## Gittin Daf 4b

###### Gittin 4b:1
[Gittin 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:1)

וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי; וּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and these** people **are learned** with regard to this *halakha*, as a bill of divorce sent from Eretz Yisrael was certainly written in the correct manner. **And** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds:** The reason for the testimony is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these** witnesses who travel from Eretz Yisrael overseas **are also not frequently** available.


###### Gittin 4b:2
[Gittin 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:2)

רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַבָּה מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירַת מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא קָמִיפַּלְגִי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara again rejects the suggestion: One cannot prove that this issue is a dispute of the *tanna’im*, as **Rabba resolves** the different opinions in the mishna according **to his** line of **reasoning, and Rava resolves** them according **to his** line of **reasoning. Rabba resolves** them according **to his** line of **reasoning,** as follows: It may be **that everyone** agrees that the reason is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake, and here they disagree with regard to a decree** applied in the case of **one who delivers** a bill of divorce to Eretz Yisrael **due to** the concern that it will be confused with the case of **one who brings** a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael.


###### Gittin 4b:3
[Gittin 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:3)

דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains **that the first *tanna* holds:** The Sages **do not decree** with regard to **one who delivers due to one who brings.** In other words, although one who delivers a bill of divorce from overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas need not state this declaration.


###### Gittin 4b:4
[Gittin 4b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:4)

וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: גָּזְרִינַן מוֹלִיךְ אַטּוּ מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the later Rabbis hold:** The Sages **do decree** with regard to **one who delivers due to one who brings** the bill of divorce from overseas. The reason for this decree is that one might err and think that just as an agent who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas is not required to testify that it was written and signed in his presence, so too, one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael need not state this declaration. Consequently, the Sages decreed that even one who delivers a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must declare: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.


###### Gittin 4b:5
[Gittin 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:5)

וְרָבָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי – לְפָרוֹשֵׁי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא הוּא דְּאָתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** also **resolves** the different opinions in the mishna according **to his** line of **reasoning.** How so? He maintains **that everyone** agrees that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and the later Rabbis** do not disagree with the previous opinion. Rather, **they come to explain the reasoning of the first *tanna*.** In other words, the first *tanna* agrees that one who takes a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to a country overseas must state the declaration, and he simply taught the *halakha* in a concise manner.


###### Gittin 4b:6
[Gittin 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:6)

תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״. הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ. לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara attempts to cite another proof: **We learned** in the mishna: **One who brings** a bill of divorce **from one region to** another **region within a country overseas must** also **say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** The Gemara infers: **But** if he brought a bill of divorce **within** one **region in a country overseas he is not required** to state this declaration. This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rava,** as witnesses are available in the same region. However, **according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** the matter is **difficult,** as overseas residents are not experts in the *halakha* and therefore it does not matter how closely they are located to each other.


###### Gittin 4b:7
[Gittin 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:7)

לָא תֵּימָא: הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabba, **do not say** that the correct inference is: **Within** one **region in a country overseas, he is not required** to state the declaration. **Rather, say** that one should infer from the mishna: **From region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required** to do so.


###### Gittin 4b:8
[Gittin 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:8)

הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״! אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּיעֲבַד, אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to this answer: **But** that *halakha* need not be derived by inference, as the mishna **is teaching it explicitly: One who brings a bill of divorce** from one place to another **within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.** The Gemara answers: **If** this *halakha* were to be derived **from that** statement alone, **I would say: This applies** only **after the fact,** i.e., if someone acted in this manner then the bill of divorce is not invalidated. **However,** it might have been thought that one should **not** act in this manner ***ab initio*;** rather, the agent should state the declaration. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** by means of this inference from its first section that he need not state the declaration even *ab initio*.


###### Gittin 4b:9
[Gittin 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:9)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמוֹתֵיב לַהּ הָכִי: הָא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers an alternate version of this discussion: **And some raise** this **objection like this,** by inferring differently from that ruling of the mishna. The mishna teaches: One who brings a bill of divorce from one region to another region within a country overseas must also say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara infers from here that if he brings the document **from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required** to state the declaration.


###### Gittin 4b:10
[Gittin 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:10)

לְרַבָּה נִיחָא, לְרָבָא קַשְׁיָא! לָא תֵּימָא: מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לֹא צָרִיךְ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לֹא צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of the *halakha* that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. However, it is **difficult according to** the opinion of **Rava.** The Gemara rejects this inference: **Do not say** that the mishna is teaching that **from** one **region to** another **region within Eretz Yisrael, he is not required. Rather, say: Within** one **region in a country overseas he is not required** to state the declaration.


