Today's Daf Yomi
February 29, 2016 | כ׳ באדר א׳ תשע״ו
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and Saul Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.
Gittin 78
If a husband gives a get to his wife in his house and instead of handing it to her directly, puts it on something that belongs to her, in what situations does it work? Why? What happens if he gives the get to her but doesn’t tell her it is a get? or puts it in her hand while she is sleeping? If they are in public space and the husband throws the get to her, it depends on where the get lands – closer to him or closer to her. Details of this are discussed – what exactly is meant by ‘closer to her’?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
שם לווי אבל אית ליה שם לווי אף על גב דלא גבוה עשרה ואף על גב דלא הוי ארבע אמות
a modifier, meaning that this board is not referred to by a unique name. But if it has a modifier, even though it is not ten handbreadths higher than the courtyard, and even though the board did not have an area of four cubits, it is still considered to be a separate domain, and it would therefore not be an effective divorce.
אפילו הוא עמה במטה כו׳ אמר רבא לא שנו אלא במטה שלו אבל במטה שלה מגורשת
§ It was taught in the mishna that if he throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in his house, she is not divorced, even if the bill of divorce is with her in the bed, i.e., he throws it onto the bed in which she is sitting or lying. Rava says: They taught this only in a case where he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her in his bed. But if he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her in her bed, then she is divorced.
תניא נמי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר במטה שלו אינה מגורשת במטה שלה מגורשת
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If he throws the bill of divorce to her when she is in his bed, she is not divorced; if he throws it to her when she is in her bed, she is divorced.
ובמטה שלה מגורשת כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא שמעת מינה כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה לוקח
The Gemara asks: And if he throws the bill of divorce to her in her bed, is she divorced? But the bed is like vessels of a buyer that are in the domain of the seller, since the bed that belongs to her is in the house of the husband. Can you conclude from here that even if the vessels of a buyer are in the domain of the seller, the buyer acquires anything that is deposited into his vessels? This issue is disputed elsewhere. Some hold that when a vessel of the buyer is in the domain of the seller, the vessel cannot serve to acquire an item on behalf of the buyer.
לא צריכא דגבוה עשרה והאיכא מקום כרעי אמקום כרעי לא קפדי אינשי
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the bed is ten handbreadths high, as then the bed is considered to be its own domain. The Gemara challenges this: But there is the place on which the legs of the bed are standing; the legs are standing in the husband’s domain. The Gemara answers: People are not particular about the place of the legs of the bed since it is so small. Therefore, since the bed is considered to be its own domain, it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband.
לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה מגורשת אמאי כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא
§ It was taught in the mishna that if the husband threw the bill of divorce into her lap, or into her basket, then she is divorced, even if she is in her husband’s house at that time. The Gemara asks: Why is she divorced? Is this not like a case of the vessels of a buyer that are in the domain of the seller, with regard to which there is a dispute concerning whether the vessels can serve to acquire an item on the buyer’s behalf?
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה וכן אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר קשורה אף על פי שאינה תלויה
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was hanging from her body, and therefore it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband. And so Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was hanging from her body. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: If it was tied to her then that is enough, even though it is not hanging from her body.
רב אדא בר אהבה אמר כגון שהיתה קלתה מונחת לה בין ירכותיה רב משרשיא בר רב דימי אמר כגון שהיה בעלה מוכר קלתות
Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was placed between her thighs and is therefore in the place where she is sitting, and since her husband is not particular about the place in which she is sitting, it is considered her domain. Rav Mesharshiyya bar Rav Dimi says: The mishna is referring to a case where her husband was a basket seller, and therefore is not particular about the place where the basket is since his whole courtyard is full of baskets, and it is therefore considered to be her domain.
רבי יוחנן אמר מקום חיקה קנוי לה מקום קלתה קנוי לה אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי יוחנן לפי שאין אדם מקפיד לא על מקום חיקה ולא על מקום קלתה
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no need for these explanations, since the place of her lap belongs to her, and the place of her basket belongs to her. Rava said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement? Because a person is not particular, not about the place of his wife’s lap, nor about the place of her basket, it is as though he transferred ownership of the place to her for her use.
תניא נמי הכי זרקו לה לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה או לתוך כל דבר שהוא כקלתה הרי זו מגורשת
This is also taught in a baraita: If he threw the bill of divorce to her into her lap, or into her basket, or into anything that is like her basket, then she is divorced.
כל דבר שהוא כקלתה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי טסקא דאכלה בה תמרי
The Gemara analyzes the wording of the baraita: What is included by the expansive term: Anything that is like her basket? It serves to include the basket [taska] from which she eats dates, as he is not particular about its place as well.
