The Gemara relates that after a Persian harassed Rabah bar bar Chanah, he pleaded to Hash-m, "Let us be either under your protection or under the protection of the descendants of Esav (the Edomites)!" The Gemara infers from Rabah's appeal that the Edomites are better than the Persians. The Gemara questions this from the statement of Rebbi Chiya who taught that Hash-m knew that the Jewish people would not be able to endure the decrees of the Edomites, so He exiled them to Bavel. Rebbi Chiya's statement clearly implies that the residents of Bavel (the Persians) are more tolerable than the Edomites. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Chiya's statement refers to Bavel before the Persians arrived there. Before the Persians came to Bavel, the residents of Bavel indeed were more tolerable than the Edomites. The Edomites, however, are more tolerable than the Persians.

If the Edomites are intolerable, as Rebbi Chiya taught, why did Rabah bar bar Chanah ask Hash-m to place the Jewish people under their protection? Why did he ask for something intolerable? (MAHARAM SHIF)

ANSWER: The MAHARAM SHIF answers that there is one advantage in being under the rule of the descendants of Esav. In Yitzchak's blessing to Yakov, he says, "And when you will have dominion, you will throw off his yoke from upon your neck" (Bereishis 27:40). As Rashi there explains, when the Jewish people are lax in their fulfillment of the Torah, the descendants of Esav have power over them. When, however, the Jewish people fulfill the Torah, the descendants of Esav have no control over them.

For this reason, Rabah bar bar Chanah prayed that if Hash-m does not place the Jewish people under His protection, He should place them under the protection of the descendants of Esav. Under their protection, the Jewish people will at least enjoy tranquility when they are fulfilling the Torah. Rashi (DH Rachmana) adds that they even give respect to the Jewish people.

Rebbi Chiya, who spoke of how intolerable the descendants of Esav would be, referred to the time of the Galus, when the Jewish people were exiled from their land. At that time, the Jewish people had failed to properly fulfill the Torah, and thus the Bnei Esav indeed would be intolerable to them, and thus Hash-m sent them to Bavel instead. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the law in the case of an inaccurate date written in a Get. The Gemara opens by inquiring why the Chachamim instituted that the date be written in a Get in the first place.

How does the Gemara know that the Chachamim instituted that the date be written in a Get? Perhaps the Mishnah discusses the law when the wrong date is written in a Get (because the wrong date is worse than no date at all), but there is no requirement to write the date in the Get in the first place.

(a) The RAN explains that the Mishnah indeed makes no indication that a Get without a date is invalid, for a Get with no date poses no problems. Beis Din does not rely on such a Get to force the husband to pay for the Peros which he took from his wife's property before the divorce, because the Get makes no mention of when the divorce occurred. In contrast, when an incorrect date is written in the Get, Beis Din, unaware of the falsehood, relies on the date and allows the woman to collect the value of her Peros from the land which the husband sold to purchasers after that date, and thus the husband will suffer a loss unlawfully.

The Gemara's question, which assumes that the date must be written in a Get, is based on the Mishnah later in Gitin (86a) which states that a Get without a date is invalid.

(b) The RITVA understands that the Gemara's question indeed is based on the Mishnah here. The Ritva asserts that if the Chachamim had enacted no specific requirement that the date be written in a Get, a Get with an incorrect date would not be invalid (although it would be improper to use such a misleading Get).

RAV CHAIM KAMIL zt'l explains the difference between these two views as follows. The Ran understands that the date is part of the Shtar, and the witnesses who sign at the bottom are testifying about the date as well. If the date is incorrect, the witnesses are testifying falsely. When part of the testimony of witnesses is unacceptable, the entire testimony is canceled. Accordingly, no specific enactment to include the date in a Get is necessary in order to disqualify the Get. It is invalid simply because of the principle, "Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah Batlah Kulah."

In contrast, the Ritva understands that the date is not an integral part of the Shtar, and thus the witnesses who sign the Shtar are not testifying about the date. Accordingly, without a specific enactment to include the date in a Get, the Get would be valid even when the date is incorrect. The fact that the Mishnah here disqualifies a Get with the wrong date clearly indicates that there is a specific requirement to write the date in a Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: Reish Lakish maintains that the reason why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in a Get is the concern for Peros. RASHI explains that without a date in the Get, the husband will continue to sell the Peros of the wife's property after the divorce, and when his wife demands compensation he will claim that he sold the Peros before the divorce. Writing the date in the Get removes any doubt about when the divorce occurred.

TOSFOS disagree with Rashi's explanation. He asserts that if the woman is concerned that her ex-husband will take the Peros of her property after the Get was given to her, she should simply go to Beis Din on the day of the divorce and have Beis Din notarize the date.

Tosfos explains instead that the concern of Peros is based on the fact that a man loses the rights to his wife's Peros from the time the Get is signed. Beis Din needs to know the date on which the Get was signed in order to ensure that the woman knows exactly when she her ex-husband no longer has any claim to her Peros.

The Gemara explains why Rebbi Yochanan does not agree with this reasoning. He maintains that the husband has the rights to the Peros until the moment he actually gives the Get.

The Gemara's explanation of Rebbi Yochanan's view is unclear. Why is the fact that he maintains that the husband has the rights to the Peros until the giving of the Get grounds to argue with Reish Lakish?

(a) RASHI explains that the date written in the Get does not inform Beis Din about the day on which the Get was given, and thus Beis Din does not know the exact date on which the husband lost his rights to the Peros. Accordingly, the Chachamim would not have required that the date be written in the Get for the purpose of knowing exactly when the husband is no longer entitled to the Peros. This is why Rebbi Yochanan gives a different reason for the enactment of writing the date in a Get.

(b) TOSFOS disagrees with Rashi and asserts that even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that Beis Din relies on the date of the Get to know when the woman may keep the Peros. This is because Beis Din may assume that the Get was given on the day it was written.

Tosfos explains that according to Rebbi Yochanan, there is no necessity to enact that the date be written in a Get. If the woman wants to have proof about when she received the Get, she simple should have Beis Din give her an authorized note affirming the date of the receipt of the Get. Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan needs another reason for why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in a Get.

(c) The RAN has an entirely different understanding of the Chachamim's enactment to write the date in a Get. He explains that without any requirement to write the date, a man might decide to divorce his wife, write a Get, but then decide not to give it to his wife because he sees a ripe crop to harvest in her property. He will reap the harvest, sell the Peros, and then give her the Get. In order to avoid such improper conduct, the Chachamim enacted that the Get must be include the date on which it was written. This enactment prevents the man from gaining (at the woman's expense) by delaying the giving of the Get.

According to the Ran's explanation, it is obvious why Rebbi Yochanan does not agree that the enactment to write the date in a Get is because of Peros. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the husband is entitled to the Peros until he gives the Get, and not until he writes the Get. Including the date of the writing of the Get would not prevent the husband from delaying the giving of the Get in order to profit from the Peros. Therefore, Rebbi Yochanan must give another reason for why the Chachamim enacted that the date be written in the Get. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)