## Gittin Daf 6a

###### Gittin 6a:1
[Gittin 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:1)

אֲפִילּוּ קַן קוּלְמוֹסָא וְקַן מְגִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Even** if he **heard the sound of the quill [*kulmusa*] and the sound of the scroll** when the scribe was writing the bill of divorce for the sake of that woman, this is sufficient.


###### Gittin 6a:2
[Gittin 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:2)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם – אֲפִילּוּ הוּא בַּבַּיִת וְסוֹפֵר בָּעֲלִיָּיה, הוּא בָּעֲלִיָּיה וְסוֹפֵר בַּבַּיִת – אֲפִילּוּ נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ashi:** With regard to **one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas, even** if **he** was **in the house but the scribe** was **in the loft** writing the bill of divorce, or if **he** was **in the loft and the scribe** was **in the house** writing the bill of divorce, and **even** if **he** was **entering and exiting the entire day** the bill of divorce is **valid** and he can testify that it was written properly.


###### Gittin 6a:3
[Gittin 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:3)

הוּא בַּבַּיִת וְסוֹפֵר בָּעֲלִיָּיה?! הָא לָא קָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו כְּגוֹן דִּשְׁמַע קַן קוּלְמוֹסָא וְקַן מְגִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: If **he** was **in the house and the scribe** was **in the loft, he does not see him** at all. **Rather, is it not** correct to say that the *baraita* is speaking about a case **where he heard the sound of the quill and the sound of the scroll?** This is a proof which supports the statement of Rav Ashi.


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

אָמַר מָר: אֲפִילּוּ נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר. מַאן? אִילֵימָא שָׁלִיחַ, הַשְׁתָּא הוּא בַּבַּיִת וְסוֹפֵר בָּעֲלִיָּיה, דְּלָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ – אָמְרַתְּ כָּשֵׁר, נִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא מִיבַּעְיָא?! אֶלָּא סוֹפֵר? פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּנִכְנָס וְיוֹצֵא נִפְסְלִינֵּיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** above, in the *baraita*: **Even** if **he** was **entering and exiting the entire day,** the bill of divorce is **valid.** The Gemara asks: **Who** is the one entering and exiting? **If we say** that this is referring to the **agent,** who is required to later testify about the bill of divorce, **now** that in the case where **he** was **in the house and the scribe** was **in the loft, when** the agent **does not see** the scribe at all and nevertheless **you said** that the bill of divorce is **valid, is** it **necessary** to say that it is valid when **he** was **entering and exiting** the place where the bill of divorce was written? **Rather,** perhaps this is referring to the **scribe** himself, i.e., he enters and exits all day and does not write the bill of divorce in one uninterrupted act. The Gemara asks: This *halakha* **is obvious,** as **would we render** the bill of divorce **invalid** merely **because he** was **entering and exiting?**


###### Gittin 6a:5
[Gittin 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:5)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּנְפַק לְשׁוּקָא וַאֲתָא; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* in a case **where** the scribe **exited** the house **to** go to **the market and returned** to continue writing the bill of divorce. **Lest you say** that perhaps while he was in the market **another person found him and told him** to write a bill of divorce on his behalf, and he is now writing a bill of divorce for the sake of a woman other than the one for which he was writing it at the outset, the *baraita* therefore **teaches us** that this possibility is disregarded and the bill of divorce is valid.


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

אִיתְּמַר: בָּבֶל; רַב אָמַר: כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed concerning the status of Babylonia with regard to the *halakhot* of bills of divorce: **Rav says** that **Babylonia** is considered to be **like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and Shmuel says** that it is considered **like outside of Eretz** Yisrael.


###### Gittin 6a:7
[Gittin 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:7)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי; וּמָר סָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְהָנֵי נָמֵי לָא שְׁכִיחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that Rav and Shmuel **disagree with regard to this, that** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that the reason an agent is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake, and these** Babylonians **are learned. And** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds** that the reason is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it, and these** Babylonians **are also not frequently** available.


