Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cites two cases regarding the Sheli'ach of a Get: one of them, when he was in the house whilst the Get was being written in the attic, or vice-versa - the other, when he was Nichnas ve'Yotze (entered the room from time to time and left again).

(b) The Shelichus is valid in the first case, despite the fact that the Sheli'ach did not actually see the Get being written - because hearing the scratching of the pen writing the Get is sufficient, as Rav Ashi just taught.

(c) Seeing as in the first case, where the Sheli'ach does not see the Get being written at all, his Shelichus is valid, then it should be obvious that it is valid in the second case of Nichnas ve'Yotze (assuming that it is referring to the Sheli'ach), and the Tana should not have inserted it. So we establish the case of Nichnas ve'Yotze (not by the Sheli'ach, but) - by the Sofer himself, who keeps leaving the unfinished Get to go out into the street before continuing with the writing.

(d) The Chidush is - that we do not suspect him of meeting someone outside, whose name and that of his wife happen to tally with the names of the couple on whose behalf the Sheli'ach is acting, and then completing writing the Get in their names.

(a) When Rav says that he considers Bavel like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin, he means - that the Sofrim were experts in Li'shmah like those of Eretz Yisrael (and that someone who brought a Get from Bavel was not required to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '.

(b) According to Shmuel - Bavel is like the rest of Medinas ha'Yam.

(c) Initially, we attempt to establish the basis of their Machlokes - like that of Rabah and Rava. Rav holds that the reason for 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' is because of 'Einan Beki'in Li'shmah', and Shmuel, because of 'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymah' (which will apply in Bavel no less than anywhere else in Medinas ha'Yam).

(d) We refute this proposition however - on the grounds that 'Rabah agrees with Rava', in which case Rav ought to have agreed that 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' even regarding a Get that is brought from Bavel, is necessary.

(a) We conclude that both Rav and Shmuel hold like Rava, and that their dispute is connected with the many Yeshivos in Bavel. According to Rav, the fact that there were a number of Yeshivos in Bavel meant that there were Talmidim traveling from one to the other, which in turn, ensured that there were always witnesses available to substantiate the Get; whereas Shmuel maintains that the Talmidim were engrossed in their studies, and would not therefore recognize the witnesses' signatures.

(b) We support this explanation with a statement by Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna. When he declared 'Asinu Atzmeinu be'Bavel ke'Eretz Yisrael le'Gitin mi'Chi Asa Rav le'Bavel' - he meant that it was only after Rav arrived in Bavel and established a Yeshivah in Sura that they adopted the Din of Eretz Yisrael (and negated the need to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' there), because, although the Yeshivah in Neherda'a had been in existence since the time of Galus Yechonyah, extensive traveling only began when Rav established a second Yeshivah in Sura.

(a) Even in those days when they had no maps, they knew that Bavel lay north of Eretz Yisrael - because of the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Vayomer Hashem Eilai mi'Tzafon Tipasach ha'Ra'ah".

(b) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah states that from Acco and northwards (including Acco) has a Din of Medinas ha'Yam. The opinion of Rebbi Meir, who considers Acco like Eretz Yisrael, creates the problem for Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna ('Asinu Atzmeinu be'Bavel ... ') - because Rebbi Meir seems to preclude any other town north of the border, including Bavel from his statement.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah posed the Kashya, and he himself answered - that in fact, the Lashon of Rebbi Meir is not totally exclusive. It comes to exclude north of Eretz Yisrael generally, but does not mean that there are no exceptions (Bavel for one).

(a) According to Rav Papa, the area of Bavel regarding Gitin is the same as that of Bavel regarding Yuchsin, which, in turn, is a subject to a Machlokes. The significance of 'Yuchsin' in this regard is - that whereas, compared to Eretz Yisrael, all other countries were considered impure (as regards Yichus [i.e. choosing which family to marry into]), even Eretz Yisrael was considered impure as compared to Bavel.

(b) In Rav Yosef's opinion, the Machlokes by Yuchsin does not extend to Gitin, and Bavel reaches as far as 'Arba Tinyana de'Gishra' - which means 'the second willow-tree from the bridge'.

(c) Rav Chisda required 'be'Fanai Nichtav' by a Get that a Sheli'ach that brought from Aktispun to Bei Ardeshir, but not vice-versa. This cannot be because he holds like Rabah, and whereas the Sofrim of Aktispun were not expert in Li'shmah, the Sofrim of Bei Ardeshir were - because we have already stated on numerous occasions that everyone holds like Rava, so why should a Sheli'ach who brought a Get from Bei Ardeshir not need to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '?

(d) Despite the fact that Rav Chisda holds like Rava, he nevertheless make this distinction - because even though the people of Bei Ardeshir would travel regularly to Aktispun, they would travel on business, make their purchases on credit, and leave their documents with the residents of Aktispun. Consequently, the people of Aktispun would recognize the signatures of the Bei Ardeshir (and Gitin that are brought from Bei Ardeshir to Aktispun would not therefore require 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '), but not vice-versa.

(a) Rabah bar Avuhah required 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' even from one row of houses to the row of houses on the opposite side of the street. Rav Sheishes required it from one Shechunah to another Shechunah - constituting three houses.

(b) Rava is the most stringent of all - and requires 'be'Fanai Nechtam ... ' even from one house in a Shechunah to another.

