Gittin 4a — the Talmud in English

But if you should say -

if nevertheless you will claim -

We are teaching it from the Torah,

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

If so -

if this indeed was his intention -

“Rabbi Meir used to say: by Torah law,” he should have needed to say so -

Rav Nahman should have formulated it in this language, and explained that Rabbi Meir intended only Torah law, and not that this is also the halakha by rabbinic law, because Rav Nahman is an amora, and it is incumbent upon him to explain well the words of Rabbi Meir, who was a tanna, so that an error should not emerge from his words.

Rather, in truth,

our Mishna

is Rabbi Elazar, and when he did not require -

what he did not require -

Rabbi Elazar, signatures

of witnesses [and consequently there is no law of “for its sake” in their signatures], this is

where there are no witnesses at all -

if witnesses did not sign this get at all, that is better than if they signed it “not for its sake.”

But

where there are witnesses -

if witnesses have already signed -

he requires -

they must sign for its sake! And if not, this get is considered forged from within.

For Rav Abba said:

although he does not initially require witnesses at all for a get,

Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a

get

forged from within -

for example, an ineligible relative or an otherwise disqualified witness signed on it, or it was written not for its sake -

that it is invalid.

But Rav Ashi establishes our Mishna as Rabbi Judah:

Rav Ashi said:

there is no need to forcefully establish our Mishna neither as Rabbi Meir nor as Rabbi Elazar.

Rather,

whose opinion is this -

our Mishna follows the method of

Rabbi Judah.

For his opinion is brought in the second chapter.

As we learned [in continuation of the words of the first tanna, who says that one does not write while attached to the ground],

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

Rabbi Judah invalidates

the get

until

both its

writing

and its

signature are on something detached.

And according to him, even if he wrote only the formula while it was attached, the get is invalid. And for this reason, in our Mishna too Rabbi Judah requires, according to Rav Ashi, that both the writing and the signature be for its sake.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so, since it is so simple to establish it as Rabbi Judah,

from the outset -

already from the beginning -

why did we not establish it -

why did we not establish it -

as Rabbi Judah?

And 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] - the opinion of

Rabbi Meir

is.

And likewise

we seek to establish it according to Rabbi Elazar

we seek to establish it like him, because

the halakha is like him -

that the halakha follows him

in matters of gittin.

And it was convenient to establish that our Mishna too proceeds in accordance with the halakha.

Now the Gemara explains the words of Rabban Gamaliel and the words of Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna:

We learned -

we learned in our Mishna -:

Rabban Gamaliel says: Even one who brings a get from Rekem and from Heger must say: “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.” Rabbi Eliezer says: Even

one who brings it

from Kefar Ludim to Lod.

And Abaye said

to explain their words, that Rabban Gamaliel spoke

about towns adjacent to the Land of Israel [namely, Rekem and Heger].

namely, Rekem and Ḥeger].

And

Rabbi Eliezer spoke about towns

enclaved within the territory of the Land of Israel,

even though they themselves are not part of the Land of Israel, and it is about these towns that

we are dealing.

And according to this, the first tanna required the statement only when coming from distant places, but not from the adjacent towns and the enclaves. Rabban Gamaliel added the adjacent towns, and only with regard to the enclaves does he concede to the first tanna that it is unnecessary to say it. And Rabbi Eliezer added even the enclaves: even one who brings a get from them must say it.

And Rabbah bar bar Hannah said: I myself saw that place -

I saw that place between Kefar Ludim and Lod -

and it was

and its distance is - like the distance

from Bei Kuba to Pumbedita.

And now the Gemara comes to explain the dispute of the tannaim in the Mishna:

Is it not that they disagree concerning this -

are they not disputing in accordance with the dispute between Rabbah and Rava regarding the reason for the agent’s statement?

One master holds -

the first tanna of our Mishna holds like Rabbah, that the reason for the statement is

because they are not expert in “for its sake.” And these are learned -

the residents of the adjacent towns are expert in this halakha. Therefore, he does not require the agent to say it.

And one master holds -

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

because

caravans are not common, and therefore

witnesses are not readily available to validate it. And these too are not common -

caravans are not common even from these places. Therefore, Rabban Gamaliel also requires one coming from these places to say it.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Rabbah explains according to his reasoning, and Rava explains according to his reasoning.

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

Rabbah explains according to his reasoning,

for in truth

everyone -

both the first tanna and Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer - hold that the reason is

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

And here they disagree concerning this -

and here they disagree concerning this:

the first tanna holds: these, since they are adjacent, learn thoroughly -

according to the first tanna, the people of the adjacent towns are certainly expert in the law of “for its sake.”

And Rabban Gamaliel came to say -

and Rabban Gamaliel came to add -

the enclaves are learned -

the inhabitants of the enclaves are indeed expert in the halakha.

The adjacent towns are not learned -

but the inhabitants of the adjacent towns are not expert.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: the enclaves too.

According to Rabbi Eliezer, even one who brings from the enclaves must say it, even though they are expert, in order

that you should not distinguish

between the different places

in the foreign country.

For this could cause an error concerning the obligation to make the statement when coming from these places.

Rava explains according to his reasoning,

and explains the matter oppositely:

for everyone -

the view of all concerning 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, for this reason

they are readily found -

witnesses for validation who know the signatures are available when needed.

And Rabban Gamaliel came to say -

and Rabban Gamaliel came to add and say:

the enclaves are common; the adjacent towns are not common.

Specifically, the inhabitants of the enclaved towns are regularly found here, but not the inhabitants of the adjacent towns.

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: the enclaves too are not -

even the inhabitants of the enclaves, although they are frequently found here, must say it, in order

that you should not distinguish in the foreign country.

And now the Gemara clarifies the words of the second Sages in the Mishna:

We learned -

we learned in the Mishna -

And the Sages say: He need not say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,” except one who brings a get from the foreign country or one who takes it there.

By inference

you learn this,

that the first tanna holds

that one who takes

a get from the Land of Israel to outside the Land,

need not

say, “In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.”

And the Gemara comes to explain their dispute:

Is it not that they disagree concerning this -

are they not disputing concerning this,

that one master holds -

that the first tanna holds like Rabbah, that the reason for the statement is

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