תנן המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדינת הים—We learnt in our משנה; if one brings a גט from one country to another country overseas

OVERVIEW The גמרא is attempting to refute רבה who states that the reason for saying בפ"נ is on account of אין בקיאין לשמה. If that were the case, then any גט which is brought in מדה"י (where they are not בקיאין לשמה), even in the same country should have the requirement of saying בפ"נ. The גמרא claims that the implication of the משנה stating that המביא גט ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך לומר בפ"נ seems to negate that opinion. תוספות asks that the גמרא did not have to find this negation in the סיפא of the משנה; we could ask the very same question from the רישא. ------------------ ומרישא דמתניתין המביא גט ממדינת הים דמשמע דוקא ממדינת הים לארץ ישראל – However, from the beginning of our משנה where it states, ‘if one brings a גט from overseas’, which implies that only**** if it was brought from מדה"י to א"י specifically¹, only then is one required to say בפ"נ, but not if it was brought from one place to another in that same overseas country². From this implication – לא מצי למיפרך – The גמרא would not be able to refute רבה,³ for we can reply – דלעולם באותה מדינה במדינת הים נמי צריך – That in truth, if a גט were to be brought from one place to another place in the same country overseas he would also be required to say בפ"נ –

The reason the משנה states in this manner, that he brought it from מדה"י to א"י and not simply he brought it in מדה"י (to anywhere even in the same country), is to exclude רקם וחגר; that from רקם וחגר one is not required to say בפ"נ.⁴

SUMMARY We cannot infer from the fact that the משנה states that one who brings a גט from מדה"י to א"י has to say בפ"נ, that it would exclude a case where one brings it in the same country in מדה"י itself. There is a specific reason why the משנה states that the obligation to say בפ"נ is (limited to the case) if one brings it from מדה"י to א"י. The intent of the משנה is to exclude רקם וחגר (which are close to א"י) from this obligation; for they are not considered ממדה"י. However in מדה"י itself one is obligated to say בפ"נ even באותה מדינה.

THINKING IT OVER The same type of question that תוספות asks concerning the refutation of רבה, can be seemingly also asked concerning the refutation of רבא.⁵ Why does תוספות ask concerning רבה only, and not concerning רבא? [Similarly תוספות could have also asked on רבא, that since the משנה states המוליך (מא"י לחו"ל) is required to say בפ"נ; indicating that ממדינה למדינה בא"י there is no requirement (even though אין עדים מצוין לקיימו?)]⁶

footnotes: ¹ The תנא of the משנה lived in א"י. He states if one brings a גט (here, to א"י) from מדה"י. ² If one were required to say בפ"נ even באותה מדינה במדה"י, the משנה should have said המביא גט במדה"י instead of המביא גט ממדה"י. ³ This is the same type of refutation of רבה as the גמרא states; namely that the reason for saying בפ"נ cannot be on account of אין בקיאין לשמה, for if so one would be required to say בפ"נ if one brought a גט in מדה"י itself to a neighboring city, not only if he brought it from מדה"י to א"י. ⁴ See תוס' ב,א ד"ה ממדה"י. We derive the exclusion of רקם וחגר from the requirement of saying בפ"נ, from the fact that the משנה states that (only) one who brings a גט (to א"י) from a faraway country (ממדה"י) is required to say בפ"נ, but not from the close countries (cities) such as רקם וחגר. Had the משנה stated המביא גט במדה"י that would not have the same connotation of a distant country as ממדה"י, since we are not discussing bringing a גט from a distant place. We may have thought that במדה"י refers to the entire חו"ל. Therefore we would not have excluded רקם וחגר, וצע"ק. Alternately the רש"ש maintains that we would have excluded רקם וחגר (to a neighboring city in חו"ל) even if the משנה would have stated המביא גט במדה"י. However we might have thought that from רקם וחגר to א"י one would be required to say בפ"נ, because אין עדים מצויים לקיימו; since they are different countries (ועיין בתוד"ה אלא). Therefore the משנה states המביא גט ממדה"י to exclude even from רקם וחגר to א"י. עיי"ש ועדיין צ"ע. ⁵ The משנה states that from מדה"י to א"י one is required to say בפ"נ; not from מדינה למדינה בא"י. This is a refutation of רבא. According to רבא the משנה should have merely stated המביא גט ממדינה למדינה, period! ⁶ See מהרש"א הארוך.

אלא אימא ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל לא צריך—I will rather say that from one state to another state in א"י he is not required

OVERVIEW The גמרא rejects the proposed refutation of רבה, which was inferred from the phrase ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך. We should not infer from this phrase that באותה מדינה אין צריך (which would consist a refutation of רבה), but rather the משנה phrased it in this manner so that we should infer from it that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך (which supports רבה). It seems that this phrase ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך may by interpreted into two opposing inferences; i.e. באותה מדינה במדה"י אין צריך (a refutation of רבה), or ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך (supporting רבה). תוספות will be asking (according to רבה); why does the משנה use a phrase that may be misinterpreted, when we can find a phrase that can be interpreted only to support רבה.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי נקט ממדינה למדינה – And if you will say; why mention that he brought the גט from one country to another country. Since רבה is of the opinion that a גט that is brought anywhere in מדה"י is required to say בפ"נ. then – ניתני המביא גט באותה מדינה במדינת הים צריך וכולי – Let the משנה state; a שליח who brings a גט in the same country overseas, is required etc., to say בפ"נ. We would then be able to infer – הא בארץ ישראל אין צריך באותה מדינה והוא הדין ממדינה למדינה – However, if one brings a גט in א"י he is not required to say בפ"נ; whether it was in the same state in א"י and similarly if it was brought from state to state in א"י. In all cases one would not be required to say בפ"נ. If the purpose of the משנה saying ממדינה למדינה במדה"י is that we should infer that ממדינה למדינה בא"י one is not required to say בפ"נ, we could accomplish this by stating more simply that if one brings a גט in מדה"י (even) in the same country one is required to say בפ"נ; inferring that in א"י one is never required to say בפ"נ even if it is ממדינה למדינה. תוספות anticipates the following question: If the משנה would have stated that באותה מדינה במדה"י צריך, we could only infer that באותה מדינה בא"י אין צריך. We would not be able to infer that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך. Therefore (according to רבה) the משנה chose to state that ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, and (only) from this we can infer that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך. תוספות responds; that in the view of רבה once we infer that באותה מדינה בא"י אין צריך, then we will inevitably conclude that ממדינה למדינה בא"י also אין צריך, – דלרבה אין חילוק בין אותה מדינה ובין ממדינה למדינה – For according to רבה there is no conceptual difference between bringing the גט in the same state, and bringing the גט from state to state. Once we know that א"י באותה מדינה you are not required to say בפ"נ, obviously they are בקיאין לשמה. The same rule would then apply to ממדינה למדינה בא"י, since according to רבה the (only) reason for saying בפ"נ is because אין בקיאין לשמה. The question remains why did the משנה state that ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך וכו', the משנה could have stated that באותה מדינה במדה"י צריך וכו'.¹ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנקט הכי לאשמועינן דלא נימא – And one can say; that the משנה states it in this manner of המביא ממדינה למדינה במדה"י וכו' to let us know that we should not mistakenly surmise if the משנה would have stated המביא באותה מדינה במדה"י וכו' – דממדינה למדינה בארך ישראל צריך נמי משום קיום כרבא – that from one state to another state in א"י one is also required to say בפ"נ in order to authenticate the עדים as רבא requires², therefore – קא משמע לן אין צריך דטעמא לאו משום קיום – the משנה teaches us by stating that (only) המביא ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך but המביא ממדינה למדינה בא"י is not required to say בפ"נ, because the reason of saying בפ"נ is not on account of קיום, but rather only on account of לשמה. The בני א"י, since they are בקיאין לשמה are never required to say בפ"נ even ממדינה למדינה. תוספות will offer another reason why ממדינה למדינה בא"י one is not required to say בפ"נ even according to the מסקנא that רבה אית ליה דרבא³

