Gittin 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

But Rav added and said:

And if you did it

—and if, despite this, you say [even though you are exempt],

you have accomplished something

—you have achieved something through your declaration.

The Gemara asks:

What does “if you did it, you have accomplished something” mean

—what did Rav intend by telling him that if he made the declaration, it would be effective?

The Gemara answers: The benefit is

that if he comes

—if he comes—

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

—we do not take his challenge into consideration. But if he does not make the declaration now and the husband challenges the get later, the get will be invalidated.

As it is taught in a beraita: An incident occurred involving a certain man who brought a get before Rabbi Yishmael. He said to him

—to Rabbi Yishmael:

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

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

—the name of a place.

He said to him: “You must say

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

so that if the husband challenges the get,

the woman will not require

witnesses

to

validate it.

After he left

that man's presence,

Rabbi Ilai entered before him

with a question on his lips.

He said to him: “Rabbi, is not Kefar Sisai an enclave within the territory of Eretz Yisrael and near Sepphoris,

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

more than Akko? And we learned

—with regard to Akko, we learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to

the matter of

divorce documents.

If so, all the more so one who brings a get from Sepphoris should not need to make the declaration!”

And Rabbi Ilai added:

And even the Rabbis

in our Mishna

do not disagree

—they do not disagree—

with it

with

Rabbi Meir, except with regard to Akko, which is distant

—it is distant from the center of Jewish settlement at Sepphoris, and therefore it is treated like outside Eretz Yisrael with regard to divorce documents.

But Kefar Sisai, which is nearby,

which is close,

not

do they disagree with him! If so, according to everyone, one who brings a get from Kefar Sisai need not make the declaration.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yishmael:

“Be silent, my son, be silent.”

Since

he had already

sent the matter forth

—the get—

with permission

from me,

it has been sent forth.

There is no need now to add to the discussion and examine it further, since this could cast doubt on its validity, and no one would wish to marry the woman.

The Gemara asks: What was Rabbi Ilai's astonishment at Rabbi Yishmael?

Is it so

—is it not the case that—

he too

—also did not require the declaration as a matter of law, but merely advised him to make it

so that she would not require

witnesses,

did he not say this to him?

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Ilai was told Rabbi Yishmael's response,

they did not finish it before him

—they did not tell him the conclusion of Rabbi Yishmael's words, namely, that he too had not required the declaration as a matter of law, but had merely offered good advice. Therefore, Rabbi Ilai erred in his understanding.

The Gemara now discusses a get sent from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael:

Rabbi Evyatar sent to Rav Hisda

a practical halakhic ruling:

Gittin that come from there

—from Babylonia—

to here

—to Eretz Yisrael—

the

agent

does not need to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

The Gemara attempts to explain Rabbi Evyatar's reasoning:

Let us say that he holds

—let us say that he maintains

that the reason for the declaration is:

because they are not expert in writing it for her sake. But these

—whereas the people of Babylonia—

are learned—

they know the halakha that it must be written for her sake. Therefore, the declaration is not necessary.

But the Gemara rejects this:

Can you really understand it so

—do you truly think that this can be said?

But

—is it not the case that—

Rabba,

who holds that the reason is that it must be written for her sake,

has

—agrees with the opinion—

of Rava. If so, even if we say that Rabbi Evyatar agrees with Rabba, the agent must nevertheless make the declaration for the reason of validation.

Rather,

in truth,

everyone

—the view of everyone—

requires

—requires—

that it be validated.

But here,

since there are

—there are people—

many who ascend

—who go up [from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael]—

and descend

—and go down [from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia]—therefore,

they are frequently found

—there are frequent caravans between them, and witnesses capable of validating the get are readily available.

Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us

—who will testify before us—

that Rabbi Evyatar is an authoritative figure

—that he is worthy of being relied upon and of having a ruling issued according to his view?

And furthermore, this

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

he

—he himself [Rabbi Evyatar]—

sent him

a letter

to Rav Yehuda,

in which he wrote: Those people

who ascend from there

—from Babylonia—

to here

—to Eretz Yisrael—and leave their wives there alone, abstaining for a long time from the mitzva of procreation, since they do not consider it important to have sons and daughters—

they

—those men—

have fulfilled upon themselves

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

“They gave the child to a prostitute, and sold the girl for wine, and drank.”

Its meaning is that they abused the children because they did not value them; similarly, these men, who treat the mitzva of procreation lightly, have treated their own children as worthless.

And he wrote to him

Rabbi Evyatar wrote this verse in the letter

without ruled lines.

This was so even though

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Two

—two words from a verse—

may be written

—it is permitted to write them without ruled lines. But

three may not be written without ruled lines.

And in a matnita—the tanna taught in a beraita:

Three may be written, but four may not be written

without ruled lines.

According to both versions [Rabbi Yitzḥak's version and that of the beraita], Rabbi Evyatar violated this law, since he wrote more than four words without ruled lines. From this, Rav Yosef sought to prove that Rabbi Evyatar was not a great man.

