New on the site: Michi-botA wise assistant on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

The one who brings a divorce on a ship

ResponseCategory: Talmudic StudyThe one who brings a divorce on a ship
Yeshiva student asked 2 weeks ago

In Gittin, page 7: Conflicting baraitas are cited regarding the one who brings a get on a ship, in the context of the law of saying in the pen and in the pen - one baraita says that it is a foreign country and therefore does not need to be said, and a second baraita says that it is a foreign country. 
Rabbi Jeremiah and Abaye explain that this refers to a ship on the rivers of Israel, and the ruling depends on the disagreement of the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda Gabi regarding the obligation to tithe on a ship that does not sail on the rivers of Israel.
Simply put, the dispute over the conditions is over suction/connection to the ground (it seems to be a dispute among the first: Meiri, attributed to Ritva and Rashi). 
And here the son asks - why would the borders of the legitimate Land of Israel (i.e. where there is a shadow in the Pn and where there is no shadow) depend on whether the ship is anchored (or anchored in the land)? After all, the statement in the Pn depends, simply, on the borders of the legal Land of Israel that was sanctified (perhaps with minor changes - the disagreement between R. T. and R. Y. in the Toda "Ashkelon" on page 2) - and the rivers of the Land of Israel are the legal Land of Israel (which is far from saying that indeed R. Yehuda is prohibited from embarking on a ship that does not violate the law prohibiting sailing abroad). And it seems that R. Y. interprets this as the reason why R. N. Mian refrains from this explanation, but what would R. Y. answer? And it seems that this is a question for R. Yehuda, but it seems that the excuse for the question he asks is in the Toda "Azitz" at all, but I did not understand his answer.
 
I would be happy for the rabbi to clarify the issue. 

Leave a Reply

1 Answer
Michi Staff answered 2 weeks ago

And why would this be related to the sanctity of the land? What does it have to do with the statement "It was written before me"? Both because there is no knowledge of its name and because there are no convoys present, it is not related to either the sanctity of the land or the nursing. It is clear that they had to determine the Halacha boundary and attach it to some existing boundary of the land's borders.

Yeshiva student replied 2 weeks ago

Why did the Sages decide to determine specifically according to limits regarding the obligation of Tarum?
The reason why in the Land of Israel it is not necessary to say is because it is common and deviant, and within the boundaries of the holiness of the Land it is usually common and deviant (perhaps except for places that are at the end of the border and far from the yeshivas - the R.I. method on page 2), so why did they not determine according to the boundaries of holiness which are more inclusive (such as in the case of a ship that is not a navigator - which is outside the Land of Israel for the purpose of Terumah, but within the Holy Land of Israel) than the borders of the land for the purpose of Terumah? It is certain that in a place that is outside the borders of the land for the purpose of Terumah, but is within the borders of the Holy Land - the people are common and deviant to the same level as other places within the Land!

Michi Staff replied 2 weeks ago

As I wrote, in any case there is no connection between these borders and the law written before me. Therefore, some arbitrary halakhic boundary of the Land of Israel had to be chosen. I see no advantage in choosing one or the other.

Yeshiva student replied 1 week ago

The fence is not completely arbitrary - there is an assumption, as I wrote, that within these borders it is usually common and limited (as explained in the Toss on page 2). Indeed, not all places within these borders are necessarily common and limited, and yet these places were considered legitimate Land of Israel - so that there would be clear and known borders.
But why did they choose borders for the purpose of giving? After all, the borders of the Holy Land include more places, and from an educational perspective, these places should also be included as the Land of Israel, so why not correct according to these borders? Why be strict without any education?

Michi Staff replied 7 days ago

I have exhausted the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button