First the גמרא said that if you bring a גט from בבל, you don't have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If you bring a גט, because the whole גמרא here is talking about המביא גט ממדינת הים, if you bring a גט from חוץ לארץ to ארץ ישראל, you have to say. And the גמרא gave a reason, two reasons: one reason is because they don't know לשמה in בבל in חוץ לארץ, so if you bring the גט, maybe it wasn't written לשמה. Another thing is because later on, if you might need עדים, you won't find עדים to be מקים. But in בבל, בבל was a place where had a lot of ישיבות, so first of all, they were תלמידי חכמים, they knew the הלכות, so there's no question. Besides that, the גמרא says that in בבל, since there were ישיבות, they would travel back and forth. The only reason why we say from חוץ לארץ you won't find עדים to be מקים, because there's no communication, so people in one place in ארץ ישראל don't recognize the signatures of the people in חוץ לארץ. But בבל, within בבל, people do because people travel a lot. That's what the גמרא says first. Then the

גמרא said that there were two cities, one city is called ארדשיר, and one is called אקטיספון. If you bring the גט from ארדשיר to אקטי אקטיספון—We'll see in a second. The גמרא said if you bring from ארדשיר to אקטיספון, you don't have to say. If you bring from אקטיספון to ארדשיר, you do have to say. The תוספות explains that ארדשיר is בבל, and אקטיספון is not בבל, it's outside. So תוספות says, אקטיספון... So if you bring from ארדשיר to אקטיספון, since you're bringing from בבל, so they're בקי and and they soon מקיים it. If you're bringing the other way, and the גמרא asks, why not? But if they come, anyway, the גמרא explains that they they come to the marketplace and not they they don't have time to look at the signatures. But that's the פרטים are not נוגע, the details are not נוגע here. That's what the גמרא says. And תוספות explained ארדשיר is בבל, this is not, so if you bring from ארדשיר to אקטיספון you don't, from אקטיספון to ארדשיר you do. And תוספות said that even though אקטיספון is right next to ארדשיר, ארדשיר seems to be the by the border of בבל, אקטיספון is on the outside of the border, and there was nothing in between but a river, but still, this is בבל, and this is not. So if you bring from outside בבל into בבל, you have to say. This is all הקדמה. Then the

גמרא tells a story. רב חנא said a story, that רב כהנא brought a גט. He says, I don't know if it came from סורא to נהרדעא, in other words the גט was written in סורא, he brought it to נהרדעא, or from נהרדעא to סורא. But there's no difference because both of them are בבל. And he came to רב, and he said to רב, צריכנא למימר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, או לא צריכנא? Do I have to say, or don't I have to say? אמר ליה, so he said to him, לא צריכת, you don't have to, it is בבל. But ואי עבדת, אהנת. But if you'll say, it'll work. So the גמרא, what do you mean it'll work? דאי אתי בעל מערער, לא משגחינן ביה. This needs a little background. In ארץ ישראל, you don't have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם if you bring from ארץ ישראל. But if the husband would later on come and say, be מערער, that the that the גט is forged, she will have to find עדים to be to to prove it that the גט is good. Only thing is, we're not afraid, she'll be able to find. If it's in חוץ לארץ, she won't find. So the פועל is like this: in in חוץ לארץ, when you bring a גט from חוץ לארץ, you must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If you don't say it, you can't use the גט. If you bring from בבל, you don't have to say, like from ארץ ישראל. But if the שליח happens to say it, it works, it helps. What does it help? That if later the בעל, the husband will come and be מערער, you won't have to find עדים, his the לשון is אי אתי בעל מערער, לא משגחינן ביה, we won't look at him. And the גמרא says, I'll prove to you that this is the case, כי דתניא.

