Gittin 66a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

Dera,

he would carry

Rabbi Avina his basket

on his shoulder for his provisions and for the expenses of the journey,

and he went to Rav Huna, his teacher

for through his instruction and traditions he would merit the gift that Ganiva had commanded for him without an act of acquisition.

For Rav Huna said

below, in the next chapter:

The bill of divorce

of a dangerously ill person [one who is ill and stands near death], its law is

like his gift

of the dangerously ill person,

Just as his gift

of the dangerously ill person,

if he recovered

from his illness,

he retracts

his gift,

so too his bill of divorce

of the dangerously ill person,

if he recovered

from his illness,

he retracts

his bill of divorce.

And

from this comparison, we also learn to compare a gift to a bill of divorce:

Just as his bill of divorce

of the dangerously ill person,

even though he did not

explicitly state it, since he said, “Write,” even though he did not say, “Give”

the bill of divorce is given to the woman, as we learned in our Mishna concerning one being taken out for execution and concerning a dangerously ill person who is inclined toward death,

so too his gift

of the dangerously ill person, its law is so.

Since he said, “Give,”

even though

still

they had not acquired it from him [they had not acquired it from the dangerously ill person] as a gift for the recipient—the recipient acquires the gift without an act of acquisition.

And so Rabbi Avina can rely on the comparison between a bill of divorce and a gift and receive the gift.

Rabbi Abba challenged him: If

you say so, it is possible to continue comparing a bill of divorce to a gift and also say:

Just as a gift exists after death, so too a bill of divorce exists after death!

And why do you hold that it is not effective for the bill of divorce to take effect after his death?

And we are astonished at Rabbi Abba’s challenge:

Is that so now!?

Does Rabbi Abba wish to compare a bill of divorce to a gift so that it should be effective after death?

But it cannot be said so, because

Granted, a gift exists

[is present]

after death

—

a gift after death is possible even with the gift of a healthy person, for example, if he gave land as a gift, the substance from today and the produce after death; and since this is so, the Sages enacted that with the gift of a dangerously ill person, he acquires it after death.

But is there a bill of divorce after death?

For after the death of the husband or the woman, divorce is not applicable. And it is not applicable to compare a bill of divorce to a gift in this matter.

Rather,

it should be said that

this is what Rabbi Abba found difficult: for the testament of Ganiva,

is a partial gift of a dangerously ill person,

for he did not give all his property as a gift, but only part of it,

and a partial gift of a dangerously ill person

of his property, its law is that

it requires

[that the recipient must perform]

an

act of acquisition

in order to acquire the gift!

As explained in Bava Batra [in the chapter “One Who Dies,” page 151b], since he left part of his property for himself, he is not considered a person who commands his property because of death—whose property is acquired by those who receive it because of his testament, since he showed concern for his own sustenance—but his gift is considered the gift of a healthy person, in which the recipient does not acquire the object without an act of acquisition.

And we ask: If this was Rabbi Abba’s difficulty with Rav Huna’s words,

by implication

this emerges,

that Rav Huna holds:

that a partial gift of a dangerously ill person

does not require

[does not need]

an act of acquisition,

and

how can this be said?

For we have established

in Bava Batra

that

a partial gift of a dangerously ill person

requires an act of acquisition!

And we answer:

Here is different,

in the incident with Ganiva,

for

Rav Huna holds that although the gift is only of part of his property, nevertheless Ganiva

is one who commands because of death,

for he knew that one being taken out in fetters does not return,

and it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased; therefore, even though no act of acquisition was performed with his gift, one must act according to his words.

And we ask:

By implication, Rabbi Abba

who challenged Rav Huna

holds:

that even in this case, in which he

commands because of death, an act of acquisition is required,

but we have established

that one who commands because of death

does not require an act of acquisition!

And if so, why was he perplexed by the matter?

Rather,

it should be said that

this is what Rabbi Abba found difficult: how does the recipient acquire the gift that Ganiva gave? For Ganiva, in the wording

“

four hundred dinars

of wine

”

did not say,

and likewise, “

the value of

four hundred dinars of

wine”

he did not say,

but “

four hundred dinars

from wine”

he said!

And this wording is difficult: do they make money from wine?

But the other—Rav Huna, who was not perplexed by Ganiva’s command, because he holds that what Ganiva said, “

Give him four hundred dinars

from wine,”

“

he said it

in order to improve his power

of Rabbi Avina, and therefore he did not specify whether he was giving him wine or money, in order to improve his power, so that all the wine and money would be under responsibility for him,

for if Ganiva had said, “Give him wine,” if part of the wine turned sour, the heirs would say to him, “Your portion turned sour,”

and if he had said, “Give him the value of wine,” and the heirs sold part of the wine and lost the money, they would say to him, “Your money was lost.”

Therefore he said, “Give him four hundred dinars from the wine,” whose meaning is wine and its value, and that all the money and all the wine are pledged for payment of the gift; and as long as money or wine remains, the heirs must pay him his father’s gift.

They sent from there

[from the Land of Israel] and said: indeed, what Ganiva said in the wording

“from wine,”

was

in order to improve his power

of Rabbi Avina.

Mishna:

One who was cast into a pit,

and thought that he was going to die,

and said

and cried out from inside the pit:

Everyone who hears his voice

[my voice]

shall write a bill of divorce for his wife

[for my wife], and he stated his name and the woman’s name, and the name of his city and hers.

Even though he did not say, “and give it”—

these

who hear his voice

shall write

a bill of divorce

and give it

to his wife, even though they did not see the man and do not know him, for in a time of danger such as this, when there is concern that he may die in the pit, they write and give even though they do not know him.

его жене, несмотря на то что они не видели этого человека и не знали его, поскольку в момент опасности, подобной этой, когда есть опасение, что он умрет в яме, пишут и дают гет, даже если не знают его .

