Gittin 4

וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר וכי תימא אנן מדאורייתא קא מתנינן לה אי הכי אומר היה רבי מאיר דבר תורה מיבעי ליה

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 Naḥman 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 Naḥman should have said: Rabbi Meir would say that by Torah law if a husband found a document in the garbage he may use it.

אלא לעולם רבי אלעזר היא וכי לא בעי רבי אלעזר חתימה היכא דליכא עדים כלל היכא דאיכא עדים בעי דאמר רבי אבא מודה רבי אלעזר במזוייף מתוכו שהוא פסול

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.

רב אשי אמר הא מני רבי יהודה היא דתנן רבי יהודה פוסל עד שתהא כתיבתו וחתימתו בתלוש

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.

ומעיקרא מאי טעמא לא מוקמינן לה כרבי יהודה

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’s opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn’t it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

מהדרינן ארבי מאיר דסתם מתניתין רבי מאיר מהדרינן ארבי אלעזר דקיימא לן הילכתא כוותיה בגיטין

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’im, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.

תנן רבן גמליאל אומר אף המביא מן הרקם ומן החגר רבי אליעזר אומר אפילו מכפר לודים ללוד ואמר אביי בעיירות הסמוכות לארץ ישראל ומובלעות בתחום ארץ ישראל עסקינן

§ 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 Ḥeger 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.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והוי כמבי כובי לפומבדיתא

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר הני לא צריך מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו והני נמי לא שכיחי

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’s 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.

לא רבה מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והכא בהא קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר הני כיון דסמוכות מיגמר גמירי

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no proof that this issue is a dispute among tanna’im, 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.

ואתא רבן גמליאל למימר מובלעות גמירי סמוכות לא גמירי ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר מובלעות נמי לא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים

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.

רבא מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו ותנא קמא סבר הני כיון דסמוכות מישכח שכיחי

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.

ואתא רבן גמליאל למימר מובלעות שכיחי סמוכות לא שכיחי ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר מובלעות נמי לא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים

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.

תנן וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אלא המביא ממדינת הים והמוליך מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מוליך לא צריך מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

§ 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,

והני גמירי ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו והני נמי לא שכיחי

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.

רבה מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והכא בגזירת מוליך אטו מביא קמיפלגי

The Gemara again rejects the suggestion: One cannot prove that this issue is a dispute of the tanna’im, 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.

דתנא קמא סבר לא גזרינן מוליך אטו מביא

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.

ורבנן בתראי סברי גזרינן מוליך אטו מביא

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.

ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו ורבנן בתראי לפרושי טעמיה דתנא קמא הוא דאתו

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.

תנן המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם הא באותה מדינה במדינת הים לא צריך לרבא ניחא לרבה קשיא

§ 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.

לא תימא הא באותה מדינה במדינת הים לא צריך אלא אימא ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל לא צריך

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.

הא בהדיא קתני לה המביא גט בארץ ישראל אינו צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אי מההיא הוה אמינא הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחילה לא קא משמע לן

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.

ואיכא דמותיב לה הכי הא ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל לא צריך

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.

לרבה ניחא לרבא קשיא לא תימא ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל לא צריך אלא אימא הא באותה מדינה במדינת הים לא צריך

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’s 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.

אבל ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל מאי צריך ליתני המביא ממדינה למדינה סתם

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.

לעולם ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל נמי לא צריך דכיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי

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.

תינח בזמן שבית המקדש קיים בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מאי איכא למימר כיון דאיכא בתי דינין דקביעי מישכח שכיחי

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.

תנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אפילו מהגמוניא להגמוניא ואמר רבי יצחק עיר אחת היתה בארץ ישראל ועססיות שמה והיו בה שני הגמוניות שהיו מקפידין זה על זה לפיכך הוצרכו לומר מהגמוניא להגמוניא

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 Yitzḥak 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.

לרבא ניחא לרבה קשיא רבה אית ליה דרבא

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’s 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.

אלא מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתיוה בי תרי

The Gemara asks: Rather, what then is the difference between them, i.e., between Rava’s 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.

אי נמי באותה מדינה במדינת הים

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.

תנן המביא גט ממדינת הים ואינו יכול לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אם יש עליו עדים יתקיים בחותמיו והוינן בה מאי ואינו יכול לומר

§ 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’ signatures. And we discussed this halakha: What is the meaning of the phrase: And he is unable to say?