מתני׳ אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או שמצאתו מאחוריו קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך
MISHNA: If he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, and it was a bill of divorce, or she found it behind him and he did not tell her what it was but she reads what is written in it and discovers that it is her bill of divorce, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
נתן בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך
If he gave it to her in her hand and she was sleeping, and he then woke her, and when she reads what is written in it, she finds that it is her bill of divorce, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
גמ׳ כי אמר לה הא גיטיך מאי הוי הוה ליה טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע
GEMARA: Apropos the mishna’s statement that if she found the bill of divorce behind him, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says: This is your bill of divorce, the Gemara asks: And when he says to her: This is your bill of divorce, what of it? Why is it considered to be a valid bill of divorce if it was not given to her in the proper manner, being that it is as though he told her: Take your bill of divorce from where it is placed on the ground?
ואמר רבא טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע לא אמר כלום אימא ששלפתו מאחוריו
And Rava says that if one says to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from where it is placed on the ground, it is as though he didn’t say anything and it is not a valid bill of divorce, since a woman is divorced only when the bill of divorce is given to her by her husband. The Gemara answers: Say that the bill of divorce was not placed on the ground behind him, but rather she pulled it out from behind him. In other words, the bill of divorce was tucked into his belt and she pulled it out. Consequently, she received the bill of divorce from him.
שלפתו נמי הא בעינא ונתן בידה וליכא לא צריכא דערק לה חרציה ושלפתיה
The Gemara challenges this: If she pulled it out, it is also not a valid bill of divorce, since it is required that the directive: “And gives it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1), be fulfilled, and in this case it is not fulfilled, since he did not give it to her; rather, she took it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he bent [da’arak] his waist over toward her and she pulled it out, and by extending his waist to her, it is as though he gave the bill of divorce to her.
תניא נמי הכי אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או ששלפתו מאחוריו קראתו והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר לעולם אינו גט עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך
This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): If he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, or if she pulled it out from behind him, read it, and saw that it is her bill of divorce; it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Actually, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
נתנו בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה וקוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך
The baraita continues: If he gave it to her in her hand, and she was sleeping, and he then woke her, and when she reads what is written in it, she finds that it is her bill of divorce; it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is not a valid bill of divorce until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
וצריכא דאי איתמר בהך קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי משום דבת איגרושי היא אבל נתן בידה והיא ישנה דלאו בת איגרושי היא אימא מודי ליה לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר
The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to mention this dispute in both cases. As if this dispute would have been stated only with regard to the cases in the first clause, one could assume that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying his opinion specifically with regard to the cases in this clause, because she is subject to being divorced, since she is awake and able to receive a bill of divorce, even though he did not tell her that this is a bill of divorce. But if he gave it to her in her hand and she was sleeping, she is not subject to being divorced since while she is sleeping she is a person who lacks the halakhic competence required to receive a bill of divorce. Therefore, one could say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that giving the bill of divorce while she was sleeping is totally not valid. It was therefore necessary to mention that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees in this case, as well.
ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לרבי צריכא
And if this dispute would have been stated only with regard to this case, where she was sleeping, one could assume that specifically with regard to this case Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying that he must give her the bill of divorce a second time. But in the other case, in which she was awake, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, it is necessary to mention this dispute in both cases.
אמר רבא כתב לה גט ונתנו ביד עבדה ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט ניעור אינו גט דהויא ליה חצר המשתמרת שלא לדעתה
Rava says: If he wrote a bill of divorce for her, and he placed it in the hand of her slave when he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. Within the context of the halakhot of divorce, a slave has the same status as land, in the sense that both belong to their owner. Therefore, when the husband places the bill of divorce in the slave’s hand, it is as though he placed it into her courtyard. If her slave was awake, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he is like a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her. Since he guards himself, he therefore does not acquire it on her behalf.
ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט אמאי חצר מהלכת היא וחצר מהלכת לא קנה
Rava continues: If he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But why; isn’t it true that the slave is like a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire items on behalf of its owner?
וכי תימא ישן שאני והא אמר רבא כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה עומד ויושב לא קנה והלכתא בכפות
And if you would say that a case in which he is sleeping is different because he is currently not moving, but didn’t Rava say: In any case in which if he would be moving he would not acquire items, then even if he is standing or sitting, he also does not acquire items? The Gemara concludes: And this halakha that Rava said, indicating that it is a valid bill of divorce, applies only where the slave is bound and sleeping, since in that case placing the bill of divorce in his hand is like placing it in her hand.
מתני׳ היתה עומדת ברשות הרבים וזרקו לה קרוב לה מגורשת קרוב לו אינה מגורשת מחצה על מחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת וכן לענין קדושין
MISHNA: If the woman was standing in the public domain and her husband took the bill of divorce and threw it to her, if it fell closer to her, she is divorced, and if it fell closer to him, she is not divorced. If it is equally balanced, there is uncertainty as to whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced. And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal.
