Gittin, Daf Vav, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss amoraic views as to when the declaration must be made.

 

רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ מַצְרֵיךְ מֵעַרְסָא לְעַרְסָא

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַצְרֵיךְ מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה

וְרָבָא מַצְרֵיךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שְׁכוּנָה

וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ שָׁאנֵי בְּנֵי מָחוֹזָא דְּנָיְידִי

 

Rabbah bar Avuha required the declaration even from one side of the public domain to the other.

Rav Sheshet required it from one neighborhood to the other.

And Rava required it even within one neighborhood.

But was it not Rava who said [that the declaration must be made] because witnesses are not found?

The people of Mehoza are different because they are mobile.

 

The amoraim here all require the declaration even when the get is only being brought a short distance. Even Rava requires the declaration although he holds that the problem the declaration remedies is not being able to find witnesses. The Talmud explains that the people of Mehoza are mobile and although the get is not brought from afar, it might be difficult to find witnesses to uphold it.

It seems to me likely that by this period the declaration has simply become standardized, always a part of the transmission of the get. Thus even if the reason is essentially absent, the formula must be recited.

 

רַב חָנִין מִישְׁתַּעֵי רַב כָּהֲנָא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִסּוּרָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא אִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא לְסוּרָא

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אֲמַר לֵיהּ צְרִיכְנָא לְמֵימַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אוֹ לָא צְרִיכְנָא

אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא צְרִיכַתְּ וְאִי עֲבַדְתְּ אַהְנֵית

 

Rav Hanin related that Rav Kahana brought a get and I do not know whether it was from Sura to Nehardea or from Nehardea to Sura.

He came in front of Rav and said to him: Do I need to say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence or not?

He said to him: You do not need to say it, but if you do, it will provide benefit.

 

Rav does not require Rav Kahana to make the declaration when bringing a get between these two cities in Babylonia. However, he does say that it would help if he did make the declaration.

 

מַאי אִי עֲבַדְתְּ אַהְנֵית דְּאִי אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעַר לָא מַשְׁגְּחִינַן בֵּיהּ

 

What does it mean, but if you do, it will provide benefit? That if the husband should come and protest the get they would not pay attention to him.

 

The Talmud explains the benefit of making the recitation even when not necessary. The declaration offers finality to the divorce. The husband cannot come later and claim that he didn t divorce her. This is a constant fear in the Talmud that a get will be thought to be valid, the woman will remarry and then the husband will protest. A successful protest would cause the second marriage to be invalid and children from that marriage to be mamzerim. The declaration protects against this terrible outcome.

 

כִּדְתַנְיָא מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר לוֹ צָרִיךְ אֲנִי לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אוֹ אֵינִי צָרִיךְ אָמַר לוֹ בְּנִי מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי מִכְּפַר סִיסַאי אָנִי

אָמַר לוֹ צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם שֶׁלֹּא תִּיזָּקֵק לְעֵדִים

 

As it was taught: It happened that a person brought a get in front of R. Yishmael. He said to him: Do I need to say, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence or not?

He said to him: My son, where are you from?

He responded: Rabbi, I am from Kfar Sisai.

He said to him: You must recite, It was written in my presence and signed in my presence in order for her not to require witnesses [to uphold the get].

 

In this story R. Yishmael requires the agent to make the recitation. He explains that this will prevent the woman from needing to find witnesses to uphold the get.

לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּצָא נִכְנַס לְפָנָיו רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי וַהֲלֹא כְּפַר סִיסַאי מוּבְלַעַת בִּתְחוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּקְרוֹבָה לְצִיפּוֹרִי יוֹתֵר מֵעַכּוֹ וּתְנַן רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר עַכּוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בְּעַכּוֹ דִּמְרַחֲקָא אֲבָל כְּפַר סִיסַאי דִּמְקָרְבָא לָא

אָמַר לוֹ שְׁתוֹק בְּנִי שְׁתוֹק הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא הַדָּבָר בְּהֶיתֵּר יָצָא

 

After the agent left, R. Ilai entered. He said to him: Rabbi, but is not Kfar Sisai within the borders of Israel and closer to Tzipori than Acco. And it was taught: Rabbi Meir says: Acco counts as the land of Israel in the matter of bills of divorce.

And even the rabbis do not dispute Rabbi Meir except about Acco which is close [to Israel] but Kfar Sisai which is close, no.

He said to him: Be quiet my son, since the matter was issued with permission, it is concluded.

 

R. Ilai is puzzled why R. Yishmael required the declaration. After all, there are no tannaim who require the declaration if the get is brought within Israel.

Nevertheless, this story shows that R. Yishmael required the declaration even when it was not necessary. This bolsters Rav who acted in the same way.

 

הָא אִיהוּ נָמֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּיזָּקֵק לְעֵדִים קָאָמַר לֵיהּ לָא סַיְּימוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ

 

But he himself said to him, in order for her not to require witnesses.

They did not conclude it in front of him.

 

The Talmud is puzzled why R. Ilai questioned R. Yishmael s ruling. After all, R. Yishmael explained that he required the statement only in order to help the woman so that she won t need to find witnesses.

The Talmud explains that R. Ilai did not fully hear R. Yishmael s statement. He only heard that he required the declaration, but he did not hear the reason.