Gittin 4b — the Talmud in English

And these —

the people of the Land of Israel from whom the bill of divorce was sent —

are learned —

they have learned and know the halakha of “for her sake.” Therefore, the person transporting it does not need to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And the Master holds —

the view of the second Sages is like Rava’s, that the reason for the statement is:

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it.

Therefore,

these also -

the people of the Land of Israel who send a bill of divorce abroad —

are not common

there, to validate it should the husband challenge it. Therefore, the Sages required even the person transporting it to make the statement.

And the Gemara again rejects this:

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

Each of the amoraim explains the view of the second Sages according to his own reasoning.

Rabba explains according to his reasoning,

that in truth

everyone —

including the second Sages — agrees that the reason for the statement is

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

here —

they disagree over the decree concerning the transporter on account of the person bringing it —

whether a decree is made concerning one transporting a bill of divorce, on account of the decree concerning one bringing a bill of divorce [to say, “Before me it was written

”]].

They disagree.

For the First Tanna holds: We do not decree —

we do not decree —

concerning the transporter on account of the person bringing it. And the later Sages —

the second Sages —

hold

so:

we do decree concerning the transporter on account of the person bringing it.

And Rava explains according to his reasoning —

Rava explains according to his reasoning —

that everyone —

the view of everyone is that the reason for the statement

is because witnesses are not readily available to validate it

.

Rather,

the later Sages

came only to explain the reason of the First Tanna —

they came to explain the words of the First Tanna, and not to disagree with him. Accordingly, even according to the First Tanna, the transporter needs to say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” just like the person bringing it; except that he mentioned only one of them as an example.

The Gemara explains another law brought in the Mishna:

We learned —

we learned in the Mishna —

“One who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another in an overseas country must say: ‘Before me it was written and before me it was signed.’”

And it is implied from this,

“This applies to [bringing it] within the same country in an overseas country,”

and from one city to another city,

he does not need

to say it. Even though they are not expert there in “for her sake,” since, in any event, witnesses are readily available to validate it, he does not need to.

According to Rava,

whose reason is “because witnesses are not readily available to validate it

,” it is understandable —

this law is well understood.

But

according to Rabba,

who explained that the reason for the statement is “because they are not expert in ‘for her sake

,’ it is difficult —

it is difficult: why, when bringing it from one country to another in an overseas country, does he not need to make the statement, when they are not expert in “for her sake”?

And the Gemara answers:

Do not say

— do not infer as you inferred —

“This applies to within the same country in an overseas country: he does not need [to say it].”

Rather, say —

infer differently —

“From one country to another in the Land of Israel, he does not need [to say it].”

But the Gemara raises an objection to this:

“It is explicitly taught there” —

why do we need to infer this from the implication of another law? This law is explicitly written later in the Mishna:

“One who brings a bill of divorce in the Land of Israel does not need to say: ‘Before me it was written and before me it was signed’!”

The Gemara answers:

And the Gemara answers:

If [we learned it] from that —

if we were to learn this only from the inference —

I would have said

— we would say —

these words apply after the fact —

specifically, if he has already brought a bill of divorce from one place to another in the Land of Israel without it having been written in his presence, the agency is not invalidated because of this.

But

to bring it

initially, he may not

be permitted to act as agent unless he saw the writing of the bill of divorce.

It teaches us —

therefore it explicitly taught us in the latter clause that in the Land of Israel it is permitted even initially to bring a bill of divorce from one place to another, even if he did not see the writing.

But there are those who infer the opposite from the wording of the Mishna:

And there is one who objects to it in this manner —

there is an amora who infers from the wording of the Mishna according to Rabba and raises an objection to Rava. Specifically, one who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another in an overseas country must make the statement. It is implied from this —

“But from one country to another in the Land of Israel, he does not need

to make the statement.” If so, according to Rabba, whose reason for the statement is that they are not expert in “for her sake,”

it is understandable —

it is well understood, since in the Land of Israel everyone is expert in “for her sake.”

But

according to Rava,

whose reason is because witnesses are not readily available to validate it,

it is difficult!

