Gittin 28a — the Talmud in English

And if

they found it tied in a pouch, in a wallet, or in a ring

and he recognizes them,

or if they found

the get

among his belongings,

then

even

if they found it

after a long time,

it is

fit.

It was stated: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha

is that one returns it only when

no person lingered there,

in accordance with the view of “some say” in the beraita.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel: The halakha is that no person passed there,

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

And we raise an objection: Before these amoraim went so far as to specify the measure,

let the Master say

[let one of them say]:

The halakha is in accordance with the Master

[the “some say”],

and the Master

let him say

the halakha is in accordance with the Master

[Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar].

And we answer:

Because they reverse them

[there were those who reversed the names of the tannaim], and what this one said according to the beraita before us, another said according to their version; therefore they were compelled to state the ruling itself, and did not suffice with referring to the names of those who said it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If they found it in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema:

And we explain:

What is a ḥafisa?

Rabba bar bar Hana said: A small waterskin

of leather, in which they put wine.

And

what is a deluskema?

Rabba bar bar Hana said:

A talika of the elderly,

a box in which the elderly conceal their utensils of use, so that they will not need to search for them.

Mishna:

A. An agent

who brings a get

to a woman as her husband’s agent,

and

when the agent received the get into his hands from the husband,

he left him

[that is, separated from him] when the husband was

old or ill—

the agent

gives it to her

the get, and she is divorced through it.

And we do not fear that perhaps the husband died before the get was delivered into the woman’s hand, and consequently the agency was nullified, rather, we establish the husband

with the presumption that he is alive

at the time of delivery! And as we hold throughout the Torah: establish a matter on its presumption! Since at the time the agent separated from him the husband was alive, we attribute to him no change from his previous state until it becomes clearly known to us that he died.

B. And likewise,

an Israelite woman married to a kohen,

who eats teruma as long as she is under her husband, but after he dies, if she has no offspring from him, she no longer eats teruma—

and her husband went

the kohen

to a distant country,

she

eats teruma!

Although it is not known to her with certainty that he is still alive, she does not fear that perhaps he died, because we establish him

with the presumption that he

is still

alive!

And this too is because we follow the presumption of life.

C. And likewise,

a

person who became obligated to bring a sin-offering, and he is in a distant country,

sends

his

sin-offering from

the place of his residence in

the distant country,

and

they offer it

on his behalf!

And although if he dies in the meantime the sin-offering is not fit to be offered [as we hold! A sin-offering whose owners died is left to graze until it dies], and we would consequently be offering ordinary unconsecrated matter in the Temple courtyard—we do not fear that perhaps he died, because we establish him

with the presumption that he is alive!

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An agent who brings a get and left him old or ill gives it to her with the presumption that he is alive:

Rava said: They taught

this

only

with regard to

an old man who had not reached the age of eighty

—

years!

For he had not yet reached eighty years [“gevurot” means eighty, as it is written: “The days of our years in them are seventy years, and if with gevurot, eighty years”].

And

likewise, “

ill,”

as it is taught in our Mishna, means an ordinary ill person, concerning whom we do not fear that perhaps he died, because

most ill people

are destined to rise

to life!

But

if the agent left the husband when he was

an old man who

had already

reached the age of eighty,

the agent may not divorce with it until it becomes clearly known to us that the husband is still alive, because we fear that perhaps he died in the meantime.

And

likewise, if he left him when he was

dying,

we fear that perhaps he died in the meantime, because

most dying people

are destined

for death; therefore

he may not

deliver it to the woman.

vruchaet poslannik get zhene.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rava from what is taught in a beraita:

An agent

who brings a get, and

when he separated from the husband

left him

when he was

old,

advanced in age—

even

if he is

one hundred years old, he gives it to her,

the agent gives the get, because we establish him

with the presumption that he is alive!

We have therefore learned that even after he reached the age of eighty, we do not fear his death; this is difficult for Rava! And we conclude: indeed,

it is a tiyuvta

[an objection] against Rava’s words from this beraita!

And if you wish, say:

there is no objection here to Rava, because specifically if he reached extreme old age, such as one hundred years, we do not fear that he died, because

since he has gone beyond, he has gone beyond!

That is to say: Since he changed from the way of other people and lived so many days, he is not close to death like other people, and it is reasonable that he will continue to live still longer. But if he passed the age of eighty, without having advanced so far in old age, and he is eighty-one or older, up to ninety years, he is subject to the fear of death.

Abaye posed it

[raised an objection to him]

to Rabba,

concerning that which we learned in our Mishna:

An agent who brings a get and left him old or ill gives it to her with the presumption that he is alive!