Brings a ברייתא, מעשה באדם אחד, a story with a man, שהביא גט לפני רבי ישמעאל, he brought a גט to רבי ישמעאל. אמר ליה, he said to him, צריך אני לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם או איני צריך? He brought a גט, and he asked, do I have to say? אמר ליה, so he said, בני, מאין אתה? Where are you from? So he said to him, he's from כפר ססאי. כפר ססאי was a city outside the borders of ארץ ישראל, but it was מובלעת. מובלעת means that it was swallowed in, because the border of ארץ ישראל was like this. And if this area in the middle over there, which is outside of ארץ ישראל, but that's considered סמוך. If you made a square around it. Yeah, make a square be around it. So he said, in that case, he said, אמר ליה, צריך אתה לומר, you should say, you should say, שלא תזקק לעדים, so you don't need עדים. So the same thing, this was basically from a place where you don't have to say, since it was מובלעת, it was in, that's, so the דין is according to most תנאים, you don't have to say like ארץ ישראל, since it was מובלעת ארץ ישראל. So he said to him, you should say in order to avoid later that you shouldn't need עדים. So the same thing like the case before, that he said to him, you don't have to say, but if you say, then the husband will come, but nothing will happen. How's that קיום? That's קיום is, regular קיום is that. And this is when you bring it, you're לכתחילה knowing it. So we

have two stories here in the גמרא. Question is, if you look at the wording of the stories, which seem to be the same, they're different wording. When he asked him in the first case, from an עיר דהיא סוריא, he said, do I have to say or not? You know what he answered him? You don't. But if you'll say, if the husband will come, nothing will happen. The case of רבי ישמעאל, what happened? When he asked, do I have to say or not, he said, yeah, in order not to not to have not to need עדים later. This the thing is the same. In both cases, the דין is that מעיקרא דדינא you don't have to say. If you say, you'll avoid עדים, even if there be a problem, you won't have you won't need to look for עדים. So why in the first case did he say to him no, but if you do it will help, the second one he said yes, in order to in order to help? That's one thing. Another thing, the first case he said what will it help? If the husband will come, לא משגחינן ביה, we don't look at him. Won't mean anything if the husband will be מערער. The second one, he didn't say that. He just says, so you won't need if the husband will come, so you won't need עדים. The first one, he didn't mention anything about עדים. First thing he mentioned only that you won't listen to the husband, which means, in other words, if you would listen to the husband, that you would have to find עדים. We won't listen to the husband, so you won't need עדים. But the way he expressed himself in the first one, he said if the husband will מערער, לא משגחינן ביה, you don't look at him. And the second one, he says so you don't need עדים. So we have two differences. One, here he said yes, and here he said no. First one he said no, and the later one said yes. Even though the דין is the and they meant the same thing. And the first one he said so if the husband comes, it's nothing. And the second one he says so you don't need עדים. Also, the first case, when it says if the husband will come and מערער, לא משגחינן ביה, so רש\"י says, אבל אי לא אמרת, but if you will not say, ואתי בעל ומערער, the husband will come and מערער, if I'd write רש\"י, I would write here the same way it says later. I would write that if you do not say and the husband will מערער, you will need עדים. So רש\"י says, but if you will not say, ואתי בעל ומערער, מיפסל, the גט will be פסול. In the second case also the גט will be פסול, but if you bring עדים, it's not. Till you get עדים, the גט is פסול. The moment the husband comes, if you don't say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, and the husband comes and מערער, right away the גט is פסול. The גט is no good. If you bring in your עדים and you're מקיים, the גט is good. So what רש\"י doesn't say that if you don't say and the husband will מערער, תזקק לעדים, you'll need עדים. He says it will be פסול. And the second case, what the גמרא says, doesn't say the גט will be פסול, even though the דין is the same. In the second case also, you brought it from כפר ססאי, you didn't have to say, and everything is fine. If the husband is מערער, you got a problem with the גט, the גט