Gittin daf 2: Arayot or Eduyot?
On Gittin 2a, we have Rabbi Eliezer speak of bringing a get from Kfar Ludim to Lud.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמֵּבִיא מִן הָרְקָם וּמִן הַחֶגֶר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מִכְּפַר לוּדִּים לְלוֹד.
Rabban Gamliel says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from Rekem or from Ḥeger, which are on the periphery of Eretz Yisrael, must make this declaration. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who brings a bill of divorce from the village of Ludim to Lod must also make this declaration, despite the fact that these places are only a short distance apart. The reason is that the village of Ludim was not part of the main area settled by Jews in Eretz Yisrael.
I am planning an article in couple of weeks, focused on the point raised by Tosafot that Rabbi Eliezer lived in Lud. We also need to really know the geography of Eretz Yisrael and its borders to understand Rabbi Eliezer’s point, or the archaeology to know the relationship between Kfar Ludim and Lud.
Similarly, we will cover later the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yochanan about the reason for pronouncing befanay nichtav, which parallels what Rabba and Rava said. There is a case of a get brought before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and he ruled on whether one needed to mention befanay nichtav. It may well be relevant that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also was situated in Lud.
On Gittin 2b, the gemara asks:
וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ – לִיבְעֵי תְּרֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַכֹּל עֵדֻיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה! עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִיסּוּרִין.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, let us require two witnesses to testify about this, just as is the case with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. The Gemara answers: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.
Now, the letters resh and daled look monstrous similar to one another, so what if it actually said עריות, arayot, as in davar shebe’erva? As the gemara makes the distinction, there is a contrast between typical eid echad neeman be`issurin and davar shebe’erva which requires two. So עריות may make sense. Tosafot point out the possibility, which was present in a manuscript, and reject it, explaining why.
מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה - בדלי"ת גרסינן כגון עדות דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות ואית דגריס עריות ברי"ש ולא נהירא
This difference appears between Munich 95, with a resh, and Vatican 127, with a daled.
Another interesting feature of the Vatican 127 is how it has lots of insertions above the line, emending the text, at least conjecturally.
For instance, we might wonder (and see in Artscroll, footnote 19, where Rishonim do debate) whether establishing a chazaka is one point and davar shebe’erva is a separate point; or whether both these factors are required. Thus:
אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא דְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה; וְאֵין דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!
However, here, where there is a presumption that this woman is forbidden, as she is a married woman, a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and the general principle is that there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.
In the Vilna Shas, on the side, there is this note:
That the girsa in the Ran (? if so, I don’t see it) is vehavei. This extra vav may make a practical difference, in that it either separates the concerns or joins them. I think it separates the concerns.
Now, if we look at Vatican 127, we find that extra vav, but as an insertion above the line:
Even though the Vilna Shas doesn’t mention it in the second instance of the same idea, Vatican 127 also has the hovering vav there as well.