Gittin, Daf Gimmel, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud now begins to ask another question that it frequently asks in such situations why doesn t each amora say what the other amora said? This is a vehicle through which the Talmud can examine potential holes in each argument.

 

וְרָבָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה

אָמַר לָךְ מִי קָתָנֵי בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ

 

And Rava, why did he not say like Rabbah?

He could say to you: Does it teach [that he must say]: It was written in front of me for her sake, it was signed in front of me for her sake.

 

Rava would point out that the messenger does not have to testify that he saw it written and signed for her sake. All he has to say is that he saw it written and signed. Therefore, the declaration cannot really ensure that it was for her sake.

 

וְרַבָּה בְּדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי הָכִי אֶלָּא דְּאִי מַפְּשַׁתְּ לֵיהּ דִּיבּוּרָא אָתֵי לְמִגְזְּיֵיהּ

 

And Rabbah [would say back] that it should indeed have taught this way, but if you made the declaration too long, he might come to shorten it.

 

Rabbah could respond to Rava that in theory the messenger should indeed have said, It was written in front of me for her sake, it was signed in front of me for her sake but since this is long, the messenger might have shortened it and not said the whole thing. [I don t know about this one two extra words and now its too long!]

 

הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי אָתֵי לְמִגְזְּיֵיהּ חֲדָא מִתְּלָת גָּאֵיז חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי לָא גָּאֵיז

 

Now he also might shorten it! One out of three he might shorten, one out of two he will not.

 

The Talmud points out that in its current configuration the messenger might also shorten it. The Talmud answers that if there are three parts (1) In my presence (2) it was written (3) for her sake, he might shorten it. But with just two clauses he won t.

 

וְרַבָּה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא

אָמַר לָךְ אִם כֵּן נִיתְנֵי בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וְתוּ לָא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב לְמָה לִי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ

 

And Rabbah, why did he not say like Rava?

He could say to you: If [Rava] is correct, it should have taught, In my presence it was signed and no more. In my presence it was written why do I need this? Learn from this that it must be for her sake.

 

Rabbah says that the fact that the messenger says In my presence it was written is evidence that the messenger is ensuring that the get was written for her sake. If the issue was that witnesses are not around to uphold the get, then it would have been enough for him to say, In my presence it was signed.