Gemara:

And we ask:

But let us be concerned that perhaps he is a demon!

For they did not see the man who was in the pit, but only heard his voice.

Rabbi Yehuda said:

in our Mishna, it is speaking

when they saw

that he had

the appearance of a person.

в яме

And we ask:

They too are able to assume appearances!

[The demons]

also assume appearances!

[They too appear] as human beings whenever they wish, and this is not proof that he is a person and not a demon.

And we answer: it must be established that they

saw a reflection

[that they saw that he had a shadow] of the one in the pit.

And we ask:

They too

[the demons]

have

[there is to them]

a reflection!

And we answer: it is speaking of a case in which they

saw a reflection of a reflection

[that they saw that he had a shadow of a shadow] of the one in the pit.

And we consider it:

But perhaps they too have

[and perhaps they too, the demons, have] a reflection of a reflection.

Rabbi Hanina said: Yonatan my son taught me: They have a reflection,

[they have a shadow] the demons, but

they do not have a reflection of a reflection

[they do not have a shadow of a shadow].

And if this one in the pit has a reflection of a reflection, he must be a person and not a demon.

И если у находящегося в яме есть двойная тень, то поневоле он человек, а не демон .

And we ask:

And

let us be concerned

perhaps she is a rival wife

in the pit, that perhaps his second wife, who is this woman’s rival wife, was in the pit, and she is the one who said, “Give a bill of divorce,” in order to ruin her, so that they would give her a bill of divorce and she would go marry another man with this bill of divorce, thereby becoming forbidden to her husband.

And we answer, on the basis of what we learned:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

In a time of danger,

when the husband is in danger of dying, and if they do not now give a bill of divorce on his word, there will be no further opportunity,

they write and give

a bill of divorce

even though they do not recognize

the man and do not know whether he is truly the husband, because there is a greater concern that she will remain a chained woman,

and similarly, the law is in the case of the one cast into a pit: there is no possibility of waiting and clarifying the matter properly; they write and give a bill of divorce so that his wife will not remain a chained woman.

Mishna:

A healthy man who said: “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,”

but did not finish by saying that they should give it to her—we say that he

wished only

to mock her,

and did not intend to divorce her.

а не намеревался развестись с ней .

An incident: There was a certain healthy man who said: “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,”

but did not finish by saying, “and give it,”

and he went up to the roof

after they had written the bill of divorce and given it to his wife,

and he fell

from the roof

and died.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

If he fell on his own,

that he died intentionally—

this is a bill of divorce,

because his end proves his beginning: when he said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,” he was distraught because of his thought of taking his own life, and he certainly intended to say that they should give her the bill of divorce, but he forgot to complete his words because of his agitation; and this is like the one in fetters or one sailing at sea and one setting out with a caravan, as we learned in the Mishna above.

But

if the wind pushed him

and caused him to fall, and he fell accidentally from the roof—

it is not a bill of divorce,

for we say that when he said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,” he was healthy, and since he did not say, “Give,” he did not intend that they should give her a bill of divorce, as we learned above; and she is a widow and not divorced.

Gemara:

And we consider it: Was the

incident

brought in the Mishna brought in order to

contradict

the law brought earlier in the Mishna? For earlier the Mishna said that such a bill of divorce, of a healthy man who said “Write” but did not say “Give,” is not a bill of divorce, whereas from the incident brought afterward it appears that sometimes the bill of divorce is nevertheless a bill of divorce!

And we answer:

The Mishna is deficient,

and

this is what it teaches

[and this is how the Mishna should be taught]:

A healthy man who said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,” but did not say, “Give”—he wished to mock her;

but if his end proved his beginning

that he was about to die, and because of this he was distraught and forgot to say, “Give”—

this is a bill of divorce,

and concerning this the Mishna brought an incident:

And there was also an incident involving a healthy man who said, “Write a bill of divorce for my wife,” and he went up to the roof, fell, and died,

and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell on his own—

this is a bill of divorce,

but

if the wind pushed him—

it is not a bill of divorce.

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

a certain man who entered the synagogue

[who entered the synagogue].

He found a teacher of young children and his son sitting, and another man sitting with them

[he found there a teacher of young children and his son sitting together, and another man sitting with them], meaning that three people were sitting there: the father, his son, and another person.

He said to them

[to them]:

“Two of you shall write a bill of divorce for my wife”

[two of you shall write a bill of divorce for my wife]—that is, he appointed two of them as agents and witnesses to write a bill of divorce for his wife, and the husband went to an overseas country.

In the end, the teacher of young children died

[the teacher of the young children died], and the son and the other man remained.

That was the incident.

And now there is a doubt:

Do people appoint a son as an agent in place of the father

[is it customary for people to appoint the son as an agent when the father is present], and this man intended that the son of the teacher of young children should also be able to be an agent even though his father was there, and if so, now that the father has died, the son and his companion should give her the bill of divorce?

Or not?

And he intended to appoint only the father and the third man as witnesses and agents for this bill of divorce, and now that the father has died, there are no longer two witnesses for this bill of divorce.

Rav Naḥman said: People do not appoint a son as an agent

[their practice is not to appoint the son as an agent]

in place of

the

father

when he is present,

and Rav Pappi said: People do appoint a son as an agent

[people appoint the son as an agent]

in place of

the

father

when he is present.

Rava said: The halakha is: People do appoint a son as an agent in place of the father.

And so the son too is an agent and witness together with the other man who was there, and the two of them should give the bill of divorce to the woman.

Mishna:

We already learned above that the writing of the bill of divorce must be done at the husband’s command, and the Mishna before us discusses whether those whom the husband commanded may command others to write the bill of divorce.

He said

the husband

to two: “Give a bill of divorce to my wife,”