Or you may also answer; one is not required to say בפ"נ by ממדינה למדינה בא"י, because there were frequent עולי רגלים who came from all parts of א"י to the בית המקדש and they traveled ממדינה למדינה בא"י therefore there were always עדים מצויין לקיימו, as the גמרא will shortly conclude.⁴

SUMMARY According to רבה, the משנה states ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, so we should infer, that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך. In the הוה אמינא the דין is אין צריך because we are not concerned about קיום. In the מסקנא there is no concern of קיום since עדים מצויין לקיימו. Had the משנה said באותה מדינה במדה"י צריך, I would think that ממדינה למדינה בא"י צריך. In the הו"א that would be a refutation of רבה that בפ"נ is said only on account of לשמה. In the מסקנא it would cause a false conclusion that ממדינה למדינה בא"י there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות states that the term באותה מדינה במדה"י may lead us to conclude that ממדינה למדינה בא"י one is required to say בפ"נ. There is a similar problem with stating ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, for we may infer that באותה מדינה במדה"י one is not required to say בפ"נ. It appears that this is a worse conclusion, as far as רבה is concerned, than the previous concern. In the former we may conclude that maybe רבא is also correct; in the latter it completely refutes רבה. Why then (according to רבה) did the משנה choose the phrase ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך?⁵

footnotes: ¹ We would gain by stating באותה מדינה צריך that there would be no possibility of the misinterpretation that can be caused if the משנה states המביא ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך; namely that באותה מדינה במדה"י, one would not be required to say בפ"נ (see ‘Overview’). ² We are indeed presently discussing רבה who is not concerned whether there are עדים מצויין לקיימו. However were the משנה to state באותה מדינה במדה"י צריך, we (who are not certain whether רבה or רבא is correct) would only be able to infer that באותה מדינה בא"י there is no requirement for בפ"נ. However ממדינה למדינה בא"י there is a requirement to say בפ"נ, for perhaps רבא is also right. By stating ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, thus excluding ממדינה למדינה בא"י, the משנה (according to רבה) gives credence to the view of לשמה, and disregards the view of קיום. ³ According to the מסקנא of the גמרא we maintain that רבה agrees that the טעם for saying בפ"נ is both on account of לשמה and קיום. We cannot therefore give the previous answer of תוספות that the משנה states ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך to exclude ממדינה למדינה בא"י from saying בפ"נ, since we are not concerned about קיום. According to the מסקנא even רבה is concerned about קיום. Why should ממדינה למדינה בא"י be excluded from saying בפ"נ? Therefore תוספות presents us with an alternate answer. ⁴ That even according to רבא, a גט that is brought ממדינה למדינה בא"י, there is no requirement to say בפ"נ since עדים are שכיחי. ⁵ See עד"ז במהר"ם שי"ף בתוס' זה ד"ה בא"ד וי"ל.

אי מההיא הוה אמינא הני מילי דיעבד—If it was derived from there I would have said that it applies only if it already occurred.

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that (according to רבה) the phrase ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, was written so that we should infer from it that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך. The גמרא asked: we do not need any inference; the פטור in א"י is clearly stated in the סיפא: המביא גט בא"י א"צ וכו'. To which the גמרא replied “That from thereI may think that the פטור is only בדיעבד”. Our תוספות will be discussing what the גמרא means when it states ‘from there’; are we referring to the inference from the רישא, or to the more explicit statement of the סיפא. תוספות will also discuss what precisely is meant by the term דיעבד.

