Gittin 4aגיטין ד׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 4a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
4aד׳ א

וחתמו ונתנו לה כשר וכ"ת אנן מדאורייתא קא מתנינן לה אי הכי אומר היה ר"מ דבר תורה מיבעי ליה

and he signed it and gave it to his wife, it is a valid bill of divorce? And if you would say that we learned that this statement of Rav Naḥman applies by Torah law, whereas by rabbinic law Rabbi Meir concedes that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, if so, Rav Naḥman should have said: Rabbi Meir would say that by Torah law if a husband found a document in the garbage he may use it.

אלא לעולם רבי אלעזר היא וכי לא בעי רבי אלעזר חתימה היכא דליכא עדים כלל היכא דאיכא עדים בעי דאמר רבי אבא מודה רבי אלעזר במזוייף מתוכו שהוא פסול

Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous answer and states: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and when does Rabbi Elazar not require that the signing must be for her sake? Where there are no witnesses at all on the bill of divorce. However, where there are witnesses, he does require that all their signatures must be for her sake. The proof for this is that Rabbi Abba says: Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it, i.e., a document that is signed by disqualified witnesses, that it is invalid. This shows that although Rabbi Elazar maintains that a lack of signatures does not invalidate a bill of divorce, all signatures included in the bill of divorce must be valid; otherwise the document is rendered invalid.

רב אשי אמר הא מני ר' יהודה היא דתנן ר' יהודה פוסל עד שתהא כתיבתו וחתימתו בתלוש

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with a third opinion, that of Rabbi Yehuda. As we learned in a mishna (21b): Rabbi Yehuda invalidates a bill of divorce unless its writing and signing are performed on an item that is detached from the ground. According to this opinion, both the writing and the signing must be done for her sake.

ומעיקרא מאי טעמא לא מוקמינן לה כר' יהודה

The Gemara asks: And initially, what is the reason we did not establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Since Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is explicitly stated in a mishna, isn’t it obvious that this mishna also follows his ruling?

מהדרינן אר"מ דסתם מתני' ר"מ מהדרינן אר' אלעזר דקי"ל הילכתא כוותיה בגיטין

The Gemara answers: We seek to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as there is a general principle that a ruling in an unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Likewise, we seek to interpret the mishna in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, as we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with his opinion with regard to bills of divorce. For these reasons, the Gemara first attempted to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of one of these tanna’im, not that of Rabbi Yehuda.

תנן רבן גמליאל אומר אף המביא מן הרקם ומן החגר רבי אליעזר אומר אפילו מכפר לודים ללוד ואמר אביי בעיירות הסמוכות לארץ ישראל ומובלעות בתחום א"י עסקינן

§ The Gemara continues to explain the mishna in light of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. We learned in the mishna that Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from Ḥeger must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod. And Abaye said in explanation of this matter: We are dealing with towns that are not part of the land itself, but are near Eretz Yisrael and within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והוי כמבי כובי לפומבדיתא

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I myself saw that place, i.e., the distance between the village of Ludim and Lod, and it was similar to the distance from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita, which is only a short distance.

מכלל דת"ק סבר הני לא צריך מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו והני נמי לא שכיחי

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: One can derive by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that in these places the agent is not required to testify that the bill of divorce was written and signed for the woman’s sake. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for saying: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because people living overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and the residents of these places are learned in this matter, as they are near Eretz Yisrael. And one Sage, Rabban Gamliel, holds: The reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the residents of these places are also not frequently available, as they live on the other side of the border, and it is difficult to bring witnesses from one place to another.

לא רבה מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והכא בהא קמיפלגי ת"ק סבר הני כיון דסמוכות מיגמר גמירי

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, there is no proof that this issue is a dispute among tanna’im, as Rabba resolves the different opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning, and Rava resolves them according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara elaborates: Rabba resolves them according to his line of reasoning, as everyone agrees that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. And here they disagree with regard to this issue: The first tanna holds that since the residents of these cities are located near Eretz Yisrael, they are assumed to be learned in this halakha.

ואתא רבן גמליאל למימר מובלעות גמירי סמוכות לא גמירי ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר מובלעות נמי לא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: Granted, the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are learned in this halakha, however, the residents of these cities that are only near Eretz Yisrael are not learned. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say, when he mentioned the village of Ludim and the town of Lod, that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not treated as learned, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of the country overseas. In other words, anywhere that is not part of the Jewish settlement of Eretz Yisrael is classified as outside, even if they are familiar with the halakhot of bills of divorce.

רבא מתרץ לטעמיה דכולי עלמא לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו ותנא קמא סבר הני כיון דסמוכות מישכח שכיחי

Likewise, Rava resolves the various opinions in the mishna according to his line of reasoning. He maintains that everyone agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. And the first tanna holds: Since the residents of these cities are nearby they are frequently available.

ואתא רבן גמליאל למימר מובלעות שכיחי סמוכות לא שכיחי ואתא רבי אליעזר למימר מובלעות נמי לא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים

And Rabban Gamliel came to say: The residents of cities within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are frequently available. However, the residents of places that are merely near Eretz Yisrael are not frequently available. And Rabbi Eliezer came to say that the residents of those cities that are within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael are also not considered to be like Eretz Yisrael in this matter, despite their proximity to the Jewish settlement, so that you should not make a distinction within separate areas of a country overseas.

תנן וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אלא המביא ממדינת הים והמוליך מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מוליך לא צריך מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

§ We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that one is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, only if he brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael, and the same applies to one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas. The Gemara analyzes this statement: One can learn by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to say this declaration. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this principle, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the reason for the declaration is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake,