Gittin, Daf Daled, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to bring tannaitic sources and evaluate the amoraic dispute between Rabbah and Rava in their light.

 

תְּנַן וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר מוֹלִיךְ לָא צְרִיךְ מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי וּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ וְהָנֵי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחִי

 

It was taught in the mishnah: And the sages say: The only one who has to say It was written before me and signed before me is the one who brings from abroad and the one who brings there. By deduction the first opinion holds that the one who brings [from Israel to abroad] does not need to make the declaration one master holds that it is because they are not experts in the laws of for her sake and these people are learned. And the other master holds that it is because witnesses are not around to uphold the get, and these are also not around.

 

According to the Talmud there is a dispute between the last voice in the mishnah and the first opinion. The last voice in the mishnah holds that a messenger bringing a get from Israel to outside of Israel must make the declaration. The first voice holds that he need not. The Talmud suggests that this matches our amoraic dispute. Rabbah, who holds that the reason is the lack of expertise in writing gittin outside of Israel would hold like the first opinion since in Israel they know how to write gittin, the messenger bringing a get from Israel need not make the declaration. Rava holds like the second opinion since witnesses will be hard to find, the messenger does need to make the declaration.

 

רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירַת מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא

 

Rabbah can resolve the mishnah according to his reasoning and Rava can resolve the mishnah according to his reasoning.

Rabbah can resolve the mishnah according to his reasoning everyone holds that the reason for the declaration is that they are not experts in the laws of for her sake. And they are disputing whether we decree that one bringing from inside Israel must make the declaration because the one bringing to Israel does. The first opinion holds that we do not decree that one bringing out must because of one bringing in, and the latter rabbis hold that we do decree one bringing out because of one bringing in.

 

Rabbah resolves that in principle all tannaim agree that one bringing a get out of Israel does not need to make the declaration. But the last voice in the mishnah holds that in reality, he must make this declaration because one bringing a get to Israel must make the declaration. In other words, the laws are just standardized. The first opinion does not hold that we need to make such a decree. The laws can be different in different situations.

 

וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דְּאָתוּ

 

And Rava can resolve it according to his reasoning, that all agree that the reason is that witnesses are not found to uphold the get, and the latter rabbis are only explaining the reasoning of the first opinion.

 

Rava holds that there is no dispute in the mishnah. The last line of the mishnah fully accords with the first opinion and just explains it. Both hold that messengers bringing a get from Israel to outside of Israel must make the declaration.