###### Gittin 4b:11
[Gittin 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:11)

אֲבָל מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַאי, צָרִיךְ?! לִיתְנֵי: ״הַמֵּבִיא מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה״ – סְתָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this interpretation: **However,** if that is so, with regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce **from region to region within Eretz Yisrael, what** is the *halakha*? Is **he required** to state the declaration? If so, **let** the mishna **teach** simply: **One who brings** a bill of divorce **from** one **region to** another **region** must state the declaration, **without specification,** and this would apply both overseas and in Eretz Yisrael.


###### Gittin 4b:12
[Gittin 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:12)

לְעוֹלָם מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לֹא צָרִיךְ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים, מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** one who brings **from region to region within Eretz Yisrael is also not required** to state the declaration even according to the opinion of Rava, for the following reason: **Since there are** those **who ascend** to Jerusalem **for the pilgrimage Festival,** witnesses **are frequently** available and they can come even from one region to another.


###### Gittin 4b:13
[Gittin 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:13)

תִּינַח בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים; בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין דִּקְבִיעִי – מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This **works out well when the Temple is standing,** as there are those who ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival at that time. However, **when the Temple is not standing what can be said?** The Gemara answers: **Since there are** central **courts that are fixed** in a permanent location where everyone goes, witnesses **are frequently** available to ratify the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 4b:14
[Gittin 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:14)

תְּנַן, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מֵהֶגְמוֹנְיָא לְהֶגְמוֹנְיָא. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עִיר אַחַת הָיְתָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַעֲסָסְיוֹת שְׁמָהּ, וְהָיוּ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי הֶגְמוֹנְיוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מַקְפִּידִין זֶה עַל זֶה, לְפִיכָךְ הוּצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר מֵהֶגְמוֹנְיָא לְהֶגְמוֹנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a different proof: **We learned** in the mishna that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says** that **even** an agent who brings a bill of divorce **from** one **district to** another **district** must say that it was written and signed in his presence. **And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was one city in Eretz Yisrael, and Asasiyyot was its name, and it contained two districts that** divided the city. And its two governors **were** so **particular with each other** that they enacted travel restrictions that made it impossible to cross through the city, and **consequently they were required to say** the declaration when bringing a bill of divorce **from district to district.**


###### Gittin 4b:15
[Gittin 4b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:15)

לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This **works out well according to** the opinion of **Rava,** who holds that the reason is due to witnesses, as the witnesses could not pass from one district to another. However, it is **difficult according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** as he maintains that there is no need to state the declaration in Eretz Yisrael because its residents are aware of the *halakha* that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. The Gemara answers: **Rabba is of** the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion **of Rava,** i.e., Rabba agrees that one of the reasons for this *halakha* is because witnesses are not available to ratify the bill of divorce. He adds another reason, that they are not experts in the *halakha* of writing the document for her sake.


###### Gittin 4b:16
[Gittin 4b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:16)

אֶלָּא מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַתְיוּהּ בֵּי תְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, what** then **is** the difference **between them,** i.e., between Rava’s explanation and that of Rabba? The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** with regard to a case **where two** people **bring** the bill of divorce from a country overseas. According to the opinion of Rava they do not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as additional witnesses are not needed to confirm this bill of divorce. However, it is still necessary to declare that the document was written for the sake of the wife.


###### Gittin 4b:17
[Gittin 4b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:17)

אִי נָמֵי, בְּאוֹתָהּ מְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the difference between the two explanations involves a case where one agent brought the bill of divorce from one place to another **within** a single **region in a country overseas,** where witnesses are available to ratify it. According to Rabba it is still necessary for the agent to utter the declaration so that he can confirm that the bill of divorce was written for her sake. According to Rava, he does not have to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as witnesses are readily available if needed.


###### Gittin 4b:18
[Gittin 4b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/4b:18)

תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וַהֲוֵינַן בַּהּ: מַאי ״וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna (9a): With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, and he is unable to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, if** the bill of divorce **has witnesses** signed **on it** then **it shall be ratified by its signatories,** i.e., it can be ratified by validating the witnesses’ signatures. **And we discussed** this *halakha*: **What** is the meaning of the phrase: **And he is unable to say?**