Gittin 6b — the Talmud in English

But Rav added and said:

and if you did it—

and if, nevertheless, you say [even though you are exempt],

you have benefited—

your statement has benefited.

And the Gemara asks:

What is it—“if you did it, you have benefited”—

what did Rav intend by saying to him that if he said it, it would be effective?

And the Gemara answers: the benefit is

that if he comes—

if he comes—

the husband and challenges it, we pay no attention to him—

we do not take his challenge into consideration. But if he does not say it now, and afterward the husband challenges it, the get is invalidated.

And as it was taught in a beraita: An incident occurred involving a certain man who brought a get before Rabbi Ishmael and said to him

to Rabbi Ishmael]:

“Must I say, ‘In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,’ or must I not?” Rabbi Ishmael said to him: “My son, where are you from?”

He said to him: “Rabbi, I am from Kefar Sisai”

a place-name.

“I am,” he said to him; “you must say

‘In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,’

so that if the husband challenges the get,

the woman will not need

the woman

witnesses

to verify it.

After

that man had left Rabbi Ishmael,

Rabbi Ilai entered before him

with his question in his mouth.

He said to him: “Rabbi, but Kefar Sisai is enclosed within the territory of the Land of Israel and is close to Sepphoris,

which was a major city in Israel, containing academies and courts,

more than Acre. And we learned—

and concerning Acre we learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: “Acre is like the Land of Israel with regard

to

divorce documents.”

And if so, all the more so one who brings a get from Sepphoris should not need to say it!

And Rabbi Ilai added and said:

And even the Rabbis

in our Mishna

do not disagree—

they do not disagree—

with it—

with—

Rabbi Meir’s view, except concerning distant Acre—

which is distant from the center of the Jewish settlement in Sepphoris, and therefore they treat it as outside the Land with regard to divorce documents.

But Kefar Sisai, which is near—

which is near—

they do not

disagree with him! And if so, according to everyone, concerning Kefar Sisai one need not say it.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ishmael:

“Be silent, my son, be silent.”

“Since

already

the matter has gone forth—

the get—

with permission

from me

, it has gone forth.

And one must not now add discussion concerning it, for this may undermine its validity, and no one will want to marry the woman.

And the Gemara asks: What was Rabbi Ilai’s astonishment at Rabbi Ishmael?

Is it so—

behold—

he too—

he did not require saying it according to the fundamental law either, but [merely advised it] in order

that she not need

the woman

witnesses—he said this to him?

And the Gemara answers: When they told Rabbi Ilai Rabbi Ishmael’s answer,

they did not complete it before him—

they did not tell him the conclusion of Rabbi Ishmael’s words, that he too did not require it according to the fundamental law, but only gave good advice. Therefore, he misunderstood his words.

Now the Gemara discusses a get sent from Babylonia to the Land of Israel:

Rabbi Evyatar sent to Rav Hisda

an actual halakhic ruling:

“Divorce documents coming from there”—

from Babylonia—

to here—

to the Land of Israel—

the agent does not

the agent

need say, ‘In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.’

And the Gemara attempts to explain Rabbi Evyatar’s reason:

Let us say that he holds—

let us say that he holds

that the reason for the statement is:

because they are not expert in lishmah. And these—

whereas the people of Babylonia—

are learned— \-

they know the law of lishmah. Therefore, one need not say it.

But the Gemara rejects this:

And can you really think so—

do you really intend to say so?

But—

behold—

Rabba,

who holds that the reason is lishmah,

agrees—

agrees with the view—

of Rava.

And if so, even if we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds like him, nevertheless the agent must say it because of the reason of verification.

Rather,

in truth,

everyone—

whose view is that everyone—

requires—

must—

have it verified.

And here

, since there are—

people—

many who ascend—

those who ascend [from Babylonia to the Land of Israel]—

and descend—

those who descend [from the Land of Israel to Babylonia]. Therefore,

they are commonly found—

frequent caravans are found between them, and witnesses to verify the get are available.

Rav Yosef said: “Who can tell us—

who will tell us [testify before us]—

that Rabbi Evyatar is authoritative—

that he is fit for us to rely upon and rule according to his words?

And furthermore, behold—

for—the following incident proves that he is not a great man. For

he—

he himself [Rabbi Evyatar]

sent him

a letter

to Rav Judah,

and wrote in it: “Those people

who ascend from there—

from Babylonia—

to here—

to the Land of Israel— and leave their wives there alone, and for a long time refrain from the mitzva of procreation, because they do not consider having sons and daughters important—

they

those people]

fulfilled upon themselves

the verse stated in the Book of Joel [as a rebuke to the nations]:

“And they gave the child to a prostitute, and the girl they sold for wine, and they drank”

whose meaning is that they abused the children because they did not value them; likewise these people, who disparage the mitzva of procreation].

And he wrote for him

Rabbi Evyatar wrote this verse in the letter

without ruling.

And this, even though

Rabbi Isaac said: “Two”—

two words from a verse—

may be written—

it is permitted to write without ruling. But

three may not be written without ruling.

And in the metnita it was taught—the tanna taught in a beraita:

“Three may be written. But four may not be written

without ruling.