is פסול. You'll need you'll bring עדים and it'll be okay. But there it doesn't say פסול, it says תזקק לעדים, and the first one says פסול. Okay. This this one שליח who says this, he's the עד אחד. Why does he have to... of his not? You need עדים to verify the signatures. Verify the signatures. And he can't say it למפרע, can't say it after? No, in fact he didn't say it because he didn't see it being written. Oh, that's why he didn't see it. I see. Okay. How's he going to say it, בפני נכתב, if he didn't see it? So that's why he couldn't say. That's the reason. But he asked is it does it make the גט פסול because of that? If he came and asked basically what he was saying is, do I or even before, do I have to look in order to have to say it? Maybe I don't have to come and see it. So he said, the first guy answered him, טאקע you don't. It's not that But your and if you look at it and you say בפני נכתב you'll gain. What will you gain? That if the husband מערער, nothing will happen. It's not that he saw it, but he just didn't say. No, that's Now, that could also be. Oh, yeah? It could also be. So, he could say it later. No, that's he can't say it later. גמרא says if he didn't if he gave it, he didn't say it, it's too late. First of all, who knows later when the בעל מערער, he'll be long gone, in the in עולם התחיה already. How big So, to explain this, the difference between the first case, two cases, is like this. Let's go back to the case of the ארדשיר and אכתיספון. תוספות says that גמרא says if you bring from ארדשיר to אכתיספון, you don't have to say. From אכתיספון to ארדשיר, you do. So, תוספות says even though אכתיספון is very close to ארדשיר, you still have to say. Still have to say there. As the the חתם סופר, doesn't understand. In the first משנה, it speaks about ארץ ישראל, that in from בדינס היו you have to say, from ארץ ישראל not. What happens if you bring from רקם וחגר? Now רקם וחגר were very close to ארץ ישראל. So, the first opinion in the משנה says from רקם וחגר, you don't have to say, even though it's outside of ארץ ישראל. But that's very close to ארץ ישראל, סמוכות we call it. So, because of סמוכות, because it's close, you don't have to say. So, חתם סופר asks, \"How come here by בבל, which אכתיספון is close to בבל, you do have to say? Just like בבל is like ארץ ישראל, בבל you don't have to like ארץ ישראל. By ארץ ישראל we said anything that's סמוך to ארץ ישראל, you don't have to say, so the same thing should be סמוך to בבל.\" But

בבל's degree is so low. That's, that's פשט פשט in the גמרא, yeah? What makes them Because they have עדים מצויין לקיימו, and they have בקיאין לשמה. But you have to have You have to have a so it's always something you could be both both No, close to close, no, but close to the בקי, close to בבל. בבל is not because it's close to ארץ ישראל. בבל is a דין in itself. בבל actually was far from ארץ ישראל. And what was the But בבל is a special place because all the conditions are there. What was the reason ארץ ישראל? Ah? What was the reason ארץ ישראל? Because also they know לשמה, and there is עדים מצויין לקיימו. They seem as though almost the same degree. That's what it sounds like. Same as בבל, same as ארץ ישראל. So, the דין of סמוכות He has that שאלה. The דין of סמוכות should be the same. The different סמוך, you shouldn't have to say. It is a much degree lower. It has to be a much degree lower. Why is it a degree lower? Cuz they have to mention it. They have to mention it. No, because the משנה doesn't say it. The משנה didn't say it, so the גמרא says, \"לבר מבבל.\" בבל is not included. The קדושה there is if you don't base it on this. קדושה there is no קדושה not. No. קדושה But we'll see Let's see. We're we're getting to this ענין. He says maybe the reason is because there was a river in between. He says, \"No, but that's there was a bridge. It's a דוחק.\" So, he comes up with this סברא. He says the whole דין of סמוכות, we only say by ארץ ישראל, not that it's סמוך to someplace else, to בבל, even though בבל has דין like ארץ ישראל, we don't say it. And he says in the משנה he excepted it. Doesn't say exactly why. He says that in עליה לרגל He says does say says from because סמוך to ארץ ישראל, people would travel to go עליה לרגל. He says, \"Ay, there's a דין that you don't have to be עליה לרגל from חוץ לארץ, but still it's a good idea.