פירש בקונטרס אי מדיוקא דרישא – רש"י interprets that when the גמרא states ‘if it was derived from there’, that the term ‘there’ refers to ‘from the inference that was made from the beginning’ of the משנה. The משנה stated ממדינה למדינה במדה"י צריך, from which we inferred that ממדינה למדינה בא"י אין צריך. This inference would have taught us that only בדיעבד is בפ"נ not required ממדינה למדינה בא"י, but I would have maintained that initially even ממדינה למדינה בא"י, one must say בפ"נ. The סיפא which states המביא גט בא"י אין צריך וכו' teaches us that even לכתחילה there is no requirement to say בפ"נ(even) ממדינה למדינה בא"י. ופירש כן משום דאסיפא לא הוה מצי למימר הני מילי דיעבד – And רש"י interpreted in this manner that הו"א הנ"מ דיעבד is referring to the דיוקא דרישא for concerning the סיפא which states המביא גט בא"י אינו צריך לומר בפ"נ the גמרא could not have said that it applies only בדיעבד, but לכתחילה I may have assumed that he is required to say בפ"נ – דהא בהדיא קתני אין צריך דמשמע לכתחילה – For it is clearly stated in the סיפא that he is not required to say**** בפ"נ if he brings a גט בא"י which implies that initially he is not required to say בפ"נ ¹. תוספות is not satisfied with this interpretation: ומיהו לשון אי מההיא לא משמע הכי – However the expression ‘if it is derived from there’ does not indicate so; the way רש"י interprets it. The לשון 'אי מההיא', indicates that we are discussing the סיפא of המביא גט בא"י אין צריך וכו'². תוספות will now offer his interpretation that 'אי מההיא' can indeed refer to the סיפא: ונראה ליישב דהכא שייך למיתני אין צריך בדיעבד – And it appears that it can be resolved that here in this case it is possible to state ‘he is not required’ which usually implies לכתחילה; nevertheless here it can mean בדיעבד. This may seem contradictory; the term ‘not required’ means he is not required to do something. Seemingly when the משנה states המביא גט בא"י א"צ לומר בפ"נ, means he is not required to say בפ"נ, how can we interpret it to mean that if he did not say בפ"נ it is כשר בדיעבד? What would the term אין צריך mean? What is he not required to do?! תוספות explains: The term אין צריך – כלומר אין צריך ליטלו הימנה כשלא אמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – Means to say he is not required to retrieve the גט from the woman when he did not say בפ"נ ובפ"נ. One may think that if he brought a גט בא"י and did not say בפ"נ he should be required initially to retrieve the גט from the woman and give it to her a second time after saying בפ"נ – דאמר לקמן כיצד יעשה יטלנה הימנה ויחזור ויתן לה בפני שנים – For the גמרא says later³ concerning a שליח who brought a גט ממדה"י, and gave it to the woman, and did not say בפ"נ: what should he do to rectify his mistake; he should retrieve the גט from the woman, then give it to her again in the presence of two witnesses – ויאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – And he should say (prior to this second giving) בפ"נ ובפ"נ. We might have thought that this same requirement would apply to המביא גט בא"י; that if the woman is still present, he is to retrieve it from her and give it to her again. Therefore the משנה states אין צריך, that even if the woman is present, he is not required to retrieve it from her, because in א"י a גט is כשר בדיעבד (even) if the שליח did not say בפ"נ. However לכתחילה a שליח may be required to say בפ"נ even in א"י. This is what we may have thought had the משנה written only the סיפא. Therefore we have the extra דיוקא דרישא, which teaches us that even לכתחילה one is not required to say בפ"נ in א"י; not only בדיעבד. תוספות will question the premise that had the משנה taught us only once the פטור of saying בפ"נ in א"י, we may have thought that the פטור in א"י is only בדיעבד, but לכתחילה even in א"י there is a requirement to say בפ"נ. אבל קשה דאמרינן בריש פרק ב' (לקמן דף טו,א) – However there is a difficulty; for we say later**** in the גמרא in the beginning of the second פרק. Concerning that which the משנה there says – המביא גט ממדינת הים ואמר בפני נכתב אבל לא בפני נחתם כולי פסול – ‘One who brings a גט from overseas and he said בפני נכתב, however he did not say בפני נחתם etc., the דין is that the גט is פסול’. ופריך בגמרא תנינא חדא זימנא המביא גט כולי – And the גמרא there asks on this previously quoted משנה, we have already learnt this דין one time previously. The גמרא then quotes our משנה, ‘one who brings a גט etc., is required to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ’. What is the משנה in פ"ב teaching us? ומשני אי מההיא הוה אמינא צריך ואי לא אמר כשר – And the גמרא there answers: if we would know this דין only from the משנה in פרק א', I may say that the דין is that he is required to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ as the משנה actually states. However if he did not say בפ"נ ובפ"נ, nevertheless the גט is כשר. In our משנה it is merely stated that one is required to say בפ"נ. It does not state that if one did not state בפ"נ the גט is פסול. Therefore we require the משנה in פ"ב to teach us that even בדיעבד, if one does not say בפ"נ the גט is פסול. This concludes the גמרא quoted from פ"ב. תוספות now continues with his question: והיכי הוה מצי למימר הכי הא אמרינן הכא – But how could the גמרא have said this; that from our משנה we would have thought that it is only a חיוב לכתחילה and not פסול בדיעבד; for we said here – דאי לא תנא אלא חד בבא הוה אמינא דבארץ ישראל לכתחילה צריך – That if the משנה would have taught us only one time concerning the exclusion of א"י from בפ"נ we would have said that in א"י initially it is required to say בפ"נ; the exclusion only teaches us that בדיעבד it is כשר. מכלל דבמדינת הים אפילו בדיעבד נמי צריך – This implies that in מדה"י the requirement to say בפ"נ applies even בדיעבד; meaning that if בפ"נ was not said the גט is פסול even בדיעבד. Our גמרא surmises that if it would say only once in the משנה that א"י is פטור, it would mean חייב לכתחילה and כשר בדיעבד. Obviously since חו"ל is different and more stringent than א"י, the requirement of saying בפ"נ is not only a חיוב לכתחילה but also פסול בדיעבד.⁴ These two גמרות seemingly contradict each other. Our גמרא seems to maintain that in our משנה the חיוב of בפ"נ in מדה"י is even בדיעבד. The גמרא in פ"ב maintains that the חיוב of our משנה is only לכתחילה and not בדיעבד. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמאחר דתנא הכא תרי בבי – And one can say: that after the משנה here states two cases – לאשמועינן דארץ ישראל אפילו לכתחילה אין צריך – To teach us that in א"י there is no requirement of בפ"נ even לכתחילה – אם כן מהשתא מצינן למימר דהא דצריך במדינת הים היינו לכתחילה – Therefore at this point⁵ (when we know for sure that בא"י אפילו לכתחילה אין צריך) we can say that the requirement to say בפ"נ in מדה"י is only לכתחילה אבל בדיעבד כשר להכי איצטריך מתניתין דפרק ב' – However, בדיעבד the גט will be כשר even without בפ"נ therefore we require the משנה in פ"ב to teach us that even בדיעבד the גט is פסול if בפ"נ was not said (properly). תוספות will offer another interpretation concerning what the גמרא states here that we need to be taught twice the פטור in א"י. ועוד נראה לרבינו יצחק דהכי פירושו – And furthermore it appears to the ר"י that this is the interpretation of the גמרא here, that if it would have said only the סיפא, we might have said – הני מילי בדיעבד שלא ראה כתיבת הגט וחתימתו – When does this ruling apply that בפ"נ is not required בא"י, only בדיעבד; this means that the שליח did not manage to see the writing and signing of the גט, only then do we not enforce the דין of saying בפ"נ in א"י – אבל לכתחילה צריך שיראה כתיבה הגט וחתימתו כדי שיוכל לומר בפני נכתב – However, initially even in א"י, the שליח is required to see the writing and signing of the גט in order that he be capable of saying בפ"נ – קא משמע לן דלא צריך – The משנה teaches us מדיוקא that he is not required at all to see כתיבת וחתימת הגט in א"י. According to this interpretation, when we thought that בא"י there is a requirement to say בפ"נ לכתחילה; it meant that he should לכתחילה see כתיבת וחתימת הגט in order to say בפ"נ. Therefore it follows that in חו"ל it is required not only that he see כתיבת וחתימת הגט, but even more, as תוספות continues – ובמדינת הים אם לא ראה כתיבת הגט וחתימתו אין יכול להביאו וליתנו לה – And in מדה"י we are stricter than in א"י; if the שליח did not see כתיבת וחתימת הגט he is not able to bring and deliver the גט to the woman. In א"י (according to the הו"א if it would say only the סיפא) one is required לכתחילה to see כתיבה וחתימת הגט in order to say בפ"נ. If the שליח did not see then 'בדיעבד' he may לכתחילה deliver the גט without saying בפ"נ. In חו"ל however, if the שליח does not see כתיבת וחתימת הגט we do not allow him לכתחילה to deliver such a גט – ואם הביא ונתנו הוה אמינא דכשר אי לא מתניתין דפרק ב' – However, if the שליח ‘transgressed’ and brought such a גט and delivered it to the woman, I would have thought that it is כשר בדיעבד even in מדה"י, were it not for the משנה in פ"ב, which states explicitly that if בפ"נ was not said it is פסול even בדיעבד. The contradiction is now resolved. If the פטור of א"י would say only once, we would assume that (even though לכתחילה he is required to see כתיבת הגט, nevertheless) if בדיעבד he did not see כתיבת הגט he may לכתחילה give the גט to the woman. However in מדה"י in such a בדיעבד where he did not see כתיבת הגט, he may not לכתחילה deliver the גט. This is what our גמרא states here. In פ"ב, the גמרא continues this pattern, that from our משנה in פ"א we would assume that even though he may not לכתחילה give a גט without saying בפ"נ, nevertheless if he did deliver the גט without saying בפ"נ, then בדיעבד it would be כשר. Therefore we have the משנה in פ"ב to teach us that even בדיעבד it is פסול. תוספות concludes: והשתא מיתרצה נמי פירכא קמייתא: And now that we have introduced a new type of לכתחילה and בדיעבד concerning המביא גט בא"י the first question that תוספות asked is also answered. We can now more easily understand that the גמרא when it says 'אי מההיא הו"א הנ"מ בדיעבד', is referring to א"י, and nonetheless I would have thought that only בדיעבד, if he did not see the writing of the גט, then he may deliver it without saying בפ"נ. Initially however he should make every attempt to see כתיבת הגט in order to say בפ"נ. Therefore the משנה teaches a second time that בפ"נ is not required at all in א"י. No attempt need be made to see the כתיבה הגט.

