QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the status of Bavel with regard to the delivery of a Get. Rav maintains that Bavel is like Eretz Yisrael, and one is not required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when he delivers a Get from one part of Bavel to another. Shmuel disagrees and maintains that Bavel is like Chutz la'Aretz, and one is required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" there.

The Gemara initially proposes that the reason why Rav exempts the people of Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" is that they are "Beki'in Lishmah" -- they know that a Get must be written Lishmah. However, the Gemara rejects this suggestion because even Rabah agrees that there is a second reason to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" -- in order to be Mekayem the Get when the witnesses are not available.

The Gemara therefore explains that according to Rav, since there are Yeshivos throughout Bavel, there is a constant flow of people who are able to be Mekayem the Get. Shmuel counters that the flow of people consists of Talmidim of the Yeshivos who are so involved with their learning that they do not recognize the signatures of their neighbors and thus are unable to serve as witnesses to be Mekayem a Get.

The Gemara continues and brings further proof ("Itmar Nami") from the statement of Rav Huna who said, "We, in Bavel, conducted ourselves in Bavel like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin from the time that Rav came to Bavel."

RASHI explains that the Gemara here brings further proof to the fact that Rav's reasoning is that the Talmidim of the Yeshivos are able to attest to the signatures in the Get and be Mekayem it, and not that the people of Bavel are Beki'in Lishmah. The proof is that since Bavel became like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin only from the time that Rav founded the second Yeshiva in Bavel, if Rav exempts a Shali'ach in Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" because the people are Beki'in Lishmah, the people of Bavel should have been exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" even before the time of Rav, because the people of Bavel were Torah scholars from when they came to Bavel at the time of the Churban of the first Beis ha'Mikdash.

TOSFOS presents a strong challenge to Rashi's explanation of the Gemara from the Gemara's next question. Rebbi Yirmeyah asks Rav, why is a Shali'ach in Bavel exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav"? The Mishnah (2a) clearly states that from Ako and northward one must say "b'Fanai Nichtav," and Bavel is to the north of Eretz Yisrael! According to Rashi, however, this question is no question at all; Rav exempted a Shali'ach in Bavel from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" only after he came to Bavel, which was long after the Mishnah was written.

Because of this question, Tosfos asserts that the Gemara is not attempting to prove from Rav Huna that Rav exempted Bavel from "b'Fanai Nichtav" only because he founded a second Yeshiva there. Rather, the Gemara intends to prove only that Rav maintains that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" (but Rav indeed maintains that in Bavel one was always exempt, even before the time Rav came to Bavel).

It is easy to understand why Rashi rejects the explanation of Tosfos. According to Tosfos, the Gemara is not justified in saying "Itmar Nami" ("we have further proof"). Further proof is necessary when there is a conjecture or a statement that does not have a strong basis. According to Tosfos, however, the Gemara quotes Rav himself as saying that a Shali'ach in Bavel is exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav." No further proof is necessary to show that this is Rav's opinion. (CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN)

How, though, does Rashi answer the strong objection of Tosfos to his approach?

(a) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN suggests that the Gemara's proof from the Mishnah is not from the fact that a Shali'ach in every place north of Bavel was required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time of the Mishnah. Rather, the Gemara attempts to prove that even when there are caravans that travel between two places in Medinas ha'Yam, a Shali'ach still is required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" because of "Lo Tachlok b'Medinas ha'Yam" -- the Chachamim did not want to differentiate between places in Medinas ha'Yam and give them different Halachos. The Gemara's proof is from the Mishnah which says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the outer half of Ako is considered Chutz la'Aretz even though the inner half of Ako is considered Eretz Yisrael (see Tosfos 2a, DH v'Ashkelon). Obviously, there were caravans that frequently traveled between the two parts of Ako, but, nevertheless, since the outer half of Ako was part of Chutz la'Aretz (and was not near ("Samuch") the main populated area of Eretz Yisrael, 6b), the Chachamim required that one must say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when bringing a Get from there to Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, in Bavel one should always be required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." The Gemara answers that Bavel is different, because no one would confuse Bavel with the rest of Chutz la'Aretz since it is well known that they have Yeshivos and that they are Beki'in.

(The CHASAM SOFER points out that according to this explanation, there is no reason for the Gemara to point out that Bavel is north of Eretz Yisrael. The proof has nothing to do with the direction or location in which Bavel is situated.)

(b) The CHASAM SOFER and TORAS GITIN answer that according to Rabah, when the Mishnah says that one who brings a Get from Medinas ha'Yam must say "b'Fanai Nichtav," it refers not only to one who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael, but even to one who brings a Get in Chutz la'Aretz from one city to another in the same Medinah. Accordingly, it may be inferred from the Mishnah that in the times of the Mishnah, the people in Bavel were not Beki'in in the laws of Lishmah, and, therefore, like every other area north of Eretz Yisrael, they had to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when bringing a Get to the same Medinah. The Gemara therefore asks that according to Rav, why are the people of Bavel exempt from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" nowadays because there is frequent travel between the Yeshivos? The frequent travel removes only the problem of Kiyum. "B'Fanai Nichtav" should still be required because originally they were not Beki'in Lishmah! Even if, at the time of Rav, they had already become Beki'in Lishmah (like the rest of Chutz la'Aretz), they should be required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" according to Rabah because of the Gezeirah of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo -- they might become ignorant again (5a)!