\" That's why, but in בבל, because there's no מצוה to be עליה לרגל, so it doesn't apply. But if the whole thing is based on עליה לרגל in ארץ ישראל, then it should be not only סמוך, cuz if it's a מצוה to go to לרגל, even from far also. I'm trying to say that there is something more to it to be מחלק between בבל and ארץ ישראל, that by ארץ ישראל we say סמוך, and by בבל not, is another נקודה here that you could add. And that is we the גמרא said before that there is a מחלוקת in the משנה that the תנא קמא says סמוך to ארץ ישראל doesn't have to say. רבן גמליאל says, \"אף מן הרקם ומן החגר, even סמוך you also have to say.\" The גמרא explained what's the מחלוקת? Why does he hold yeah, not? So, the way the גמרא puts the words is like this: that the תנא קמא holds since it's סמוך, so close, they know לשמה, there are עדים מצויין לקיימו. Comes רבן גמליאל says, \"No, even though it's close, they don't know, and it's not עדים מצויין לקיימו.\" Seems like it's a מחלוקת in מציאות. פשוט the fact go check it out. Go over there, see, test the people if they know לשמה, see the people who עדים מצויין לקיימו, see how they travel. How could it be a מחלוקת of מציאות? I want to say מחלוקת is not a מציאות. It's פשט like this. I want to say something which is not really written, and I mean it's it's really a little bit out of the box, as we say, that this דין that סמוך is like ארץ ישראל, it's not only because the technicality, because since it's סמוך, there are עדים that you'll always find. There is a התפשטות of ארץ ישראל into a close place that's close. We find in a lot of things, the רבי has an הערה has in different שיחות, that there's a זמן and a מקום, the ענין of a בר מצר, there's a התפשטות from one to the other. In זמן, תוספת שבת is because that the זמן is נתפשט. So I want to say that the זמן, that the מקום of ארץ ישראל is נתפשט to the סמוך. Now that

itself would not be enough, because here we need the technical reason that there are עדים מצויין לקיימו. So I want to say like this: since it's סמוך, pretty much that there are עדים there to מקים, but not 100%. In ארץ ישראל it's 100%, here it's let's say עדים מצויין לקיימו 70%, but a little bit not, or they know לשמה, not 100%. המחלוקת is, the תנא קמא says because after all they knew they are עדים מצויין לקיימו, so we say it's you don't have to say it. רבן גמליאל says, but סוף כל סוף it's not the same way, not exactly, you do. What makes them say each side? How the מחלוקת is makes, what's it makes in הלכה? Because the תנא קמא learns the ענין of סמוך of התפשטות. Since it's מתפשט, so if there would be not, they wouldn't know לשמה at all, and there wouldn't be any עדים, so the התפשטות wouldn't be enough to be able to say don't say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. There is a reason to say בפני נכתב not to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, because they are close and they do know לשמה, they are עדים a little, but not 100%. So you're מצטרף, you add the fact that it's סמוך, so there is a התפשטות of the דין of ארץ ישראל. שאין כן רבן גמליאל says we don't learn this דין of סמוך. Because the רבי, whenever he talks about the התפשטות, he always brings that there are שיטות, מחלוקת. So תנא קמא holds we do say the התפשטות, and רבן גמליאל says we don't say the התפשטות. And I'm repeating again: if it wouldn't be at all עדים מצויין לקיימו, that wouldn't help a מתפשטות. It's not even so... But since there is עדים, that's what the תנא קמא says: since it's close, there are עדים. רבן גמליאל says: no, they're not עדים. Doesn't mean the מחלוקת is whether there are. Both agreed that there is and there isn't. The שאלה is which side do you stress? And the תנא קמא stresses the side that it is. Why? Because he says the סמוך of התפשטות, and this not. לפי זה you could say like this: What, is it easier to find עדים, why is it easier to find עדים over there? Because it's close. No, I don't mean the סמוך, I mean just in ארץ ישראל versus... Ah, that's the גמרא says, because the ישיבה is there and the people go to ירושלים for יום טוב, so... עדים כשר עדים, כשר עדים. Yeah, yeah, obviously. Not necessarily the people that saw the... No, no, עדים that recognize the signatures, that only people who communicate, so they know people from this city know the signatures of the people in this city. So, other cities wouldn't be like that? Right, if there's no communications, people don't do any business, so they don't know. But that's the גמרא, that's not the... that's the... I want to say like this: When we speak about בבל, that בבל is like ארץ ישראל, I want to say that בבל has the דין of ארץ ישראל, but it's not the same, not בעצם. דאס