SUMMARY There is a disagreement between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of 'אי מההיא'. According to רש"י, it refers to the דיוקא דרישא. It cannot refer to the סיפא, because in the סיפא it states explicitly אין צריך וכו'. That means that even לכתחילה one is not required to say בפ"נ. תוספות is of the opinion that the expression 'אי מההיא' cannot be referring to the דיוקא דרישא, it must refer therefore to the סיפא; that the בא"י פטור is בדיעבד. However לכתחילה even בא"י בפ"נ is required. We will understand the term אין צריך to mean that if he did not say בפ"נ he is not required to retrieve the גט and redeliver it while saying בפ"נ. The ר"י (agrees with תוספות that מההיא refers to the סיפא and) maintains that the term בדיעבד means that if he did not see כתיבת הגט, he is not required to say בפ"נ. However לכתחילה he is required to see the כתיבת הגט, in order to say בפ"נ. This interpretation of the ר"י, resolves the following contradiction between the two גמרות concerning the duplicities of the משניות. In our הו"א it is inferred that the חיוב במדה"י is even בדיעבד, while the הו"א in פ"ב is that the חיוב במדה"י is only לכתחילה. According to the ר"י the two גמרות are discussing two different types of לכתחילה and בדיעבד. In our גמרא the חיוב בדיעבד means if he did not see כתיבת הגט he may not (לכתחילה) deliver it since he cannot say בפ"נ. In פ"ב this latter case is considered לכתחילה. The term בדיעבד means that even if he delivered the גט, if he did not say בפ"נ it is a גט פסול. תוספות himself answered the contradiction by stating that the הו"א in פ"ב was assumed only after the מסקנא in our גמרא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to רש"י⁶ why is it necessary to have the דיוקא דרישא; seemingly from the סיפא we know that the פטור בא"י is even לכתחילה?⁷
2. What are the relative strengths (and weaknesses) of sרש"י' and תוספות (including the ר"י) interpretation of 'אי מההיא וכו'? Appendix⁸ There are two גמרות which are explaining duplicities in the משניות. The גמרא here is explaining the duplicity concerning the פטור of saying בפ"נ in א"י. The גמרא in פ"ב, is explaining the duplicity concerning the חיוב of saying בפ"נ in מדה"י. The need for both these duplicities is basically the same; there is a difference between לכתחילה and בדיעבד. In our משנה the duplicity is needed to ascertain that the פטור בא"י is even לכתחילה. In פ"ב the duplicity is needed to ascertain that the חיוב במדה"י is even בדיעבד. These two explanations are at odds with each other in two respects. We maintain here that stating the פטור in א"י only once would mean that it is only פטור בדיעבד and לכתחילה there is a חיוב of בפ"נ in א"י. The only way we can make such an assumption, is if there is a more basic presumption that במדה"י the requirement for בפ"נ is even בדיעבד (otherwise מדה"י and א"י would be identical)⁹. The גמרא in פ"ב maintains that from the משנה in פ"א we would think that the חיוב במדה"י is only לכתחילה. To assume that, there must be a more basic presumption that בא"י the פטור is even לכתחילה (otherwise מדה"י and א"י would be identical). To summarize: our גמרא (in the הו"א) maintains explicitly that: a) the פטור בא"י is only בדיעבד, and (therefore by inference) b) the חיוב במדה"י is even בדיעבד. The גמרא in פ"ב (in the הו"א) maintains (by inference): a) the פטור in א"י is even לכתחילה, and (states explicitly) b) the חיוב במדה"י is only לכתחילה¹⁰. These two גמרות seemingly contradict each other. Specifically תוספות asks that the basic presumption of our גמרא that the במדה"י חיוב is even בדיעבד is in contradiction to the assumption of the הו"א in פ"ב, namely that the חיוב במדה"י is only לכתחילה. ¹¹ תוספות answers that after we have resolved the duplicity in א"י, that the פטור is even לכתחילה, we can then assume that the במדה"י חיוב is only לכתחילה. However this seems not to answer the question. It seems that תוספות asks the question according to the הו"א. The answer is that according to the מסקנא there is no question. Either there is a question or no need for an answer. At issue here is that the two גמרות are inherently contradicting each other as to the basic premise of the חיוב במדה"י; do we assume that it is only לכתחילה or even בדיעבד.¹² A possible solution may be as follows: There may be two types of assumptions in a הוה אמינא. One is created out of necessity. For example¹³; in our משנה since there is duplicity concerning the פטור בא"י; we therefore create a הו"א that in א"י the פטור is only בדיעבד. It would be difficult to say that if indeed the משנה only stated המביא גט בא"י א"צ וכו', that we would interpret it to mean only בדיעבד. There is another type of הו"א that is (more) inherent; in which the reading of the text itself ‘forces’ one to assume this position or הו"א. It is only because we find proof to the contrary, that we are required to abandon this הו"א. תוספות when he asked the question, assumed that the הו"א of the גמרא in פ"ב that our משנה is only חייב לכתחילה was based on an inherent assumption.¹⁴ This is the obvious reading of the text; it is צריך but not פסול. On the other hand, תוספות certainly understands that the basic presumption of our סוגיא that the חיוב במדה"י is even בדיעבד, is certainly inherently true. Therefore תוספות asks; How can the גמרא in פ"ב basically assume that the חיוב במדה"י is only לכתחילה? This defies the basic presumption of our גמרא that the חיוב במדה"י is even בדיעבד.¹⁵ תוספות answers that this is a mistaken assumption. There is no inherent הו"א concerning מדה"י whether our משנה means (only) לכתחילה or (even) בדיעבד. Our משנה may mean either. We are not sure.¹⁶ If it would mean only לכתחילה we will have to search for a different explanation for the duplicity of the פטור בא"י (and vice versa concerning the duplicity of מדה"י).¹⁷ It is a הו"א of convenience; both here and in פ"ב¹⁸. We are forced to assume the הו"א of either מדה"י or א"י to justify the duplicity of the משניות. There are no basic assumptions or presumptions. Therefore there are no basic inherent contradictions. Both הו"א are based on the fact that there is a dual duplicity. This is perhaps what תוספות refers to when he says that 'מהשתא מצינן למימר'; once either duplicity is stated and resolved; we know, for instance, that the בא"י פטור is certainly even לכתחילה, then 'מצינן למימר', as a matter of ‘convenience’; to explain the duplicity of מדה"י, we can justify such a הו"א. In the מסקנא (as well as in the הו"א) there are no inherent contradictions. Each duplicity was stated so that no matter what the basic presumptions are, the דין will be very clear; במדה"י חייב אפילו בדיעבד and בא"י פטור אפילו לכתחילה.

