Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT MUST THE MESSENGER SEE?

(a) Support (Beraisa): A messenger bringing a Get from abroad - even if he was in the house, and the scribe was in the second story, or vice-versa; even if he went in and out all day - the messenger can say 'it was written and signed in front of me'.

1. Question: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, he did not see it written!
2. Answer: It must be, he heard the scratching of the quill on the parchment.

(b) Question: The Beraisa says, 'Even if he went in and out all day' - to whom does this refer?

1. Suggestion: If to the messenger - he can make the declaration even if he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, and did not see the writing - all the more so, if he went in and out!

(c) Answer: Rather, it refers to the scribe.
(d) Question: This is obvious! Should the Get be invalid because the scribe left the house?!
(e) Answer: The case is, he went to the market. One might have thought, another man asked the scribe to write the Get for him (and the scribe had this in mind) - we hear, we are not concerned for this.

(a) (Rav): Bavel has the same Halachah as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
(b) (Shmuel): Bavel does not have the same Halachah as Chutz La'aretz regarding Gitin.
(c) Suggestion: Rav holds that the declaration is because we are concerned it was not Lishmah, and people in Bavel are learned; Shmuel holds that the declaration is because we are concerned for validation, and witnesses from Bavel are not common.
(d) Objection: But even Rabah, who is concerned for Lishmah, is also concerned for validation!
(e) Correction: Rather, both agree that we are concerned for validation.

1. Rav holds, since there are Yeshivos in Bavel, (and people often travel between them), witnesses are commonly found; Shmuel holds, Talmidim learning in Yeshivah are too busy to become familiar with signatures.

(f) (R. Aba): After Rav came to Bavel, Bavel became as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
(g) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he must say it if he brought a Get from Rekem or eastwards; Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz; from Ashkelon or further south is as Chutz La'aretz; from Ako or further north is as Chutz La'aretz.

1. Bavel is north of Ako - "The evil will sprout from the north"!
2. (Mishnah): R. Meir says, Ako is as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin - even R. Meir only said this about Ako, since it is near, but not about Bavel, since it is far!

(h) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah means, all places north of Ako ... - except for Bavel.
(i) Question: What are the boundaries of Bavel?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Just as they argue regarding lineage, they argue regarding Gitin.
(k) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): They only argue regarding lineage - regarding Gitin, all agree that it extends until the second willow tree by the bridge.
(l) Rav Chisda required a declaration for Gitin sent from Aktisfon to Bei Ardeshir, but not in the other direction.

1. Suggestion: He holds, the reason for the declaration is Lishmah; the people of Bei Ardeshir know the law, those of Aktisfon do not.
2. Rejection: But even Rabah agrees that there is also a concern for validation!
3. Rather, the concern is validation; people of Bei Ardeshir go to the market in Aktisfon, so the people of Aktisfon recognize signatures of people of Bei Ardeshir.
4. Question: Why don't the people of Bei Ardeshir recognize signatures of people of Aktisfon?
5. Answer: Because they are busy at the market (and have no time to look at documents).

(m) Rabah bar Avuha required a declaration for Gitin sent from one row of houses to the row on the other side of the public domain;
(n) Rav Sheshes required a declaration for Gitin sent from a group of (3 or more) houses to another group;
(o) Rava required a declaration for Gitin sent within the same group of houses.
(p) Question: But Rava holds that the only concern is finding witnesses that recognize the signatures!
(q) Answer: The people of Mechuza (Rava's city) are very transient, and do not recognize their neighbors' signatures.

(a) (Rav Chanin): A Get was brought, either from Sura to Nehardai or vice-versa.

1. (Rav): No declaration is required; if you say it, it helps.

(b) Question: How does it help?
(c) Answer: If the husband will contest the Get, he will be ignored.
(d) Support (Beraisa): A man brought a Get from Kefar Sisai before R. Yishmael.

1. R. Yishmael: You must make the declaration, so the woman will not need witnesses.
2. (R. Ilai): Why? Kefar Sisai is enveloped within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and is closer to Tzipori than Ako!

i. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Ako is part of Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
ii. Even Chachamim that argue on R. Meir, only argue by Ako, for it is far - but they would admit by Kefar Sisai!

3. R. Yishmael: Hush! It is good that the Get was given in a permitted way.

(e) Question: What was R. Ilai's objection - R. Yishmael said that the declaration was only to avoid the need for witnesses!
(f) Answer: R. Ilai only heard R. Yishmael tell him to say the declaration, he did not hear the reason.

(a) (R. Evyasar): Gitin sent from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael - no declaration is needed.

1. Suggestion: He holds that the concern is Lishmah, and the people of Bavel know the law.
2. Objection: But Rabah is also concerned for validation!
3. Rather, the concern is validation; since many people come to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, witnesses are easily found.

(b) Rav Yosef: Is R. Evyasar reliable, that we can rely on his teaching?

1. He sent a verse to Rav Yehudah, without Sirtut (scratching a line to write straight) - this is forbidden!

i. (R. Evyasar): "They sold the boy to hire a Zonah, they sold the girl to buy wine" - this refers to people of Bavel that come to Eretz Yisrael (to learn).

2. (R. Yitzchak): 2 words of a verse may be written without Sirtut, not 3;
3. (Beraisa): 3 words of a verse may be written without Sirtut, not 4.

(c) Objection #1 (Abaye): Just because he doesn't know R. Yitzchak's law, does that mean he is not a great Chacham?

1. Granted, an error in reasoning would show that he is not a great Chacham.
2. But R. Yitzchak's law is a tradition - R. Evyasar just never heard it!

(d) Objection #2 (Abaye): Also - we find that Hash-m agreed with R. Evyasar (as follows)!

(a) (R. Evyasar): "v'Tizneh (left) him his concubine" - her husband found a fly;

1. (R. Yonason): He found a hair.
2. R. Evyasar saw Eliyahu; he asked him what Hash-m was doing.

i. Eliyahu: He is engaged in the account of the concubine in Givah - this is what My son Evyasar says, this is what My son Yonason says.
ii. R. Evyasar: Hash-m cannot have a doubt!
iii. Eliyahu: Both opinions come from Hash-m (are true)! Her husband found a fly and was not upset; he found a hair, and this upset him.

3. Opinion #1 (Rav Yehudah): The fly was in the food she prepared for him; the hair was in the place of relations.

i. The fly is merely disgusting; the hair poses a danger (therefore, this upset him).

4. Opinion #2: Both were in the food.

i. A fly in the food is not the result of negligence; a hair in the food is from negligence.