Gittin 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

And if you would say -

if you nevertheless argue -

We are teaching it as a matter of Torah law,

that Rav Naḥman stated this ruling only on the basis of Torah law.

If so -

if that was indeed his intention -

he should have said: “Rabbi Meir would say: By Torah law,” -

Rav Naḥman should have stated it in this wording, clarifying that Rabbi Meir intended only the Torah law, and not that this is also the halakha by rabbinic law, since Rav Naḥman was an amora and was required to explain Rabbi Meir’s words, who was a tanna, clearly, so that his words would not lead to error.

Rather, actually,

our Mishna

is according to Rabbi Elazar, and when he does not require -

and the reason he did not require -

Rabbi Elazar a signature

of witnesses [and consequently their signatures are not subject to the requirement of “for her sake”] is

where there are no witnesses at all -

if no witnesses signed this get whatsoever, that is preferable to a case in which they signed it “not for her sake.”

But

where there are witnesses -

if witnesses have already signed -

he requires -

they must sign it for her sake! Otherwise, this get is considered intrinsically forged.

As Rabbi Abba said:

although he does not require witnesses for a get even initially,

Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a

get

that is intrinsically forged -

for example, one on which a relative or a person disqualified from bearing witness signed, or one that was written not for her sake -

that it is invalid.

But Rav Ashi establishes our Mishna as being according to Rabbi Yehuda:

Rav Ashi said:

there is no need to force our Mishna to be in accordance with neither Rabbi Meir nor Rabbi Elazar.

Rather,

whose opinion is this?

Our Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

His opinion is cited in the Mishna in the second chapter.

As we learned [

following the words of the first tanna, who says that one may not write on something attached to the ground],

Rabbi Yehuda invalidates

the get

until both

its

writing

and its

signatures are on something detached.

And according to him, even if he wrote only the standard formula while it was attached, the get is invalid. Therefore, in our Mishna as well, according to Rav Ashi, Rabbi Yehuda requires that both the writing and the signature be for her sake.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If it is so straightforward to establish the Mishna according to Rabbi Yehuda,

from the outset -

from the very beginning -

what is the reason we did not establish it -

why did we not establish it -

according to Rabbi Yehuda?

The Gemara answers:

We seek to establish it according to Rabbi Meir -

we seek to establish our Mishna according to his view because

an unattributed Mishna -

every Mishna taught without attribution [without mentioning the name of the tanna] - is the opinion of

Rabbi Meir

.

Likewise,

we seek to establish it according to Rabbi Elazar

we seek to establish it in accordance with his view, because

the halakha is in accordance with him -

the halakha follows him

in matters of gittin.

It was therefore preferable to establish that our Mishna too follows the halakha.

The Gemara now explains the statements of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna:

We learned -

we learned in our Mishna -:

Rabban Gamaliel says: Even one who brings a get 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 get

from Kefar Ludim to Lod.

And Abaye said

to explain their statements: Rabban Gamaliel was speaking

about towns adjacent to the Land of Israel [

namely, Rekem and Ḥeger].

And

Rabbi Eliezer was speaking about towns

enclaved within the boundaries of the Land of Israel,

although they are not themselves part of the Land of Israel; and it is about these towns that

we are dealing.

Accordingly, the first tanna required the statement only when bringing a get from distant places, but not from adjacent or enclaved towns. Rabban Gamaliel added the adjacent towns, while in the case of enclaved towns he concedes to the first tanna that the statement is not required. Rabbi Eliezer added even the enclaved towns: one who brings a get from them must also make the statement.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I myself saw that place -

I saw that place between Kefar Ludim and Lod -

and it was

as distant as - like the distance

from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita.

The Gemara now comes to explain the dispute among the tannaim in the Mishna:

Is it not that they disagree about this -

is it not that they disagree concerning the dispute between Rabba and Rava as to the reason for the agent’s declaration?

One master holds -

the first tanna of our Mishna holds like Rabba, that the reason for the declaration is

because they are not expert in “for her sake.” But these are learned

the residents of the adjacent towns are expert in this halakhic requirement. Therefore, he does not require the agent to make the declaration.

And one master holds -

Rabban Gamaliel holds like Rava, that the reason for the declaration is

because

caravans are not common, and therefore

witnesses are not readily available to validate it. These too are not common

caravans are not common even from these places. Therefore, Rabban Gamaliel also requires one who brings a get from these places to make the declaration.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rabba explains it according to his reasoning, and Rava explains it according to his reasoning.

Each of the amoraim explains the dispute in the Mishna according to his own view.

Rabba explains it according to his reasoning,

for in truth

everyone

the first tanna, Rabban Gamaliel, and Rabbi Eliezer - holds that the reason is

because they are not expert in “for her sake.”

And here they disagree about this,

and this is the matter over which they disagree:

The first tanna holds: These, since they are adjacent, are thoroughly learned

according to the first tanna, the inhabitants of the adjacent towns are certainly expert in the requirement of “for her sake.”

And Rabban Gamaliel came to say -

Rabban Gamaliel came to add:

the enclaved towns are learned

the residents of the enclaved towns are indeed expert in the halakha.

The adjacent towns are not learned

but the residents of the adjacent towns are not expert.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: The enclaved towns as well.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, even one who brings a get from the enclaved towns must make the declaration, although their residents are expert, in order

not to distinguish

between the various places

outside the Land of Israel.

For this could lead to an error concerning the obligation to make the declaration when bringing a get from these places.

Rava explains it according to his reasoning,

and explains the matter in the opposite way:

Everyone

holds that the reason for the enactment is

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it.

The first tanna holds: These

these towns -

since they are adjacent

to the Land of Israel, therefore

they are readily found

witnesses capable of validating the get, who recognize the signatures, are available when necessary.

And Rabban Gamaliel came to say -

Rabban Gamaliel came to add and say:

the enclaved towns are frequent; the adjacent towns are not frequent.

It is specifically the inhabitants of the enclaved towns who are regularly found here, but not the inhabitants of the adjacent towns.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: The enclaved towns as well are not sufficient -

even the inhabitants of the enclaved towns, although they are found here with great frequency, must make the declaration in order

not to distinguish between places outside the Land of Israel.

The Gemara now clarifies the statement of the second group of Sages in the Mishna:

We learned -

we learned in the Mishna -

And the Sages say: He need make the declaration “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence” only when bringing a get from outside the Land of Israel, or when taking one there.

By inference

you learn

that the first tanna holds

that one who takes

a get from the Land of Israel to outside the Land

need not

say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

The Gemara comes to explain their dispute:

Is it not that they disagree about this -

is this not the matter over which they disagree,

that one master holds -

the first tanna holds like Rabba, that the reason for the declaration is

because they are not expert in “for her sake,”