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² The גמרא was discussing the phrase 'ממדינה למדינה במדה"י, saying that it excludes ממדינה למדינה בא"י. The גמרא then brought another phrase from the סיפא of the משנה (המביא גט בא"י א"צ) which states clearly (and not only from an inference) that בפ"נ is not required in א"י. This seemingly makes superfluous the need for the previous inference. To which the גמרא replies (seemingly) that the previous inference is still necessary: ‘for אי מההיא, if it were to state only there, etc.’ It would seem that the phrase ‘only there’ is referring to the contradictory quote from the סיפא. The question is ‘from there’, and the answer concerning ‘from there’ should be identical to the question. ³ דף ה,ב ⁴ If, as the גמרא asserts in פ"ב, our משנה can be understood that ממדה"י one is only required to say בפ"נ לכתחילה, why does our משנה need to teach us twice concerning the פטור in א"י? Since חו"ל which is obligated to say בפ"נ, nevertheless it is only a לכתחילה obligation, then obviously א"י which is not required to say בפ"נ, it must mean a פטור לכתחילה, otherwise it is identical with חו"ל. ⁵ While we were still debating the need for the משנה to teach us twice the פטור in א"י, we definitely maintained that the חיוב בחו"ל is even בדיעבד. Otherwise we would not be able to resolve the need to teach us twice the פטור in א"י. Once that issue was resolved that in א"י the פטור is even לכתחילה, then we may imagine that the חיוב in חו"ל is also only לכתחילה. The issues depend on each other. We usually assume the minimum חידוש. Therefore we at first assume the פטור in א"י to be minimum; only בדיעבד. After we are ‘forced’ by the duplicity of the משנה to assume the פטור in א"י to be even לכתחילה; then we assume the minimum in the חיוב of חו"ל. It is limited only to לכתחילה. For additional discussion of this matter, see ‘Appendix’. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ See מהרש"א הארוך and נח"מ. ⁸ See footnote # 5. The phrase 'קצרה יד לשונו בהעתקתו אל הקולמוס', may apply to various sections of this ‘Appendix’. ⁹ The basic presumption (which we infer from the הו"א) is more elementary and valid than the assumption of the הו"א itself. This is evidenced by the fact the basic presumption allows us to assume such a הו"א. More importantly the basic presumption remains in the מסקנא, as opposed to the assumption of the הו"א which is refuted by the duplicity of the משנה. ¹⁰ תוספות only questions contradiction ‘b’ concerning the חיוב במדה"י, not contradiction ‘a’ concerning the פטור in א"י. ¹¹ This question may be rephrased as follows: Let the משנה duplicate only the פטור of א"י, this would force us to assume that in חו"ל the חיוב is even בדיעבד (for if it were also only לכתחילה, there could never be a הו"א that בא"י it is also [פטור בדיעבד but] חייב לכתחילה). Then it would not be necessary to repeat the משנה in פ"ב, for we have sufficient proof from the duplicity of the פטור in א"י that the חיוב במדה"י is בדיעבד. This question can also be reversed that the duplicity should only be concerning חו"ל and not concerning א"י. ¹² Similarly there is a basic contradiction whether the פטור in א"י is לכתחילה or בדיעבד. ¹³ This example is more appropriate according to תוספות explanation of 'אי מההיא הו"א הנ"מ דיעבד'. ¹⁴ This may also explain why תוספות did not question the other contradiction: How can we have a הו"א that א"י is פטור only בדיעבד; this contradicts the presumption in פ"ב that understands the חיוב of our משנה to be only לכתחילה, thereby inferring that the פטור בא"י is even לכתחילה? תוספות perhaps could not maintain that the assumption that the פטור בא"י is only בדיעבד to be an inherent one, especially not according to his פשט inאי מההיא הו"א הנ"מ בדיעבד. ¹⁵ Stated slightly differently; we cannot have inherent contradictory presumptions. ¹⁶ Similarly (or even more so according to תוספות) there is no inherent הו"א that the פטור of א"י is only בדיעבד. ¹⁷ We may use the following explanation of the ר"י. We cannot ask therefore (see footnote # 11) let there be only one duplicity (e.g. concerning א"י) and we will know the other (מדה"י). There is no valid presumption. Even after the duplicity of א"י we may still argue that מדה"י is לכתחילה. The presumption of the הו"א has no inherent value. We can always maintain that there is a different צריכותא. ¹⁸ Therefore there is no logical contradiction.

כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי —Since there are Holiday Pilgrims who ascend to ירושלים, witnesses will be frequently found.

OVERVIEW An occupant of a property – מחזיק – is required to retain his deed – שטר – for a period of (at least) three years from the time of his ownership. Otherwise the previous owner may challenge the occupant’s ownership. [After three years he is considered a מוחזק and no one can challenge his ownership, even if he has no שטר.] If during these three years the previous owner issued a protest – מחאה – challenging the occupant’s ownership, the מחזיק must retain his שטר for an additional three years from the date of the last מחאה. This מחאה need not be made in the presence of the מחזיק; it may be issued in his absence. This is called a מחאה שלא בפניו. There are circumstances in which this מחאה שלא בפניו is not valid, as תוספות will shortly discuss. In those instances when the מחאה is not valid, the מחזיק needs to retain his שטר until the original owner is in a situation where he can make a legitimate מחאה. Our גמרא states that in all of א"י, even ממדינה למדינה, there are עדים מצויין לקיימו since there are עולי רגלים. -------------------- תוספות anticipates the following question: ואף על גב דלענין מחאה שלא בפניו אמרינן בחזקת הבתים (בבא בתרא דף לח,ב) – And even though that concerning ‘a protest not in the presence of the occupier of the property’ the גמרא states in פרק חזקת הבתים that – סתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמי ולא הוי מחאה – Generally the states of יהודה and גליל are comparable to a time of crisis in which people do not travel from state to state and therefore it is not considered to be a מחאה, since the protest was issued in יהודה and the מחזיק lived in גליל or vice versa, we assume that the מחזיק did not hear of the מחאה. The חזקה is therefore not a good חזקה. Since the מחזיק knows that the מערער cannot make a מחאה which will reach the מחזיק, he must be careful to retain the deed. We derive from that גמרא that generally there is no traffic between יהודה and גליל. How is it that the גמרא states here that everywhere in א"י there are עדים מצויין לקיימו even between יהודה and גליל, on account of the עולי רגלים? תוספות answers and distinguishes between חזקה and גיטין: היינו משום שאין המחזיק דרכו לחזור אם עשו מחאה – This is because it is not customary for the מחזיק to inquire if a מחאה was made¹ – אבל הכא שמחזרת אחר עדים המכירים חתימת העדים מצויין לקיימו – However in this case of the woman who received a גט from her husband, who is coming to contest the ²גט; then she inquires about witnesses³ who recognize the signatures of the witnesses that signed the גט. She is diligently pursuing finding these witnesses. We can rest assured that this minimal traffic is sufficient. Witnesses will be found to authenticate the signatures, even between יהודה וגליל, since there are עולי רגלים. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דלקמן (דף ו,א) משמע איפכא – And if you will say; later in the גמרא it appears to be just the opposite, of what we stated here. From our גמרא it appears, based on תוספות previous explanation, that it is more likely to find עדים for קיום than for a מחזיק to hear a מחאה. We may surmise that whenever עדים for קיום are not שכיחי (which requires בפ"נ to be said), then certainly (in the same situation) a מחאה will not be valid. This is in contrast to the גמרא there, in which there is a discussion – גבי בני מחוזא דניידי ומצרכי בפני נכתב משכונה לשכונה – Concerning the citizens of מחוזא who travel constantly, and the גמרא requires that בפ"נ needs to be said even when a גט is sent from one neighborhood to another neighborhood in מחוזא. This leads us to conclude that in מחוזא, there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו – אטו במחוזא מי לא הוה מחאה – Can we then assume that in מחוזא a מחאה שלא בפניו will not be considered as a valid מחאה?!⁴ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם אפילו ימחה בפני בני אדם שהולכים להם – And one can say; there in מחוזא even if he makes the מחאה in the presence of people that are leaving מחוזא, leaving one to think that it should not be a מחאה since they are leaving מחוזא and will not inform the מחזיק about the מחאה. This is not so. Even though they are leaving and not informing the מחזיק – מכל מקום דרך הליכתם יאמרו לאחרים וחברא חברא אית ליה כדאמרינן התם – Nevertheless in their travels they will tell others concerning this מחאה, and that friend has another friend etc., as the גמרא states there in ⁵ב"ב. Therefore it is a valid מחאה for it will eventually get back to the מחזיק – אבל לענין קיום כיון דניידי לא ימצא קיום כשיצטריך להם: However, concerning קיום, since they are traveling they will not be available for קיום when they will be needed; for they are traveling.⁶

