Previous daf

1)

(a) We finally establish the author of our Mishnah (which, according to Rabah, requires both the Kesivah and the Chasimah Li'shmah), as Rebbi Elazar. To reconcile this with the fact that Rebbi Elazar does not generally require Eidei Chasimah at all, we cite a statement by Rebbi Aba - who says that Rebbi Elazar concedes that when a Sh'tar is signed by witnesses who have a P'sul, it is (worse than a Sh'tar which is not signed by witnesses at all, and is) Pasul.

(b) Besides witnesses who signed she'Lo Li'shmah - witnesses who are intrinsically Pasul (because they are relatives to one of the parties or because they are Pasul).

(c) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah - who invalidates a Get whether it is written or signed when it is attached.

(d) Despite the fact that Rav Ashi's explanation of our Mishnah is so obvious, we did not present it earlier (to answer the Kashya on Rabah), preferring to establish our Mishnah like ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir - because of the principle 'S'tam Mishnah ke'Rebbi Meir'.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar - because we rule that a Get without signatures is Kasher, like Rebbi Elazar.

(a) A town which is 'Muvla'as be'Soch ha'Techum' differs from one which is 'Samuch la'Ir' - inasmuch it is outside the path that runs between two towns, one of which lies further east than the other. The town in question is in effect, closer to Eretz Yisrael than the town further east, even though the town further east is inside Eretz Yisrael, whilst *it* is not.

(b) Raban Gamliel in our Mishnah requires a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from Rekem and Chagar to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '; whilst Rebbi Eliezer adds even one who brings it from K'far Ludim to Lud. According to the Tana Kama - neither of them are required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

(c) The Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer is - whether the Sheli'ach who brings a Get from K'far Ludim to Lud needs to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' (Rebbi Eliezer), or not (Raban Gamliel).

(d) We suggest that the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and the Tana Kama is the equivalent Machlokes to that of Rabah and Rava. The reasoning behind the opinion of ...

1. ... the Tana Kama (who holds like Rabah) is - that any town that is close to Eretz Yisrael is expert in the Dinim of writing a Get Lishmah in which case, there is no need to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.
2. ... Raban Gamliel (who holds like Rava) is - that whereas it remains difficult to find witnesses between Eretz Yisrael and (even) a town that is close, it will not be difficult to find them between Eretz Yisrael and a town that is Muvla'as be'Soch ha'Techum.
3. ... Rebbi Eliezer - is that, whereas in principle, he holds like Raban Gamliel, he does not want to differentiate between one town outside Eretz Yisrael and another ('Lo P'lug' [Tosfos DH u'Mar]), so he requires even a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from a town that is Muvlah to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

(a) We conclude however, that both Rabah and Rava will explain all the Tana'im like their own respective opinions. According to Rabah, the reasoning of ...

1. ... the Tana Kama is - that any town that is close to Eretz Yisrael is expert in 'Lishmah'.
2. ... Raban Gamliel concedes this by a town that is Muvlah be'Soch ha'Techum, but not by one that is not (even though it is Samuch).

(b) According to Rava, the reasoning of ...

1. ... the Tana Kama is - that it is easy to find witnesses from any town that is close to Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... Raban Gamliel - concedes this by a town that is Muvlah, but not by one that is just Samuch.

(c) According to both Rabah and Rava - Rebbi Eliezer holds, in principle, like Raban Gamliel, but he does not want to differentiate between towns outside Eretz Yisrael, as we explained earlier.

(a) 'va'Chachamim Omrim Eino Tzarich she'Yomar be'Fanai Nichtav ... Ela ha'Meivi mi'Medinas ha'Yam ve'ha'Molich'. The Tana Kama of our Mishnah apparently holds - that 'Molich' is not required to say it.

(b) We initially attempt to explain their Machlokes - by connecting it to that of Rabah and Rava. The Tana Kama holds like the opinion of Rabah (and the B'nei Eretz Yisrael were experts in writing a Get Li'shmah); whereas the Chachamim hold like the opinion of Rava (and the difficulty in finding witnesses from one Medinah to another cuts both ways).