הייסט אזוי: there is a place where you don't have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם like ארץ ישראל, that's the דין בעצם, that's a מקום where you don't have to say, and then there is in בבל, the מקום is actually, it's included in the תקנה that you have to say, because it's מדינת הים. The חכמים said in מדינת הים you have to say. לפועל they said, because of these reasons, לפועל you don't have to say. But בעצם you would have to say. על דרך last year in מסכת שבת we learned, so I explained many times, it's also not so פשוט, that you have a רשות היחיד, you have a רשות הרבים, you have a כרמלית. So I want to say in רשות היחיד you have two kinds: you have certain things which are בעצם a רשות היחיד, and certain things which have a דין of a רשות היחיד. Certain things are בעצם a רשות הרבים, and certain things have a דין of a רשות הרבים. By a כרמלית, בוודאי we see that, it's the famous בעל המאור. The the ברייתא mentions the different רשויות and then it mentions what they are. Then it says: what's a כרמלית? A ים, ocean, a river, then it says והכרמלית, and a כרמלית. So the גמרא asks what, they're all כרמלית. So the גמרא says it comes to add a corner, it's also whatever. Comes the בעל המאור and he says what the משנה, גמרא is trying to tell us that the עצם כרמלית is the קרן זוית, is that extra thing. All the other כרמלית they have a דין of a כרמלית. So the same thing I want to say here also: in this תקנה that you don't, that here you have to say, here not. So ארץ ישראל was לכתחילה not part of the תקנה, it's בעצם a מקום that you don't have to say. בבל is בעצם a מקום that you would have to say. לפועל for a certain reason, this the חכמים said that you don't. Now that... huh? No, it's a דין. No, it's a... It has, no. It's a... פארקערט, it's a דין only that you don't have to say. It's not בעצם you don't have to say. It's only a דין that לפועל you don't have to say. What is that נוגע? Since we came to the point that the דין of סמוכות is because of the התפשטות, why is סמוכות because the ארץ ישראל is מתפשט? התפשטות you could only say from a מקום. If this מקום is מקום is מתפשט further. From a דין, you can't say the דין is מתפשט. So in ארץ ישראל where ארץ ישראל is a בעצם a מקום that you don't say, סמוכות could get the התפשטות of ארץ ישראל. בבל, who בעצם you have to say, אלא מאי, בפועל you don't, so you want to say that סמוכות shouldn't say because of the התפשטות of בבל, that you can't say. From a דין you don't say התפשטות. And that answers the שאלה on this קושיא on תוספות הרא\"ש, that תוספות says you do have to say, and he asked, \"But it's סמוך, why don't you have to say? It's סמוך just like you're סמוך in ארץ ישראל you don't, why סמוך to בבל?\" So I'm saying now, why סמוך to בבל you...

because the whole ענין of סמוכות does not apply there, because סמוכות has to do with the התפשטות from the place to that, and this idea that you don't say in בבל is not a מקום, it's a דין. According to this, I want to explain the two stories. The two stories, if you look at it, the first story was בבל, the second one was ארץ ישראל. The first story was from הרדוא to סורא, סורא to הרדוא. The second was פארסא סהדי which was by ארץ ישראל. So I want to say like this: when it came the case of בבל and he asked him, \"Do I have to say or not?\", had he answered him, \"You have to say,\" he would really think that you בפועל have to say. Why? Because since בעצם בבל is a place where בעצם is under the תקנה, had he told him, \"Yes, you have to...\" he asked him, \"צריכת?\" Had he said, \"צריכת, you have to say,\" and then he would have explained, \"Why do you have to say? In order to avoid later the problem of עדים,\" it would have caused a mistake to think. So that's why he couldn't, he answered him, \"You don't have to say,\" because בפועל you don't have to say. And he didn't want to tell him you do have, \"You should say,\" because it's too close to what it really is בעצם. While on the second case, since בעצם in בבל you have to say, and had he told, he asked him, \"Do I have to say?\", he would say, \"Yes,\" we would think that you have to say. See, the second case where it's ארץ ישראל, by saying, \"You should say in order to avoid problem of עדים,\" does doesn't give a מקום that maybe you have to say. Everyone knows ארץ ישראל is a place you don't say. But בבל, which is part of מדינת הים, and anyway, even if you don't have, even if the דין if you don't have to say, but בעצם you have to, he didn't want to tell him you have to say. But the second case he said, \"לא צריכת.\" When he asked him, \"Do I have to say?\", he said, \"No, you don't need.\" Also, in the first case, we're saying like this: it's talking about בבל. בבל בעצם you have to say. Now, this, you have to listen here, האב קאפ. This

