Gittin, Daf Daled, Part 5

 

Introduction

This section is really an alternative version of that which we read yesterday.

 

וְאִיכָּא דְּמוֹתֵיב לַהּ הָכִי הָא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא צָרִיךְ

לְרַבָּה נִיחָא לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא

 

And there are those who raise it as a difficulty in the following way: By deduction from one region to another in Israel, one need not make the declaration.

To Rabbah this goes well, but to Rava this is a difficulty.

 

To recall, the mishnah said that from one region to another outside of Israel the declaration must be made. From here Rabbah can deduce that from one region to another within Israel the declaration need not be made because in Israel they are experts in the law of writing the get for her sake. But for Rava this is a difficulty.

 

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

 

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

 

Rava reads a different deduction into the mishnah outside of Israel, if the get is being brought from one place to another within one region the declaration need not be made. This is because within one region it will be easier to find the witnesses to uphold the get.

 

אֲבָל מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַאי צָרִיךְ לִיתְנֵי הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה סְתָם

 

But from one region to another in Israel what is the rule? He needs to make the declaration? If so, let it teach One who brings from one region to another without any qualification.

 

According to Rava, when one brings a get from one region to another he always needs to make the declaration. So why should the mishnah seem to say that this is true only outside of Israel. The mishnah should say simply that one who brings from one region to another needs to make the declaration, regardless of where they are.

לְעוֹלָם מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לֹא צָרִיךְ דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי

Indeed, from one region to another in Israel he also does not need to make the declaration, for since there are pilgrims, the witnesses will be found.

 

The Talmud now resolves that even Rava would agree that within Israel one does not need to make the declaration. Since there are many pilgrims traveling from one place to another, the witnesses will be easier to locate if the get needs to be verified.

 

תִּינַח בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין דִּקְבִיעִי מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי

 

This makes sense when the Temple still stood, but what can you say about a time when the Temple no longer stands? Since there are fixed courts, witnesses will be found.

 

The Talmud asks what about after the Temple was destroyed and pilgrims were no longer traveling to and from Jerusalem. Why under such conditions would one not need to make the declaration within Israel? The answer is that since there are established and fixed courts in Israel, the witnesses will be easier to locate. It sounds like what the Talmud is basically trying to say is that since things are more organized Jewishly in Israel, the fear that witnesses will not be able to be located is diminished.