Gittin 6a — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

even

if the agent heard

the sound of the pen —

the sound of the pen of the scribe writing it lishmah.

And the sound of the scroll—

or the sound of the parchment sheet of the scribe writing it lishmah. He can testify, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed,” because he certainly did everything lishmah.

And the Gemara brings a beraita to support Rav Ashi:

It was taught—

we learned in a beraita

in accordance with him—

like

Rav Ashi: One who brings a bill of divorce from overseas. Even

if

he

[the agent] was

in the house

at the time the bill of divorce was being written,

and the scribe

was writing

in the upper room—

the attic. Or

he was in the upper room and the scribe

was writing

in the house. And even if

he was not in the upper room, so that he could see the scribe from there, but entered the place where the scribe was writing

and went out from there the entire day,

the bill of divorce

is valid.

And the agent can testify concerning it, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And the Gemara is astonished: How can it be declared valid when

he is in the house and the scribe is in the upper room? He does not see him

—he does not see him [the scribe]—so how can he testify that he wrote it “lishmah”?

Rather, is it not

not as it appears literally. Rather,

for example,

the agent heard

the

sound of the pen and the sound of the parchment,

and that suffices. And this is like the words of Rav Ashi.

And now the Gemara clarifies another matter from the beraita:

The master said:

we learned in the beraita:

“Even if he enters and leaves the entire day, it is valid.”

And the Gemara discusses:

Who

is this one who enters and leaves?

If you say

if it is

the agent,

this law is superfluous, for it can be learned by a kal va-chomer.

Now

now—when

he is in the house and the scribe is in the upper room, so that he does not see him

—that he does not see him [the scribe]—nevertheless

you say: It is valid!

If so, in the case where

he enters

the agent

and leaves, is it necessary

to raise a doubt?! Certainly not.

Rather,

perhaps the intention of the beraita is that the

scribe

is the one who enters and leaves. This, too, can be challenged:

It is obvious

—it is obvious that the bill of divorce is valid. Is it because

because

the scribe

enters and leaves

to arrange his affairs

shall we invalidate it

—shall we invalidate the bill of divorce?

And the Gemara answers:

It is necessary—

the tanna did not need to teach us

but that he went out

—that the scribe went out—

to the marketplace,

to a place where there are many people,

and came

—and returned.

Lest you say

—is there cause for concern and to say:

another person

—another man whose name and whose wife’s name were identical to the names of the sender and his wife, who wished to divorce his wife—

found him

—met the scribe—

and said to him

—and asked him—to write a bill of divorce for his wife. If so, the agent’s testimony is mistaken!

It teaches us—

therefore the tanna came to teach us that we do not suspect this remote concern. And the agent can say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And now the Gemara clarifies the status of Babylonia. Is its status like that of the Land of Israel, since academies are found there as in the Land of Israel, or is its status like that of overseas, like the other lands?

It was stated—

we learned:

Babylonia. Rav said:

its status is

like the Land of Israel with regard to

the matter of

bills of divorce.

Therefore, one who brings a bill of divorce within Babylonia from one province to another need not say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And Shmuel said:

the status of Babylonia is

like overseas.

And the Gemara discusses whether their dispute is like the dispute between Rabbah and Rava:

Let us say—

shall we say—

that this is what they dispute, \-

that they disagree over this:

One master holds—

Rav holds like Rabbah, that the reason for the declaration is

because they are not expert in lishmah. And these

—the people of Babylonia—

are learned

—they know the law of “lishmah.”

And one master holds—

and Shmuel holds like Rava, that the reason is

because witnesses are not commonly available to verify it. And these, too, \-

and these also—

are not common—

they are not commonly found traveling from place to place.

And the Gemara objects:

But can you understand it so?

—how do you intend to establish it this way?

But

—after all—

Rabbah holds Rava’s view

—Rabbah agrees with Rava’s reason, that witnesses are not commonly available to verify it. If so, even though the people of Babylonia are expert in “lishmah,” nevertheless, since from one province to another witnesses are not commonly available to verify it, the agent must be required to make the declaration!

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, everyone

—according to everyone—

requires

—it is necessary—

to verify it,

according to Rava’s reason.

Rav holds: Since there are academies

—there are established academies, one in Sura and one in Nehardea, and the students travel from one to the other, as well as from other places to them in order to study Torah—therefore,

they are commonly found

—witnesses capable of verifying it are commonly found among them. Therefore, the agent need not make the declaration.

And Shmuel holds: The academy members

—the members of the academies—

are occupied with their learning —

they are occupied with their studies and do not engage in commerce. Therefore, they do not recognize the signatures. And therefore the agent must verify it and say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

It was also stated—

we learned from another amora that the reason for the exemption from the declaration is that academies are found there:

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: We have made ourselves in Babylonia like the Land of Israel with regard to bills of divorce.

—one who brings a bill of divorce there from place to place need not make the declaration. And this began

when he came

—from the time that

Rav came to Babylonia

and established a permanent academy in Sura. And Shmuel established one in Nehardea.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to Rav’s words from the Mishna:

He objected—raised a difficulty—

Rabbi Yirmeya

from our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem toward

the direction of

the east,

it is considered overseas, on the eastern side of the Land of Israel.

