Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Diaspora Proficiency
As mentioned in a prior post, Rabbi Yehoshua been Levi presided over a court in Lud, the very same place mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer (also of Lud) as a get destination requiring a befanay nichtav recitation, even from Kfar Ludim.
In this post, I'd like to revisit Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's position and the incident of his not requiring befanay nichtav.
In Bavli Gittin 2a-b, there is a dispute between third-generation Amora Rabba and fourth-generation Rava, as to why the agent must recite befanay.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? רַבָּה אָמַר:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this declaration? Rabba says:
לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ.
It is because the people who live overseas are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.
Rava says a different reason: It is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.
and the Talmudic Narrator hypothesizes pragmatic distinctions between these two reasons, namely if two people brought the get (so could ratify it) or from one region to another in Israel (where people aren’t around to ratify, but they are experts).
A long section of Stammaitic material analyzes braytot and then even statements by Amoraim to see if they accord with Rabba.
Finally, on Gittin 5b, the gemara mentions a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, matching them up to Rabba and Rava.
בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּימוֹ.
§ The Gemara comments: Rabba and Rava disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the reason the Sages required an agent to say: 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 one said that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.
As reported, it is unclear which figure takes what position. But they deduce that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says it is the lack of expertise from a particular incident involving a get brought by Rabbi Shimon bar Abba:
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא אַיְיתִי גִּיטָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: צְרִיכְנָא לְמֵימַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אוֹ לָא?
The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, as Rabbi Shimon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא צְרִיכַתְּ, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁאֵין בְּקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ, אֲבָל בְּדוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים דִּבְקִיאִין לִשְׁמָהּ – לֹא. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: You are not required to do so, as they said that one was required to state this declaration only in the earlier generations, when they were not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. However, in the later generations, when they are experts about writing it for her sake, no, this declaration is no longer necessary. The Gemara states: It may be concluded from here that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was of this opinion.
The Talmudic Narrator takes issue with the particular explanation, given conclusions it had reached earlier via analysis about Rabba also agreeing to Rava. So too, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi should agree with Rabbi Yochanan that there is a desire / requirement regarding ratification.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא הֲוָה בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וְהָא דְּלָא חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ – מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Abba had another person with him, who served as a second witness, and the reason that the account of the incident did not mention him was due to the honor of Rabbi Shimon bar Abba, as that man was unlearned. As for the halakha, since there were two witnesses the concern for ratification does not apply in this case. As stated above, in this situation the Sages did not apply their decree due to a concern that the matter would return to its corrupt state.
So is the Bavli’s account.
The Yerushalmi has slight differences. Immediately at the start of the gemara, thus in the same place as Bavli’s Rabba and Rava, it leads with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yochanan.
הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם כול׳. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ הַמֵּבִיא שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם שֶׁמָּא חָשׁ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קַל הֵיקִלוּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עֲגוּנָה. וְהַייְנוֹ קַל. אֵנוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹמֶר. שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא אָמַר לָהּ. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אַף אַתְּ אֵין מַתִּירָהּ לְהִינָּשֵׂא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. חוֹמֶר שֶׁהֶחֱמַרְתָּה עָלֶיהָ מִתְּחִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. הֵיקַלְתָּה עָלֶיהָ בְסוֹף שֶׁאִם בָּא וְעִירְעֵר עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל.
HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas, would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void.
We again have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yochanan, but here:
the positions are explicitly assigned, instead of deduced from a story.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not say that they are not bekiin specifically in lishmah, that it be written for her sake. Instead, he refers to dikdukei gittin, the fine points of bills of divorce. Later, we see such fine points as (admittedly) lishmah, but also that it was written on that day. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וְנֶחְתַּם לִשְׁמָהּ. But it might also accord with the idea expressed by Shmuel on Kiddushin 6a, כׇּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּטִיב גִּיטִּין וְקִידּוּשִׁין לֹא יְהֵא לוֹ עֵסֶק עִמָּהֶם, which extended to even finer points, such as אֲפִילּוּ לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל.
Tangentially, taking point (2) further, the Bavli on 2b analyzes ain bekiin as aligned or not with Rabbi Meir who worries about the minority case, and this is dismissed because most scribes are proficient (unstatated, but implicitly in lishma). This might not carry over to finer points of get law. We really should go through the entire gemara and see what works or not. At some point, people in Bavel, or in chutz la’aretz know. But what do they know, and what can they potentially forget?
Rabbi Yochanan does not explicitly speak of witnesses not around to ratify it, but simply presents it as a leniency that we rely on this agent. It is his student, Rabbi Yossi, who clarifies for us what the leniency is, to prevent the husband’s complaint that the get is not valid.
The Yerushalmi continues:
אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית צָרִיךְ. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁאֵינָן בְּקִיאִין בְּדִיקְדּוּקֵי גִיטִּין. וְהָכָא אָמַר אָכֵן. חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁחֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בְּקִיאִין הֵן. וְהָא תַנִּינָן וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. אֵין חֲבֵירִים מְצוּיִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אֲנָן מְצוּיִין בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטִּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. מֵעַתָּה הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם לֹא יְהֵא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲלוֹק בְּגִיטֵּי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי כְדוֹן. מַחְמִירִין בַּקַּל מִפְּנֵי הֶחָמוּר וְאֵין מַקִּילִין בֶּחָמוּר מִפְּנֵי הַקַּל. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שֶׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא. מֵהָדָה דְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לְשֶׁעָבַר. אֲבָל בִּתְחִילָּה אוֹף רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מוֹדֶה.