###### Gittin 6a:8
[Gittin 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:8)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **And can you understand it** that way? **But** it was already stated above that **Rabba,** who says that the concern is whether the document was written for her sake, **is of** the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion **of Rava,** who maintains that witnesses are also required to ratify the bill of divorce. Therefore, even if Babylonians are knowledgeable about writing a bill of divorce for the woman’s sake, Babylonia should be treated like anywhere else outside of Eretz Yisrael because witnesses are not readily available.


###### Gittin 6a:9
[Gittin 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:9)

אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לְקַיְּימוֹ; רַב סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מְתִיבָתָא, מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי; וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר: מְתִיבָתָא בְּגִירְסַיְיהוּ טְרִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, everyone** agrees that **we require** witnesses **to ratify it,** and they disagree with regard to this: **Rav holds** that **since there are** central **academies** where people study, witnesses **are frequently** available to ratify bills of divorce. **And Shmuel holds** that those studying in the **academies are preoccupied by their studies;** therefore, they cannot be used as witnesses to confirm a bill of divorce, as they will not recognize peoples’ signatures.


###### Gittin 6a:10
[Gittin 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:10)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עָשִׂינוּ עַצְמֵינוּ בְּבָבֶל כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין, מִכִּי אֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** that **Rabbi Abba says** that **Rav Huna says: We made ourselves in Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from** the time **when Rav came to Babylonia.**


###### Gittin 6a:11
[Gittin 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:11)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵרְקָם לְמִזְרָח, וּרְקָם – כַּמִּזְרָח, מֵאַשְׁקְלוֹן לַדָּרוֹם, וְאַשְׁקְלוֹן – כַּדָּרוֹם, מֵעַכּוֹ לַצָּפוֹן, וְעַכּוֹ – כַּצָּפוֹן. וְהָא בָּבֶל לִצְפוֹנָהּ דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָיְימָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֵלָי מִצָּפוֹן תִּפָּתַח הָרָעָה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection** from the mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda says: From Rekem eastward** is considered to be part of the overseas country, **and Rekem** itself **is like east** of Eretz Yisrael. **From Ashkelon southward** is outside of Eretz Yisrael, **and Ashkelon** itself **is like south** of Eretz Yisrael. **From Akko northward** is outside of Eretz Yisrael, **and Akko** itself **is like north** of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yirmeya explains his objection: **But Babylonia is situated north of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written** with regard to the destruction that will come through Babylonia: **“Then the Lord said to me: Out of the north the evil shall break forth”** (Jeremiah 1:14).


###### Gittin 6a:12
[Gittin 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:12)

וּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: עַכּוֹ – כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין; וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּעַכּוֹ דִּמְקָרְבָא, אֲבָל בָּבֶל דִּמְרַחֲקָא, לָא! הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: לְבַר מִבָּבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we** further **learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, and even Rabbi Meir said** this **only with regard to Akko, which is close** to Eretz Yisrael. **However,** with regard to **Babylonia, which is far** from Eretz Yisrael, **no,** he did not dispute the ruling that it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yirmeya **raised** the objection **and he resolved it** himself: This border of Eretz Yisrael was stated **with the exception of Babylonia.**


###### Gittin 6a:13
[Gittin 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:13)

עַד הֵיכָן הִיא בָּבֶל? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת לְיוּחֲסִין, כָּךְ מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְגִיטִּין. וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת לְיוּחֲסִין, אֲבָל לְגִיטִּין דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עַד אַרְבָּא תִּנְיָינָא דְּגִישְׁרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **Until where is Babylonia?** In other words, what are the boundaries of Babylonia with regard to this issue? **Rav Pappa says:** Just **as** there is **a dispute** concerning the boundaries of Babylonia **with regard to lineage** (*Kiddushin* 72a), as Babylonian Jews were considered to have a more prestigious lineage than those of Eretz Yisrael, **so** is there the same **dispute with regard to bills of divorce. And Rav Yosef says:** The **dispute** that is stated there applies only **to lineage. However, with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees** that the boundary of Babylonia is **until the second arch of the bridge** over the Euphrates River.


