Gittin 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

Even

if the agent heard

the sound of the quill –

the sound of the quill of the scribe writing it lishma.

And the sound of the scroll –

or the sound of the parchment sheet of the scribe writing it lishma. He may testify, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” since the entire process was certainly performed lishma.

The Gemara cites 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 a country overseas—even

if

he

the agent was

in the house,

when 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, where he could see the scribe from there, but entered the place where the scribe was writing

and went out from there throughout the entire day,

the bill of divorce

is valid.

And the agent may testify concerning it, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

The Gemara wonders: How can it be deemed 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 lishma?”

Rather, is it not –

this is not to be understood literally. Rather,

it is a case where

the agent heard

the

sound of the quill and the sound of the parchment,

and that is sufficient, in accordance with Rav Ashi’s statement.

The Gemara now clarifies another matter from the beraita:

The Master said:

we learned in the beraita:

“Even if he entered and went out throughout the entire day, it is valid.”

The Gemara analyzes this:

Who –

is the one who entered and went out?

If you say –

if it is said that he was the

agent,

this law is superfluous, since it can be derived by means of a kal va-homer.

Now –

at present—when

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

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

you say: It is valid!

If so, in a case where

the agent entered

the agent

and went out, is there a question –

is there any need to state it? Certainly not.

Rather,

perhaps we should say that the beraita means that the

scribe

is the one who entered and went out. This too is difficult:

it is obvious –

it is obvious that the bill of divorce is valid. Should it be that

because

the scribe

entered and went out

to attend to his affairs,

we should invalidate it –

shall we invalidate the bill of divorce?

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary –

the tanna needed to teach us this law –

rather, that the scribe went out –

the scribe went out

to the marketplace

a place where there are many people

and returned –

and came back.

You might have said –

that one should be concerned and say:

another man –

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

encountered him –

he encountered the scribe

and said to him –

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

It teaches us –

therefore the tanna comes to teach us that we are not concerned about this remote possibility, and the agent may say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

The Gemara now clarifies the status of Babylonia. Is its status like that of Eretz Yisrael, since it contains academies as Eretz Yisrael does, or is its status like that of outside Eretz Yisrael, like the other lands?

It was stated –

we learned:

With regard to Babylonia, Rav said:

its status is

like that of Eretz Yisrael with regard to

the matter of

bills of divorce.

Therefore, one who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another within Babylonia need not say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

And Shmuel said:

the status of Babylonia is

like that of outside Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara considers whether their dispute parallels the dispute between Rabbah and Rava:

Shall we say –

should we say –

that this is the issue over which they disagree – \-

that this is the basis of their dispute:

One Master holds –

Rav follows Rabbah, that the reason for the declaration is

because they are not expert in lishma. But these –

and these [the people of Babylonia]

are learned –

they know the law of lishma.

And one Master holds –

Shmuel follows Rava, that the reason is

because witnesses are not readily available to verify it. And these too

and these as well –

are not readily available –

they are not commonly found traveling from one place to another.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But how can you understand it thus –

how can you propose to establish the dispute in this way?

But –

after all –

Rabbah agrees with Rava –

Rabbah agrees with Rava’s reasoning that witnesses are not readily available to verify it. If so, even though the people of Babylonia are expert in lishma, nevertheless, since witnesses are not readily available to verify it when traveling from one region to another, the agent should have to make the declaration!

The Gemara answers:

Rather, everyone –

according to all opinions –

requires –

it is necessary –

to verify it,

in accordance with Rava’s reasoning.

Rav holds that since there are academies –

there are permanent 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 readily found among them –

witnesses who can verify the document are readily available among them, and consequently the agent need not make the declaration.

And Shmuel holds: The members of the academies –

the students of the academies

are preoccupied with their learning –

they are occupied with their studies and do not engage in commerce. Consequently, they do not recognize the signatures. Therefore, the agent must have the document verified and say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

It was likewise stated –

from another amora we learn that the reason for exemption from the declaration is that academies are readily available:

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: We have made Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce –

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

from when –

from the time

Rav came to Babylonia

and established a permanent academy in Sura, while Shmuel established one in Nehardea.

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

He objects – he raises a difficulty –

Rabbi Yirmeya

from our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem toward

the direction of

the east,

it is regarded as a country overseas, on the eastern side of Eretz Yisrael

. And Rekem

itself is regarded

as the east

and is considered a country overseas.

From Ashkelon

toward

the south,

it is regarded as a country overseas.

And Ashkelon

itself

as the south. From Acre toward

the side of

the north. And Acre

itself

as the north.