And Rekem itself

is judged

like the east

and is considered overseas.

From Ashkelon

toward

the south,

it is considered overseas.

And Ashkelon

itself

like the south. From Akko toward

the side of

the north. And Akko

itself

like the north.

But

—yet—

Babylonia lies to the north of the Land of Israel.

—it is situated on the northern side of the Land of Israel—

as it is written: “And the Lord said to me, From the north the evil will be opened.”

[Jeremiah, chapter 1].

And we learned

in the continuation of our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Akko

has the status

of the Land of Israel with regard to bills of divorce.

And even Rabbi Meir did not say

—he did not disagree with Rabbi Yehuda—

except regarding Akko, because it is near,

for it is close to the Land of Israel. And because of this Rabbi Meir considers it like the Land of Israel.

But Babylonia, because it is distant,

—because it is much more distant from the Land of Israel—

no!

But Rabbi Yirmeya himself resolves the difficulty:

He raised it

—he raised the difficulty—

and he resolved it

—and he answered it:

outside

—apart—

from Babylonia.

That is, Babylonia is exceptional among the entire northern region of the Land of Israel, since there is a reason to permit it. [For academies are found there!]

And the Gemara asks:

How far does Babylonia extend?

Rav Pappa said: Just as the dispute regarding genealogical status,

—with regard to the places from which families arriving there have genealogical status [without concern that they became intermixed with gentiles]—

so is the dispute regarding bills of divorce

—one who brings a bill of divorce in these places need not say, “Before me it was written and before me it was signed.”

And Rav Yosef said: The dispute

is specifically

regarding genealogical status. But regarding bills of divorce, everyone agrees

that the boundary of Babylonia extends

to the second Arba

—the second lake of reeds and willow—

of the bridge,

which is beneath the bridge.

The Gemara brings a practical ruling of Rav Hisda:

Rav Hisda requires

the agents bringing a get

from Aktisfon—

a city outside the Land of Israel—

to Bei Ardashir,

which is also located outside the Land of Israel, to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” But

from Bei Ardashir to Aktisfon, he did not

he

require

them to say so.

And the Gemara attempts to prove that he holds in accordance with Rabba’s method:

Let us say that he holds—

let us say that Rav Hisda holds like Rabba, that the reason for the statement is

because

the people outside the Land of Israel

are not expert in lishmah. And these—

those [the people of Bei Ardashir]—

have learned—

they studied and know the halakha of lishmah. Therefore, they do not need to say so. Only the people of Aktisfon, who do not know, need to say so.

And the Gemara wonders and rejects this:

But can you understand it so—

how can you think to say this?

But—

yet—

Rabba holds—

agrees with his ruling—

of Rava—

Rava’s! And if so, if caravans are not commonly found from one country to the other, one must say so from both places.

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, everyone—

according to everyone—

requires—

it must be possible

to validate it

[the get].

And these—

the people of Bei Ardashir—

since they go—

since they go—

to the market there—

to the large market located [Rashi] in Aktisfon. Therefore,

these—

the people of Aktisfon—

know—

recognize—

the signatures of the hands—

their hands—

of these—

of those, the people of Ardashir

. But these—

the people of Bei Ardashir—

the signatures of those—

the signatures of the hands of the people of Aktisfon—

do not know—

do not recognize.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason—

why do they not recognize the signatures of the merchants, just as the merchants in Aktisfon recognize their signatures?

And the Gemara explains: Every market day, when they are there,

in their market they are occupied—

they are occupied with their purchases and do not pay attention to looking at and recognizing the signatures of the people of the city.

Rabba bar Avuha

was

requiring

the agent bringing a get to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,”

from one row of houses—

from a row of houses on one side of the public domain—

to the row of houses—

on the opposite side.

Rav Sheshet

was

requiring

him to say so

from one neighborhood—

a group of three houses—

to a neighborhood

nearby.

And Rava

was more stringent than all of them, for he was

requiring

even when he brought the get

within the same neighborhood

from house to house.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: How is it possible that Rava required it within the same neighborhood?

But—

yet—

Rava is

the one who

said, “because witnesses are not found to validate it.”

And within the same neighborhood, witnesses who recognize the signatures of the neighbors are certainly found, and they can validate it.

The Gemara answers:

Different are—

they differ—

the people of Mehoza

from the rest of the people of Babylonia, because

they are nomadic \-

they do not tend to remain in their homes for a long time, but rather travel frequently from place to place for commercial purposes. And because of this, they do not recognize the signatures among themselves.

And the Gemara continues and relates:

Rav Hanin related—

he recounted:

Rav Kahana brought a get—

he brought a get, but

I did not know—

and I do not know

whether—

whether it was this—

from Sura to Nehardea, or from Nehardea to Sura. He came before Rav—

he came to ask his question before Rav.

He said

to him—

and this is what he asked:

Must I say—

must I say, in these places where there are yeshivot, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”?

Or must I not say so? He said to him—

Rav answered him [according to his method, that Babylonia is like the Land of Israel]:

You do not need—

you do not need to!