וכן לענין החוב אמר לו בעל חובו זרוק לי חובי וזרקו לו קרוב למלוה זכה המלוה קרוב ללוה הלוה חייב מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו
And the same halakhot apply with regard to a debt. If his creditor said to him: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and he threw it to him and the money fell closer to the creditor, the creditor acquired the payment. The debtor is absolved of his obligation to pay even if the money did not reach the creditor’s hand, e.g., it was stolen or lost after it was thrown and before the creditor was able to take it. If it fell closer to the debtor and the money was lost, the debtor is still obligated to pay. If it was equally balanced and was lost, the two of them divide it, i.e., the debtor owes half of the amount.
גמ׳ היכי דמי קרוב לה והיכי דמי קרוב לו אמר רב ארבע אמות שלה זהו קרוב לה ארבע אמות שלו זהו קרוב לו
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies that which was taught in the mishna: What is considered closer to her, and what is considered closer to him? Rav says: If it fell within four cubits of her, this is what was meant by the mishna’s statement: Closer to her; if it fell within four cubits of him, this is what was meant by: Closer to him.
היכי דמי מחצה על מחצה אמר רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק כגון שהיו שניהן עומדין בארבע אמות
The Gemara asks: What is considered midway? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Such as when the two of them were standing within the same four cubits.
וליחזי הי מינייהו קדים וכי תימא דאתו תרוייהו בהדי הדדי והא אי אפשר לצמצם
The Gemara asks: And let us see which of them preceded the other into these four cubits, and the four cubits would then be considered as belonging to that person. And if you would say that both of them came simultaneously, but isn’t there a principle that it is impossible to be so precise? It is not possible that both events occurred at exactly the same time, and it is certain that one of them arrived there before the other.
אלא אמר רב כהנא הכא בשמונה אמות מצומצמות עסקינן
Rather, Rav Kahana said: Here we are dealing with a case of precisely eight cubits, where his four cubits are adjacent to her four cubits,
וגט יוצא מארבע אמות שלו לארבע אמות שלה
and the bill of divorce extends from his four cubits into her four cubits, meaning that part of the bill of divorce is in his four cubits, and part is in hers. Therefore, in this case there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.
והא אגיד גביה אלא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו הכא בשתי כיתי עדים עסקינן אחת אומרת קרוב לו ואחת אומרת קרוב לה
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the bill of divorce still attached to him, since part of it is within his four cubits, and therefore it cannot be considered as if he gave her the bill of divorce completely? Rather, one should explain as Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Here we are dealing with two groups of witnesses; one says that the bill of divorce fell closer to him, and one says that the bill of divorce fell closer to her. Therefore, the expression in the mishna, equally balanced, is referring not to distance but to opinions.
רבי יוחנן אומר קרוב לה שנינו אפילו מאה אמה וקרוב לו שנינו אפילו מאה אמה
As opposed to Rav, who explained that in the mishna, the word closer meant within four cubits, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: We learned that closer to her means that the bill of divorce was actually closer to her, even if it was one hundred cubits away from her. And we learned that closer to him means that it was actually closer to him, even if it was one hundred cubits away from him.
היכי דמי מחצה על מחצה אמר רב שמן בר אבא לדידי מיפרשא לה מיניה דרבי יוחנן הוא יכול לשומרו והיא אינה יכולה לשומרו זהו קרוב לו היא יכולה לשומרו והוא אינו יכול לשומרו זהו קרוב לה שניהם יכולין לשומרו שניהם אין יכולין זהו מחצה על מחצה
The Gemara asks: According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Yoḥanan, what are the circumstances of when it was equally balanced? Rav Shemen bar Abba said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself: If it is so positioned that he can guard it and she cannot guard it, this is considered closer to him. If it is so positioned that she can guard it and he cannot guard it, this is considered closer to her. If it is so positioned that the two of them can guard it, or the two of them cannot guard it, this is considered equally balanced.
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרבי יוחנן משמיה דרבי יונתן הכי אמר ידעין חברין בבלאי לפרושי כי האי טעמא
The Rabbis said this explanation before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said in amazement: Do our Babylonian friends know how to explain in accordance with this explanation? Rabbi Yoḥanan was astonished that they also understood the issue as he did.
תניא נמי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר כל שהוא קרוב לה מלו ובא כלב ונטלו אינה מגורשת אינה מגורשת כל היכי תינטריה ותיזיל
This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any bill of divorce that is closer to her than it is to him, and a dog came and took it before the bill of divorce reached her hand, she is not divorced. The Gemara asks: Why is it that she is not divorced? Once it was closer to her, before the dog took it, the divorce should have taken effect. Must she continue guarding her bill of divorce indefinitely, even after the bill of divorce took effect?
אלא לאו הכי קאמר כל שקרוב לה מלו ואילו בא כלב ונטלו והוא יכול לשומרו והיא אינה יכולה לשומרו אינה מגורשת
The Gemara answers: Rather, is it not that this is what Rabbi Eliezer is saying: With regard to any bill of divorce that is closer to her than it is to him, and if a dog were to come and attempt to take it, he would be able to guard it and she would not be able to guard it, in that case she is not divorced, as the bill of divorce is considered in his domain.
אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא כדי שתשוח ותטלנו ואת לא תעביד עובדא עד דמטי גיטא לידה
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: One with large teeth [shinnana], i.e., a nickname for Rabbi Yehuda, when they said: Closer to her, it meant so that she could bend down and take it. And you should not perform an action to permit a divorcing woman to remarry until the bill of divorce actually reaches her hand.
אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הוה עובדא הכי ואצרכוה חליצה
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: There was an incident like this, in which the bill of divorce was closer to the woman than to the man and it was then lost; and, after her husband died, they required the woman to engage in the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza] in order to permit her to marry, due to uncertainty. They did not rely on the bill of divorce that was given to the woman, since it never actually reached her hand.
וכן לענין קדושין אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לגיטין אמרו ולא לדבר אחר
§ The mishna stated the halakha about a bill of divorce that was closer to him or her, and the mishna added: And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They said these halakhot only with regard to bills of divorce, but not with regard to another matter.
איתיביה רבי אבא לרבי אסי וכן לענין קדושין שאני התם דכתיב ויצאה והיתה
Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from what was explicitly taught in the mishna: And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal. He responded: It is different there with regard to betrothal, as it is written: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). The Torah thereby compares betrothal, through the use of the word “becomes,” to divorce, through the use of the words “and she departs,” so one can learn the halakhot of betrothal from the halakhot of divorce. One cannot learn halakhot concerning other matters from divorce.
איתיביה וכן לענין החוב זרוק לי חובי וזרקו לו קרוב למלוה זכה הלוה קרוב ללוה הלוה חייב מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו
Another objection to his statement was raised based on what is taught in a baraita: And the same halakhot apply with regard to a debt. If a creditor said to a debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and he threw it to him and the money fell closer to the creditor, the debtor merits, i.e., his debt is repaid. If it fell closer to the debtor and the money was lost, the debtor is still obligated to pay. If it was equally balanced and was lost, the two of them divide it, i.e., the debtor owes half of the amount. Accordingly, the halakhot of debts are compared to the halakhot of divorce.
הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר ליה זרוק לי חובי ותיפטר אי הכי מאי למימרא לא צריכא דאמר ליה זרוק לי חובי בתורת גיטין
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the creditor said to the debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and you will be absolved of your obligation to pay through this. The Gemara challenges this: If so, what is the purpose of stating this? Since he made an explicit stipulation, it is obvious that the outcome will be in accordance with his stipulation. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the creditor said to the debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me according to the procedure in effect with bills of divorce, meaning that the halakha that applies to divorce should apply here too.
ואכתי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מצי אמר ליה משטה אני בך קא משמע לן
The Gemara asks: And still, what is the purpose of stating this, since the creditor stipulated explicitly: According to the procedure in effect with bills of divorce? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the creditor can say to the debtor: I am teasing you, and what I stipulated has no validity. Therefore the mishna teaches us that if he stipulated that it should be treated as a bill of divorce, then his stipulation takes effect.
אמר רב חסדא גט בידה ומשיחה בידו אם יכול לנתקו ולהביאו אצלו אינה מגורשת ואם לאו מגורשת
§ Rav Ḥisda says: If the bill of divorce was in her hand and a string tied to the bill of divorce was in his hand, as he gave her the bill of divorce in this way, if the husband can still pull the bill of divorce out of her hand and bring it to him, she is not divorced; and if he is not able to do so, she is divorced.
מאי טעמא בעינן כריתות וליכא
What is the reason that she is not divorced, despite the fact that he gave her a bill of divorce? The reason is that we require severance, and it is lacking, since the husband still has a hold on the bill of divorce.
אמר רב יהודה היתה ידה עשויה כקטפרס וזרקו לה אף על פי שהגיע גט לידה אינה מגורשת
Rav Yehuda says: If her hand was positioned like a slope and he threw it to her, despite the fact that the bill of divorce reached her hand, she is not divorced, since it cannot remain in her hand and will fall out.
אמאי הא כי נפיל בארבע אמות דידה קא נפיל בדלא נח
The Gemara asks: Why? But when the bill of divorce falls from her hand, it falls within her four cubits. The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda is discussing a case where the bill of divorce did not rest within her four cubits. Rather, it fell further away.
ותיגרש מאוירא דארבע אמות תפשוט דבעי רבי אלעזר ארבע אמות שאמרו יש להן אויר או אין להן אויר תפשוט דאין להן אויר
The Gemara asks: But why not let her be divorced because the bill of divorce was in the airspace of her four cubits? And if you do not say this, then resolve the dilemma that Rabbi Elazar raised with regard to the four cubits that the Sages stated in the halakhot of acquisition: Do they have airspace with the same legal status or do they not have airspace? Resolve that dilemma from here, i.e., that they do not have airspace.