SUMMARY The traffic between יהודה וגליל is not sufficient for a מחזיק to hear a מחאה, since he is not expecting one. It is sufficient however for the woman to find עדי קיום since she is aggressively searching for them to maintain her new marital status. Concerning מחוזא, the מחזיק will hear of a מחאה issued in מחוזא for those traveling will tell their fellow travelers about the מחאה and word will get back to the מחזיק (in מחוזא). The woman however needs the witnesses in person to authenticate the חתימה. However, they may be out of town and unavailable to be מקיים the גט when the woman needs them. Therefore in such cities בפ"נ must be said even משכונה לשכונה.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that concerning יהודה וגליל even though it is כשעת חירום דמי, that people do not travel frequently, nevertheless we maintain that בפ"נ is not necessary since the woman will seek out the witnesses who recognize the חתימות; however concerning מחוזא she will not be able to seek out these witnesses? Similarly, why is it that concerning יהודה וגליל the מחזיק will not hear the מחאה, however in מחוזא he will hear the מחאה?⁷

footnotes: ¹ The מחזיק is secure in the knowledge that he owns this property rightfully. He does not at all suspect that anything fraudulent occurred. He therefore makes no effort to inquire whether anyone is making a מחאה. Therefore the minimal traffic between יהודה וגליל is not sufficient to alert him to the מחאה. ² There is no חיוב to say בפ"נ in א"י. If the husband will be מערער then the גט needs to be מקויים. In א"י there are עדים מצויין לקיימו since there are עולי רגלים (ובתי דינין דקביעי). ³ She needs to be מקיים the גט against the ערעור הבעל to retain her status as a מגורשת, etc. ⁴ On one hand based on what תוספות said previously we will assume that if the woman cannot find עדים in מחוזא itself, then certainly the מחזיק will not hear of the מחאה. However it is somewhat incredulous to assume that in the same city a מחאה שלא בפניו is not a מחאה. ⁵ Eventually the word will get back to the מחזיק. People travel to מחוזא often; especially the people of מחוזא themselves. ⁶ Word of mouth is of no avail for קיום; only for מחאה. Those people that recognize the signatures will be out of town (for an extended period of time). The woman will not be able to either remarry or to remain with her new husband on account of the ערעור הבעל and lack of קיום. ⁷ See זיו הים.

ואמר רבי יצחק עיר אחת היתה בארץ ישראל כולי—And ר' יצחק said; there was one city in א"י etc.

OVERVIEW From the גמרא it appears that in order to refute רבה, we need the testimony of ר' יצחק that the two הגמוניות were in א"י. תוספות challenges that assumption. ----------------- בלא רבי יצחק נמי יש להוכיח דבארץ ישראל היתה – Without the testimony of ר' יצחק, who testified that these two הגמוניות were in א"י, it is also conclusive that these two הגמוניות were in א"י – דבחוצה לארץ באותה הגמוניא נמי צריך לרבה כיון דאין בקיאין לשמה- For were they to be in חו"ל, then even within the same הגמוניא there would be a requirement to say בפ"נ**, according to רבה since they are not בקי in** the laws of לשמה. If the הגמוניות were in חו"ל, why does רשב"ג state that from הגמוניא to הגמוניא one is required to say בפ"נ; according to רבה even within the same הגמוניא one is required to say בפ"נ, since they are not בקיאין לשמה. Therefore we must say that according to רבה the דין of two הגמוניות are in א"י.

SUMMARY We do not need the testimony of ר' יצחק to prove that the two הגמוניות were in א"י. Rather it is self understood according to רבה. For if they are in חו"ל why is the requirement for בפ"נ only מהגמוניא להגמוניא it should be even in the same הגמוניא, since in חו"ל the people are אין בקיאין לשמה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Where would there be a greater difficulty for רבה; if the two הגמוניות were both in א"י or both in חו"ל?
2. What is the opinion of רבה if a שליח brings a גט in חו"ל from one place to another, in the same city?¹

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ב,ב ד"ה אי נמי.

שהיו מקפידין זה על זה—They were particular with each other

OVERVIEW רשב"ג requires that בפ"נ be said מהגמוניא להגמוניא since there were hostilities between them. תוספות anticipated question is; there were hostilities between יהודה וגליל and nevertheless there is no requirement to say בפ"נ between יהודה וגליל. Why is מהגמוניא להגמוניא any different? ------------------ תוספות explains: וחירום דידהו הוי טפי מחירום דיהודה וגליל – And their hostilities (of the two הגמוניות) were greater than the hostilities between יהודה and גליל. The traffic between the הגמוניות was so limited that it is highly unlikely that there would be עדים מצויין לקיימו. Therefore there is a חיוב to say בפ"נ מהגמוניא להגמוניא even though that מיהודה לגליל, there is no חיוב.

SUMMARY The difficulty of traveling between the two הגמוניות was greater than traveling between יהודה וגליל. Therefore between יהודה וגליל there is no חיוב of בפ"נ, since there are sufficient travelers that there will be עדים מצויין לקיימו. However between the הגמוניות the traffic is so restricted that there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו. Therefore אמירת בפ"נ is required.

THINKING IT OVER Do the רבנן and רשב"ג dispute each other concerning: a) מיהודה לגליל? b) מהגמוניא להגמוניא?¹

footnotes: ¹ See נחלת משה.

רבה אית ליה דרבא—רבא agrees to the reason ofרבה

OVERVIEW One of the basic disagreements between רבה and רבא is whether ידענו מהני or not.¹ רבא maintains that if two עדים say we recognize the עדי חתימה of the גט, that is sufficient and it removes the need to say בפ"נ ובפ"נ. Therefore, since ידענו מהני, there is a חשש of איחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא בעד אחד. To prevent this איחלופי we have the שליח also say בפני נכתב. However, רבה maintains that ידענו לא מהני, therefore there can be no איחלופי and there would be no need for בפני נכתב if the reason was only משום קיום. That proves, according to רבה, that בפ"נ ובפ"נ is said (also) משום לשמה. The גמרא here concludes that since רבה אית ליה דרבא, therefore it is understood why בפ"נ ובפ"נ is required מהגמוניא להגמוניא בא"י. Our תוספות questions that assumption.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אמאי צריך לרבה בפני נכתב מהגמוניא להגמוניא – And if you will say; why does רבה require the saying of בפני נכתב (specifically) when a גט is brought מהגמוניא להגמוניא? The two הגמוניות were in א"י. There is no חשש of לשמה. There is only a חשש of קיום. To resolve the חשש of קיום, only בפני נחתם is required not בפני נכתב. According to רבא who is concerned about איחלופי – that we may confuse שאר שטרות with גיטי נשים, and maintain that by שאר שטרות one עד is sufficient², it is understood that בפני נכתב is said to prevent that there be no איחלופי – והא רבה לא חייש לאיחלופי כיון דידענו לא מהני – However, רבה is not concerned that there may be confusion between גיטין and שאר שטרות since according to רבה, even if two עדים say we recognize the signatures, it is not sufficient.³ Therefore there is no חשש of איחלופי. The question is; why is בפני נכתב required? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמתחילה לא היו מתקנין בפני נכתב משום איחלופי – And one can say; that initially the חכמים would not have instituted that the שליח הגט also say בפני נכתב on account of our concern for איחלופי. As mentioned, רבה is not concerned about איחלופי⁴ – אבל כיון דתקינו משום לשמה במדינת הים תקנו שיאמר בכל מקום אף בארץ ישראל- However, once the חכמים instituted that בפני נכתב needs to be said במדה"י on account of לשמה (for the people of מדה"י are not בקי in לשמה);**** the חכמים already instituted that it be said everywhere even in א"י; where there is no inherent need to say בפני נכתב. Nevertheless the חכמים wanted to institute a universal תקנה to avoid any confusion.

