Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

6) WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH (cont.)?

(a) Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir only said that if he has witnesses sign it and then gives it to his wife, *mid'Oraisa* it is valid (but mid'Rabanan it is not).
(b) Rejection: If so, R. Meir should have said "*Mid'Oraisa* it is valid."
(c) Answer #2: Really, the Mishnah is as R. Elazar; he says that a Get without signatures is valid, but if it has signatures, they must be Lishmah.

1. (R. Aba): R. Elazar agrees that an intrinsic forgery (a signed document in which it appears that the witnesses' testimony (i.e. signatures) may be relied upon, but in truth their testimony is not valid) is totally invalid (even if witnesses saw the document handed over).

(d) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah is as R. Yehudah.

1. (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says that the Get is invalid unless it was both written and signed when detached.

(e) Question: Why didn't we establish the Mishnah as R. Yehudah from the beginning?
(f) Answer: It would be better to establish it is as R. Meir, for an anonymous Mishnah is assumed to be as R. Meir; it would be better to establish it is as R. Elazar, for the law is as R. Elazar regarding Gitin.

(a) (Mishnah): R. Gamliel says, even if he brings it from Rekem or Cheger; R. Eliezer says, even if he brings it from the village surrounding Lud to Lud;
(b) (Abaye): The Tana'im argue regarding cities close to Eretz Yisrael and enveloped within the border.
(c) (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah): These cities are as far from Eretz Yisrael as from Bei Kubi to Pumbedisa.

1. The first Tana did not require a messenger from such cities to make the declaration.

(d) Suggestion: The first Tana holds as Rabah - the nearby cities also know the law of Lishmah, so no declaration is needed; the latter Tana'im hold as Rava - since witnesses are not available to validate the signatures, a declaration is required.
(e) Rejection: No - Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im learn as he does, and so can Rava.

1. (Rabah): The first Tana holds that cities which are nearby know the law of Lishmah; R. Gamliel says, only cities that are enveloped in the borders of Eretz Yisrael know the law; R. Eliezer says, even though enveloped cities know the law, they also must say the declaration, to have a uniform law in Chutz La'aretz.
2. (Rava): The first Tana holds that from cities which are nearby, witnesses are available to validate the signatures; R. Gamliel says, witnesses are available only from cities that are enveloped in the borders of Eretz Yisrael; R. Eliezer says, even though witnesses are available for enveloped cities, they also must say the declaration, to have a uniform law in Chutz La'aretz.

(a) (Mishnah): Chachamim say, the only one who must say 'It was written and signed in front of me' is one who brings a Get from abroad, one who takes a Get abroad (from Eretz Yisrael) ...
(b) We infer, the first Tana says that one who takes a Get abroad need not make a declaration.
(c) Suggestion: The first Tana holds as Rabah - since it was written in Eretz Yisrael, where people know the law of Lishmah, no declaration is needed; the latter Chachamim hold as Rava - since witnesses are not available to validate the signatures, a declaration is required.

(d) Rejection: No - Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im learn as he does, and so can Rava.
(e) (Rabah): All hold that there is no concern about the Get; the latter Chachamim decree that a declaration must be made on account of a Get brought from abroad, the first Tana makes no such decree.
(f) (Rava): There is no argument - the latter Chachamim explain that the first Tana also requires a declaration for a Get sent abroad.
(g) (Mishnah): One who brings a Get from one province to another in Chutz La'aretz must say 'it was written and signed in front of me'.

1. Version #1: We infer, within the same province in Chutz La'aretz, no declaration is needed - this fits well for Rava, who says that the concern is validation.
2. Question: According to Rabah, we should be concerned that it was not Lishmah!
3. Answer: Rather, the inference to be made is that from province to province in Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed.
4. Objection: But that is taught explicitly at the end of the Mishnah!
5. Answer: If it was not also taught in the end of the Mishnah, one might have thought that b'Di'eved, the Get is Kosher, but l'Chatchilah, a declaration must be made - we hear, even Lechatchilah, no declaration is needed.
6. Version #2: We infer, that from province to province in Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed - this fits well for Rabah, who says that the concern is Lishmah.
7. Question: According to Rava, we should be concerned that witnesses are not available to validate the signatures!
8. Answer: Rather, the inference to be made is within the same province in Chutz La'aretz, no declaration is needed.
9. Objection: But if even in Eretz Yisrael, from province to province a declaration is needed - the Mishnah should simply say, from province to province a declaration is needed!
10. Answer: Really, from province to province in Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed - since all ascend to Yerushalayim on the festivals, witnesses can be found to validate the signatures.
11. Question: This only applies when the Temple stands - how can we answer, after the Churban?
12. Answer: Since Batei Dinin are fixed, people regularly travel from province to province, and witnesses are available to validate the signatures.

(h) (Mishnah): R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, even from one county (of a governor) to another.
(i) (R. Yitzchak): Asasiyos was a city in Eretz Yisrael. It had 2 districts, each ruled by a different governor; they would not allow people to travel between the districts, so it was required to make a declaration on a Get sent from 1 district to the other.
(j) Question: This fits Rava, but is difficult on Rabah!
(k) Answer: Rabah agrees that we are concerned for validation; he says, we are also concerned for Lishmah.
(l) Question: If so, in which cases do Rabah and Rava argue?
(m) Answer: If 2 messengers bring a Get; or, if it is brought within 1 province in Chutz La'aretz.