Gittin 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

because it is its nature, [as it is

made to flee]]

and move every moment to another place, and it does not remain in one place.

Accordingly, it is not considered connected to the ground until it touches the ground.

But a flowerpot

that you [Rabbi Zeira] are discussing,

which is not made to flee,

and which is fixed in one place,

will not

be described in this way by Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, [perhaps] he will agree that a flowerpot is considered connected to the ground.

Alternatively —

or perhaps one can advance the opposite argument even according to the Rabbis. It is this:

They stated this only —

they said —

the Rabbis there,

there — that is, their statement [that an item need not actually be on the ground in order to be considered connected],

but

specifically

with regard to a ship

that is resting on the water

, and that no

air intervenes —

the air — between it and the ground, but water does.

It is comparable —

the water

is considered like substantial ground —

it is regarded as solid ground [and the proof is that it possesses the power to cause growth, like soil].

But a flowerpot,

which is resting on pegs [in a manner

that air intervenes

between it and the ground],

not

did the Rabbis state this. It is possible that they agree that it is not considered connected to the ground.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak returns to the question of the contradiction between the two beraitot concerning one who brings a bill of divorce on a ship. He resolves it in a third manner [following the resolutions of Rabbi Yirmeya and Abaye]:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

These beraitot

are speaking of the rivers of Eretz Yisrael; everyone

— according to all opinions —

does not dispute

— they do not disagree. According to both beraitot, ships sailing on these rivers are considered as though they were resting on the ground, with regard to a bill of divorce written upon them, even though they do not touch the ground at all.

Rather, when they dispute —

what do they disagree about? They disagree concerning a bill of divorce written on a ship sailing

on the Great Sea [

the Mediterranean Sea], which borders Eretz Yisrael on its western side. Concerning the sea itself, however, there are two disputes between the tannaim. One tanna maintains that the seashore is the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, whereas the sea itself is no longer part of Eretz Yisrael. The other maintains that the sea itself is part of Eretz Yisrael. The dispute between the two beraitot concerns the sea itself: how far do the boundaries of the land extend—into the sea, or only up to it?

Regarding this, the Gemara cites the statement of the Tosefta:

As it was taught: What is the

precise location in the north at which the boundary of

Eretz

Yisrael begins?

And what is

the place that belongs

to outside Eretz Yisrael?

Is the summit of the mountain called the Mountains of Amnon the boundary point, or its slope, which lies a day’s or two days’ journey from it, toward the south?

The first tanna says:

Every place where it slopes —

where the mountain begins to slope —

and descends fro

m the

summit of the Mountains of Amnon and inward —

southward, toward Eretz Yisrael — is

Eretz Yisrael, because the summit of the mountain is the boundary. On the other side, the area that slopes

the summit of Turei Amanon and outward, toward the north, is

fro

m the

summit of the Mountains of Amnon and outward,

northward, is

outside Eretz Yisrael.

And what is the status of

the islands —

the islands —

of the sea,

on the western side adjacent to Eretz Yisrael [are they considered part of Eretz Yisrael or outside it]? The answer is:

They are viewed

in their location

as though a cord were stretched over them

from above, whose end begins

at the Mountains of Amnon

in the north and continues stretching

to the Brook of Egypt,

which is the southwestern boundary of the land and meets the Mediterranean Sea. Accordingly, their status is determined [that of the islands]:

from the cord inward —

eastward, toward Eretz Yisrael — their status is

like Eretz Yisrael. From the cord outward

— toward the west — their status is

like outside Eretz Yisrael.

Rabbi Yehuda says: All

the sea

opposite

the airspace of

Eretz Yisrael,

on its western side, even as far as the Ocean, which is at the end of the world,

is considered like Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated [

in Numbers, chapter 34]:

“And the boundary of the sea. And the Great Sea

and its boundary; this shall be your sea boundary.”

And the islands,

whose status must be considered [whether they lie within the territory of the land or not], are not those situated to the west of Eretz Yisrael. Rather, they are those

on the sides,

to the north and south, some of which extend northward or southward beyond the territory of the land. To determine their status,

they are viewed

in their location

as though a cord were stretched over them

from above,

from Kaploria

— the city situated at the summit of the Mountains of Amnon [which is the northern boundary] — westward

to the Ocean. A second cord is stretched

and outward—north of Kaflarya and south of the Brook of Egypt—it is

from the Brook of Egypt,

in the south of Eretz Yisrael, westward

to the Ocean.

The law is determined accordingly:

from the cord inward

— toward the second cord [that is, between the two cords] — it is considered

Eretz Yisrael.

But from the cord

outward

— north of Kaploria and south of the Brook of Egypt — it is

outside Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara asks:

And the Rabbis—this “and its boundary”,

the word that appears superfluous in the verse [from which Rabbi Yehuda derived his ruling] —

what do they do with it

— what do they expound from it?

The Gemara answers:

They require it

— they need it in order

to

learn that

the islands

located in the sea on the eastern side of the cord are considered part of Eretz Yisrael [with regard to tithes, the Sabbatical Year, and the like].

One does not say here that the territory of Eretz Yisrael extends only as far as the seashore.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion:

And Rabbi Yehuda

maintains:

Islands do not require verses

— they do not require a special verse, since, as they lie within the territory, their status is certainly that of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara discusses another matter from the Mishna:

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Meir says: Acco

has the status

of Eretz Yisrael with regard t

o

bills of divorce.”

They inquired of him

— the students asked him —

of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba:

What is the status of

one who sells his slave

to Syria?

Is he considered

like one who sells

in outside Eretz Yisrael, and the slave goes free, as the Mishna states below [folio 43b], that a penalty is imposed on the purchaser for taking him out of Eretz Yisrael, since a slave is subject to mitzvot

and is forbidden to leave the land?

Or not

— does he not go free, since King David conquered Syria and added it to the territory of Eretz Yisrael, and the conquest of an individual is called a conquest?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba answered them:

He said to them: You have learned it—

we learned this in the wording of the Mishna:

“Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like the Land of Israel with regard to bills of divorce.”

This indicates:

With regard to bills of divorce, yes.

Specifically, only with regard to bills of divorce is Akko considered like the Land of Israel, because they are expert there in writing a bill of divorce for its sake, or because witnesses are readily available there to validate it. But

with

regard to

slaves

who were sold there,

no,

it is not considered part of the Land of Israel, since it is not in the Land of Israel. And if so,

all the more so Syria,

which is not considered like the Land of Israel with regard to slaves,

as it is very far away—

for it is farther away [than Akko].

The Gemara now brings a beraita concerning Syria:

The Sages taught: In three respects Syria is equivalent to the Land of Israel, and in three respects

it is equivalent

to outside the Land of Israel:

The Gemara provides a

mnemonic

for the six matters by means of letters

A-B B-R R-K:

The Gemara specifies the six matters:

In the three respects in which it is equivalent to outside the Land of Israel:

Its soil is

impure, like outside the Land of Israel.

This is because the Sages decreed this status upon it, in order to discourage Jews from going there.

And one who sells his slave to Syria is like one who sells him outside the Land of Israel. And one who brings a bill of divorce from Syria

to the Land of Israel

is like one who brings it from outside the Land of Israel.

And since caravans are not common, the agent must say: “In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed.”

And in the three respects in which it is equivalent to the Land of Israel:

It is obligated in tithes and in the sabbatical year, like the Land of Israel. And one who wishes to enter it

it

in purity

[without becoming impure with the impurity of “the lands of the nations”],

may enter. And one who purchases a field in Syria

is considered

like one who purchases

in the outskirts of Jerusalem.