Abaye said to him

—to Rav Yosef:

Is it so

—and is it the case that—

anyone who does not know this,

this law of

Rabbi Yitzḥak

concerning ruled lines,

is not a great man?!

Granted

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

in a matter dependent on reasoning

—in a matter dependent on logic, which he had failed to understand on his own—

then, let him live!

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

But this is not so with regard to

this

—the law of ruled lines—

it is a received teaching

—a matter learned from one's teacher, not dependent on the student's own reasoning.

And this teaching

—this teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak—

was not heard by him

—Rabbi Evyatar did not hear it from his teacher. This does not indicate any deficiency in his greatness.

Having ruled out this deficiency, Abaye returns to prove that Rabbi Evyatar was indeed a great man:

And furthermore, this

—is it not the case that—

Rabbi Evyatar

is the one

with whom his Master agreed

—the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed to reveal to him the secrets of Torah and to direct him toward the true interpretation of obscure matters. He likewise agreed with 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. The Sages interpreted this in two different ways.

Rabbi Evyatar

explained that the word “harlotry” is derived from the word “food.” Therefore he

said

that the verse means

that he found a fly in her

food bowl that she had served him.

And Rabbi Yonatan

explained that the reference is to actual “harlotry.” Therefore he

said that

the verse means that he

found a hair—

a strand of hair—

in her. [The

Gemara will explain below what he meant.]

At that time,

Ashkeḥei—

he found [that is, he met]—

Rabbi Evyatar Elijah

the Prophet.

He said to him—

he asked him—

“Mai ka avid?”—

what is

the Holy One, blessed be He

doing [now]?

He said to him—

Elijah answered him:

“Asik”—

He is engaged in Torah study,

regarding

the matter of

the concubine in Gibeah.

He asked him:

“Umai ka amar?”

How does He interpret this verse?

He said to him:

the Holy One, blessed be He, says as follows:

“My son Evyatar,”

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

“My son Yonatan, this is what He says.”

Rabbi Evyatar said to him

in astonishment:

“Heaven forbid! Is there uncertainty—

is there perhaps a doubt—

before Heaven—

before the One who dwells in the heavenly heights?

Elijah said to him:

there is no uncertainty here. Rather,

“These and those are the words of the living God.”

Both of them succeeded in directing their intentions to the truth. At first,

he found a fly

in the bowl

and was not particular—

he did not become angry. But afterward,

he found a hair

in her,

and he became angry!

Rav Yehuda said: He found a fly

in the

bowl

of food.

And a hair

he found

in that place—

in the hidden place. [The women’s practice was to remove the hair there, so as not to endanger the man who engaged in intercourse with them, which could otherwise result in a severed urethra. Since she did not do so, he became angry with her. 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

ma'isuta—

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

a hair,

he became angry with her because of

sakanata—

the danger involved.

Some say:

there are those who say:

Idi ve-idi—

both this and that—

he found in the bowl

of food.

The fly,

because of

ons—

it fell into the bowl through no fault of hers.

And the hair,

because of

negligence—

the hair fell into the bowl through her fault, because she had not been careful.

And this proves that Rabbi Evyatar was a great man!

The Gemara now continues and states what lesson is to be learned from the story of “the concubine in Gibeah”:

Rav Ḥisda said: A person should always

not impose excessive fear within his household. For

in the incident

of the concubine in Gibeah, her husband imposed excessive fear upon her, and this brought down

at the end of the incident

many tens of thousands of Jews.

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

have

come

as a result

to three sins:

Forbidden sexual relationships [for example, if the time for her immersion arrives during a period of severe cold and she does not immerse. But she is afraid to tell her husband because he is strict, and she engages in intercourse with him while she is still a menstruant].

For example, the time for her immersion in a ritual bath may arrive during a period of severe cold, and she may not immerse herself. But she is afraid to tell her husband because he is strict, and she has relations with him while she is still menstruating.]

And

bloodshed. [As in this case. Or, out of great fear, she may flee from him and fall along the way in dangerous places, where she may be killed.]

As in this incident. Or, because of her great fear, she may flee from him and fall in a dangerous place along the way, and she may be killed.]

And desecration of Shabbat [for sometimes she does not manage to finish cooking before the onset of Shabbat, or does not manage to light the candles. She does so after the onset of Shabbat because of her fear of him].

For example, sometimes she does not manage to finish cooking before Shabbat begins, or does not manage to light the candles. She does so after Shabbat has begun because of her fear of him.]

The Gemara now brings additional statements concerning this matter:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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, before

—before—

darkness”:

whether

“Have you tithed”

the produce needed for Shabbat? Whether

“Have you established an eruv”

an eruv of courtyards? And he should also say to them:

“Light the lamp”,

before the time passes.” These matters

must

be said —

said—to the members of the household

pleasantly—

calmly and peacefully [and not angrily]. The reason is:

so that

in order

they will accept it from him

—that they will accept his words [from him].