הכא במאי עסקינן בעומדת על גב הנהר דמעיקרא לאיבוד קאי
The Gemara rejects this: One cannot resolve the dilemma from here since it is possible to say that here we are dealing with a woman who is standing at the riverbank, as the bill of divorce stands to be destroyed from the outset, since if it does not remain in her hand it will fall into the river. In such a case, everyone agrees that the airspace of the four cubits does not acquire the item.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and Saul Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Gittin 78
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
שם לווי אבל אית ליה שם לווי אף על גב דלא גבוה עשרה ואף על גב דלא הוי ארבע אמות
a modifier, meaning that this board is not referred to by a unique name. But if it has a modifier, even though it is not ten handbreadths higher than the courtyard, and even though the board did not have an area of four cubits, it is still considered to be a separate domain, and it would therefore not be an effective divorce.
אפילו הוא עמה במטה כו׳ אמר רבא לא שנו אלא במטה שלו אבל במטה שלה מגורשת
§ It was taught in the mishna that if he throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in his house, she is not divorced, even if the bill of divorce is with her in the bed, i.e., he throws it onto the bed in which she is sitting or lying. Rava says: They taught this only in a case where he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her in his bed. But if he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her in her bed, then she is divorced.
תניא נמי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר במטה שלו אינה מגורשת במטה שלה מגורשת
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If he throws the bill of divorce to her when she is in his bed, she is not divorced; if he throws it to her when she is in her bed, she is divorced.
ובמטה שלה מגורשת כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא שמעת מינה כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה לוקח
The Gemara asks: And if he throws the bill of divorce to her in her bed, is she divorced? But the bed is like vessels of a buyer that are in the domain of the seller, since the bed that belongs to her is in the house of the husband. Can you conclude from here that even if the vessels of a buyer are in the domain of the seller, the buyer acquires anything that is deposited into his vessels? This issue is disputed elsewhere. Some hold that when a vessel of the buyer is in the domain of the seller, the vessel cannot serve to acquire an item on behalf of the buyer.
לא צריכא דגבוה עשרה והאיכא מקום כרעי אמקום כרעי לא קפדי אינשי
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the bed is ten handbreadths high, as then the bed is considered to be its own domain. The Gemara challenges this: But there is the place on which the legs of the bed are standing; the legs are standing in the husband’s domain. The Gemara answers: People are not particular about the place of the legs of the bed since it is so small. Therefore, since the bed is considered to be its own domain, it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband.
לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה מגורשת אמאי כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא
§ It was taught in the mishna that if the husband threw the bill of divorce into her lap, or into her basket, then she is divorced, even if she is in her husband’s house at that time. The Gemara asks: Why is she divorced? Is this not like a case of the vessels of a buyer that are in the domain of the seller, with regard to which there is a dispute concerning whether the vessels can serve to acquire an item on the buyer’s behalf?
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה וכן אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר קשורה אף על פי שאינה תלויה
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was hanging from her body, and therefore it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband. And so Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was hanging from her body. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: If it was tied to her then that is enough, even though it is not hanging from her body.
רב אדא בר אהבה אמר כגון שהיתה קלתה מונחת לה בין ירכותיה רב משרשיא בר רב דימי אמר כגון שהיה בעלה מוכר קלתות
Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The mishna is referring to a case where her basket was placed between her thighs and is therefore in the place where she is sitting, and since her husband is not particular about the place in which she is sitting, it is considered her domain. Rav Mesharshiyya bar Rav Dimi says: The mishna is referring to a case where her husband was a basket seller, and therefore is not particular about the place where the basket is since his whole courtyard is full of baskets, and it is therefore considered to be her domain.
רבי יוחנן אמר מקום חיקה קנוי לה מקום קלתה קנוי לה אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי יוחנן לפי שאין אדם מקפיד לא על מקום חיקה ולא על מקום קלתה
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no need for these explanations, since the place of her lap belongs to her, and the place of her basket belongs to her. Rava said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement? Because a person is not particular, not about the place of his wife’s lap, nor about the place of her basket, it is as though he transferred ownership of the place to her for her use.
תניא נמי הכי זרקו לה לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה או לתוך כל דבר שהוא כקלתה הרי זו מגורשת
This is also taught in a baraita: If he threw the bill of divorce to her into her lap, or into her basket, or into anything that is like her basket, then she is divorced.
כל דבר שהוא כקלתה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי טסקא דאכלה בה תמרי
The Gemara analyzes the wording of the baraita: What is included by the expansive term: Anything that is like her basket? It serves to include the basket [taska] from which she eats dates, as he is not particular about its place as well.
מתני׳ אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או שמצאתו מאחוריו קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך
MISHNA: If he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, and it was a bill of divorce, or she found it behind him and he did not tell her what it was but she reads what is written in it and discovers that it is her bill of divorce, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
נתן בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך
If he gave it to her in her hand and she was sleeping, and he then woke her, and when she reads what is written in it, she finds that it is her bill of divorce, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
גמ׳ כי אמר לה הא גיטיך מאי הוי הוה ליה טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע
GEMARA: Apropos the mishna’s statement that if she found the bill of divorce behind him, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says: This is your bill of divorce, the Gemara asks: And when he says to her: This is your bill of divorce, what of it? Why is it considered to be a valid bill of divorce if it was not given to her in the proper manner, being that it is as though he told her: Take your bill of divorce from where it is placed on the ground?
