Gittin 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

What is the meaning of

“And I will afflict you”?

Mar Zutra said: Even a poor person who supports himself

himself

from charity should perform acts of charity.

And through this, the continuation of the verse will be fulfilled for him,

“I will not afflict you further.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, will not further afflict him with poverty.

It was taught —

he repeated —

Rav Yosef —

in another formulation:

Again, no signs of poverty are shown to him.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem eastward, etc.

And the Gemara says:

Does this imply —

that is, from the continuation of the language of the Mishna it appears

that Akko is to its north —

at the extreme northern side — of

the Land of Israel

is situated?

And this may be challenged from the words of the Tosefta:

And yet it was contradicted —

there is a contradiction to this from the words of the Tosefta [Oholot 18:8]:

If one was traveling from Akko

to Cheziv

[which is situated northeast of Akko],

to his right

of the traveler

toward the

side

eastward,

the road is impure. Because of

the impurity that the Sages decreed upon

the land of the nations. And it is exempt from tithes,

as is the law of outside the Land,

and from

the mitzva of the Sabbatical year in

the seventh year, until it becomes known to you

through a person thoroughly familiar with the boundaries

that it

[the road in this area]

is obligated!

Since this area as well belongs to the Land of Israel.

To his left

of the traveler

toward the

side

westward, the road is pure, because

it is not

the land of the nations,

but the Land of Israel

. And it is obligated in tithes

and in the Sabbatical year, until it becomes known to you

through an expert

that it is exempt! How far

does this status extend

? Until Cheziv!

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of —

in the name of —

his father:

This situation continues

until

the place called

Levalvo.

And not until Cheziv.

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Although the city of Akko is located at the northern edge of the Land of Israel, nevertheless

a strip extends

— a narrow strip extends from it northward, which also belongs to the Land of Israel. However, the Gemara questions this: And did the tanna give such a sign

—

how could the tanna of the baraita use a single strip as a sign by which the boundaries of the Land are determined? And the Gemara answers:

Yes

— yes, such a sign may be used, for

Scripture

— the Torah itself —

gave a sign

— it provided a similar sign

. As it is written

— as it is written in the Book of Judges [21]:

“Behold, there is a festival of the Lord in Shiloh from year to year, which is north of Beit El, east of the highway that ascends from Beit El to Shekhem, and south of Levonah.” And Rav Pappa said,

that the verse means that Shiloh is situated

to the east of the highway —

on the eastern side of the highway.

The Gemara now discusses the status of a get written on a ship. Is it considered to have been written outside the Land, in which case the agent bringing it must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”? Or is its status as though it were written in the Land of Israel?

And the Gemara cites a contradiction between two baraitot concerning this:

One tanna taught

— one tanna taught in a baraita:

One who brings a get

that was written

on a

ship

to the Land of Israel has the status

of one who brings

it by land

within the Land of Israel

itself. And he need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”

.

And another [tanna] taught—

And another baraita taught

— in another baraita they taught: One who brings a get on a ship

is like one who brings

a get that was written

outside

the Land

to the Land of Israel. Since a river does not have the legal status of dry land with regard to all laws, he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: This is not difficult; one

of the baraitot follows the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

and the other

follows the view of

the Rabbis. As it is taught in the Mishna in tractate Ḥalla [2:2]:

As we learned: Soil from outside the Land that came by ship to the Land

of Israel, and one planted it while it was on the ship,

and produce grew in it, is

obligated

— what grew there —

in

teruma

and tithes. And in the Sabbatical year,

its produce has the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, since the rivers of the Land of Israel are considered part of the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

is this law so?

When the ship scrapes the ground

— it touches the ground, because the water is not deep. The reason is that the soil inside it is considered attached to the soil of the Land.

But

if

the ship does not scrape the ground, it is exempt

from everything, and its status is that of outside the Land.

But Abaye establishes both beraitot in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda:

Abaye said: Both this and that [

both of them]

are the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda—

they follow the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Nevertheless,

there is no difficulty

the contradiction between them. This is because

here,

where the one who brings a bill of divorce is considered like one who brings it from outside Eretz Yisrael, the case is

when the ship does not touch the riverbed.

Whereas

here,

where he is considered like one who brings it within Eretz Yisrael, the case is

when the ship does touch the riverbed.

And in keeping with the subject, the Gemara discusses another matter related to it. Just as the Gemara discussed the case of a ship that is in water, asking whether it is considered to be resting on the ground, it now discusses the case of a flowerpot that is suspended in the air [and stands on supports]. Is the soil within it considered attached to the ground, or not?

Rabbi Zeira said: A flowerpot

made of wood,

with a hole

on its underside,

that is placed on supports has led

to a dispute,

concerning the obligation of tithes, between

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

They disputed the matter of soil from outside Eretz Yisrael that was brought by ship to Eretz Yisrael. According to the Rabbis, an object that is in the air above the surface of the ground is considered to be resting on the ground, and likewise here, the produce growing in the flowerpot is subject to tithes. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is not subject to the Torah obligation of tithes like other produce grown in the ground unless it is actually resting on the earth.

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so

as you said [perhaps your comparison is incorrect]?! For one can argue as follows [according to Rabbi Yehuda]:

Rabbi Yehuda stated

there—

there—this statement of his [that it must be resting actually on the ground in order to be considered attached to the ground],

only

specifically

with regard to a ship.