(c) We reconcile this with Rava himself, who says 'Le'fi she'Ein Eidim Metzuyin Lekaymo'. Even according to him, there would be a problem with finding witnesses from one house in a Shechunah to another - because the people of Mechuza (Rava's town) traveled a lot on business, and were therefore not acquainted with each others signatures (see Tosfos DH 'Sha'ani').

(a) When Rav Kahana once brought the case of a Get that a Sheli'ach had brought from Sura to Neherda'a (or vice-versa) before Rav - Rav ruled that it was not necessary to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', because he considered Bavel to be like Eretz Yisrael (as we learned earlier).

(b) When Rav added 've'I Avdis Ahanis', he meant - that if he would nevertheless say it, it would be to the woman's advantage, because it would obviate the need to find witnesses, should her husband later claim that the Get was a forgery.

8)

(a) K'far Sisa'i is - close to Eretz Yisrael, and Muvla be'Soch ha'Techum of Tzipori (more so than Acco to Eretz Yisrael).

(b) When Rebbi Yishmael instructed a Sheli'ach who brought a Get from K'far Sisa'i to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ', Rebbi Ila'i objected on the grounds that - if Rebbi Meir considered Acco part of Eretz Yisrael, then certainly K'far Sisa'i should be considered part of Eretz Yisrael (and 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' should not be necessary).

(c) We cannot answer that the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Meir with regard to Acco, will argue with him with regard to K'far Sisa'i too - because, quite to the contrary, since they only argue with him regarding Acco, we can insinuate that they will agree with him by any town that is closer than Acco.

(d) Rebbi Yishmael however, was not perturbed by Rebbi Ila'i's Kashya - because he had specifically explained (that he only advised the Sheli'ach to declare 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ') 'in order to obviate the need to look for witnesses later (and not because it was obligatory to do so).

(a) Rav Chisda gives Rebbi Evyasar's reason, who said that a Sheli'ach who brought a Get from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel did not need to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... ' - as being the large crowds of people who were constantly traveling from one to the other.

(b) Besides querying Rebbi Evyasar's reliability, Rav Yosef also cites the incident - where he wrote the Pasuk "va'Yitnu es ha'Yeled be'Zonah, ve'es ha'Yaldah Machru ba'Yayin" without making Sirtut (lines scratched onto the parchment, to straighten the script (and make it more beautiful).

(c) When Rebbi Evyasar quoted that Pasuk - he was referring to the people who used to travel from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, leaving their wives Agunos for long periods, and negating the Mitzvah of 'P'ru u'Revu'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yitzchak, one is permitted to write two words without Sirtut, but not three; according to the Tana of the Beraisa - three but not four.

(b) Abaye ...

1. ... queried Rav Yosef regarding his problem with Rebbi Evyasar - inasmuch as it is not because someone is not conversant with all the Halachos, that he is not a great man.
2. ... prove his reliability - inasmuch as Hashem agreed with his opinion.

(c) According to Rebbi Evyasar, the husband of the 'Pilegesh be Giv'ah' was angry with his wife because he found a fly in the soup. Rebbi Yonasan says - that he found a hair.

(d) After informing Rebbi Evyasar that Hashem cited his opinion and the opinion of Rebbi Yonasan regarding Pilegesh be'Giv'ah, Rebbi Evyasar asked him how it was possible for Hashem to have doubts. Eliyahu replied that Hashem did not have doubts, and that in fact, both were right. He first found a fly in the soup and was not angry, and then a hair by the Makom Ervah (which it was customary to shave in those days), and that made him angry.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, he found the fly in his soup and the hair by the Makom Ervah. Others say that he found the hair in his soup too.

(b) The husband of the Pilegesh be'Giv'ah only become angry after he found the hair, according to ...

1. ... Rav Yehudah - because of the element of danger (of making him a K'rus Shafchah) that the hair contained.
2. ... others - because whereas his wife could not be held responsible for a live fly falling into the soup, the hair was entirely her fault (similar to the reason that the chief butler was restored to his post whilst the chief baker was hanged).

(c) We can learn from this incident - that it is not worthwhile using strong-arm tactics in one's home (but should rather be flexible).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav warns that someone who does use strong-arm tactics in his home will ultimately transgress three major sins - adultery, murder and Chilul Shabbos.

(b) He will transgress ...

1. ... adultery - by causing his wife to be too afraid to admit that she did not Tovel because of the cold.
2. ... murder - as we see by Pilegesh be'Giv'ah, or by terrorizing his wife until she runs away to hide, and, in her haste to escape, she falls into a deep pit or off a bridge and is killed.
3. ... Chilul Shabbos - because sometimes, she will not have managed to kindle the Shabbos lights or to cook the food in time for Shabbos, and fearing the consequences, she will do it after Shabbos has already entered.

(c) The three things that the Tana in the Mishnah in Shabbos lists that a person should say to his wife on Erev Shabbos shortly before dusk are - 'Have you separated Ma'asros?' 'Did you arrange Eiruv Chatzeiros?' and 'Kindle the Shabbos lights!'

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah offered some good advice regarding this Mishnah. Rav Ashi came to the same conclusion of his own volition - namely, to say these things gently, thereby encouraging his wife to accept them from him.