Gittin - Daf 8
- Machlokes about the status of the Mediterranean Sea
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offered another explanation for the opposing Baraisos about a get brought in a boat. The argument does not concern the rivers of Eretz Yisroel (which would not require בפני נכתב), but the Mediterranean Sea, about which a Baraisa teaches: הנסין שבים – Regarding the islands in the Mediterranean Sea, רואין אותן כאילו חוט מתוח עליהם מטורי אמנון עד נחל מצרים – we view them as if a string is stretched over them from the mountains of Amnon (the northwest corner of Eretz Yisroel) to Nachal Mitzrayim (the southwest corner). מן החוט ולפנים א"י מן החוט ולחוץ חו"ל – From the string and inwards (east) are considered Eretz Yisroel, and from the string and outwards (west) are considered outside Eretz Yisroel. Rebbe Yehudah says: כל שכנגד ארץ ישראל הרי הוא כא"י – Anything parallel to Eretz Yisroel is like Eretz Yisroel, which he darshens from a passuk, and explains that all islands in the Mediterranean which are due west of Eretz Yisroel have a status of Eretz Yisroel. These Baraisos dispute a get written on a boat in the Mediterranean, west of the Tanna Kamma’s “string.”
- The status of Suria re: a document of sale being written on Shabbos
A Baraisa teaches that Suria (areas of Syria conquered by Dovid) has some halachos of Eretz Yisroel, including: והקונה שדה בסוריא כקונה בפרוארי ירושלים – one who acquires a field in Suria is like one who acquires in the provinces of Yerushalayim. Rav Sheishess explains the practical application: שכותבין עליו אונו ואפילו בשבת – that the document of sale may be written even on Shabbos (if the seller, a gentile, is departing on Shabbos). Since he surely did not mean to allow writing on Shabbos, the Gemara explains: אומר לעובד כוכבים ועושה – he tells an idolator to write the document and he does it. ואף על גב דאמירה לעובד כוכבים שבות – Even though telling an idolator to do melachah on Shabbos is normally a Rabbinic prohibition, משום ישוב א"י לא גזור רבנן – because of the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisroel, the Rabbis did not apply the decree to this case.
- A slave who brings a document written to him stating "נכסיי קנויין לך"
A Baraisa teaches that a slave who brings his emancipation document which states "עצמך ונכסיי קנוייך לך" – yourself and my possessions are hereby acquired to you, and he says בפני נכתב as required, עצמו קנה נכסים לא קנה – he acquires himself (and goes free) but does not acquire the possessions. His testimony is not accepted regarding the monetary aspect of the document, which requires two witnesses. The Gemara asks about a document which states: כל נכסיי קנויין לך – “All of my possessions are acquired to you,” which includes himself (as one of the master’s possessions). Since both are contained in a single term, can the acceptance of his testimony be divided? Abaye held they cannot be divided, and initially said: מתוך שקנה עצמו קנה נכסים – Since he acquires himself, he also acquires the possessions (i.e., since his testimony was accepted regarding himself, it must be accepted for the possessions as well). Later, he reversed his position: מתוך שלא קנה נכסים לא קנה עצמו – Since he does not acquire the possessions, he does not even acquire himself (i.e., since his testimony cannot be accepted regarding the possessions, it is not accepted at all). Rava disagreed and divides the acceptance of the testimony: אחד זה ואחד זה עצמו קנה נכסים לא קנה – Both in this case above, where the statements are separate, and this case, where the statements are in one phrase, he acquires himself, but does not acquire the possessions.
