(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 6

GITIN 6 - has been generously dedicated by Rav BenZion Spitz of Alon Shvut


QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav says that Bavel is like Eretz Yisrael for Gitin and it is not necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when bringing a Get from one part of Bavel to another. Shmuel says that Bavel is like Chutz la'Aretz, and it is necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" there.

The Gemara initially proposes that the reason why Rav exempts the people of Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" is because they are "Beki'in Lishmah" -- they know that a Get must be written Lishmah. However, the Gemara rejects this because even Rabah agrees that there is a second reason to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" -- in order to be Mekayem the Get when the witnesses are not available!

The Gemara therefore explains that according to Rav, since there are Yeshivos throughout Bavel, there is constant traffic of people who are able to be Mekayem the Get. Shmuel counters that the traffic of people consists of Talmidim of the Yeshivos, who are so involved with their learning that they do not recognize the signatures of their neighbors and they unable to serve as witnesses to be Mekayem a Get.

The Gemara continues and brings further proof ("Itmar Nami") from the statement of Rav Huna who said, "We, in Bavel, conducted ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin from the time that Rav came to Bavel."

RASHI explains that the Gemara here is bringing further proof to the fact that Rav's reasoning is that the Talmidim of the Yeshivos are able to attest to the signatures in the Get and be Mekayem it, and not that the people of Bavel are Beki'in Lishmah. The proof is that since Bavel only became like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin from the time that Rav founded the second Yeshivah in Bavel, if Rav exempts a Shali'ach in Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" because the people are Beki'in Lishmah, then they should have been exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" even from *before* the time of Rav, because the people of Bavel were Torah scholars from when they came to Bavel at the time of the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash!

TOSFOS presents a strong challenge to Rashi's explanation of the Gemara from the Gemara's next question. Rebbi Yirmiyah asks Rav how could a Shali'ach in Bavel be exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav?" The Mishnah (2a) says clearly that from Ako and northward one must say "b'Fanai Nichtav," and Bavel is to the north of Eretz Yisrael! According to Rashi, the Gemara's question is no question! Rav only exempted a Shali'ach from Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" *after* he came to Bavel, which was long after the Mishnah was written!

Because of this question, Tosfos asserts that the Gemara is not bringing a proof from Rav Huna that Rav exempted Bavel only because he founded a second Yeshivah there. Rather, the Gemara is bringing further proof only for the fact that Rav holds that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" (but Rav indeed held that in Bavel one was always exempt, even before the time Rav came to Bavel).

It is easy to understand why Rashi rejects the explanation of Tosfos, for the Gemara would not be justified in saying "Itmar Nami" ("we have further proof") according to Tosfos. Further proof is necessary when there is a conjecture or a statement that does not have a strong basis. According to Tosfos, however, the Gemara quotes Rav himself as saying that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav!" What further proof is necessary to show that this is Rav's opinion? (CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN)

How, though, would Rashi possibly answer the strong objection of Tosfos to his approach?


(a) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN suggests that the Gemara's proof from the Mishnah is not from the fact that every place north of Bavel was required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time of the Mishnah. Rather, the Gemara is attempting to prove that even when there are caravans between two places in Medinas ha'Yam, we still require the Shali'ach to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" because of "Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam" -- we do not want to differentiate between places in Medinas ha'Yam and give them different Halachos. The Gemara's proof is from the Mishnah which says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the outer half of Ako is considered Chutz la'Aretz, even though the inner half of Ako is considered Eretz Yisrael (see Tosfos 2a, DH v'Ashkelon). Obviously, there were caravans that frequently traveled between the two parts of Ako, but, nevertheless, since the outer half of Ako was part of Chutz la'Aretz (and was not near ("Samuch") the main populated area of Eretz Yisrael, 6b), the Chachamim required that one must say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when bringing a Get from there to Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, in Bavel it should always be required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav!" The Gemara answers that Bavel is different, because no one would confuse Bavel with the rest of Chutz la'Aretz, since it is well-known that they have Yeshivos and that they are Beki'in.

(The CHASAM SOFER points out that according to this explanation, there would be no reason for the Gemara to point out that Bavel is north of Eretz Yisrael. The proof has nothing to do with the direction or location in which Bavel was situated.)

(b) The CHASAM SOFER and TORAS GITIN answer that according to Rabah, when the Mishnah says that one who brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam must say "b'Fanai Nichtav," it is referring not only to one who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, but even to one who brings a Get in Chutz la'Aretz, from one city to another city in the same Medinah. Accordingly, it may be inferred from the Mishnah that in the times of the Mishnah, the people in Bavel were not Beki'in in the laws of Lishmah, and, therefore, just like every other area north of Eretz Yisrael, they had to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when bringing a Get to the same Medinah. The Gemara is therefore asking that according to Rav, how can the people of Bavel be exempted from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" nowadays because there is frequent travel between the Yeshivos? The frequent travel removes only the problem of Kiyum. But "b'Fanai Nichtav" should still be required because originally they were not Beki'in Lishmah! Even if, at the time of Rav, they had already become Beki'in Lishmah (like the rest of Chutz la'Aretz), nevertheless it should be necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" according to Rabah because of the Gezeirah of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo -- they might become ignorant again (5a)!

