnesses could not pass from one district to another. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he maintains that there is no need to state the declaration in Eretz Yisrael because its residents are aware of the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman鈥檚 sake. The Gemara answers: Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, i.e., Rabba agrees that one of the reasons for this halakha is because witnesses are not available to ratify the bill of divorce. He adds another reason, that they are not experts in the halakha of writing the document for her sake.

 

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗转讬讜讛 讘讬 转专讬

 

The Gemara asks: Rather, what then is the difference between them, i.e., between Rava鈥檚 explanation and that of Rabba? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a case where two people bring the bill of divorce from a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rava they do not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as additional witnesses are not needed to confirm this bill of divorce. However, it is still necessary to declare that the document was written for the sake of the wife.

 

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗讜转讛 诪讚讬谞讛 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

 

Alternatively, the difference between the two explanations involves a case where one agent brought the bill of divorce from one place to another within a single region in a country overseas, where witnesses are available to ratify it. According to Rabba it is still necessary for the agent to utter the declaration so that he can confirm that the bill of divorce was written for her sake. According to Rava, he does not have to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as witnesses are readily available if needed.

 

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诐 讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专

 

We learned in a mishna (9a): With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and he is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if the bill of divorce has witnesses signed on it then it shall be ratified by its signatories, i.e., it can be ratified by validating the witnesses鈥 signatures. And we discussed this halakha: What is the meaning of the phrase: And he is unable to say?

 

Scroll To Top