Disagreeing With VeHilcheta - From Writing or Giving
I put the final touches on my column for next week, which deals with the halacha being like Abaye in ya’al kegam, and presumably nowhere else (though I disagree).
While on the topic, I’ll point out an interesting phenomenon on Gittin 18a. If one sent a get and it took time to arrive in the wife’s hands, then from when does the three-month waiting period before remarriage begin. It is a dispute:
רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב פַּפֵּי וְרַב אָשֵׁי – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה, רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – עָבְדִי מִשְּׁעַת נְתִינָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
It is told that Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi would in practice count three months from the time of the writing, but Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would in practice count these three months from the time of the giving. And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.
We could weigh different approaches to how we decide, if not for the gemara’s own conclusion vehilcheta.
a. The dispute began as an argument between Rav — from the time of giving, and Shmuel — from the time of writing. We have a decisive rule of thumb, that in prohibitions we hold like Rav, and in monetary law we hold like Shmuel. This would seem to be a prohibition, to remarry. Perhaps we could argue that this all stems from the writing of a shtar, so we could kvetch to hold like Shmuel, but it would be a kvetch.
b. But that rule of thumb is only absent other considerations. There is also internal debate, in which Rav Natan bar Hoshaya objects to Shmuel’s position and Abaye defends it.
c. And there is also two braytot each which seems to support either Rav or Shmuel, but distinctions can be drawn from their cases, in terms of the intent when the get was written for when it would take effect, as well as whether he / she knew about the delay. So one could interpret this Tannaitic evidence to support Rav or Shmuel solely.
d. Also, there are later generation Amoraim engaged in the dispute. We’d have to clearly identify which Rav Kahana, but this makes it a dispute with three against two, so perhaps we should rule like the majority. And, of these, Rav Pappa, Rav Pappi, and Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua are fifth generation, while Rav Ashi perhaps is the final word, as sixth generation and and the Talmudic redactor.
What does our gemara say?
וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה.
And the halakha is that the counting begins from the time of the writing.
See what Rishonim say.
Rosh writes:
איתמר מאימתי מונין לגט רב אמר משעת נתינה ושמואל אמר משעת כתיבה תניא כוותיה דרב תניא כוותיה דשמואל תניא כוותיה דרב השולח גט לאשתו ונשתהה שליח בדרך שלשה חדשים משהגיע גט לידה צריכה להמתין שלשה חדשים ולגט ישן לא חיישינן שהרי לא נתייחד עמה תניא כוותיה דשמואל המשליש גט לאשתו ואומר אל תתנו לה אלא לאחר ג' חדשים כשנתנו לה מותרת לינשא מיד ולגט ישן אין חוששין שהרי לא נתייחד עמה רב כהנא ורב אסי עבדי משעת כתיבה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עבדי משעת נתינה ורב אלפס לא הביא אלא תניא כוותיה דשמואל וכתב וכן הלכתא ודבריו תמוהין למה פסק הלכתא כשמואל הא קי"ל הלכתא כרב באיסורי ועוד דרב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאינון אמוראי בתראי עבדי כרב ויש ספרים שכתוב בהן והלכתא משעת כתיבה ומשמע דרב אלפס אינו גורס אותו מאחר שלא כתבו בהלכותיו ובכל אשכנז וצרפת נהגו משעת נתינה כרב.
A few important changes in his quote. He has a different list. Rather than Rav Kahana and Rav Pappi and Rav Ashi, three Amoraim, he has Rav Kahana and Rav Asi. These are only two, and quite possibly earlier — because there were four or five distinct Rav Kahanas, and Rav Asi is first generation, or if the same as Rabbi Asi before semicha, then third-generation.
The Rosh notes that Rif only brings the brayta in accordance with Shmuel (writing) and that so is the halacha.
Rosh wonders at this, since we should hold like Rav in matters of prohibition; and also, among the disputants, Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua are fifth-generation, therefore much later, and hilcheta kebatrai. (Note that Rosh doesn’t have Rav Ashi in the first list.)
The Rosh does not have וְהִלְכְתָא: מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה in his gemara, but notes sefarim that have it. And he notes practical practice in Ashkenaz and Tzarfat like Rav, measuring from the time of giving.
With that as background, let us do a quick rundown of the manuscripts to which we have access.
All our manuscripts have three against two, with Rav Ashi rather than Rav Ashi in the group of three.
However, they all* have a vehilcheta, but differ whether it is from the time of giving and writing.
The four printings (including Vilna) have from writing:
Among manuscripts, Munich 95, Firkowitz 187, and Girona have from writing:
Girona strangely has והלכך. Here is Firkowitz, for an example:
Meanwhile, Arras 889, Vatican 1308, and Vatican 140 all have from the time of giving (like Rav). And it is in the main text like this, not just the practice of Ashkenaz. For instance, Arras:
I put an asterisk before for Vatican 130, and here is why:
The main body of text doesn’t have it. Rather, in another hand, it is a marginal note! So this accords with a text that the Rosh has (and that he thinks the Rif has), without a vehilcheta.
Two thoughts. First, It could be that, rather than being the judgement of Ravina and Rav Ashi, or of Savoraim shortly thereafter, a vehilcheta could be a recording of a local ruling. In manuscripts where they hold like Rav, they might note that the hilcheta is like Rav. And then, when copied over into the next manuscript, it enters the main body of Talmudic text. And the same could be true for holding like Shmuel.
How closely does a non-final nun look compared to a kaf and a bet? Could a scribe simply mistake כתיבה for נתינה due to orthographic similarity?
Regardless, this suggests that vehilcheta may not be dispositive.
More tomorrow, briefly, about arguing with a vehilcheta.