Support (for Rav Ashi - Beraisa): If Get brought from abroad is Kosher even if the Shali'ach was in the house, and the scribe was in the second story, or vice-versa, and even if he went in and out all day.

Question: If he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, he did not see it written!

Answer: We must say that he heard the scratching of the quill on the parchment.

Question: The Beraisa says 'even if he went in and out all day.' To whom does this refer?

Suggestion: It refers to the Shali'ach.

Rejection: It is Kosher even if he was in the house and the scribe was in the second story, and he did not see the writing. All the more so, it is Kosher if he went in and out!

Answer: Rather, it refers to the scribe.

Question: This is obvious! Should the Get be Pasul because the scribe left the house?!

Answer: The case is, he went to the market. One might have thought that we should be concerned lest another man asked the scribe to write the Get for him (and the scribe had this in mind). The Beraisa teaches that we are not concerned for this.

(Rav): The law of Bavel is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.

(Shmuel): Bavel is like Chutz La'aretz regarding Gitin.

Suggestion: Rav holds that the declaration is because we are concerned lest it was not Lishmah, and people in Bavel are learned. Shmuel holds that the declaration is for Kiyum, and witnesses from Bavel are not common.

Objection: Even Rabah, who is concerned for Lishmah, is also concerned for Kiyum!

Correction: Rather, both agree that we are concerned for Kiyum;

Rav holds that since there are Yeshivos in Bavel (and people often travel between them), witnesses are commonly found. Shmuel holds that Talmidim learning in Yeshivah are too busy to become familiar with signatures.

(R. Aba): After Rav came to Bavel (and established a Yeshiva), Bavel became like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.

Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): R. Yehudah obligates a Get brought from Rekem or eastwards. Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz. From Ashkelon or further south is like Chutz La'aretz. From Ako or further north is like Chutz La'aretz.

Bavel is north of Ako - "the evil will sprout from the north"!

R. Meir says, Ako is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.

Summation of question: Even R. Meir says so only about Ako, since it is near, but not about Bavel, since it is far!

Answer (R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah means, all places north of Ako (are like Chutz la'Aretz), except for Bavel.

Question: What are the boundaries of Bavel?

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): (People of Bavel are established to have good lineage. Amora'im (Kidushin 71b) argue about what is considered Bavel regarding lineage.) Just like they argue about lineage, they argue about Gitin.

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): They argue only about lineage. Regarding Gitin, all agree that Bavel extends until the second willow tree by the bridge.

Rav Chisda required a declaration for Gitin sent from Aktisfon to Bei Ardeshir, but not in the other direction.

Suggestion: He holds that the reason for the declaration is Lishmah. People in Bei Ardeshir know the law, but those in Aktisfon do not.

Rejection: Even Rabah is concerned for Kiyum!

Rather, the concern is Kiyum. People of Bei Ardeshir go to the market in Aktisfon, so the people of Aktisfon recognize signatures of people of Bei Ardeshir.

Question: Why don't the people of Bei Ardeshir recognize signatures of people of Aktisfon?

Answer: They are busy in the market (and have no time to look at documents).

Rabah bar Avuha required a declaration for Gitin sent from one row of houses to the row on the other side of the public road;

Rav Sheshes required a declaration for Gitin sent from a group of (three or more) houses to another group;

Rava required a declaration for Gitin sent within the same group of houses.

Question: Rava holds that the only concern is Kiyum!

Answer: The people of Mechuza (Rava's city) are very transient, and do not recognize their neighbors' signatures.

(Rav Chanin): A Get was brought, either from Sura to Neharde'a, or vice-versa, and Rav said 'no declaration is required. If you say it, it helps.'

Question: How does it help?

Answer: If the husband will contest the Get, he will be ignored.

Support (Beraisa): A man brought a Get from Kefar Sisai in front of R. Yishmael.

R. Yishmael: You must make the declaration, so the woman will not need witnesses.

R. Ilai: Why is this needed? Kefar Sisai is enveloped within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, and is closer to Tzipori than Ako!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Ako is part of Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.

Even Chachamim argue with R. Meir only about Ako, for it is far. They would agree about Kefar Sisai!

R. Yishmael: Hush! It is good that the Get be given in a permitted way.

Question: Why did R. Ilai object? R. Yishmael said that the declaration was only to avoid the need for witnesses!

Answer: R. Ilai only heard R. Yishmael tell him to make the declaration. He did not hear the reason.

(R. Evyasar): No declaration is needed for Gitin sent from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael.

Suggestion: He holds that the concern is Lishmah, and the people of Bavel know the law.

Rejection: Rabah is also concerned for Kiyum!

Conclusion: Rather, the concern is Kiyum. Since many people come to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel, witnesses are easily found.

Rav Yosef: Is R. Evyasar reliable, so that we can rely on his teaching?!

He wrote a verse and sent it to Rav Yehudah, without Sirtut (scratching a line to write straight). This is forbidden!

(R. Evyasar): "They made the boy work for food, and sold the girl for wine" refers to people of Bavel who come to Eretz Yisrael (to learn, and leave their families in Bavel).

(R. Yitzchak): One may write two words of a verse without Sirtut, but not three.

(Beraisa): One may write three words of a verse without Sirtut, but not four.

Objection #1 (Abaye): Just because he doesn't know R. Yitzchak's law does not show that he is not a great Chacham?

Granted, an error in reasoning would show that he is not a great Chacham.

R. Yitzchak's law is a tradition. R. Evyasar never heard it!

Objection #2 (Abaye): Also, we find that Hash-m agreed with R. Evyasar (as follows)!

(R. Evyasar): "Va'Tizneh Alav Pilagsho (his concubine misbehaved)" - he found a fly (this will be explained);

(R. Yonason): He found a hair.

R. Evyasar saw Eliyahu, and asked him what Hash-m was doing.

Eliyahu: He is engaged in the account of the concubine in Givah. This is what My son Evyasar says, this is what My son Yonason says.

R. Evyasar: Hash-m has no doubts!

Eliyahu: Both opinions come from Hash-m (are true)! Her husband found a fly and was not upset. He found a hair, and this upset him.

Opinion #1 (Rav Yehudah): The fly was in the food she prepared for him. The hair was in the place of Bi'ah. (Va'Tizneh alludes to MaZoN or ZeNus.)

The fly is merely disgusting. The hair poses a danger (it can cut the Ever. Therefore, this upset him).

Opinion #2: Both were in the food;

A fly in the food is not due to negligence. A hair in the food is due to negligence.

(Rav Chisda): One should never instill excessive fear in his house. (The husband of) the concubine of Givah did so, and this caused many tens of thousands of Yisrael to die.

(Rav Yehudah): Anyone who instills excessive fear in his house will eventually come to three sins: incest, bloodshed, and desecration of Shabbos (some texts - of Hash-m's name. All of these resulted from the concubine in Givah.)