Gittin, Daf Heh, Part 2

 

Introduction

You got it another difficulty on Rabbah! This time it is from an amoraic source, not a tannaitic one. It is typical for the Talmud to first use the tannaitic sources to evaluate the amoraic material and then to move on to other amoraic material.

 

תָּא שְׁמַע דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵין צְרִיכִין וּמָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּרְשָׁהּ מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי

לְרָבָא נִיחָא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא

 

Come and learn: That Shmuel asked Rav Huna: Two that bring a get from abroad must they say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence or need they not say it?

He said to him: They do not need to say it. For had they said, He divorced her in our presence would they not be believed.

This goes well for Rava but is a difficulty for Rabbah.

 

According to Rav Huna, if two agents bring the get, they do not need to make the declaration. Essentially, they are believed as if they are witnesses. But this does not accord well with Rabbah again we should be concerned lest the get was not written specifically for her sake. Witnesses who testify that she was given a get will not know if it was written with her in mind.

 

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ

אִי הָכִי חַד נָמֵי

גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ

אִי הָכִי בֵּי תְרֵי נָמֵי

בֵּי תְרֵי דְּמַיְיתוּ גִּיטָּא מִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא וּמִילְּתָא דְלָא שְׁכִיחָא לָא גְּזוּר בָּהּ רַבָּנַן

 

What are we dealing with here? After they learned.

If so, then even if one brings the get [a declaration should not be required].

This is a decree lest the situation return to its prior state.

If so, then also if two bring the get [we should be concerned lest the situation return to its former state].

For two agents to bring a get is an unusual situation, and the rabbis did not make a decree in an unusual situation.

 

The resolution and subsequent difficulties are the same as those we saw above in yesterday s section. The only difference is that here we are referring to two agents who bring the get, whereas yesterday the Talmud was referring to an agent who lost his hearing and speech.

 

וְהָא אִשָּׁה דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָא וּתְנַן הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה גִּיטָּהּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא עַצְמָהּ צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם

שֶׁלֹּא תַּחְלוֹק בִּשְׁלִיחוּת

אִי הָכִי בַּעַל נָמֵי אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא גִּיטּוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם טַעְמָא מַאי אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם דִּילְמָא אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ הַשְׁתָּא מִינְקָט נָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ וְעַרְעוֹרֵי קָא מְעַרְעַר עֲלֵיהּ

 

But a woman [bringing her own get] is an unusual situation, and yet it taught: A woman may bring her own get, as long as she can say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.

This is to avoid making distinctions in cases of messengers.

If so, the husband too [should also be forced to make the declaration]. Why then does it teach, If he brings the get himself he need not say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.

Why did the rabbis say that [the agent] must say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence ? Lest the husband come and protest and disqualify [the get]. Now that he is holding it in his hand, will he also protest its validity.

 

This entire section is a word for word repeat of what we learned yesterday.