(c) We conclude however, that Rabah and Rava explain both opinions according to their respective views. Consequently ...

1. ... Rabah explains that, according to the Chachamim, 'Molich' is required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' (despite the fact that the Sofrim in Eretz Yisrael *are* expert in writing a Get Li'shmah) - because they decree 'Molich' on account of Meivi (where they are *not*).
2. ... Rava explains - that the Chachamim, who require 'Molich' to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - are not coming to argue with the Tana Kama (as Rabah extrapolates), but to explain his words. Because, according to Rava, the difficulty in finding witnesses from one Medinah to another, cuts both ways, as we explained earlier.

5)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah obligates someone who brings a Get from one Medinah to another in Chutz la'Aretz to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - from which we can extrapolate that from one place to another in the same Medinah does not require 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', a Kashya on Rabah, who maintains that in Bavel they were not experts in Li'shmah.

(b) We answer this Kashya by changing the inference to - 'Ha mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael, Lo Tzarich' (but from one place to another in the same Medinah does require 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ').

(c) In spite of the fact that the Tana has already specifically taught that a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from one Medinah to another in Eretz Yisrael is not required to make the declaration, the Tana needs to repeat it by means of an inference - because otherwise, we would have thought that he only validates a Get which a Sheli'ach brought that was not written in his presence, but that Lechatchilah, he would be expected to be present when the Get was written. It is the additional inference that teaches us that he is not even required to be there Lechatchilah.

(a) In another version, we ask from the same Mishnah, not on Rabah, but on Rava - by inverting the order of inferences. First, we presume to extrapolate 'Ha mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael, Eino Tzarich', a Kashya on Rava who attributes 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' to 'Ein Eidim Metzuyim Lekaymo', which is applicable from Medinah to Medinah in Eretz Yisrael no less than in Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) Rava will reply that the inference is not 'mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael, Lo Tzarich', but 'be'Osah Medinah bi'Medinas ha'Yam, Lo Tzarich'. In that case, 'mi'Medinah li'Medinah be'Eretz Yisrael' does need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '. The problem we have with this regarding the original statement of our Mishnah ('ha'Meivi Get mi'Medinah li'Medinah bi'Medinas ha'Yam') is - that seeing as there is no difference between Medinas ha'Yam and Eretz Yisrael, why did the Tana add the words 'bi'Medinas ha'Yam'?

(c) We finally conclude that even Rava will concede that from Medinah to Medinah in Eretz Yisrael, the Sheli'ach is not required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '. The reason for this ...

1. ... in the time of the Beis Hamikdash is - because the Mitzvah of Aliyas ha'Regel ensured that there were constantly people traveling to and fro, and that consequently, witnesses were always available.
2. ... at other times is - because the fixed times that Beis-Din sat in towns of Eretz Yisrael (like Ezra decreed) ensured that there were always people traveling from town to town for judgment, so that witnesses were always available.

(a) 'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer, Afilu me'Hagmunya le'Hagmunya'. To illustrate this, Rebbi Yitzchak cites an episode that took place in the town of Asasiyun, which had two mayors in the same town - who forbade their constituents to travel from one area to the other, bearing out Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who required 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' even from one Hagmunya to another in the same town.

(b) This is a proof for Rava (as we just explained) but a Kashya on Rabah - because, since this took place in Eretz Yisrael, where they all experts in li'Shmah, why did Raban Shimon ben Gamliel require 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?

(c) Consequently, we are forced to change our presentation of the Machlokes between Rabah and Rava to say - that Rabah agrees with Rava (that 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' is required whenever the reason of 'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo' applies, only he adds the reason of 'Le'fi she'Ein Beki'in Li'shmah', even when it does not (a reason with which Rava does not concur)?

(a) Rabah and Rava will no longer argue from one Medinah to another in Eretz Yisrael - because if the two Medinos are Makpid (distrust each other) Rabah agrees that they are required to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', and if they are not, Rava agrees that it is not necessary (due to the Batei-Dinim, as we explained earlier).

(b) They argue in two cases, one of them, from one location to another in the same Medinah) - and when two Sheluchim bring a Get. In both cases, Rabah requires 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and Rava does not.