תקנה of saying בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, is it a חומרא or a קולא? A קולא for the woman? It's a חומרא that we make you say something, but it's a קולא that you don't have to find two עדים. To the woman. In other words, no, it's not in a קולא for the woman, it's a קולא in דין. This guy is מקיים the שטר. Normally, the גמרא you have to have two עדים. The חכמים were מיקל. The גמרא says on דף ב עמוד ב: משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן. They were מיקל. It would make sense that in a place where you don't have to say, there is no תקנה that you have to say, when you say, it shouldn't help. Right? Because why does it help? Because of the special תקנה. If there is no תקנה, so באמת in ארץ ישראל where you don't have to say בפני נכתב, even if the guy would say, לכאורה it shouldn't work, because one guy is not enough to be מקיים. The דין is not like that, the דין is that it does work, but it's a big חידוש. Now where is there a bigger חידוש that if you do say it works, even though you don't have to, in בבל or ארץ ישראל? בבל. It's not a חידוש. No, it's a bigger חידוש in ארץ ישראל that it works. בבל which is בעצם part of the תקנה, so it should work. The תקנה was to say בפני נכתב and it should work even though he's one, that's the תקנה. בבל is part of that תקנה. בפועל ממש, the חכמים said, \"We took off that the fact that you should say, we're not מחייב you to say.\" But the fact that if you do say it works in בבל makes more sense. מה שאין כן in ארץ ישראל, it's a big חידוש. There's no תקנה, the דין is בעצם you don't have to say, so why would it work with one guy? So it comes out that when the guy says in בבל, It would not work. Huh? Because he doesn't have to say, so wouldn't it not work? Where? In ארץ ישראל. So it can't work, like shouldn't work. Right, I mean wouldn't not work. No, in בבל you also don't have to say, but בעצם you do have to. But you have to. So the תקנה is there, if the תקנה is there, then the תקנה works. So it comes out like this: that if בפועל you said in בבל, it's exactly as as if you said it in מדינת הים. In מדינת הים, if you say it, it works. But there you have to. Here you don't בפועל have to, but it works just the same as there. What is in מדינת הים when you say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם and the husband comes, and he's מערער? No problem. We don't look at him. So that's why the first case where it was בבל, he said like this: You don't have to say, but if you say, know what will happen? If the בעל will come, לא משגחינן ביה. לא משגחינן ביה! We won't look at him! Because since it's part of the תקנה, the saying works. In ארץ ישראל, he didn't say we won't look at him. בפועל ממש it helps there too, but over there it helps that you don't need the עדים. לפועל it works, לא פועל it works, but he couldn't use the לשון לא משגחינן ביה, it will be nothing, because it's a big חידוש that in ארץ ישראל that you don't that if you say it works, cuz it's not part of the תקנה בפני נכתב. Why should it work? Nevertheless, the חכמים said it works. Now, the תוספות says because בעצם is that you don't have to say, therefore Right. So there's no תקנה. There's no תקנה. The תקנה made that you have to say plus that if one guy if one guy says it's enough, but that's still not part of the תקנה. If the husband does come then So you got a big problem. But that Because you don't have to, because you don't have to say, it's it's just you didn't have to say, But if you did say, then you have no problem. But that's not the פשט that it's nothing, it's a חידוש that if the husband comes you don't no problem. Why? Because it's not part of the תקנה, so the תקנה that you should say doesn't apply. So the תקנה of believing one guy is a big חידוש in it. But in בבל it's no חידוש, it's like מדינת הים, so it's לא משגחינן ביה. That answers the תוספות שיטה. Now going to רש\"י, in בבל, since בעצם you should say, אלא מאי the חכמים said בפועל you don't have to say. If the husband comes and is מערער, know what happens? Since בעצם you had to say, it brings back, it becomes like in מדינת הים if you wouldn't say. In מדינת הים, if you don't say, what happens if you bring a גט and you don't say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? The גט is פסול. You did something wrong. In בבל if you don't say you didn't do anything wrong, but לפועל ממש if the