The Gemara answers that in Bavel they were *always* Beki'in (because of the Jewish community that was there from the time of the Churban), and, therefore, in the same Medinah within Bavel, they never had to say "b'Fanai Nichtav," and thus in the time of Rav there was no concern of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo, because there never was a situation in Bavel of ignorance regarding the laws of Lishmah.

Tosfos probably rejects this approach because he maintains that that it is a bit forced to explain that Rebbi Yirmiyah's question was based on the opinion of Rabah, since Tosfos and most Rishonim rule, l'Halachah, like Rava, and according to Rava no question can be asked on Rav from the Mishnah.

Rashi, on the other hand, might be following his own opinion elsewhere (9a, DH Yiskayem; and in Yevamos 25a, Kidushin 72a, Shabbos 36b, Sukah 34b, Bava Metzia 55b), where he implies that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rava.


QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a) which states that a man should say three things to his wife on Erev Shabbos before it becomes dark: "Did you separate Ma'aser," "Did you make an Eruv," and, "Light the Shabbos candles." RASHI here explains that the Eruv to which the Mishnah there is referring is *Eruvei Chatzeros*.

The Mishnah in Shabbos there continues and says that during Bein ha'Shemashos, a person may still make an Eruv. This prompts the Gemara there to ask why must a person ask his wife to make an Eruv *before* sunset, if it is permitted to make an Eruv even after sunset, during Bein ha'Shemashos? The Gemara answers that one part of the Mishnah is referring to Eruvei Techumin, and the other part is referring to Eruvei Chatzeros, and that there is a difference between the two types of Eruv; one type may be made only before Bein ha'Shemashos, and the other may be made even during Bein ha'Shemashos.

RASHI there explains that *Eruvei Techumin* is the one which must be done before Bein ha'Shemashos, for it is more Chamur. This is indeed the simple explanation of the Gemara there, since the Halachah of Eruvei Techumin is always considered more severe than the Halachah of Eruvei Chatzeros. (One opinion in Sotah 30b maintains that the Isur of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, and even if it is not mid'Oraisa, it has an Asmachta in the Torah, while the Halachah of Eruvei Chatzeros was only a Takanah of Shlomo ha'Melech (Eruvin 21b).) This is indeed how TOSFOS and RABEINU CHANANEL explain the Gemara there. Although RABEINU TAM cited by Tosfos there initially tries to explain that Eruvei Chatzeros is more severe, he changes his mind and agrees that Eruvei Techumin is more severe.

Accordingly, the Eruv that a person must warn his wife about before Shabbos is Eruvei Techumin, because Eruvei Chatzeros may be made during Bein ha'Shemashos. Why, then, does Rashi here say that the Eruv which a man warns his wife about before Shabbos is an *Eruv Chatzeros*? (TOSFOS, DH Eravtem)

ANSWER: RAV YAKOV D. HOMNICK (presently of North Miami Beach, Florida) proposes an approach which explains that that Rashi's words here in fact do not contradict what he writes in Shabbos, nor do they contradict the Gemara in Shabbos.

First, he points out that Rashi in the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a, DH Eravtem) seems to add to the contradiction. When the Mishnah there says that a person must tell his wife before Shabbos, "Eravtem," Rashi explains that it is referring to *both* Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros! Rashi should have said either that it is referring to Eruvei Chatzeros (like he says in our Sugya), or that it is referring to Eruvei Techumin (like the Gemara there concludes), *or* that the Gemara will explain which Eruv the Mishnah is discussing, like Rashi himself says with regard to the Eruv mentioned at the end of the Mishnah which the Mishnah permits to be made during Bein ha'Shemashos! Why does Rashi say that a man must tell his wife to make both an Eruv Techumin and an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos?

The ROSH in Shabbos also seems to contradict himself in this matter. Although he explains that Eruvei *Techumin* is more severe and must be done before Bein ha'Shemashos, nevertheless he explains that one of the things that a person must warn his wife about on Erev Shabbos is to make an *Eruv Chatzeros*!

The answer is that Rashi and the Rosh were bothered by an obvious question on the Gemara. The reason the Mishnah lists only three things that one must remind his wife about before Shabbos is because these are actions that are commonly done in every household, prior to every Shabbos. How, then, can the Mishnah be referring to Eruvei Techumin, which is done only on rare occasions?

The Mishnah, therefore, must be referring to Eruvei Chatzeros. Why, then, does one need to tell his wife to prepare it before Bein ha'Shemashos? An Eruv Chatzeros may be made *during* Bein ha'Shemashos!

The answer is that once he needs to remind his wife to make Eruvei Chatzeros, since the term "Eruvin" includes also Eruvei Techumin, he makes sure to say it at a time when his wife can still make an Eruv Techumin as well, if necessary. This is why Rashi on the Mishnah in Shabbos explains that the Mishnah is referring to both Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros, and why the Rosh says that a person must remind his wife to make an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos. This also explains why Rashi in our Sugya says that this statement refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, since that is the main point of mentioning a reminder for one's family. The Gemara only says that the statement includes Eruvei Techumin in order to explain why it must be said before Bein ha'Shemashos and not during Bein ha'Shemashos. But since our Gemara does not bring that part of the Mishnah (about making an Eruv during Bein ha'Shemashos), Rashi here does not mention Eruvei Techumin.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,