And according to both versions [the version of Rabbi Isaac and the version of the beraita], Rabbi Evyatar violated this law, for he wrote more than four words without ruling. From this Rav Yosef wished to prove that Rabbi Evyatar was not a great man.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

Is it so—

do you mean—

that anyone who does not know this,

this law of

Rabbi Isaac

regarding ruling—

is not a great man?!

Granted—

I would accept and agree with your words had Rabbi Evyatar erred

in a matter dependent on reasoning—

in a matter dependent on reasoning, which he did not understand by his own mind—

by my life!

I would agree with your view that he is not a great man, and you may continue to hold this view.

But this is not so with

this—

this law of ruling—

it is a received teaching—

a matter learned from one’s teacher and not dependent on the student’s own understanding.

And this received teaching—

this teaching of Rabbi Isaac—

was not heard by him—

Rabbi Evyatar had not heard it from his teacher. This does not indicate at all a deficiency in his greatness.

And after rejecting the deficiency, Abaye returns to prove that Rabbi Evyatar was indeed a great man:

And furthermore, behold—

behold—

Rabbi Evyatar

is the one

whose Master agreed with him—

that the Holy One, blessed is He, agreed to reveal to him the secrets of the Torah. and to direct the interpretation of obscure matters according to their truth. Likewise, He agreed with him in his interpretation of the incident of the “Concubine at Gibeah” in the Book of Judges [chapter 19].

as it is written: “And his concubine played the harlot against him” [

there, verse 2]. And the Sages interpreted this as having two different meanings.

Rabbi Evyatar

interpreted that the word “harlotry” was derived from the expression “food.” Therefore he

said that

the intention of the verse was that

she found a fly

in the bowl of food that she served him.

And Rabbi Yonatan

interpreted that the intention was actual “harlotry.” Therefore he

said that

the intention of the verse was

a hair—

a strand of hair—

she found. [

The Gemara will explain below what he meant.]

At that time

he encountered—

he found [that is, he met]—

Rabbi Evyatar encountered Elijah

the prophet.

He said to him—

he asked him—

What is He doing—

what is He doing—

the Holy One, blessed be He [

now]?

He said to him—

Elijah answered him:

He is occupied—

He is occupied with Torah,

with

the matter of

the concubine at Gibeah.

He asked him:

And what is He saying?

How does He interpret this verse?

He said to him:

The Holy One, blessed be He, says this:

Evyatar, My son,

this is what He says [that is, this is how He interprets this matter].

Yonatan, My son, this is what He says.

He said to him

Rabbi Evyatar in astonishment:

God forbid! Is there uncertainty—

is there uncertainty—

before Heaven—

before the One who dwells in the heights?

He said to him

Elijah: There is no uncertainty here, but rather,

both these and those are the words of the living God.

And both merited directing themselves to the truth. At first

he found a fly

in the bowl

and was not particular—

and did not become angry. But afterward,

he found a hair

there,

and was particular!

Rav Yehuda said: A fly

he found

in the bowl

of the food.

And a hair

he found

in that place—

in the concealed place. [For it was customary for women to remove the hair there, so as not to endanger the man who had relations with them, which could thereby result in a severed member. And since she did not do this, he became angry with her. And she, out of great fear, fled to her father’s house.] According to Rabbi Evyatar, who said

a fly,

he became angry with her because of

disgust—

repulsion and revulsion. And according to Rabbi Yonatan, who said

a hair,

he became angry with her because of

danger—

the danger involved in the matter.

Some say—

there are those who say:

This and that \-

both this and that—

in the bowl

he found them.

A fly,

because of

an accident—

it fell into the bowl through no fault of hers.

And a hair,

because of

negligence—

the hair fell into the bowl through her fault, because she had not paid attention.

And by this it is demonstrated that Rabbi Evyatar was a great man!

And now the Gemara continues and says what lesson is learned from the incident of “the concubine at Gibeah”:

Rav Chisda said: A person should never

impose excessive fear within his household. For

in the incident

of the concubine at Gibeah, her husband imposed excessive fear upon her, and she caused

at the end of the incident

many tens of thousands of Israelites to fall.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Anyone who imposes excessive fear within his household, in the end

of the matter

he comes

from this

to the hands of three transgressions:

Forbidden sexual relations [

for example, if the time came for her immersion when there was great cold and she did not immerse. But she was afraid to tell this to her husband because he was strict, and she had relations with him while she was still a menstruant].

And

bloodshed. [

As in this case. Or she might flee from him out of great fear and fall on the way in dangerous places, and she might be killed.]

And the desecration of Shabbat [

for sometimes she does not manage to finish cooking before the onset of Shabbat, or she does not manage to light candles. And she does this after the onset of Shabbat, because of his fear].

And now the Gemara brings additional statements concerning this matter:

Rabba bar bar Chana said: This that the Sages said—

what the Sages said [in the Mishna in tractate Shabbat, chapter 2 [34a]]:

three things

a person must say—

ask—

within his household, on the eve of Shabbat, together with—

before—

darkness:

whether

have you tithed

the fruits needed for Shabbat? Whether

have you made an eruv

of the courtyards? And likewise to say to them:

light the lamp,

before the time passes.” These matters,

one must ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

say them —

say them—to the members of the household

calmly—

with composure and tranquility [and not in anger]. And the reason is:

so that—

in order that—

they accept it from him—

that they accept his words [from him].