אפי' קן קולמוסא וקן מגילתא
Even if he heard the sound of the quill [kulmusa] and the sound of the scroll when the scribe was writing the bill of divorce for the sake of that woman, this is sufficient.
תניא כוותיה דרב אשי המביא גט ממדינת הים אפי' הוא בבית וסופר בעלייה הוא בעלייה וסופר בבית אפי' נכנס ויוצא כל היום כולו כשר
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, even if he was in the house but the scribe was in the loft writing the bill of divorce, or if he was in the loft and the scribe was in the house writing the bill of divorce, and even if he was entering and exiting the entire day the bill of divorce is valid and he can testify that it was written properly.
הוא בבית וסופר בעלייה הא לא קא חזי ליה אלא לאו כגון דשמע קן קולמוסא וקן מגילתא
The Gemara notes: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, he does not see him at all. Rather, is it not correct to say that the baraita is speaking about a case where he heard the sound of the quill and the sound of the scroll? This is a proof which supports the statement of Rav Ashi.
אמר מר אפי' נכנס ויוצא כל היום כולו כשר מאן אילימא שליח השתא הוא בבית וסופר בעלייה דלא חזי ליה אמרת כשר נכנס ויוצא מיבעיא אלא סופר פשיטא משום דנכנס ויוצא נפסליניה
The Master said above, in the baraita: Even if he was entering and exiting the entire day, the bill of divorce is valid. The Gemara asks: Who is the one entering and exiting? If we say that this is referring to the agent, who is required to later testify about the bill of divorce, now that in the case where he was in the house and the scribe was in the loft, when the agent does not see the scribe at all and nevertheless you said that the bill of divorce is valid, is it necessary to say that it is valid when he was entering and exiting the place where the bill of divorce was written? Rather, perhaps this is referring to the scribe himself, i.e., he enters and exits all day and does not write the bill of divorce in one uninterrupted act. The Gemara asks: This halakha is obvious, as would we render the bill of divorce invalid merely because he was entering and exiting?
לא צריכא דנפק לשוקא ואתא מהו דתימא איניש אחרינא אשכחיה ואמר ליה קמ"ל:
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in a case where the scribe exited the house to go to the market and returned to continue writing the bill of divorce. Lest you say that perhaps while he was in the market another person found him and told him to write a bill of divorce on his behalf, and he is now writing a bill of divorce for the sake of a woman other than the one for which he was writing it at the outset, the baraita therefore teaches us that this possibility is disregarded and the bill of divorce is valid.
איתמר בבל רב אמר כא"י לגיטין ושמואל אמר כחו"ל
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed concerning the status of Babylonia with regard to the halakhot of bills of divorce: Rav says that Babylonia is considered to be like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and Shmuel says that it is considered like outside of Eretz Yisrael.
לימא בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי ומ"ס לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו והני נמי לא שכיחי
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to this, that one Sage, Rav, holds that the reason an agent is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these Babylonians are learned. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these Babylonians are also not frequently available.
ותסברא הא רבה אית ליה דרבא
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: And can you understand it that way? But it was already stated above that Rabba, who says that the concern is whether the document was written for her sake, is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who maintains that witnesses are also required to ratify the bill of divorce. Therefore, even if Babylonians are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman’s sake, Babylonia should be treated like anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael because witnesses are not readily available.
אלא דכ"ע בעינן לקיימו רב סבר כיון דאיכא מתיבתא מישכח שכיחי ושמואל סבר מתיבתא בגירסייהו טרידי
Rather, everyone agrees that we require witnesses to ratify it, and they disagree with regard to this: Rav holds that since there are central academies where people study, witnesses are frequently available to ratify bills of divorce. And Shmuel holds that those studying in the academies are preoccupied by their studies; therefore, they cannot be used as witnesses to confirm a bill of divorce, as they will not recognize peoples’ signatures.
איתמר נמי אמר ר' אבא אמר רב הונא עשינו עצמינו בבבל כא"י לגיטין מכי אתא רב לבבל
It was also stated that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says: We made ourselves in Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.