SUMMARY Even if the reason for saying בפ"נ is (also) משום קיום, nevertheless (according to רבה), only בפני נחתם would be essentially required in א"י and not בפני נכתב. There would be no need to say בפני נכתב, for since ידענו לא מהני, there will be no איחלופי, and in א"י they are בקיאין לשמה. However once בפני נכתב is required במדה"י on account of לשמה, the חכמים instituted it even in א"י.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות claims according to רבה that ידענו לא מהני.⁵ Perhaps this can be qualified; that ידענו לא מהני according to רבה only in מדה"י (where there is a concern of לשמה) but in א"י perhaps even רבה agrees that ידענו מהני.⁶ Therefore there is a חשש of איחלופי.⁷ That is why בפני נכתב is said בא"י; not because of לא פלוג as תוספות maintains.

footnotes: ¹ See previous גמרא ג,א and the תוספות there ד"ה הכא, אטו, מאן. ² רבא is of the opinion that ידענו is valid by גיטין. It is also valid by שאר שטרות. Therefore if בפני נכתב were not said, people would assume that בפני נחתם is a regular קיום. They will then mistakenly assume that even by שאר שטרות one עד is sufficient for קיום just like by גיטין. See תוספות ג,א ד"ה אטו. ³ We must maintain that even according to the מסקנא that רבה אית ליה דרבא, nevertheless ידענו לא מהני לרבה. Otherwise why does not רבה completely agree with רבא that the טעם is only משום קיום and not משום לשמה at all? See תוספות ג,א ד"ה מאן. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ This is the reason why רבה still disagrees with רבא who maintains that the only reason for saying בפ"נ is משום קיום. רבה however claims that if that were the case, בפני נכתב would be superfluous. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ ידענו is מהני in א"י because there is no concern of לשמה. ⁷ See מהרש"א הארוך, מהר"ם שי"ף, בל"י, et al.

אלא מאי בינייהו—So in what do they differ

OVERVIEW After the גמרא establishes that רבה אית ליה דרבא and רבה agrees that there is also the טעם of קיום, the גמרא then asks; what is the difference between רבה and רבא (in the case of ממדינה למדינה בא"י). They will both agree that בפ"נ is (generally¹) not required בא"י. Seemingly this same question arises as soon as the גמרא said (previously) that בפ"נ is not required ממדינה למדינה בא"י even according to רבא, since עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי. Our תוספות will explain why the question is valid only after we maintain that רבה אית ליה דרבא and not previously².

לעיל כי משני כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי – Previously when the גמרא answered the question, why רבא does not require בפ"נ ממדינה למדינה בא"י; to which the גמרא replied, ‘since there are pilgrims in א"י, therefore witnesses can be easily found’. That is why בפ"נ is not required in א"י. It follows therefore that both רבה and רבא agree that ממדינה למדינה בא"י there is no requirement to say בפ"נ. תוספות states (negatively) the anticipated question: לא הוה מצי למיבעי מאי בינייהו – The גמרא could not have asked the same question the גמרא is asking now, namely what is the practical difference between the opinions of רבה ורבא; since they both agree that בפ"נ is not required ממדינה למדינה בא"י.³ תוספות responds; that at that point there is no valid question: דאכתי איכא בינייהו מקומות דלא קביעי בתי דינין או שמקפידין זה על זה – For there is as yet a difference between רבה ורבא ממדינה למדינה בא"י; in such places where there are no established בתי דינין or they are hostile to each other; in these two aforementioned cases (before we concluded that רבה אית ליה דרבא) there would be a difference between רבה ורבא in א"י. According to רבה there is no need for בפ"נ since they are בקיאין לשמה (and at this point רבה does not yet agree to רבא). According to רבא however, בפ"נ would be required; since there are no בתי דינים in this vicinity or they are extremely hostile to each other there are no עדים מצויין לקיימו. It is only when we establish that רבה אית ליה דרבא; then even in these (two) instances רבה and רבא would both agree that בפ"נ is required. Therefore the גמרא rightfully asks at this point: מאי בינייהו!

SUMMARY The question: ‘What is the practical difference between רבה ורבא in א"י’, is valid only after we establish that רבה אית ליה דרבא. For then they will both agree that if there are עדים מצויין לקיימו then בפ"נ will not be required בא"י; otherwise it will be required. However before we established that רבה אית ליה דרבא, even though we have concluded that in א"י since there are עולי רגלים (or בתי דינין) therefore עדים are מצויין לקיימו, nevertheless there will still be a difference between רבה ורבא; specifically in the cases where there are no בתי דינין קביעי or where the two cities are מקפידין זה על זה.

THINKING IT OVER How is תוספות convinced that in the cases of מקפידין זע"ז and לא קביעי בתי דינין,⁴ one would be required to say בפ"נ in א"י according to רבא?

footnotes: ¹ Except in cases mentioned at the end of תוספות where they will both agree that it is required. ² See: רש"י ד"ה אלא who maintains clearly that the question actually refers to both this conclusion of רבה אית ליה דרבא and the previous answer of כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי. Our תוספות will seemingly disagree with רש"י. See however סוכת דוד אות ס' in the first parenthesis. ³ The original difference between רבה and רבא in the case of ממדינה למדינה בא"י was that according to רבה, בפ"נ is required and according to רבא it is not required. As soon as the גמרא said that even according to רבה, בפ"נ is not required in א"י, that difference was eliminated. This question does not seemingly become any stronger when the גמרא also concludes that רבה אית ליה דרבא. Therefore the question is why did the גמרא wait till it concluded that רבה אית ליה דרבא, and not ask this question immediately when we answered that כיון דאיכא עולי רגלים מישכח שכיחי? ⁴ See רש"ש.