A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.
This is again similar but different from the Bavli, in a few ways.
While in Bavli, Rav Shemen bar Abba was the agent delivering the get, but in Bavli it is some other unnamed person.
(Related to the above, the Bavli’s interpretation that there were actually two agents delivering it, but the second agent was unmentioned because of Shemen bar Abba’s honor, is harder to say)
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi here does not explicitly say the reason befanay was unnecessary. But then he does say it explicitly, as filled in by colleagues. It is interesting that the chavraya say it, and it is about the presence of chaveirim.
Rabbi Shemen bar Abba does appear in the sugya, but not in the story itself. It is only to clarify the limits of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion. And in that, making it a bedieved, accords with the Bavli’s concern about the Rava / Rabbi Yochanan concern of validating it.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Acha II was a third and fourth-generation Israeli Amora. Rav Shemen bar Abba was third-generation, a talmid muvhak (primary) student of Rabbi Yochanan after ascending from Bavel to Israel in his youth. But he apparently also studied from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Chanina. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was a first-generation Amora. He was long-lived and spanned generations. I state this because we want, for the Bavli story, for him to deliver the get in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s presence, and for Yerushalmi, for him to have awareness of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s position.
We also perhaps need to grapple with timelines. At what point, exactly, did people abroad in general, and people in Bavel particularly, because proficient in either lishmah or broadly in the fine points of writing gittin?
There are several statements which imply different things.
Primarily, we have Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (in Bavli, in Yerushalmi, with slight differences), who stated, when a get came before him, that no befanay was needed, and this was because people were now proficient. Most conservatively, this would be in transitional / first-generation Amoraic times.
However, the Talmudic Narrator in Bavli explains several Tannaitic sources as composed after people were already bekiin, including (on 5a) the Mishnah on 9a! This would push the knowledge of laws of Gittin to Tannaitic times!
Meanwhile, in Gittin 6a, for Bavel, we have its status like Eretz Yisrael before Rav arrived and after Rav arrived.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: עָשִׂינוּ עַצְמֵינוּ בְּבָבֶל כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִיטִּין, מִכִּי אֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל.
It was also stated that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says: We made ourselves in Babylonia like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.
The simplest explanation might be that this is first-generation Amora times, and a result of gaining Torah knowledge. However, the Talmudic Narrator explains it as him establishing a yeshiva in Sura (and as Rashi explains, Shmuel in Nehardea — even though I’d note that Rav Shila had established Nehardea, where Rav and Shmuel both came, before that). As the Narrator explains, the presence of an academy means that the witnesses will be present, מִישְׁכָּח שְׁכִיחִי, so there is no concern about later ratification of the get.
There is also Bava Kamma 80a:
א"ל דידן קא מינטרא להו חובה א"ל חובה תקברינהו לבנה כולה שניה דרב אדא בר אהבה לא אקיים זרעא לרב הונא מחובה איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב עשינו עצמנו בבבל כארץ ישראל לבהמה דקה מכי אתא רב לבבל
Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova, my wife, watches the animals to ensure that they do not graze on land belonging to others. Rav Adda bar Ahava cursed Rav Huna and said to him: May Ḥova bury her son! In all the years of Rav Adda bar Ahava, no children of Rav Huna from Ḥova survived, due to this curse. There are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav Huna says that Rav says: We in Babylonia rendered ourselves like those of Eretz Yisrael with regard to raising small domesticated animals, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.
There is a tension, as here it may seem to also imply that it was a result of gained knowledge, and that beforehand they were ignorant. That is why Rashi gives two explanations, the first having to do with settlement.
מכי אתא רב לבבל - רבו מתיישבין שם מפני ישיבתו לישנא אחרינא הוא בא ולמדנו להזהר בכך שראה שם רוב ישראל וישוב קבוע:
See also Shita Mekubetzet on Bava Kamma:
מכי אתא רב לבבל ונתן לב לדרוש לאסור בבבל שראה בה ריבוי יושבי יישוב. ובפרק קמא דגיטין אמרינן עשינו עצמנו וכו' מכי אתא רב לבבל פירוש והרבה ישיבות והיו בקיאין לשמה. וקשה דפריך עלה ממתניתין דקאמר רבי מאיר עכו וכו' וקשה מאי פריך והלא בימי רבי מאיר עדיין לא רבו הישיבות שלא בא רב עדיין. וצריך לומר מכי אתא רב לבבל ודרש שמעולם הן בקיאין לשמה. וריב"א מיישב פירוש ראשון ופירש דבימי התנאים היתה בבל כארץ ישראל וכשעלה רבי חייא ובניו מבבל נעשית כשאר ארצות וכשבא רב לבבל חזרה לקדמותה והיינו דפריך עלה אמילתיה דרבי מאיר דבימי רבי מאיר היו בקיאין כמו בימי רב. ה"ר ישעיה ז"ל.
Perhaps an easy resolution is that throughout, the reason is indeed about bekiin, something which occurred during first-generation Amoraic times. At least in terms of Bavel, which was where Rav Shemen bar Abba brought the get.