Gittin, Daf Daled, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to evaluate the mishnah in light of the dispute between Rabbah and Rava.

 

תְּנַן הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא צָרִיךְ לְרָבָא נִיחָא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא

 

It was taught: One who brings a get from one region to another abroad must say In front of me it was signed and in front of me it was sealed. But by deduction one bringing a get within one region does not need to make such a declaration. This goes well for Rava and is a difficulty for Rabbah.

 

The mishnah rules that one who brings a get from one region to another while outside of Israel must make the declaration. But this seems to imply that if one is bringing a get within a region outside of Israel, he does not need to make the declaration. This makes sense to Rava within one region witnesses will be found so the declaration is not necessary. But for Rabbah this is a problem outside of Israel we should always need verification that the get was written for that woman s sake.

 

לָא תֵּימָא הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא צָרִיךְ אֶלָּא אֵימָא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא צָרִיךְ

 

Do not deduce that within one region outside of Israel the declaration need not be made. Rather, say that from one region to another in the Land of Israel, the declaration need not be made.

 

Rabbah solves the difficulty by pointing out that one can make a different deduction from the mishnah. The mishnah stated that one bringing from one region to another outside of Israel must make the declaration. From here we can deduce that inside of Israel, from one region to another, the declaration need not be made. This is because, as Rabbah says, inside Israel people are experts in writing the get properly. But outside of Israel, the declaration would always need to be made, even within one region.

 

הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּיעֲבַד אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

 

But this was taught explicitly in the mishnah One who brings a get within Israel need not say, It was written in front of me and signed in front of me.

If we only had that clause, I would have said that that is ex post facto, but ab initio he needs to make the declaration. Therefore it comes to teach us that he does not.

 

The problem for Rabbah is that we do not need to deduce from a line in the mishnah that within Israel the declaration need not be made. The mishnah says so explicitly. This would lead to Rava s reading one can deduce from the mishnah that outside of Israel one need not make the declaration if bringing a get within one region.

Rabbah resolves that we do indeed need the mishnah to say the same thing twice. The mishnah is read as emphasizing that even ab initio (lechatchila) a messenger bringing a get within Israel does not need to make the declaration. If it had taught it only once, I might have thought that while ex post facto the get is valid, he should still make the declaration ab initio.