And he set it against

what is taught in a beraita:

A kohen who gives a get to his wife, who is an Israelite woman, and says to her: “

Behold, this is your get,

and the divorce shall take effect

one hour before my death

[that of the husband]”—she is

forbidden to eat teruma immediately

when he gives her the get, because at every moment there is reason to fear that perhaps he will die immediately afterward, and it will be found that the divorce took effect retroactively at this moment, for so he stipulated: that the divorce should take effect one moment before his death. And since she was divorced from him and is no longer the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden teruma.

We can infer from here that we do fear death, and do not establish him with the presumption of life; this is difficult against our Mishna, in which it was explained that we do not fear death!?

He said

in reply

to him,

Rabba to Abaye:

But is it that from

“teruma you are raising an objection from gittin

[you are raising an objection]!? Surely there is no comparison between them.

For specifically regarding

teruma

they feared the death of her husband the kohen and forbade her to eat teruma, because

it is possible

for the woman to exist without eating teruma; rather, she can eat produce that is ordinary unconsecrated matter.

But regarding

a get,

they did not fear the husband’s death, because

it is not possible

for us to fear this! For if she were to fear the husband’s death, no person could send a get to his wife from a distant country, and the women would remain deserted.

And

still

he raises an objection

[it is possible to raise an objection] even from

teruma against teruma:

For in our Mishna

we learned: An Israelite woman married to a kohen, and her husband went to a distant country,

she

eats teruma, with the presumption that he is alive!

It follows that even regarding teruma we do not fear that her husband died and she has already become forbidden to eat it.

And he set it against this:

For it is taught in a beraita: A kohen who gives a get to his wife and says to her: “

Behold, this is your get,

and it shall take effect

one hour before my death”—she is

forbidden to eat teruma immediately!

For we fear at every moment that perhaps he will die.

He said

in reply,

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak:

In fact, we do not fear death; rather, we follow the presumption of life, as is demonstrated by our Mishna.

But there it is different,

in the beraita that forbids the woman to eat teruma, because

he has indeed forbidden her one hour before his death!

For it is certain that at some time the husband will die, and the divorce will take effect one hour beforehand, and at that time the woman will become forbidden to eat teruma. Therefore, at every moment one must fear that perhaps this is the moment at which the woman is destined to become forbidden.

Rav Pappa challenged

Rav Adda:

But even when he divorces her one hour before his death, there is no certainty that the woman will ever become forbidden to eat teruma, because

from what do we know that he dies first

[how do we know that the husband will die first] and the divorce will take effect one hour beforehand!?

Perhaps she dies first

[the woman will die first], and the divorce will never take effect; consequently, throughout her life she will not become forbidden to eat teruma.

And again it is difficult: why do we not establish the husband with the presumption that he is alive!?

Rather, Abaye said: It is not difficult

the contradiction between the beraita and our Mishna.

This—

our Mishna—

is Rabbi Meir,

who

does not fear death

of the husband, and establishes him with the presumption that he is alive.

And

this—

the beraita—

is Rabbi Yehuda,

who

fears death,

and does not rely on the presumption of life; therefore he forbids the woman to eat teruma, because he fears that perhaps the husband will die, and the woman will thereby be found retroactively divorced one hour beforehand.

For we learned:

One who purchases wine from among the Cutheans,

and he has no vessels into which to separate the teruma and tithes of the wine—

he

says: Two log

[out of one hundred log of wine]

that I am destined to separate

them at the end,

behold, they are teruma!

For this is the measure of teruma for an average eye, one-fiftieth.

And

ten

log [out of the one hundred log] that I am destined to separate, behold, they are

first tithe!

And

nine

log out of the ninety log of untithed produce that remain in the wine, behold, they are

second tithe!

And he redeems

[transfers the sanctity of] the second tithe onto coins that he has in his house! For the second tithe itself is forbidden to be eaten outside Jerusalem; rather, it must be redeemed onto coins, and the coins enter in its place with the sanctity of second tithe.

And

after he has done this,

he drinks immediately

the wine, even before he has separated the teruma and the tithe, while they are still found within the wine! For the matter will become clarified retroactively: those log that he will ultimately separate had the sanctity of teruma and tithe take effect upon them from the outset, and all the rest of the wine is considered prepared ordinary produce.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

doing this! For we fear that perhaps after he drinks from the wine, the wineskin will burst and the rest of the wine will be lost, and he will no longer be able to separate from it and clarify retroactively the teruma and tithe; consequently, retroactively, he will have drunk untithed produce.

Just as Rabbi Yehuda fears that the wineskin may burst and does not establish it with the presumption that it remains intact, so too he fears the husband’s death and does not rely on the presumption; and the beraita that forbids the woman to eat teruma was stated according to his view.

And Rabbi Meir, who does not fear that the wineskin may burst but relies on the presumption that it remains intact, likewise does not fear the husband’s death, and our Mishna was stated according to his view.