ואמר רבא טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע לא אמר כלום אימא ששלפתו מאחוריו
And Rava says that if one says to his wife: Take your bill of divorce from where it is placed on the ground, it is as though he didn’t say anything and it is not a valid bill of divorce, since a woman is divorced only when the bill of divorce is given to her by her husband. The Gemara answers: Say that the bill of divorce was not placed on the ground behind him, but rather she pulled it out from behind him. In other words, the bill of divorce was tucked into his belt and she pulled it out. Consequently, she received the bill of divorce from him.
שלפתו נמי הא בעינא ונתן בידה וליכא לא צריכא דערק לה חרציה ושלפתיה
The Gemara challenges this: If she pulled it out, it is also not a valid bill of divorce, since it is required that the directive: “And gives it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1), be fulfilled, and in this case it is not fulfilled, since he did not give it to her; rather, she took it. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where he bent [da’arak] his waist over toward her and she pulled it out, and by extending his waist to her, it is as though he gave the bill of divorce to her.
תניא נמי הכי אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או ששלפתו מאחוריו קראתו והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר לעולם אינו גט עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך
This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): If he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, or if she pulled it out from behind him, read it, and saw that it is her bill of divorce; it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Actually, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
נתנו בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה וקוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך
The baraita continues: If he gave it to her in her hand, and she was sleeping, and he then woke her, and when she reads what is written in it, she finds that it is her bill of divorce; it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is not a valid bill of divorce until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.
וצריכא דאי איתמר בהך קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי משום דבת איגרושי היא אבל נתן בידה והיא ישנה דלאו בת איגרושי היא אימא מודי ליה לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר
The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to mention this dispute in both cases. As if this dispute would have been stated only with regard to the cases in the first clause, one could assume that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying his opinion specifically with regard to the cases in this clause, because she is subject to being divorced, since she is awake and able to receive a bill of divorce, even though he did not tell her that this is a bill of divorce. But if he gave it to her in her hand and she was sleeping, she is not subject to being divorced since while she is sleeping she is a person who lacks the halakhic competence required to receive a bill of divorce. Therefore, one could say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that giving the bill of divorce while she was sleeping is totally not valid. It was therefore necessary to mention that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees in this case, as well.
ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לרבי צריכא
And if this dispute would have been stated only with regard to this case, where she was sleeping, one could assume that specifically with regard to this case Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying that he must give her the bill of divorce a second time. But in the other case, in which she was awake, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, it is necessary to mention this dispute in both cases.
אמר רבא כתב לה גט ונתנו ביד עבדה ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט ניעור אינו גט דהויא ליה חצר המשתמרת שלא לדעתה
Rava says: If he wrote a bill of divorce for her, and he placed it in the hand of her slave when he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. Within the context of the halakhot of divorce, a slave has the same status as land, in the sense that both belong to their owner. Therefore, when the husband places the bill of divorce in the slave’s hand, it is as though he placed it into her courtyard. If her slave was awake, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he is like a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her. Since he guards himself, he therefore does not acquire it on her behalf.
ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט אמאי חצר מהלכת היא וחצר מהלכת לא קנה
Rava continues: If he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But why; isn’t it true that the slave is like a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire items on behalf of its owner?
וכי תימא ישן שאני והא אמר רבא כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה עומד ויושב לא קנה והלכתא בכפות
And if you would say that a case in which he is sleeping is different because he is currently not moving, but didn’t Rava say: In any case in which if he would be moving he would not acquire items, then even if he is standing or sitting, he also does not acquire items? The Gemara concludes: And this halakha that Rava said, indicating that it is a valid bill of divorce, applies only where the slave is bound and sleeping, since in that case placing the bill of divorce in his hand is like placing it in her hand.
מתני׳ היתה עומדת ברשות הרבים וזרקו לה קרוב לה מגורשת קרוב לו אינה מגורשת מחצה על מחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת וכן לענין קדושין
MISHNA: If the woman was standing in the public domain and her husband took the bill of divorce and threw it to her, if it fell closer to her, she is divorced, and if it fell closer to him, she is not divorced. If it is equally balanced, there is uncertainty as to whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced. And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal.
וכן לענין החוב אמר לו בעל חובו זרוק לי חובי וזרקו לו קרוב למלוה זכה המלוה קרוב ללוה הלוה חייב מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו
And the same halakhot apply with regard to a debt. If his creditor said to him: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and he threw it to him and the money fell closer to the creditor, the creditor acquired the payment. The debtor is absolved of his obligation to pay even if the money did not reach the creditor’s hand, e.g., it was stolen or lost after it was thrown and before the creditor was able to take it. If it fell closer to the debtor and the money was lost, the debtor is still obligated to pay. If it was equally balanced and was lost, the two of them divide it, i.e., the debtor owes half of the amount.