###### Gittin 6a:14
[Gittin 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:14)

רַב חִסְדָּא מַצְרֵיךְ מֵאַקְטֵיסְפוֹן לְבֵי אַרְדָּשִׁיר, וּמִבֵּי אַרְדָּשִׁיר לְאַקְטֵיסְפוֹן לָא מַצְרֵיךְ. לֵימָא קָסָבַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Ḥisda required** even those who delivered bills of divorce **from Akteisfon to Bei Ardeshir** to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. **But** for bills of divorce brought **from Bei Ardeshir to Akteisfon he did not require** this declaration. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that **he holds** that the reason an agent is required to say that it was written and it was signed in his presence, is **because they are not experts** in writing a bill of divorce **for her sake, and these** residents of Bei Ardeshir are **learned** in this matter?


###### Gittin 6a:15
[Gittin 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:15)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! וְהָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא! אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לְקַיְּימוֹ; וְהָנֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָזְלִי לְשׁוּקָא לְהָתָם – הָנָךְ יָדְעִי בַּחֲתִימוֹת יְדָא דְּהָנֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you understand** it that way? **But Rabba is of** the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion **of Rava,** that it is necessary to ratify a bill of divorce. **Rather, everyone** agrees **that we require** the presence of two witnesses **to ratify** the document, **and** with regard to **these** residents of Bei Ardeshir, **since they go to the market there,** in Akteisfon, **these** residents of Akteisfon **recognize the signatures of these** inhabitants of Bei Ardeshir.


###### Gittin 6a:16
[Gittin 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:16)

וְהָנֵי בִּדְהָנָךְ לָא יָדְעִי. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּשׁוּקַיְיהוּ טְרִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But these** residents of Bei Ardeshir **do not recognize** the signatures **of these** residents of Akteisfon. **What is the reason** for this? **They are preoccupied by their market** business, as they are buying and selling their merchandise, and therefore they are not familiar with the signatures of the residents of Akteisfon.


###### Gittin 6a:17
[Gittin 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:17)

רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ מַצְרֵיךְ מֵעַרְסָא לְעַרְסָא, רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַצְרֵיךְ מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה, וְרָבָא מַצְרֵיךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שְׁכוּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that **Rabba bar Avuh would require** that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce **from** one **side** of the public domain **to** the other **side [*me’arsa le’arsa*]. Rav Sheshet required** that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce **from** one **group** of houses **to** another **group** of houses on the same side of the public domain. **And Rava required** that an agent state the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce **within the same group** of houses.


###### Gittin 6a:18
[Gittin 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:18)

וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ? שָׁאנֵי בְּנֵי מָחוֹזָא, דְּנָיְידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But Rava is** the one **who said** that the reason an agent must state the declaration is **because there are no witnesses available to ratify it,** so why would he require the declaration even when transmitting a bill of divorce within the same group of houses? The Gemara explains: Rava issued this decree only with regard to his city of Meḥoza. The reason is that **the residents of Meḥoza are different, as they are** constantly **mobile,** and do not stay in one place. Therefore, it is possible that the witnesses who were present when the bill of divorce was written have already moved elsewhere.


###### Gittin 6a:19
[Gittin 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/6a:19)

רַב חָנִין מִישְׁתַּעֵי: רַב כָּהֲנָא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִסּוּרָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא, אִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא לְסוּרָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: צְרִיכְנָא לְמֵימַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ לָא צְרִיכְנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanin relates: Rav Kahana brought a bill of divorce, and I do not know if** he brought it **from Sura to Neharde’a** or **if** he brought it **from Neharde’a to Sura. He came before Rav** and **said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required** to state this declaration? Rav **said to him: You are not required** to do so.