The Gemara answers that in Bavel they were always Beki'in (because of the Jewish community that was there from the time of the Churban), and, therefore, within a single Medinah in Bavel they never had to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." Consequently, in the time of Rav there was no concern of Shema Yachzor Davar l'Kilkulo because there never was a situation in Bavel of ignorance regarding the laws of Lishmah.

Tosfos probably rejects this approach because he maintains that it is a bit forced to explain that Rebbi Yirmeyah's question is based on the opinion of Rabah, since Tosfos and most Rishonim rule, l'Halachah, like Rava, and according to Rava no question can be asked on Rav from the Mishnah.

Rashi, on the other hand, may follow his own opinion as expressed elsewhere (9a, DH Yiskayem; see also Yevamos 25a, Kidushin 72a, Shabbos 36b, Sukah 34b, Bava Metzia 55b), where he implies that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rabah.

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a) which states that a man should say three things to his wife on Erev Shabbos before sundown: "Did you separate Ma'aser," "Did you make an Eruv," and, "Light the Shabbos candles." RASHI here explains that the Eruv to which the Mishnah there refers is Eruvei Chatzeros.

The Mishnah in Shabbos there continues and says that during Bein ha'Shemashos, a person still may make an Eruv. This prompts the Gemara there to ask, why must a person ask his wife to make an Eruv before sunset, if one is permitted to make an Eruv even after sunset, during Bein ha'Shemashos? The Gemara answers that one part of the Mishnah refers to Eruvei Techumin, and the other part refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, and there is a difference between the two types of Eruv; one type may be made only before Bein ha'Shemashos, and the other may be made even during Bein ha'Shemashos.

RASHI there explains that Eruvei Techumin is the one which must be made before Bein ha'Shemashos, for its laws are more strict. This is the simple understanding of the Gemara there, as indeed the concept of Eruvei Techumin is always considered more strict than the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros. (One opinion in Sotah 30b maintains that the Isur of Techumin is mid'Oraisa, and even if it is not mid'Oraisa, it has an Asmachta in the Torah, while the Halachah of Eruvei Chatzeros was merely a Takanah of Shlomo ha'Melech, as mentioned in Eruvin 21b.) This is how TOSFOS and RABEINU CHANANEL explain the Gemara there. Although RABEINU TAM cited by Tosfos there initially seeks to explain that the concept of Eruvei Chatzeros is more strict, he changes his mind and agrees that the concept of Eruvei Techumin is more strict.

Accordingly, the Eruv that a person must warn his wife about before Shabbos is an Eruv Techumin, because an Eruv Chatzeros may be made during Bein ha'Shemashos. Why, then, does Rashi here write that the Eruv which a man warns his wife about before Shabbos is an Eruv Chatzeros? (TOSFOS, DH Eravtem)

ANSWER: RAV YAAKOV D. HOMNICK (presently of North Miami Beach, Florida) proposes an approach which explains that Rashi's words here in fact contradict neither what he writes in Shabbos nor the Gemara in Shabbos.

Rav Homnick points out that the words of Rashi in the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a, DH Eravtem) seem to compound the contradiction. Rashi comments that when the Mishnah there states that a person must ask his wife before Shabbos, "Eravtem," it refers to both Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros! Why does Rashi comment that the Mishnah refers to both forms of Eruv? Rashi should write either that the Mishnah refers to Eruvei Chatzeros (as he writes here in Gitin) or that it refers to Eruvei Techumin (as the Gemara there concludes), or that the Gemara will explain which Eruv the Mishnah is discussing, as Rashi himself writes there with regard to the Eruv mentioned in the end of the Mishnah (which the Mishnah permits one to make during Bein ha'Shemashos)! Why does Rashi write that a man must ask his wife to make both an Eruv Techumin and an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos?

The ROSH in Shabbos also seems to contradict himself in this matter. Although he explains that the concept of Eruvei Techumin is more strict and the Eruv must be made before Bein ha'Shemashos, nevertheless he explains that one of the things which a man must warn his wife about on Erev Shabbos is to make an Eruv Chatzeros!

The answer is that Rashi and the Rosh were bothered by an obvious question on the Gemara. The reason the Mishnah lists only three things that one must remind his wife about before Shabbos is that these are activities commonly done in every household, prior to every Shabbos. Why would the Mishnah refer to Eruvei Techumin, which is done only on rare occasions?

The Mishnah, therefore, must refer to Eruvei Chatzeros. If, however, it refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, why does one need to tell his wife to prepare it before Bein ha'Shemashos? An Eruv Chatzeros may be made during Bein ha'Shemashos!

The answer is that once he needs to remind his wife to make an Eruv Chatzeros, since the term "Eruvin" also includes Eruvei Techumin he makes sure to mention it to his wife at a time when his wife still is able to make an Eruv Techumin, if necessary. This is why Rashi on the Mishnah in Shabbos explains that the Mishnah refers to both Eruvei Techumin and Eruvei Chatzeros, and why the Rosh says that a person must remind his wife to make an Eruv Chatzeros before Shabbos. This also explains why Rashi here in Gitin writes that this statement refers to Eruvei Chatzeros, since that is the main point of mentioning a reminder for one's family. The Gemara says that the statement includes Eruvei Techumin only in order to explain why it must be said before Bein ha'Shemashos and not during Bein ha'Shemashos. Since the Gemara here does not record that part of the Mishnah (about making an Eruv during Bein ha'Shemashos), Rashi here does not mention Eruvei Techumin.