גמ׳ היכי דמי קרוב לה והיכי דמי קרוב לו אמר רב ארבע אמות שלה זהו קרוב לה ארבע אמות שלו זהו קרוב לו
GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies that which was taught in the mishna: What is considered closer to her, and what is considered closer to him? Rav says: If it fell within four cubits of her, this is what was meant by the mishna’s statement: Closer to her; if it fell within four cubits of him, this is what was meant by: Closer to him.
היכי דמי מחצה על מחצה אמר רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק כגון שהיו שניהן עומדין בארבע אמות
The Gemara asks: What is considered midway? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Such as when the two of them were standing within the same four cubits.
וליחזי הי מינייהו קדים וכי תימא דאתו תרוייהו בהדי הדדי והא אי אפשר לצמצם
The Gemara asks: And let us see which of them preceded the other into these four cubits, and the four cubits would then be considered as belonging to that person. And if you would say that both of them came simultaneously, but isn’t there a principle that it is impossible to be so precise? It is not possible that both events occurred at exactly the same time, and it is certain that one of them arrived there before the other.
אלא אמר רב כהנא הכא בשמונה אמות מצומצמות עסקינן
Rather, Rav Kahana said: Here we are dealing with a case of precisely eight cubits, where his four cubits are adjacent to her four cubits,
וגט יוצא מארבע אמות שלו לארבע אמות שלה
and the bill of divorce extends from his four cubits into her four cubits, meaning that part of the bill of divorce is in his four cubits, and part is in hers. Therefore, in this case there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.
והא אגיד גביה אלא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו הכא בשתי כיתי עדים עסקינן אחת אומרת קרוב לו ואחת אומרת קרוב לה
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the bill of divorce still attached to him, since part of it is within his four cubits, and therefore it cannot be considered as if he gave her the bill of divorce completely? Rather, one should explain as Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Here we are dealing with two groups of witnesses; one says that the bill of divorce fell closer to him, and one says that the bill of divorce fell closer to her. Therefore, the expression in the mishna, equally balanced, is referring not to distance but to opinions.
רבי יוחנן אומר קרוב לה שנינו אפילו מאה אמה וקרוב לו שנינו אפילו מאה אמה
As opposed to Rav, who explained that in the mishna, the word closer meant within four cubits, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: We learned that closer to her means that the bill of divorce was actually closer to her, even if it was one hundred cubits away from her. And we learned that closer to him means that it was actually closer to him, even if it was one hundred cubits away from him.
היכי דמי מחצה על מחצה אמר רב שמן בר אבא לדידי מיפרשא לה מיניה דרבי יוחנן הוא יכול לשומרו והיא אינה יכולה לשומרו זהו קרוב לו היא יכולה לשומרו והוא אינו יכול לשומרו זהו קרוב לה שניהם יכולין לשומרו שניהם אין יכולין זהו מחצה על מחצה
The Gemara asks: According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Yoḥanan, what are the circumstances of when it was equally balanced? Rav Shemen bar Abba said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself: If it is so positioned that he can guard it and she cannot guard it, this is considered closer to him. If it is so positioned that she can guard it and he cannot guard it, this is considered closer to her. If it is so positioned that the two of them can guard it, or the two of them cannot guard it, this is considered equally balanced.
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרבי יוחנן משמיה דרבי יונתן הכי אמר ידעין חברין בבלאי לפרושי כי האי טעמא
The Rabbis said this explanation before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said in amazement: Do our Babylonian friends know how to explain in accordance with this explanation? Rabbi Yoḥanan was astonished that they also understood the issue as he did.
תניא נמי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר כל שהוא קרוב לה מלו ובא כלב ונטלו אינה מגורשת אינה מגורשת כל היכי תינטריה ותיזיל
This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to any bill of divorce that is closer to her than it is to him, and a dog came and took it before the bill of divorce reached her hand, she is not divorced. The Gemara asks: Why is it that she is not divorced? Once it was closer to her, before the dog took it, the divorce should have taken effect. Must she continue guarding her bill of divorce indefinitely, even after the bill of divorce took effect?
אלא לאו הכי קאמר כל שקרוב לה מלו ואילו בא כלב ונטלו והוא יכול לשומרו והיא אינה יכולה לשומרו אינה מגורשת
The Gemara answers: Rather, is it not that this is what Rabbi Eliezer is saying: With regard to any bill of divorce that is closer to her than it is to him, and if a dog were to come and attempt to take it, he would be able to guard it and she would not be able to guard it, in that case she is not divorced, as the bill of divorce is considered in his domain.
אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא כדי שתשוח ותטלנו ואת לא תעביד עובדא עד דמטי גיטא לידה
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: One with large teeth [shinnana], i.e., a nickname for Rabbi Yehuda, when they said: Closer to her, it meant so that she could bend down and take it. And you should not perform an action to permit a divorcing woman to remarry until the bill of divorce actually reaches her hand.
אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי הוה עובדא הכי ואצרכוה חליצה
Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: There was an incident like this, in which the bill of divorce was closer to the woman than to the man and it was then lost; and, after her husband died, they required the woman to engage in the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza] in order to permit her to marry, due to uncertainty. They did not rely on the bill of divorce that was given to the woman, since it never actually reached her hand.
וכן לענין קדושין אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לגיטין אמרו ולא לדבר אחר
§ The mishna stated the halakha about a bill of divorce that was closer to him or her, and the mishna added: And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They said these halakhot only with regard to bills of divorce, but not with regard to another matter.
איתיביה רבי אבא לרבי אסי וכן לענין קדושין שאני התם דכתיב ויצאה והיתה
Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from what was explicitly taught in the mishna: And the same halakhot apply with regard to betrothal. He responded: It is different there with regard to betrothal, as it is written: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). The Torah thereby compares betrothal, through the use of the word “becomes,” to divorce, through the use of the words “and she departs,” so one can learn the halakhot of betrothal from the halakhot of divorce. One cannot learn halakhot concerning other matters from divorce.
איתיביה וכן לענין החוב זרוק לי חובי וזרקו לו קרוב למלוה זכה הלוה קרוב ללוה הלוה חייב מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו
Another objection to his statement was raised based on what is taught in a baraita: And the same halakhot apply with regard to a debt. If a creditor said to a debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and he threw it to him and the money fell closer to the creditor, the debtor merits, i.e., his debt is repaid. If it fell closer to the debtor and the money was lost, the debtor is still obligated to pay. If it was equally balanced and was lost, the two of them divide it, i.e., the debtor owes half of the amount. Accordingly, the halakhot of debts are compared to the halakhot of divorce.
הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר ליה זרוק לי חובי ותיפטר אי הכי מאי למימרא לא צריכא דאמר ליה זרוק לי חובי בתורת גיטין
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the creditor said to the debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me, and you will be absolved of your obligation to pay through this. The Gemara challenges this: If so, what is the purpose of stating this? Since he made an explicit stipulation, it is obvious that the outcome will be in accordance with his stipulation. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the creditor said to the debtor: Throw the payment for my debt to me according to the procedure in effect with bills of divorce, meaning that the halakha that applies to divorce should apply here too.
ואכתי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מצי אמר ליה משטה אני בך קא משמע לן
The Gemara asks: And still, what is the purpose of stating this, since the creditor stipulated explicitly: According to the procedure in effect with bills of divorce? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the creditor can say to the debtor: I am teasing you, and what I stipulated has no validity. Therefore the mishna teaches us that if he stipulated that it should be treated as a bill of divorce, then his stipulation takes effect.
אמר רב חסדא גט בידה ומשיחה בידו אם יכול לנתקו ולהביאו אצלו אינה מגורשת ואם לאו מגורשת
§ Rav Ḥisda says: If the bill of divorce was in her hand and a string tied to the bill of divorce was in his hand, as he gave her the bill of divorce in this way, if the husband can still pull the bill of divorce out of her hand and bring it to him, she is not divorced; and if he is not able to do so, she is divorced.
מאי טעמא בעינן כריתות וליכא
What is the reason that she is not divorced, despite the fact that he gave her a bill of divorce? The reason is that we require severance, and it is lacking, since the husband still has a hold on the bill of divorce.
אמר רב יהודה היתה ידה עשויה כקטפרס וזרקו לה אף על פי שהגיע גט לידה אינה מגורשת
Rav Yehuda says: If her hand was positioned like a slope and he threw it to her, despite the fact that the bill of divorce reached her hand, she is not divorced, since it cannot remain in her hand and will fall out.
אמאי הא כי נפיל בארבע אמות דידה קא נפיל בדלא נח
The Gemara asks: Why? But when the bill of divorce falls from her hand, it falls within her four cubits. The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda is discussing a case where the bill of divorce did not rest within her four cubits. Rather, it fell further away.
ותיגרש מאוירא דארבע אמות תפשוט דבעי רבי אלעזר ארבע אמות שאמרו יש להן אויר או אין להן אויר תפשוט דאין להן אויר
The Gemara asks: But why not let her be divorced because the bill of divorce was in the airspace of her four cubits? And if you do not say this, then resolve the dilemma that Rabbi Elazar raised with regard to the four cubits that the Sages stated in the halakhot of acquisition: Do they have airspace with the same legal status or do they not have airspace? Resolve that dilemma from here, i.e., that they do not have airspace.
הכא במאי עסקינן בעומדת על גב הנהר דמעיקרא לאיבוד קאי
The Gemara rejects this: One cannot resolve the dilemma from here since it is possible to say that here we are dealing with a woman who is standing at the riverbank, as the bill of divorce stands to be destroyed from the outset, since if it does not remain in her hand it will fall into the river. In such a case, everyone agrees that the airspace of the four cubits does not acquire the item.
