Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 4a

and signed it and gave it to her, it is valid? Nor can you say that this ruling means 'valid as far as the Torah is concerned,' for in that case R. Nahman should have said not, 'R. Meir used to rule,' but 'It is a rule of the Torah'? — After all, we come back to the opinion that R. Eleazar was the authority, and [we say that] where he dispenses with the requirement of 'special intention' is in the case where there are no witnesses at all, but if [the Get] is signed, it must be signed with such intention. This accords with the statement of R. Abba, that R. Eleazar admitted that a Get which contains a flaw in itself¹  is invalid.

R. Ashi said: Shall I tell you who the authority [of the Mishnah] is? It is R. Judah, as shown by the following Mishnah: R. Judah declares the Get invalid unless it has been both written and signed on something not attached to the soil.²  Why did we not at the outset declare R. Judah to be the authority? — We tried if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Meir because, where a Mishnah is stated anonymously [its author is] R. Meir.³  We also try if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Eleazar, because it is generally agreed that his ruling is decisive in questions of writs of divorce.

Our Mishnah says: RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS, THE DECLARATION MUST ALSO BE MADE BY ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM REKEM AND FROM HEGAR. R. ELEAZAR SAYS, EVEN IF HE BRINGS IT FROM KEFAR LUDIM TO LUD. [Commenting on this passage,] Abaye said that it refers to places adjoining⁴  the Land of Israel and to places within the ambit of⁵  the Land of Israel.⁶  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I have myself seen that placed and am able to state that the distance⁷  is the same as from Be Kubi to Pumbeditha. Now [from the words of the Mishnah just quoted] we infer that the first Tanna⁸  was of opinion that in these cases the declaration was not necessary. May we assume that the point of divergence between them is that one authority⁹  holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews outside of the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and he excepts [the Jews of] these places because they are familiar,¹⁰  whereas the other authority¹¹  holds that the reason [why the declaration is required] is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and he [includes the Jews of] these places because here too it is not easy?¹²  — No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah can account for it thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because of the unfamiliarity [of the Jews outside Eretz Israel] with the rule of 'special intention', and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places on account of their proximity to Eretz Israel the Jews are familiar with the rule, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in the case of places which lay within the ambit of Eretz Israel but not in those which merely adjoined it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in the case of places which lay within the ambit, no distinction being made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'. Raba accounts for the difference thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places, on account of their proximity to the Land of Israel, it is easy to find witnesses, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in places which lie within the ambit of Eretz Israel, but not in those which only adjoin it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in places lying within the ambit, as no distinction is to be made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'.

Our Mishnah says: [THE SAGES SAY] THE DECLARATION, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED IS REQUIRED ONLY FROM ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS AND FROM ONE WHO TAKES IT THERE. We infer from this that in the opinion of the first Tanna the bearer [of a bill of divorce] to foreign parts is not required to make the declaration. May we assume that the point of divergence between the two authorities is that one holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews in foreign parts] are not familiar with the rule of 'Special intention',

1. E.g., a wrong date, a wrong signature, etc.
2. Infra 21b.
3. V. Sanh. 86a.
4. I.e., Rekem and Hegar.
5. Lit., 'swallowed in'.
6. I.e., Kefar Ludim. This place, though outside the boundary, would lie within a straight line drawn between two other places on the boundary, and so is said to be 'swallowed' in the Land of Israel.
7. From Kefar Ludim to Lud.
8. The authority for the first clause in the Mishnah.
9. The first Tanna and R. Gamaliel.
10. Being in the neighbourhood of Palestine.
11. R. Eleazar.
12. Because there is no commercial intercourse between the two places. (Rashi).

and he excepts the bearer of a Get from Eretz Israel because there they are familiar, whereas the other authority held the reason to be because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and this applies to 'foreign parts' also? — No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah explains thus: Both authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because of the unfamiliarity [of the Jews outside Eretz Israel] with the rule of 'special intention', and where they diverge is on the question whether we extend the obligation properly meant for the bearer from foreign parts to the bearer to foreign parts, one holding that we do make this extension, the other that we do not. Raba explains thus: Both authorities agree that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the Rabbis mentioned in the second clause merely made explicit what was in the mind of the first Tanna.

Our Mishnah says: THE BEARER OF A GET FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER IN FOREIGN PARTS IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED'; from which we infer that if he takes it from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts'. he need not make the declaration. This conforms with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Rabbah, [does it not]? — No. You must not infer [that if the Get is taken] from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts', the declaration is not required. What you have to infer is that if it is taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. But this is stated distinctly in the following clause of the Mishnah: THE BEARER OF A GET [FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER] IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS NOT REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED'! — If I had only that to go by I should say that while this omission does not invalidate the Get retroactively. It is not permissible in the first instance; now I know that this is also the case.

The objection here raised is also stated in the following form: I infer that the bearer of a Get from one province to another in the Land of Israel is not required to make the declaration. This is in conformity [is it not] with the view of Rabbah but conflicts with that of Raba? — You must not infer that [if it is taken] from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. The proper inference to draw is that it is not required from the bearer from one part to another of the same country in foreign parts. What then? From the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel it is required? Then it would be sufficient for the Mishnah to say, 'The bearer of a Get from one province to another' [without mentioning 'foreign parts']? — The fact is that it is not necessary for the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel either,¹  since on account of the festival pilgrimages [to Jerusalem] it is always possible to find witnesses. This may have been a good reason so long as the Temple was standing, but what of the time when there is no Temple? — Since there are [Jewish law] courts regularly established, witnesses can always be found.

We have learnt: Our Mishnah says: RABBAN SIMEON BEN GAMALIEL SAYS, EVEN THE BEARER FROM ONE GOVERNORSHIP TO ANOTHER, and commenting on this R. Isaac said that there was a certain city in Eretz Israel, 'Assasioth by name,²  in which were two Governors at variance with each other,³  and that is why the Mishnah had to put in the clause 'from governorship to governorship'. Now this ruling conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah? — Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also.⁴  Where then does a difference arise between them in practice? — If the Get was brought by two bearers, or if it was brought from one place to another in the Same province in a 'foreign country'.⁵

We have learnt: Where the bearer of a Get from foreign parts is not able to declare, 'in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed', if the Get has been signed by witnesses, its validity can be established through the signatures.⁶  We were perplexed by the expression, 'is unable to say'.

1. And yet this does not conflict with the view of Raba.
2. [Horowitz, I. Palestine p. 63 identifies it with Essa, east of the Lake Kinnereth, which was in his view divided into two governorships, Essa and Gerasa.]
3. So that there was no intercourse between them.
4. So that Rabbah requires the declaration to be made in all cases in which Raba requires it, but not vice versa.
5. In both of which cases Rabbah requires the declaration to be made but Raba does not.
6. Infra 9a.