In this shiur, we will be learning the sugya on Daf 16b, where the Gemara continues to delve into the machlokes between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a get brought from overseas. We will look closely at the different versions of Rabbi Yoḥanan's opinion regarding whether two agents who bring a get must make the declaration of "it was written in our presence and signed in our presence."
We will also see how the Gemara connects this discussion to the fundamental machlokes between Rabba and Rava regarding the underlying reason for the declaration—whether it is because of a lack of experts in writing a get lishmah, or because of a lack of witnesses to ratify the signatures. The Gemara will analyze whether these Amoraic opinions are actually a dispute among the Tanna'im.
כָּשֵׁר.
it is valid.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, אֵין צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.
Consequently, he holds that two who brought a get from overseas, do not need to say: "In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed."
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר;
Abaye said to him: If so, consider the latter clause which teaches: Two say "In our presence it was written" and one says "In my presence it was signed" — it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda declares it valid;
טַעְמָא דְּאֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָא גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן?!
is the reason that it is invalid only because the get does not emerge from under the hands of both of them, but if the get emerges from under the hands of both of them — would the Rabbis declare it valid?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
He said to him: Yes, indeed.
וְכִי אֵין גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?
And when the get does not emerge from under the hands of both of them, in what principle do they argue?
מָר סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן דִּלְמָא אָתְיָא לְאִיחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא – בְּעֵד אֶחָד; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא גָּזְרִינַן.
One Master holds: We decree it invalid lest it come to be confused with the ratification of general documents — with one witness; and one Master holds: We do not decree.
לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמְרִי לַהּ: אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם – פָּסוּל.
Another version they say of it: Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said that Rabbi Yochanan said: Even if the get emerges from under the hands of both of them — it is invalid.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״.
Consequently, he holds that two who brought a get from overseas, need to say "In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed."
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ – פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר; אֲפִילּוּ גֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם פָּסְלִי רַבָּנַן?!
Abaye said to him: If so, consider the latter clause which teaches: Two say "In our presence it was written" and one says "In my presence it was signed" — it is invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda declares it valid; is it true that even when the get emerges from under the hands of both of them, the Rabbis declare it invalid?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין.
He said to him: Yes.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?
In what principle do they argue?
מָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.
One Master holds: The reason for the declaration is because they are not expert in writing it lishmah; and one Master holds: The reason is because witnesses are not available to ratify it.
לֵימָא דְּרַבָּה וְרָבָא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא?
Shall we say that the dispute of Rabba and Rava is a dispute of Tannaim?
לָא; רָבָא מְתָרֵץ כְּלִישָּׁנָא קַמָּא,
No; Rava resolves the difficulty according to the first version,
וְרַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּמְדוּ;
and Rabba could say to you: Everyone agrees we require the declaration because of lishmah, and here with what are we dealing? After they learned to write it lishmah;
וּבִגְזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר הַדָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן.
and regarding a decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state they argue — as one Master holds we decree, and one Master holds we do not decree.
וְלִיפְלוֹג נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵישָׁא!
But let Rabbi Yehuda argue also in the first clause of the Mishnah!
הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר עוּלָּא: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַף בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה.
But surely it was stated on this, Ulla said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even in the first clause.
מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְעוּלָּא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר בְּזוֹ וְלֹא בְּאַחֶרֶת.
Rav Oshaya challenged Ulla: A Baraisa states, "Rabbi Yehuda declares valid in this case and not in another."
מַאי, לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״?!
What, is it not to exclude the case where one says "In my presence it was written" and one says "In my presence it was signed"?
לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי ״בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב״ –
No, it is to exclude a case where only one witness says "In my presence it was signed but not in my presence was it written" —
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר דָּבָר לְקִלְקוּלוֹ; דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִחַלּוֹפֵי בְּקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, בְּעֵד אֶחָד – נָמֵי לָא גָּזַר; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
for it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yehuda did not decree a decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state, perhaps regarding the concern that it might come to be confused with the ratification of general documents with one witness — he also did not decree; therefore it teaches us that he does decree in that case.
אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
It was also stated, Rav Yehuda said: Two who brought a get from overseas, we have arrived at the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה חֲלַשׁ, עוּל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּה, לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ.
Rabba bar bar Chana was weak, so Rav Yehuda and Rabba entered to him, to inquire about him.
בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין?
They asked of him: Two who brought a get from overseas, do they need to say "In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed," or do they not need to say it?
אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין צְרִיכִין – מָה אִילּוּ יֹאמְרוּ ״בְּפָנֵינוּ גֵּירְשָׁהּ״, מִי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?!
He said to them: They do not need — for what if they were to say "In our presence he divorced her," would they not be believed?!
אַדְּהָכִי, אֲתָא הָהוּא
In the meantime, there came a certain
The Gemara presents two versions of Rabbi Yoḥanan's ruling on whether two agents bringing a get must make the declaration. In the first version, they do not need to make the declaration, and the machlokes between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda in the latter clause of our Mishnah is based on a rabbinic decree regarding the ratification of documents. In the second version, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that even two agents must make the declaration, which aligns with Rabba's view that the decree is due to a lack of expertise in writing a get lishmah. The Gemara explains that according to this second version, the Tanna'im are arguing over whether we decree a get invalid lest the people overseas return to their previous state of ignorance regarding lishmah. Finally, the Gemara discusses Ulla's view that Rabbi Yehuda actually disagrees with the Rabbis even in the first clause of the Mishnah, and addresses a challenge to this from a baraita.
In our daf, the Gemara discusses the rabbinic decree requiring the declaration "it was written and signed in my presence" even after the Jews overseas had already learned the proper halachos. The Rabbis ruled that the declaration must remain, out of a concern "lest the matter return to its corrupt state"—meaning, if we let down our guard just because things are currently stable, people will eventually forget and slip back into their old, mistaken ways.
This contains a profound lesson for our personal avodah. How often do we make positive changes in our lives, establish a beautiful daily learning seder, or work hard to fix a bad middah, only to let our guard down once we feel secure? We think, "I have this under control now, I don't need those extra boundaries anymore." But the human nature the Torah describes is that without constant, active safeguards, we naturally drift backward. The moment we stop protecting our spiritual achievements is the moment they begin to slip away.
To keep your spiritual growth alive and lasting, you must treat your good habits with the same vigilance you did when you first started. Do not dismantle the boundaries and structures that helped you grow in the first place, even if you feel you have outgrown them.
Identify one spiritual boundary or daily commitment that you have recently started to take lightly, and consciously reinforce it today to ensure your growth remains secure.