Gittin, Daf Heh, Part 5

 

Introduction

Finally, the Talmud moves on to a slightly new topic. When the agent brings the get to Israel, in front of how many must he transmit it? Two or three?

 

אִיתְּמַר בִּפְנֵי כַּמָּה נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא חַד אָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְחַד אָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם דְּרָבִין בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ זִיל הַב לָהּ בְּאַפֵּי תְּרֵי וְאֵימָא לְהוּ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם תִּסְתַּיֵּים

 

It was stated: In front of how many must he give the get? R. Yohanan and R. Hanina: One said in front of two and one said in front of three.

Conclude that it was R. Yohanan who said in front of two, for Ravin bar Rav Hisda brought a get in front of R. Yohanan. And he said to him: Give it to her in front of two and say to them, In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.

 

According to R. Yohanan, the agent can present the get in front of two, the number required for witnesses. R. Hanina views this more as a court case, in which case the agent must present in front of three.

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם קָסָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה קָסָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ

 

Shall we say that they disagree about the following: The one who holds that he must make the declaration in front of two holds that this is because they are not experts in the laws of for her sake. And the one who says in front of three holds that it is because witnesses are not found to uphold the get.

 

The Talmud now tries to tie this dispute into the dispute between Rabbah and Rava (they just can t let go of that one). The one who holds that he must present the get in front of two holds that the declaration is because people outside of Israel do not know the laws. The agent must make a declaration in front of two, an act of testimony. The other opinion holds that the reason is that witnesses are not around to uphold the get. Therefore, this is an act of verifying the get, which must be done in front of a court, i.e. three.

וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ וְהָכָא הֵיכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם

But do you really think this? Since R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that the reason is that they are not experts in the laws of for her sake, by deduction R. Yohanan holds that it is because witnesses are not found to uphold the get. But then how could R. Yohanan say that he gives the get in front of two?

 

The problem is that earlier we proved that R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that the reason is that they are not experts. Therefore, R. Yohanan, who disagrees with him, must hold that it is because witnesses are not found to uphold the get. This would mean that the agent should give the get in front of three. But here he allows the get to be given in front of two.

וְעוֹד הָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא

אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ וְהָכָא בְּשָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד וְעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין קָמִיפַּלְגִי מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם קָסָבַר שָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד וְעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה קָסָבַר שָׁלִיחַ נַעֲשֶׂה עֵד וְאֵין עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין

 

Furthermore, Rabbah agrees with Rava.

Rather, everyone holds that the reason is that witnesses are not around to uphold the get, and they are arguing about whether the agent can be a witness and a witness can be a judge. The one who holds that he can give it in front of two holds that an agent can be a witness and the witness can be a judge. And the one who holds in front of three holds that an agent can be a witness but a witness cannot be a judge.

 

As we said earlier, Rabbah agrees with Rava meaning all amoraim are concerned about witnesses not being around to uphold the get. Therefore, all should require the get be given in front of three. The question is really whether the agent can count as one of the three. According to one opinion, the agent can himself count as a witness and a witness can also serve as a judge. The other opinion holds that while the agent can count as a witness, a witness cannot count as a judge.

 

וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן דְּעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמָר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁירָה לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט זִמְנִין דְּמַיְיתָא לֵיהּ אִיתְּתָא וְסָמְכִי עֲלַהּ

וְאִידַּךְ אִשָּׁה מִידָּע יָדְעִי וְלָא סָמְכִי עֲלַהּ

 

But don t we hold that if the issue is of rabbinic origin (derabanan) than a witness can be a judge.

Rather, this is what they are disputing: One master holds that since a woman can bring the get, sometimes a woman will bring it and they will rely on her [as a judge].

And the other opinion holds that they know [that women cannot serve as judges] and they will not rely on her.

 

The problem with the previous explanation of the dispute is that if the issue is only derabanan (of rabbinic and not biblical authority) and the requirement to make this declaration is indeed only derabanan, then all hold that a witness can be a judge. Rather, the dispute is over whether we are concerned that a woman, who can be the agent to bring the get, will think that she can also serve as a judge. The one who requires three other men has this concern. The one who holds that two are sufficient assumes that people will know that if the woman brings a get they will need three other men.