Gittin 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

And these —

the residents of Eretz Yisrael from whom the bill of divorce was sent —

are learned —

they have studied and know the halakha of “for her sake.” Therefore, the agent transporting the bill need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

And one master holds —

the second Sages’ opinion is in accordance with Rava, that the reason for the declaration is:

because witnesses are not readily available to validate it

is the reason. Therefore,

these too -

the residents of Eretz Yisrael who send a bill of divorce abroad —

are not common;

they are not readily available there to validate it should the husband challenge it. Therefore, the Sages also required the agent transporting it to make the declaration.

And the Gemara rejects this once again:

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

Each of the amoraim will explain the second Sages’ opinion according to his own reasoning.

Rabba explains it according to his reasoning:

in truth,

everyone —

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

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

in this case —

they disagree about the decree requiring the agent transporting it because of the agent bringing it —

whether a decree was instituted requiring an agent transporting a bill of divorce to make the declaration, because of the decree requiring the agent bringing a bill of divorce [to say, “It was written in my presence

.” They disagree -

with one another.

As the first tanna holds, we do not decree —

we do not decree —

against the agent transporting it because of the agent bringing it. But the later Sages —

the second Sages —

hold

that

we do decree against the agent transporting it because of the agent bringing it.

And Rava explains it according to his reasoning —

Rava explains it according to his reasoning —

that everyone —

everyone’s opinion is that the reason for the declaration

is because witnesses are not readily available to validate it

is.

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 dispute them. Accordingly, even according to the first tanna, the agent transporting the bill must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” just like the agent bringing it; he mentioned only one of them as an example.

The Gemara explains another law stated in the Mishna:

We learned —

we learned in the Mishna —

“One who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another country overseas must say: ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.’”

And this implies:

“But if he brings it within the same country overseas,”

from one city to another,

he need not

make the declaration. And although they are not expert there in “for her sake,” since, in any event, witnesses are readily available to validate it, he need not make the declaration.

According to Rava,

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

this is well understood —

this law is readily comprehensible.

But

according to Rabba,

who explained that the reason for the declaration is “because they are not expert in ‘for her sake,’”

this is difficult —

why, when the bill is brought from one country to another overseas, is the declaration unnecessary, when they are not expert in “for her sake”?

The Gemara answers:

Do not say —

do not infer as you inferred —

“But when he brings it within the same country overseas, he need not make the declaration.”

Rather, say —

infer differently —

“When he brings it from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael, he need not make the declaration.”

But the Gemara challenges this:

“It is stated explicitly” —

why must this be inferred from the implication of another law? This law is explicitly written later in the Mishna:

“One who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael need not say: ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence’”?

The Gemara answers:

The Gemara answers:

If it were derived from that —

if we learned this only from the inference —

we might have said —

we would have said —

this applies only after the fact —

specifically, if he had already brought a bill from one place to another in Eretz Yisrael without having seen it written, the agency would not be invalidated for that reason.

But

to bring it

initially, he may not

be appointed an agent unless he saw the writing of the bill.

It teaches us —

therefore, the latter clause explicitly teaches us that in Eretz Yisrael it is permitted even initially to bring a bill from one place to another, even if the agent did not see it being written.

But some infer the opposite from the wording of the Mishna:

And there is one who raises an objection in this manner —

an amora infers from the wording of the Mishna in accordance with Rabba and raises a difficulty against Rava. Specifically, only one who brings a bill of divorce from one country to another overseas must make the declaration. This implies:

“But when he brings it from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael, he need not”

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

this is well understood —

it is readily understood, since in Eretz Yisrael everyone is expert in “for her sake.”

But

according to Rava,

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

this is difficult!

For even when the bill is brought from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael, caravans are not common; why, then, is the declaration unnecessary?

The Gemara answers:

Do not say —

do not infer as you inferred —

that when it is brought from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael, the declaration is unnecessary. Rather, say —

infer differently —

“But”

this implies that one who brings a bill — within the same

country overseas need not make the declaration.

But the Gemara infers and challenges:

Your words imply

“but”

one who brings the bill

from one country to another in Eretz

Yisrael,

what

is the law? Certainly,

he must. If so

the following difficulty arises:

let the tanna teach -

the case without qualification:

“One who brings it from one country

to

another country

elsewhere

without qualification,”

without specifying whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or the Diaspora, and we would know that the law is the same in both cases—that he must make the declaration?!

The Gemara rejects this:

In truth,

I can say to you that

when it is brought from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael as well —

also —

the declaration is unnecessary,

as you inferred earlier. Nevertheless, this does not pose a difficulty to Rava,

since there are

those who are present —

pilgrims,

and therefore

they are readily found —

witnesses to validate it are readily available.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

That works —

this assumption is tenable only —

when the Temple is standing,

when pilgrims are common. But

when the Temple is not standing, what can be said —

what can you answer?

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 traveling to the place of the court are always common.

The Gemara cites 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 declaration.”

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yitzhak said: “There was one city

a large city

in Eretz Yisrael, and its name was Usasiyot. It had two districts whose

governors

were strict with one another,

not allowing the residents of one district to pass into the other district.

Therefore, those who brought

bills of divorce

from one district to another had to say

‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.’”

And the Gemara proves: according to the opinion of

Rava,

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

this is well understood —

it is readily understood why even one who brings a bill from one district to another must make the declaration. For people are not permitted to pass from one to the other!

But

according to Rabba, this is difficult,

for both districts are in Eretz Yisrael, and their residents are expert in “for her sake.” Why, nevertheless, did they require the agent to make the declaration? Rather, it is certainly proven that the reason is that of Rava!

The Gemara resolves this: indeed,

Rabba

holds like Rava —

he agrees with Rava’s reason, that when a bill is brought from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael, in a place where the residents are strict with one another and witnesses are not readily available, the agent must make the declaration.

But Rava does not agree with Rabba’s reason. Therefore, in a place where witnesses are readily available, we are not concerned that perhaps the bill was not written “for her sake,” because everyone is expert in it.

Accordingly, the Gemara asks:

But,

now that you have explained that Rabba agrees with Rava,

what difference is there between them —

in which cases will there be a difference between them? For according to the last two resolutions of the Gemara there will be no difference regarding one who brings a bill from one country to another in Eretz Yisrael. According to the resolution that pilgrims are common, Rava too will not require any further declaration. And according to the resolution that Rabba agrees with Rava when the residents are strict with one another, according to both of them the declaration is required.

The Gemara answers: certainly, the second difference mentioned by the Gemara above [on page 2b] no longer exists according to this resolution. However,

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.

Alternatively —

or the second difference may arise in a case where the bill was sent from one place to another

within the same country overseas.

In both of these cases, according to Rabba the agent must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” whereas according to Rava he need not do so.

We learned —

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

“One who brings a bill of divorce from overseas and cannot say: ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,’ if there are

[on the bill]

witnesses

who are signed on it,

the bill shall be validated

the bill

by its signatures —

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

And we discussed it —

the Gemara there discusses the interpretation of the Mishna:

What

does it mean —

“and cannot say”?