husband is מערער, it brings back that בעצם the פסול is there. Because we said בעצם in בבל you have to say. In ארץ ישראל, לכתחילה it was no תקנה to say. So if you didn't say, there is nothing missing here. Okay, בבל also nothing missing, nothing wrong, but לפועל you're missing this because really it's part of the תקנה. So in ארץ ישראל, till the בעל is מערער, when the בעל is מערער, did you is there anything missing? No, you did everything 100%. אלא מאי, when the בעל is מערער, now you got a problem, you got to find עדות. In בבל, if the בעל is מערער, it's not only that you got to find עדות. Since בעצם you should have said בפני נכתב, if the בעל is מערער, it makes it פסול. Technically, they're both the same. It's both the same. In ארץ ישראל, if you don't say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם and the בעל is מערער, till the בעל is מערער, the גט is fine. When the בעל is מערער, you can't use the גט. It's finished. She stays she can't. When you bring עדים afterwards, it becomes good again. The same thing in בבל. You don't have to say, if the if you didn't say and the בעל is מערער, you have to stop, the גט is no good anymore. If you bring עדים, it becomes good again. So למעשה it's the same, but in in in היגיון, what's happening here? In בבל when the בעל is מערער is worse. If In other words, it's both worse. If you said בפני נכתב, it's better in בבל than ארץ ישראל. Why? Cuz in בבל it's part of the תקנה. If you didn't say בפני נכתב and the בעל is מערער, in בבל it's worse! Just like in in מדינת הים it's worse. Better and worse. That's why in the first case רש\"י says if the בעל will be מערער, אבל אי לא if you don't say, ואתא בעל ומערער, מפסיל. It'll be פסול. And that he only said by בבל. By ארץ ישראל, he didn't say. Even though בפועל ממש it'll be the same פסול, over there it's not בעצם פסול, it's just you got to hold you didn't do anything wrong, the גט is fine. אלא מאי you got to wait for קיום. And here the גט is פסול because it's similar to מדינת הים. And that's all because בבל is not בעצם a place where you don't say. Okay. Yeah. It's quite clear. ארץ ישראל it seems to be, what, what, what's, it's more sensitive. In other words, you don't have to say, but if the husband come and there's more of an opening for the husband to be No, wherever you don't say the husband is able to come and be מערער. Right, wherever you don't say. Now, in מדינת הים if you don't say, It's weaker in the sense What's weaker? The The saying בפני נכתב is weaker. Right, obviously it's weaker, but it also then the not saying, the fact that you don't have to say No, you do say it. It's weaker. Yeah. It's it's also The not saying also is not There's no strength behind it. It's also weak. You'd think that No, the not saying is fine. The not saying is 100% because in ארץ ישראל there's no תקנה to say. In בבל the not saying is weaker. But because the not saying is weaker, the saying is stronger. To do say is stronger than in ארץ ישראל. In In בבל. In בבל. Right, but that doesn't help you in ארץ ישראל. That's it. That's it. But בפועל it helps, but it's but it's much weaker than in בבל. It's much weaker, right. Because בבל is באמת similar to מדינת הים. Right, but again I don't

Why is it weaker in ארץ ישראל? Why is it Is it weaker because Because there's no תקנה! Right, I know, but why why not is it Because there's עדים מצויין לקיימו! It's not מדינת The תקנה was מדינת הים and ארץ ישראל, that's all. In מדינת הים גופא there was בבל, so they said בבל בפועל you don't have to say. It's not being trusting. You know, when you're more trusting, you're more open to to get hurt, you know, somebody could take advantage of you. It seems like in ארץ ישראל it's it's like it's a trust factor. You don't have to say it because we all know and and and it's a certain level of there's the ישיבות, the learning, the No, בפועל ממש they was the same, but because it's part of מדינת הים, so it falls under the general category of the תקנה. Of בבל, right. יישר כח, יישר כח. Thanks so much for doing it with five. Yeah, 100 shares, at a little 120 shares. Yeah. Was that five? Yeah, I wanted to translate for you quickly the פשט, and there was a couple of things I wanted, but I I didn't want to I wanted to say it quickly. I was I was thinking about you. You can't think. Actually, I was trying not to listen.