The Mishna in Gittin (2a) begins with a statement that an agent bringing a get from abroad must declare that it was written and signed before him. Rabban Gamliel (of Yavneh, third-generation Tanna) adds that one must similarly recite it if he brings from Rekem and Cheger. Rabbi Eliezer (ben Hyrcanus, third-generation Tanna) adds that this is even from Kfar Ludim to Lud. The mishna continues with other opinions.
I don’t live in Israel in Rabbi Eliezer’s time, so I have no idea as to the implications of Kfar Ludim and Lud. How close were these to each other? Was there a difference in government? Was it a border town, with Kfar Ludim across the border? Who populated these towns? There was some obvious meaning to the immediate audience of the mishna which escapes me, but from which we can understand what Rabbi Eliezer is adding. Perhaps Amoraim, or the Rishonim or archaeologists can help.
On Gittin 4a, Abaye—a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora—is cited by the Talmudic narrator (first תְּנַן, then וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, then וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, and finally the supposition, מִכְּלָל) as saying that we are dealing with cities (בַּעֲיָירוֹת) which are adjacent to Israel and swallowed up within its concave borders. Perhaps Abaye had direct knowledge of these cities, perhaps he had a tradition or perhaps he arrived at this explanation via reason. Preceding Abaye was Rabbi Illai speaking to Rabbi Yishmael about a get from Kfar Sisai, where he said, וַהֲלֹא כְּפַר סִיסַאי מוּבְלַעַת בִּתְחוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּקְרוֹבָה לְצִיפּוֹרִי יוֹתֵר מֵעַכּוֹ. Thus, we see both adjacency/being swallowed up.
Bavli’s Understanding
The Talmudic narrator seems to take Abaye’s statement to be about not only Rekem and Cheger (merely adjacent) but even about Kfar Ludim to Lud (swallowed up). But what is intended by the plural “cities?” Further, Abaye might not have had direct knowledge, and the narrator might have misconstrued his intent.
The Talmudic narrator also quotes Rabba bar bar Chana. This third-generation student of Rabbi Yochanan traveled back and forth between Israel and Bavel, and said “I personally saw that place, and it was like from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita.” I am reminded of Ramban’s explanation to Bereishit 35:16, וַֽיְהִי־ע֥וֹד כִּבְרַת־הָאָ֖רֶץ לָב֣וֹא אֶפְרָ֑תָה. While in Spain, he adopted Radak’s explanation of wherein “ke” meant “like” and “berat” meant “food,” thus the distance a traveler would travel between morning and the time of eating. When Ramban merited to travel to Jerusalem in 1267 CE, he saw that there wasn’t a mile between kever Rachel and Bethlehem, so revised his interpretation so that it was the measure of a small distance of land.
This language, לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי הָהוּא אַתְרָא, is elsewhere stated by Rabbah bar bar Chana in Eruvin 55b (quoting Rabbi Yochanan) and Yoma 75b (with just Rabbah bar bar Chana), who saw the place of the encampment of the wilderness, and it was three square parasangs. In Pesachim 93b, Rabbi Chanina employs this language in describing the distance between Sodom and Tzoar. In Gittin 57a, after (Babylonian Amora) Rav Yehuda cited (Babylonian Amora) Rav Asi that three particular cities had a population double that of those who left Egypt, Ulla says he personally saw these cities, and they could not have held even 600,000 reeds, let alone people!
Finally, in Megillah 6a, Rabba bar bar Chana cites Rabbi Yochanan—in describing the fertile area of Israel—saying he saw it firsthand, and it was the distance from Bei Kuvei (note the place) to the fortress of Tulbakni, 22 parasangs wide and six parasangs long. These statements describe the dimensions of some location or the distance to a location. Could distance from Bei Kuvei to Pumpedita be intended? Here, distance might be intended. It seems almost farfetched to say that it means a quality rather than quantity; that Bei Kuvei was across the border, or surrounded by the border, but it is a legitimate interpretation, for now.
Greek to Me
While the translation to Babylonian equivalents would have helped third and fourth-generation Amoraim, I am still at a loss as to Rabba bar bar Chana’s intent in saying “it was like from Bei Kuvei to Pumbedita.” I don’t know the nature of the residents of Bei Kuvei, the distance, the borders, and so on. Let’s examine Bei Kuvei across Shas.
In Pesachim 49a, about a Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywhere, Rava (associated with Pumbedita) says that the bad reputation he gains is that he is called a “bar merakeid bei kuvei—a person who dances in inns/taverns/among the wine barrels.” There, בֵּי כוּבֵּי doesn’t seem to have the connotation of a town close to Pumbedita. The same expression of מְרַקֵּיד בֵּי כוּבֵּי also appears in Bava Kamma and Bava Metzia. In Bava Kamma 97a and Bava Metzia 64a, we hear that Rav Nachman’s servant, Daru, only danced in “bei kuvei,” rather than performing other labors. In Kiddushin 70b, Rav Yosef (of Pumbedita) said that those in Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita are (descendants of) slaves. He seems to be speaking of a close town—rather than taverns—but note the mention of עַבְדֵי.
In Ketubot 111a, Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel that just as one may not leave Israel to go to Bavel, so may one not leave Bavel to go to other lands. Rabba and Rav Yosef (both of Pumbedita) said: even from Pumbedita to Bei Kuvei. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Bei Kuvei—besides being quite close to Pumbedita—is also across the Babylonian border. Babylonia spanned from Tigris to Euphrates, and Pumbedita was situated next to the Euphrates.
Another interpretation of Ketubot I find compelling is that leaving Israel, and leaving Babylonia, entailed leaving centers of Jewish learning, on a macro scale. So too, relocating out of the city/academy of Pumbedita—even to the close precincts—was a violation and was deemed abandoning a Torah center, albeit on a micro scale. If so, Rabba bar bar Chana was only speaking of distance with his comparison of Kfar Ludim to Bei Kuvei—not of crossing a border, and in line with other לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי הָהוּא אַתְרָא.
Yerushalmi’s Understanding
Who should know Lydda better than Amoraim of Israel? Towards the end of Yerushalmi Gittin 1:1, we are treated to a Galilean Aramaic account of what the Tanna of the Mishna, Rabbi Lazer (shorthand for Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus—so understands Tosefta Kifshuta; this isn’t Rabbi Eliezer ben Shamua who maintains that עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי;) replied, or would reply, to the sages. Thus: מְתִיב רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנִן: כְּמָא דְאִית לְכוֹן הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם, אַף אֲנָא אִית לִי הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינָה לִמְדִינָה בִּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם.
“Just as you require recitation of ‘befanay’ from one region to another for a get abroad, so do I maintain that one who brings a get from one region to another in Israel needs to recite.” This would make Rabbi Eliezer the author of the final statement of our mishna. So too, in the reisha, this could be the very point Rabbi Eliezer makes regarding Kfar Ludim to Lud, that both are in Israel. The Pnei Moshe commentary tries to interpret this Yerushalmi as despite Kfar Ludim being over the border, but that’s because he tries to read Yerushalmi in Babylonian light. But, the Babylonian Talmudic narrator has never seen Kfar Ludim or Lud, and interpreted Abaye and Rabbah bar bar Chana’s statement in its own way. The Yerushalmi has firsthand knowledge, and aligns with our distance interpretation of Bei Kovei to Pumpedita.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