For even from one country to another in the Land of Israel caravans are not common, so why does he not need to make the statement?

And the Gemara answers:

Do not say —

do not infer as you inferred —

that from one country to another in the Land of Israel he does not need [to say it]. Rather, say —

infer differently —

“This”

is implied from this: one who brings a bill of divorce—within the same

country in an overseas country does not need [to say it].

But the Gemara infers and raises an objection:

It is implied from your words —

but

one who brings the bill of divorce

from one country to another in the Land

of Israel,

what

is the law? Certainly —

he must! If so

it is difficult:

let him teach -

let the Tanna teach anonymously:

“One who brings from one country

to

another country

—another—

anonymously,”

without specifying whether in the Land of Israel or outside the Land of Israel, and we would know that in both the law is the same: that he must?!

And the Gemara rejects this:

In truth,

I can say to you:

from one country to another in the Land of Israel also —

also —

he does not need

to make the statement, as you inferred earlier. And nevertheless there is no difficulty for Rava,

since there are

those who are present —

pilgrims,

therefore

they are readily found —

witnesses to validate it are available.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

That works —

this assumption is resolved only —

when the Temple is standing,

when pilgrims are present. But

when the Temple is not standing, what is there to say —

what can you answer?

And the Gemara answers:

Since there are —

since there are —

established courts

in the towns, in accordance with the enactment of Ezra the Scribe that they should adjudicate on Mondays and Thursdays,

they are readily found —

caravans going to adjudicate at the place of the assembly are always available.

The Gemara brings another law from the Mishna:

We learned —

in our Mishna —

“Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: even

one who brings a bill of divorce

from one district to another district

must make the statement.”

And

concerning this

Rabbi Isaac said: “One city

a large one

was in the Land of Israel, and Itsessiyot was its name. And there were two districts in it, whose

governors

were particular about one another,

so that the people of this district should not pass into that district.

Therefore, they were required

those bringing a bill of divorce

from one district to another to say

‘Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And the Gemara proves: according to the method of

Rava,

whose reason is because witnesses are not readily available to validate it,

it is understandable —

it is well understood why even one who brings it from one district to another must make the statement, since people are not permitted to pass from one to the other!

But

according to Rabba it is difficult,

for the two districts are in the Land of Israel and they are expert in “for her sake.” Why, nevertheless, did they require the agent to make the statement? Rather, it is certainly proven that Rava’s reason is correct!

And the Gemara resolves: indeed,

Rabba

holds like Rava —

he agrees with Rava’s reason, that from one country to another in the Land of Israel, in a place where people are particular and witnesses are not readily available, the agent must make the statement.

But Rava does not agree with Rabba’s reason. Therefore, where witnesses are available, there is no concern that perhaps it was not written “for her sake,” since everyone is expert.

Accordingly, the Gemara asks:

But,

now that you have answered that Rabba agrees with Rava,

what is the difference between them —

in what cases will there be a difference between them? For according to the last two answers of the Gemara there will be no difference concerning one who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another in the Land of Israel. According to the answer that pilgrims are available, Rava too will not require him to make the statement. And according to the answer that Rabba agrees with Rava where people are particular, according to both he must make the statement.

And the Gemara answers: certainly, the second difference, as the Gemara said above [on page 2b], no longer exists according to this answer. But

there is a difference between them —

two differences still remain. The first difference is:

that two people brought it —

that two agents brought the bill of divorce.

Alternatively —

or alternatively, the second difference can occur in a case where they sent the bill of divorce from one place to another

within the same country in an overseas country.

In both of these cases, according to Rabba the agent must say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” while according to Rava he does not need to.

We learned —

we learned in the Mishna [on page 9a]:

“One who brings a bill of divorce from an overseas country and cannot say: ‘Before me it was written and before me it was signed.’ If there are

[on the bill of divorce]

witnesses

who are signed,

it shall be validated

the bill of divorce

by its signatures —

by people who come and recognize the signatures—and the bill of divorce is valid.

And we examined it —

the Gemara there discusses the interpretation of the Mishna:

What —

what is the meaning of —

“and cannot say?”