וְאִי עָבְדַתְּ אַהֲנִית. מַאי ״אִי עָבְדַתְּ אַהֲנִית״? דְּאִי אָתֵי בַּעַל מְעַרְעֵר – לָא מַשְׁגַּחִינַן בֵּיהּ.

But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אָמַר לוֹ: צָרִיךְ אֲנִי לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״ אוֹ אֵינִי צָרִיךְ? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, מִכְּפָר סִיסַאי אֲנִי. אָמַר לוֹ: צָרִיךְ אַתָּה לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, שֶׁלֹּא תִּיזָּקֵק לְעֵדִים.

As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity.

לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּצָא נִכְנַס לְפָנָיו רַבִּי אֶלְעַאי. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, וַהֲלֹא כְּפָר סִיסַאי מוּבְלַעַת בִּתְחוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּקְרוֹבָה לְצִיפּוֹרִי יוֹתֵר מֵעַכּוֹ! וּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: עַכּוֹ – כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן לָא פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – אֶלָּא בְּעַכּוֹ דְּמִרַחֲקָא, אֲבָל כְּפָר סִיסַאי דְּמִקַּרְבָא – לָא!

After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.

אָמַר לוֹ: שְׁתוֹק, בְּנִי, שְׁתוֹק, הוֹאִיל וְיָצָא הַדָּבָר בְּהֶיתֵּר – יָצָא.

Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.

הָא אִיהוּ נַמִי שֶׁלֹּא תִּיזָּקֵק לְעֵדִים קָאָמַר לֵיהּ! לָא סִיְּימוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ.

The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael’s statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.

שָׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר לְרַב חִסְדָּא: גִּיטִּין הַבָּאִים מִשָּׁם לְכָאן, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״. לֵימָא, קָסָבַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְהָנֵי גְּמִירִי!

§ The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav Ḥisda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue?

וְתִסְבְּרָא? וְהָא רַבָּה אִית לֵיהּ דְּרָבָא! אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בָּעֵינַן לְקַיְּימוֹ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רַבִּים דְּסָלְקֵי וְנָחֲתֵי, מִישְׁכַּח שְׁכִיחִי.

The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce.

אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן לֵימָא לָן דְּרַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר בַּר סָמְכָא הוּא? וְעוֹד, הָא אִיהוּ דְּשָׁלַח לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה: בְּנֵי אָדָם הָעוֹלִין מִשָּׁם לְכָאן הֵן קִיְּימוּ בְּעַצְמָן: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ (אֶת) הַיֶּלֶד בַּזּוֹנָה וְהַיַּלְדָּה מָכְרוּ בַיַּיִן וַיִּשְׁתּוּ״, וְכָתַב לֵיהּ בְּלָא שִׂירְטוּט.

Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁתַּיִם כּוֹתְבִין, שָׁלֹשׁ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין, בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: שָׁלֹשׁ כּוֹתְבִין, אַרְבַּע אֵין כּוֹתְבִין!

And Rabbi Yitzḥak says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita : One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: אַטּוּ כָּל דְּלָא יָדַע הָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק לָאו גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא מִילְּתָא דְּתַלְיָא בִּסְבָרָא – לְחַיֵּי; הָא – גְּמָרָא הִיא, וּגְמָרָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.

Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition.

וְעוֹד, הָא רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר הוּא דְּאַסְכִּים מָרֵיהּ עַל יְדֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו פִּילַגְשׁוֹ״, רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר אָמַר: זְבוּב מָצָא לָהּ, רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר: נִימָא מָצָא לָהּ,

And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: “And his concubine went away from him” (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [ nima ].

וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶבְיָתָר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָא עָבֵיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָסֵיק בַּפִּילֶגֶשׁ בְּגִבְעָה. וּמַאי קָאָמַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶבְיָתָר בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר, יוֹנָתָן בְּנִי כָּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר.

And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וּמִי אִיכָּא סְפֵיקָא קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן; זְבוּב מָצָא וְלֹא הִקְפִּיד, נִימָא מָצָא וְהִקְפִּיד.

Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זְבוּב בִּקְעָרָה, וְנִימָא בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם; זְבוּב – מְאִיסוּתָא, וְנִימָא – סַכַּנְתָּא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִידִי וְאִידִי בִּקְעָרָה; זְבוּב – אוּנְסָא, וְנִימָא – פְּשִׁיעוּתָא.

Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם אַל יַטִּיל אָדָם אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי פִּילֶגֶשׁ בְּגִבְעָה הִטִּיל עָלֶיהָ בַּעְלָהּ אֵימָה יְתֵירָה, וְהִפִּילָה כַּמָּה רְבָבוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20).

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כָּל הַמַּטִּיל אֵימָה יְתֵירָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, סוֹף הוּא בָּא לִידֵי שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵירוֹת: גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְחִילּוּל שַׁבָּת.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.

אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, הָא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים צָרִיךְ אָדָם לוֹמַר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה, עִשַּׂרְתֶּם? עֵרַבְתֶּם? הַדְלִיקוּ אֶת הַנֵּר: צָרִיךְ

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must