POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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
1) WHAT MUST THE MESSENGER SEE?
(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'.
2) THE STATUS OF BAVEL
1. Question: If he was in the house and the scribe was
in the second story, he did not see it written!
(b) Question: The Beraisa says, 'Even if he went in and out
all day' - to whom does this refer?
2. Answer: It must be, he heard the scratching of the
quill on the parchment.
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
3) SAYING THE DECLARATION WHEN IT IS NOT REQUIRED
(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
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
(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
(h) Answer (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah means, all places north
of Ako ... - except for Bavel.
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
(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.
(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;
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
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).
(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'
(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
(b) Question: How does it help?
4) THE RULING OF R. EVYASAR
(c) Answer: If the husband will contest the Get, he will be
(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.
(e) Question: What was R. Ilai's objection - R. Yishmael said
that the declaration was only to avoid the need for
2. (R. Ilai): Why? Kefar Sisai is enveloped within the
borders of Eretz Yisrael, and is closer to Tzipori
i. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Ako is part of Eretz
Yisrael regarding Gitin.
3. R. Yishmael: Hush! It is good that the Get was given
in a permitted way.
ii. Even Chachamim that argue on R. Meir, only
argue by Ako, for it is far - but they would
admit by Kefar Sisai!
(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.
5) THE CONCUBINE OF GIVAH
1. Suggestion: He holds that the concern is Lishmah,
and the people of Bavel know the law.
(b) Rav Yosef: Is R. Evyasar reliable, that we can rely on
2. Objection: But Rabah is also concerned for
3. Rather, the concern is validation; since many people
come to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, witnesses are
1. He sent a verse to Rav Yehudah, without Sirtut
(scratching a line to write straight) - this is
(c) Objection #1 (Abaye): Just because he doesn't know R.
Yitzchak's law, does that mean he is not a great Chacham?
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.
1. Granted, an error in reasoning would show that he is
not a great Chacham.
(d) Objection #2 (Abaye): Also - we find that Hash-m agreed
with R. Evyasar (as follows)!
2. But R. Yitzchak's law is a tradition - R. Evyasar
just never heard it!
(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
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.
3. Opinion #1 (Rav Yehudah): The fly was in the food
she prepared for him; the hair was in the place of
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.
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