The Abe B. Setton edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, introduces us to the intricacies of Masechet Gittin. This segment has been generously sponsored by Mr. Haimi Dana, a devoted student of Daf Yomi, and his dear wife, may Hashem protect and bless them. Their dedication to learning is rooted in the principle that studying these matters can prevent their occurrence in reality. Therefore, our exploration of Masechet Gittin serves not only as an academic pursuit but as a heartfelt prayer for peace and success for them and for all of Klal Yisrael.
Today’s discussion begins on Zayin Amud Bet, where we revisit the topic of the waters of Eretz Yisrael. A specific case arises concerning a person who writes a get on a boat. The question at hand is whether the waters, being within the sea space of Eretz Yisrael, can be considered as part of Eretz Yisrael for the purposes of the get. We encounter a stira between two braitot: one states that one does not need to say befanai nictav, while the other asserts that one does. To reconcile these conflicting opinions, we reference the teachings of Rabbi Yehuda.
Rabbi Yehuda is not discussing gittin specifically but rather a different law regarding land acquisition. He posits that if a boat is constructed from cheres and is grounded, it is considered as if it is connected to the seabed, thus making it part of Eretz Yisrael. If the boat is not grounded, however, it does not carry the status of Eretz Yisrael. This distinction is crucial as it affects various halachic implications, such as ma'asrot and shmita.
Moving forward, the discussion shifts to a new topic introduced by Rabbi Zeira, concerning an atzitz nakuv, or a flowerpot with a hole, that is suspended above the ground on poles in Eretz Yisrael. The question arises: does this count as planting in Eretz Yisrael? The implication is significant for ma'asrot and other laws. The Gemara links this case to the previous discussion about the boat, suggesting a similar argument between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim.
The Chachamim maintain that the airspace does not separate the atzitz nakuv from the ground, thereby granting it the status of Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, Rabbi Yehuda argues that without direct contact with the ground, the atzitz nakuv does not gain the halachic status of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara presents a counterargument, suggesting that the distinction might not hold; the atzitz is stationary and thus should not be treated differently than the grounded boat.
As the discussion progresses, Rabbah introduces the possibility that the arguments regarding the boat and the flowerpot may not be directly linked. He proposes that while the boat must be grounded due to its nature of movement, the atzitz is inherently stable. This leads to a deeper examination of the halachic implications of airspace in these scenarios.
The Gemara then addresses the rivers of Eretz Yisrael, asserting that they are universally accepted as part of Eretz Yisrael, regardless of whether a boat is grounded. This consensus allows us to set aside previous debates concerning the status of the waters. However, the argument shifts when we consider the Mediterranean Sea. Here, a fundamental disagreement arises between the Rabbanan and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the territorial borders of Eretz Yisrael.
The Rabbanan define the borders of Eretz Yisrael by drawing an imaginary line from Hor HaHar to Mitzrayim, which extends into the Mediterranean. Any land or island within this boundary is considered Eretz Yisrael. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda expands this definition, claiming that any area parallel to the width of Eretz Yisrael across the Mediterranean should also be classified as Eretz Yisrael.
This disagreement leads to further implications for the status of a get written on a boat within the Mediterranean. If the boat is within the bounds defined by Rabbi Yehuda, it would be considered part of Eretz Yisrael, while the Rabbanan would classify it as chutz la'aretz. The Gemara continues to explore these distinctions, emphasizing the importance of understanding the nuances in halachic rulings.
As we delve deeper into the discussion, we examine the specific case of Akko and Surya, noting how each is treated differently in relation to gittin and avadim. The Gemara highlights the halachic significance of these locations, particularly in the context of transactions involving slaves and their status upon sale.
Ultimately, the exploration of these topics illuminates the intricate and often contentious nature of halachic discourse surrounding Eretz Yisrael and its borders. The discussions not only clarify the legal standings but also reflect the deep connection between the land and its people, underscoring the importance of these rulings in the lives of those who inhabit Eretz Yisrael.