Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 29, 2016 | 讻壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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?聽Why?聽What happens if he gives the get to her but doesn’t tell her it is a get? 聽or puts it in her hand while she is sleeping? 聽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. 聽Details of this are discussed – what exactly is meant by ‘closer to her’?

砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

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.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注诪讛 讘诪讟讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转

搂 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讜讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讻专注讬 讗诪拽讜诐 讻专注讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

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鈥檚 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.

诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诪讗讬 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗

搂 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 behalf?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽砖讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛

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.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 诪讜谞讞转 诇讛 讘讬谉 讬专讻讜转讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 诪讜讻专 拽诇转讜转

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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讞讬拽讛 拽谞讜讬 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 拽诇转讛 拽谞讜讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽驻讬讚 诇讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讞讬拽讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 拽诇转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? Because a person is not particular, not about the place of his wife鈥檚 lap, nor about the place of her basket, it is as though he transferred ownership of the place to her for her use.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽讜 诇讛 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽诇转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽诇转讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讟住拽讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讛 转诪专讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讗讜 砖诪爪讗转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 谞讬注讜专讛 拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讬讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

GEMARA: Apropos the mishna鈥檚 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讬讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗讬诪讗 砖砖诇驻转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜

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鈥檛 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.

砖诇驻转讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜诇讬讻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注专拽 诇讛 讞专爪讬讛 讜砖诇驻转讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd gives it in her hand鈥 (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鈥檃rak] 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讗讜 砖砖诇驻转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 拽专讗转讜 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

谞转谞讜 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 谞讬注讜专讛 讜拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘转 讗讬讙专讜砖讬 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讗讬讙专讜砖讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞转谞讜 讘讬讚 注讘讚讛 讬砖谉 讜诪砖诪专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 谞讬注讜专 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛诪砖转诪专转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讛

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鈥檚 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.

讬砖谉 讜诪砖诪专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诪讗讬 讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rava continues: If he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But why; isn鈥檛 it true that the slave is like a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire items on behalf of its owner?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬砖谉 砖讗谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讛诇讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讜诪讚 讜讬讜砖讘 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻驻讜转

And if you would say that a case in which he is sleeping is different because he is currently not moving, but didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜讝专拽讜 诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讜讛 讝讻讛 讛诪诇讜讛 拽专讜讘 诇诇讜讛 讛诇讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讛 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讜

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鈥檚 statement: Closer to her; if it fell within four cubits of him, this is what was meant by: Closer to him.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara asks: What is considered midway? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: Such as when the two of them were standing within the same four cubits.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讚讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗转讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讗 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉

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,

讜讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讜 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讛

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.

讜讛讗 讗讙讬讚 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 拽专讜讘 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讜讘 诇讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讜拽专讜讘 诇讜 砖谞讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讗诪讛

As opposed to Rav, who explained that in the mishna, the word closer meant within four cubits, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诪专讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛

The Gemara asks: According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Yo岣nan, what are the circumstances of when it was equally balanced? Rav Shemen bar Abba said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Rabbis said this explanation before Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said in amazement: Do our Babylonian friends know how to explain in accordance with this explanation? Rabbi Yo岣nan was astonished that they also understood the issue as he did.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪诇讜 讜讘讗 讻诇讘 讜谞讟诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 转讬谞讟专讬讛 讜转讬讝讬诇

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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪诇讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讗 讻诇讘 讜谞讟诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讻讚讬 砖转砖讜讞 讜转讟诇谞讜 讜讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讻讬 讜讗爪专讻讜讛 讞诇讬爪讛

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 [岣litza] 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.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

搂 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 Yo岣nan says: They said these halakhot only with regard to bills of divorce, but not with regard to another matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛

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: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). The Torah thereby compares betrothal, through the use of the word 鈥渂ecomes,鈥 to divorce, through the use of the words 鈥渁nd she departs,鈥 so one can learn the halakhot of betrothal from the halakhot of divorce. One cannot learn halakhot concerning other matters from divorce.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讜讘 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜讝专拽讜 诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讜讛 讝讻讛 讛诇讜讛 拽专讜讘 诇诇讜讛 讛诇讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜转讬驻讟专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉

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.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讟 讘讬讚讛 讜诪砖讬讞讛 讘讬讚讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽讜 讜诇讛讘讬讗讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讙讜专砖转

Rav 岣sda 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻专讬转讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讬讚讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻拽讟驻专住 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讻讬 谞驻讬诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讘讚诇讗 谞讞

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.

讜转讬讙专砖 诪讗讜讬专讗 讚讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专 转驻砖讜讟 讚讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讬讘讜讚 拽讗讬

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 Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 78

砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗讘诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

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.

讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注诪讛 讘诪讟讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讜 讗讘诇 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转

搂 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讜讘诪讟讛 砖诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 拽谞讛 诇讜拽讞

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讻专注讬 讗诪拽讜诐 讻专注讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

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鈥檚 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.

诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诪讗讬 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诇讜拽讞 讘专砖讜转 诪讜讻专 讛讜讗

搂 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 behalf?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽砖讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 转诇讜讬讛

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.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 拽诇转讛 诪讜谞讞转 诇讛 讘讬谉 讬专讻讜转讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讘专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 诪讜讻专 拽诇转讜转

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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讞讬拽讛 拽谞讜讬 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 拽诇转讛 拽谞讜讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽驻讬讚 诇讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 讞讬拽讛 讜诇讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 拽诇转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? Because a person is not particular, not about the place of his wife鈥檚 lap, nor about the place of her basket, it is as though he transferred ownership of the place to her for her use.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讝专拽讜 诇讛 诇转讜讱 讞讬拽讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 拽诇转讛 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽诇转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讻拽诇转讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讟住拽讗 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讛 转诪专讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讗讜 砖诪爪讗转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 谞讬注讜专讛 拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

讙诪壮 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讬讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

GEMARA: Apropos the mishna鈥檚 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讟诇讬 讙讬讟讬讱 诪注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讗讬诪讗 砖砖诇驻转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜

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鈥檛 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.

砖诇驻转讜 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘注讬谞讗 讜谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜诇讬讻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注专拽 诇讛 讞专爪讬讛 讜砖诇驻转讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd gives it in her hand鈥 (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鈥檃rak] 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.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讗讜 砖砖诇驻转讜 诪讗讞讜专讬讜 拽专讗转讜 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

谞转谞讜 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 谞讬注讜专讛 讜拽讜专讗讛 讜讛专讬 讛讜讗 讙讬讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讟诇谞讜 讛讬诪谞讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谞谞讜 诇讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讗 讙讬讟讬讱

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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘转 讗讬讙专讜砖讬 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞转谉 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讗讬讙专讜砖讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专

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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讙讟 讜谞转谞讜 讘讬讚 注讘讚讛 讬砖谉 讜诪砖诪专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 谞讬注讜专 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讛诪砖转诪专转 砖诇讗 诇讚注转讛

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鈥檚 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.

讬砖谉 讜诪砖诪专转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讗诪讗讬 讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 讛讬讗 讜讞爪专 诪讛诇讻转 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rava continues: If he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But why; isn鈥檛 it true that the slave is like a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire items on behalf of its owner?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讬砖谉 砖讗谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讛诇讱 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讜诪讚 讜讬讜砖讘 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻驻讜转

And if you would say that a case in which he is sleeping is different because he is currently not moving, but didn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪讙讜专砖转 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉

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.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讜讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜讝专拽讜 诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讜讛 讝讻讛 讛诪诇讜讛 拽专讜讘 诇诇讜讛 讛诇讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讛 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讜

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鈥檚 statement: Closer to her; if it fell within four cubits of him, this is what was meant by: Closer to him.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara asks: What is considered midway? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: Such as when the two of them were standing within the same four cubits.

讜诇讬讞讝讬 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽讚讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗转讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜讛讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇爪诪爪诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讻讗 讘砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 诪爪讜诪爪诪讜转 注住拽讬谞谉

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,

讜讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讜 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖诇讛

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.

讜讛讗 讗讙讬讚 讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讻讗 讘砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 拽专讜讘 诇讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 拽专讜讘 诇讛 砖谞讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讜拽专讜讘 诇讜 砖谞讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讗诪讛

As opposed to Rav, who explained that in the mishna, the word closer meant within four cubits, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讜 讛讬讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讝讛讜 拽专讜讘 诇讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇砖讜诪专讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讝讛讜 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛

The Gemara asks: According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Yo岣nan, what are the circumstances of when it was equally balanced? Rav Shemen bar Abba said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Rabbis said this explanation before Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said in amazement: Do our Babylonian friends know how to explain in accordance with this explanation? Rabbi Yo岣nan was astonished that they also understood the issue as he did.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪诇讜 讜讘讗 讻诇讘 讜谞讟诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 转讬谞讟专讬讛 讜转讬讝讬诇

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?

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖拽专讜讘 诇讛 诪诇讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讘讗 讻诇讘 讜谞讟诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜讛讬讗 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇砖讜诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讻讚讬 砖转砖讜讞 讜转讟诇谞讜 讜讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 注讚 讚诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讻讬 讜讗爪专讻讜讛 讞诇讬爪讛

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 [岣litza] 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.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

搂 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 Yo岣nan says: They said these halakhot only with regard to bills of divorce, but not with regard to another matter.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬爪讗讛 讜讛讬转讛

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: 鈥淎nd she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:2). The Torah thereby compares betrothal, through the use of the word 鈥渂ecomes,鈥 to divorce, through the use of the words 鈥渁nd she departs,鈥 so one can learn the halakhot of betrothal from the halakhot of divorce. One cannot learn halakhot concerning other matters from divorce.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讛讞讜讘 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜讝专拽讜 诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇诪诇讜讛 讝讻讛 讛诇讜讛 拽专讜讘 诇诇讜讛 讛诇讜讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讜转讬驻讟专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专讜拽 诇讬 讞讜讘讬 讘转讜专转 讙讬讟讬谉

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.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讟讛 讗谞讬 讘讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讙讟 讘讬讚讛 讜诪砖讬讞讛 讘讬讚讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇谞转拽讜 讜诇讛讘讬讗讜 讗爪诇讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讙讜专砖转

Rav 岣sda 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻专讬转讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讬讚讛 注砖讜讬讛 讻拽讟驻专住 讜讝专拽讜 诇讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

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.

讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讻讬 谞驻讬诇 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬讚讛 拽讗 谞驻讬诇 讘讚诇讗 谞讞

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.

讜转讬讙专砖 诪讗讜讬专讗 讚讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专 讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专 转驻砖讜讟 讚讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讜讬专

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘注讜诪讚转 注诇 讙讘 讛谞讛专 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗讬讘讜讚 拽讗讬

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.

Scroll To Top