But –

after all –

Babylonia lies to the north of Eretz Yisrael –

it is situated on the northern side of Eretz Yisrael.

As it is written: “And the Lord said to me: From the north the evil shall be opened” [

Jeremiah, chapter 1].

And we learned

later in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Acre

its status is

like that of Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce.

And even Rabbi Meir said –

he did not disagree with Rabbi Yehuda –

only with regard to Acre, because it is near –

it is near Eretz Yisrael, and for that reason Rabbi Meir considers it like Eretz Yisrael.

But Babylonia, which is distant –

which is much farther from Eretz Yisrael –

certainly not!

Rabbi Yirmeya himself resolves the difficulty:

He raised the difficulty –

he posed the question –

and he resolves it –

he answers it:

Except –

outside –

Babylonia.

That is, Babylonia is exceptional among the entire northern region of Eretz Yisrael, since there is a reason to permit it [academies are readily available there]!

The Gemara asks:

How far does Babylonia extend?

Rav Pappa said: Just as there is a dispute with regard to lineage –

with regard to the places from which families are considered genealogically unblemished [with no concern that they intermarried with gentiles],

so too there is a dispute with regard to bills of divorce –

one who brings a bill of divorce from these places need not say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

And Rav Yosef said: The dispute

is specifically

with regard to lineage. But with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees

that the boundary of Babylonia extends

as far as the second marsh –

the second lake of reeds and willows –

beneath the bridge,

which is under the bridge.

The Gemara presents a practical ruling of Rav Ḥisda:

Rav Ḥisda requires

the agents bringing a get

from Akistafon -

a city outside Eretz Yisrael,

to Bei Ardashir

which is also located outside Eretz Yisrael, to say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” But

from Bei Ardashir to Akistafon, he did not

was

require

him to say so.

The Gemara attempts to prove that he follows the opinion of Rabba:

Let us say that he holds -

let us say that Rav Ḥisda holds like Rabba, that the reason for the declaration is

because

the residents of outside Eretz Yisrael

are not expert in lishmah. And these -

and these [the residents of Ardashir]

are learned -

they have studied and know the halakha of lishmah. Therefore, they do not need to make the declaration. Only the residents of Akistafon, who do not know, need to make it.

The Gemara challenges and rejects this:

But can it be understood -

how can you think to say this?

But -

for behold -

Rabba agrees -

he agrees with the ruling -

of Rava -

Rava! And if so, if caravans are not commonly found traveling from one country to the other, the declaration must be made when bringing a get from both places.

The Gemara explains:

Rather, everyone -

according to all opinions -

requires -

it must be possible

to authenticate it

the get.

And these -

the residents of Ardashir -

since they go -

since they go -

to the market there -

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

those -

these, the residents of Akistafon -

know -

recognize -

the signatures -

their handwriting -

of these -

of these, the residents of Ardashir

. But these -

the residents of Ardashir -

the signatures of those -

the signatures of the residents of Akistafon -

do not know -

do not recognize them.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason -

why do they not recognize the merchants’ signatures, just as the merchants in Akistafon recognize their signatures?

The Gemara explains: Every market day, when they are there,

they are preoccupied in their own market -

they are occupied with their purchases and do not pay attention to examining and recognizing the signatures of the townspeople.

Rabba bar Avuha

would

require

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

from Arsa -

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

to Arsa -

to the opposite side.

Rav Sheshet

would

require

him to say so

from one neighborhood -

a group of three houses -

to a neighboring neighborhood

adjacent to it.

And Rava

was more stringent than all of them, as he

required

even when he brought the get

within the same neighborhood

from house to house.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How could Rava require this even within the same neighborhood?

But -

for behold -

Rava himself is the one

who

said: “Because witnesses are not readily available to authenticate it.”

Yet in the same neighborhood, witnesses who recognize the signatures of the neighbors are certainly available, and they can authenticate it.

The Gemara answers:

The case is different -

they are different -

the residents of Meḥoza

from the other residents of Babylonia, because

they are itinerant \-

they are not accustomed to remain in their homes for long; rather, they frequently travel from place to place for business. Consequently, they do not recognize one another’s signatures.

The Gemara continues and relates:

Rav Ḥanin related -

he said:

Rav Kahana brought a get -

he brought a get, and

I did not know -

I do not know

whether -

whether it was

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 is it not necessary? He said to him -

Rav answered him [according to his view, that Babylonia is like Eretz Yisrael]:

You do not need to -

you do not need to!