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


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Gitin 6

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


(a) Support (Beraisa): A messenger bringing a Get from abroad - even if he was in the house, and the scribe was in the second story, or vice-versa; even if he went in and out all day - the messenger can say 'it was written and signed in front of me'.
1. Question: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, he did not see it written!
2. Answer: It must be, he heard the scratching of the quill on the parchment.
(b) Question: The Beraisa says, 'Even if he went in and out all day' - to whom does this refer?
1. Suggestion: If to the messenger - he can make the declaration even if he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, and did not see the writing - all the more so, if he went in and out!
(c) Answer: Rather, it refers to the scribe.
(d) Question: This is obvious! Should the Get be invalid because the scribe left the house?!
(e) Answer: The case is, he went to the market. One might have thought, another man asked the scribe to write the Get for him (and the scribe had this in mind) - we hear, we are not concerned for this.
(a) (Rav): Bavel has the same Halachah as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
(b) (Shmuel): Bavel does not have the same Halachah as Chutz La'aretz regarding Gitin.
(c) Suggestion: Rav holds that the declaration is because we are concerned it was not Lishmah, and people in Bavel are learned; Shmuel holds that the declaration is because we are concerned for validation, and witnesses from Bavel are not common.
(d) Objection: But even Rabah, who is concerned for Lishmah, is also concerned for validation!
(e) Correction: Rather, both agree that we are concerned for validation.
1. Rav holds, since there are Yeshivos in Bavel, (and people often travel between them), witnesses are commonly found; Shmuel holds, Talmidim learning in Yeshivah are too busy to become familiar with signatures.
(f) (R. Aba): After Rav came to Bavel, Bavel became as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
(g) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he must say it if he brought a Get from Rekem or eastwards; Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz; from Ashkelon or further south is as Chutz La'aretz; from Ako or further north is as Chutz La'aretz.
1. Bavel is north of Ako - "The evil will sprout from the north"!
2. (Mishnah): R. Meir says, Ako is as Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin - even R. Meir only said this about Ako, since it is near, but not about Bavel, since it is far!
(h) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah means, all places north of Ako ... - except for Bavel.
(i) Question: What are the boundaries of Bavel?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Just as they argue regarding lineage, they argue regarding Gitin.
(k) Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): They only argue regarding lineage - regarding Gitin, all agree that it extends until the second willow tree by the bridge.
(l) Rav Chisda required a declaration for Gitin sent from Aktisfon to Bei Ardeshir, but not in the other direction.
1. Suggestion: He holds, the reason for the declaration is Lishmah; the people of Bei Ardeshir know the law, those of Aktisfon do not.
2. Rejection: But even Rabah agrees that there is also a concern for validation!
3. Rather, the concern is validation; people of Bei Ardeshir go to the market in Aktisfon, so the people of Aktisfon recognize signatures of people of Bei Ardeshir.
4. Question: Why don't the people of Bei Ardeshir recognize signatures of people of Aktisfon?
5. Answer: Because they are busy at the market (and have no time to look at documents).
(m) Rabah bar Avuha required a declaration for Gitin sent from one row of houses to the row on the other side of the public domain;
(n) Rav Sheshes required a declaration for Gitin sent from a group of (3 or more) houses to another group;
(o) Rava required a declaration for Gitin sent within the same group of houses.
(p) Question: But Rava holds that the only concern is finding witnesses that recognize the signatures!
(q) Answer: The people of Mechuza (Rava's city) are very transient, and do not recognize their neighbors' signatures.
(a) (Rav Chanin): A Get was brought, either from Sura to Nehardai or vice-versa.
1. (Rav): No declaration is required; if you say it, it helps.

(b) Question: How does it help?
(c) Answer: If the husband will contest the Get, he will be ignored.
(d) Support (Beraisa): A man brought a Get from Kefar Sisai before R. Yishmael.
1. R. Yishmael: You must make the declaration, so the woman will not need witnesses.
2. (R. Ilai): Why? Kefar Sisai is enveloped within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and is closer to Tzipori than Ako!
i. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Ako is part of Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
ii. Even Chachamim that argue on R. Meir, only argue by Ako, for it is far - but they would admit by Kefar Sisai!
3. R. Yishmael: Hush! It is good that the Get was given in a permitted way.
(e) Question: What was R. Ilai's objection - R. Yishmael said that the declaration was only to avoid the need for witnesses!
(f) Answer: R. Ilai only heard R. Yishmael tell him to say the declaration, he did not hear the reason.
(a) (R. Evyasar): Gitin sent from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael - no declaration is needed.
1. Suggestion: He holds that the concern is Lishmah, and the people of Bavel know the law.
2. Objection: But Rabah is also concerned for validation!
3. Rather, the concern is validation; since many people come to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, witnesses are easily found.
(b) Rav Yosef: Is R. Evyasar reliable, that we can rely on his teaching?
1. He sent a verse to Rav Yehudah, without Sirtut (scratching a line to write straight) - this is forbidden!
i. (R. Evyasar): "They sold the boy to hire a Zonah, they sold the girl to buy wine" - this refers to people of Bavel that come to Eretz Yisrael (to learn).
2. (R. Yitzchak): 2 words of a verse may be written without Sirtut, not 3;
3. (Beraisa): 3 words of a verse may be written without Sirtut, not 4.
(c) Objection #1 (Abaye): Just because he doesn't know R. Yitzchak's law, does that mean he is not a great Chacham?
1. Granted, an error in reasoning would show that he is not a great Chacham.
2. But R. Yitzchak's law is a tradition - R. Evyasar just never heard it!
(d) Objection #2 (Abaye): Also - we find that Hash-m agreed with R. Evyasar (as follows)!
(a) (R. Evyasar): "v'Tizneh (left) him his concubine" - her husband found a fly;
1. (R. Yonason): He found a hair.
2. R. Evyasar saw Eliyahu; he asked him what Hash-m was doing.
i. Eliyahu: He is engaged in the account of the concubine in Givah - this is what My son Evyasar says, this is what My son Yonason says.
ii. R. Evyasar: Hash-m cannot have a doubt!
iii. Eliyahu: Both opinions come from Hash-m (are true)! Her husband found a fly and was not upset; he found a hair, and this upset him.
3. Opinion #1 (Rav Yehudah): The fly was in the food she prepared for him; the hair was in the place of relations.
i. The fly is merely disgusting; the hair poses a danger (therefore, this upset him).
4. Opinion #2: Both were in the food.
i. A fly in the food is not the result of negligence; a hair in the food is from negligence.
Next daf


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