מתיב ר' ירמיה ר' יהודה אומר מרקם למזרח ורקם כמזרח מאשקלון לדרום ואשקלון כדרום מעכו לצפון ועכו כצפון והא בבל לצפונה דא"י קיימא דכתיב (ירמיהו א, יד) ויאמר ה' אלי מצפון תפתח הרעה
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem eastward is considered to be part of the overseas country, and Rekem itself is like east of Eretz Yisrael. From Ashkelon southward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Ashkelon itself is like south of Eretz Yisrael. From Akko northward is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and Akko itself is like north of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya explains his objection: But Babylonia is situated north of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written with regard to the destruction that will come through Babylonia: “Then the Lord said to me: Out of the north the evil shall break forth” (Jeremiah 1:14).
ותנן ר"מ אומר עכו כא"י לגיטין ואפי' ר"מ לא קאמר אלא בעכו דמקרבא אבל בבל דמרחקא לא הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה לבר מבבל
And we further learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and even Rabbi Meir said this only with regard to Akko, which is close to Eretz Yisrael. However, with regard to Babylonia, which is far from Eretz Yisrael, no, he did not dispute the ruling that it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yirmeya raised the objection and he resolved it himself: This border of Eretz Yisrael was stated with the exception of Babylonia.
עד היכן היא היא בבל אמר רב פפא כמחלוקת ליוחסין כך מחלוקת לגיטין ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת ליוחסין אבל לגיטין דברי הכל עד ארבא תניינא דגישרא
The Gemara inquires: Until where is Babylonia? In other words, what are the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to this issue? Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute concerning the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to lineage (Kiddushin 72a), as Babylonian Jews were considered to have a more prestigious lineage than those of Eretz Yisrael, so is there the same dispute with regard to bills of divorce. And Rav Yosef says: The dispute that is stated there applies only to lineage. However, with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that the boundary of Babylonia is until the second arch of the bridge over the Euphrates River.
רב חסדא מצריך מאקטיספון לבי ארדשיר ומבי ארדשיר לאקטיספון לא מצריך לימא קסבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי
The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda required even those who delivered bills of divorce from Akteisfon to Bei Ardeshir to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. But for bills of divorce brought from Bei Ardeshir to Akteisfon he did not require this declaration. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that he holds that the reason an agent is required to say that it was written and it was signed in his presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Bei Ardeshir are learned in this matter?
ותסברא והא רבה אית ליה דרבא אלא דכ"ע בעינן לקיימו והני כיון דאזלי לשוקא להתם הנך ידעי בחתימות ידא דהני
The Gemara asks: And can you understand it that way? But Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that it is necessary to ratify a bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the presence of two witnesses to ratify the document, and with regard to these residents of Bei Ardeshir, since they go to the market there, in Akteisfon, these residents of Akteisfon recognize the signatures of these inhabitants of Bei Ardeshir.
והני בדהנך לא ידעי מ"ט בשוקייהו טרידי
But these residents of Bei Ardeshir do not recognize the signatures of these residents of Akteisfon. What is the reason for this? They are preoccupied by their market business, as they are buying and selling their merchandise, and therefore they are not familiar with the signatures of the residents of Akteisfon.
רבה בר אבוה מצריך מערסא לערסא רב ששת מצריך משכונה לשכונה ורבא מצריך באותה שכונה
§ The Gemara relates that Rabba bar Avuh would require that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one side of the public domain to the other side [me’arsa le’arsa]. Rav Sheshet required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce from one group of houses to another group of houses on the same side of the public domain. And Rava required that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses.
והא רבא הוא דאמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו שאני בני מחוזא דניידי
The Gemara asks: But Rava is the one who said that the reason an agent must state the declaration is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, so why would he require the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses? The Gemara explains: Rava issued this decree only with regard to his city of Meḥoza. The reason is that the residents of Meḥoza are different, as they are constantly mobile, and do not stay in one place. Therefore, it is possible that the witnesses who were present when the bill of divorce was written have already moved elsewhere.
רב חנין מישתעי רב כהנא אייתי גיטא ולא ידענא אי מסורא לנהרדעא אי מנהרדעא לסורא אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל צריכנא למימר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם או לא צריכנא אמר ליה לא צריכת
Rav Ḥanin relates: Rav Kahana brought a bill of divorce, and I do not know if he brought it from Sura to Neharde’a or if he brought it from Neharde’a to Sura. He came before Rav and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state this declaration? Rav said to him: You are not required to do so.