Gittin 67b — the Talmud in English

And there are those who reverse them

[and there are those who reverse the positions of Rabba and Rav Yosef concerning this matter].

We learned in the Mishna:

He said to ten: “Write a get”

for my wife—one writes and two sign.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

He said

the husband

to ten: “Write a get and give it to my wife”—

one writes on behalf of

[for]

them all.

And if he said:

“All of you write”—

one writes in the presence of them all .

And if he said:

“Carry a get to my wife”—

one carries it on behalf of

[for]

them all.

And if he said:

“All of you carry it”—

one carries it in the presence of them all,

for they all need to go with him.

They raised a dilemma before them:

If he did not say “all of you,” but

counted

[listed]

them

—the husband counted them as A, B, C, D, and so on—and said, “Write a get for my wife,”

what

is the law?

Does the fact that he appointed them mean that he intended to appoint all those listed, and it is necessary to write it in the presence of all those listed? Or perhaps, since he did not say to them, “All of you who are listed, write,” it is not necessary that they all write, but one writes on behalf of them all.

Rav Huna said: If he counted

[listed] them, the husband—

it is not like

he

says, “All of you,”

and one writes on behalf of them all.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar of Rome: If he counted

[listed] them, the husband—

it is like

he

says, “All of you,”

and it is necessary to write the get in the presence of all those listed.

Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree!

Rav Huna and Rabbi Yohanan do not disagree.

Rather,

this

[one of them spoke] in a case

where he counted

[listed] the husband

all of them,

[everyone], and

this

[the other of them spoke] in a case

where he counted

the husband only

some of them.

Some say it is explained in this direction, and some say it is explained in that direction

[there are those who say to explain the distinction in this way, and there are those who say in the other way].

There are those who say to explain the distinction as follows: If he counted all of them, he intended that they all do this together; but if he counted only some of them, he intended only to insist that two from among those listed be the signatories, and not others, but he did not intend that they all sign. Since he did not appoint all of them, it became clear that the matter is burdensome for him, and he is not interested in all of them signing; therefore, even those listed do not need to sign, but only some of them.

And there are those who say to explain the distinction in the opposite manner: If he counted only some of them, he revealed his mind that he is particular about these, and all those listed need to sign; but if he counted all of them, since he did not say “all of you,” he is particular only that they sign in the presence of this group, and he did not intend that they all sign.

He instituted

[he instituted]

Rav Yehuda in a get of

the husband said in the presence of many people

“all of you

write,” and there is a concern lest he say that he intended all of them, and they will not all sign, with the result that the get is void; therefore he instituted that they write in the get that the husband said to them in this wording:

So-and-so said to us:

“Write, or all of you

[all of you],

or each and every one of you

[or one of you].

“Sign, either all of you or any two of you,

“Carry,

[carry] the get

either all of you or each and every one of you,”

so that in this manner there is no concern that the get will be invalidated if one of them does not participate in the act.

Rava said:

This institution still leaves room for a mishap, because

sometimes he cuts short his speech

[sometimes the husband cuts and shortens his speech],

and says

only

“all of you,” and does not

add and

say, “each one of you,” and it comes to invalidation

[and the get will come to be invalid] if they do not write it in the presence of them all or if they do not all sign.

Rather, Rava said:

The institution is that they write in the get that the husband said in this wording:

So-and-so said to us:

“Let each one of you write. Let any two of you sign. Let each one of you carry.”

And he should not say the expression “all of you” at all.

We shall return to you, chapter “The One Who Says.”

Mishna:

One whom

it seized

kordaykos

[the name of a shida that rules over a person when he drinks a great deal of grape juice, and he becomes afflicted with a kind of illness that confuses his mind for a certain time].

And he said

while the kordaykos had seized him, "

Write a bill of divorce for my wife!" —

he has said nothing, since his mind is not settled upon him at that time.

Even after he recovers, they do not write on the basis of these words of his, since there is nothing in his words.

And if it was written, its status is that of a bill of divorce that was written not at the command of the husband, and it is void.

And if

he said: Write

and give

a bill of divorce to my wife

when his mind was clear,

and

afterward

the kordaykos seized him, and

while the kordaykos had seized him

he again said, "Do not write it," his latter words

which he said while the kordaykos had seized him

are nothing.

And after his mind becomes settled, they write the bill of divorce on the basis of his first words and give it to his wife, and they do not need to ask him again about it.

One who

became mute,

became unable to speak,

and two said to him

do you wish that we

write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he nodded

his head

as a sign of agreement —

they examine him three times,

in three different matters, in order to ascertain whether his mind is sound and settled.

If

they saw that his mind was clear, that they examined him and he

said concerning “no,” “no,”

that he moved his head as people move it as a sign of no,

and concerning yes

he inclined his head in the manner of inclining

“yes,”

three times for each one, this is a sign that his mind is clear.

And since he inclined his head concerning the bill of divorce,

these shall write and give .

Gemara:

What is

[what does it mean] "

kordaykos"?

Shmuel said: One whom new wine from the winepress bit

[one whom new wine “bit,” that is, grape juice that has not yet fermented, taken from the winepress in which the grapes are trodden. That is, he drank from it and felt that a spirit had entered him].

And we object:

But let

the tannai in our Mishna explicitly teach:

One whom new wine bit!

And we answer:

This teaches us

[this is what the tannai came to teach us],

that this spirit

[that demon]

is called “kordaykos.”

What practical difference

is there in its name?

For an amulet,

since in order to expel the spirit, in the amulet they must adjure the spirit by its name.

What is its cure

[what is its remedy] for the sick person whom kordaykos has seized?

He shall eat

lean red meat on coals

[lean red meat roasted on coals],

and

he shall drink

diluted wine

[wine mixed with much water].

Abaye said: Mother told me

the remedy

for a one-day fever

[for a fever illness of one day] — the sick person shall drink

a jug of water

[a pitcher of water].

And for a fever

of two days

[of two days] —

he shall be bled

[he shall be bled with a horn].

And for a fever

of three

three

days —

he shall eat

lean red meat on coals

[lean red meat roasted on coals],

and

he shall drink

diluted wine

[wine mixed with much water].

For an old fever

[for an old fever] that continues for a long time —

let him bring a black hen

[let him take a black hen],

and tear it lengthwise and crosswise

[and tear it along its length and width],

and let him shave the middle of his head and place it upon him

[the sick person shall shave the middle of his head and place the hen upon it].

And let him lay it upon him until it sticks

[and let him leave the hen there until its blood sticks to him].

And let him descend and stand in water up to his neck until the world grows faint over him

[let him descend and stand in water up to his neck, until he is close to fainting from great weakness].

And let him swim and ascend and sit

[and then he shall swim in the water, emerge from the water, and sit to rest].

And if

that

not

he is able to do all this,

let him eat leeks

[let him eat a vegetable called “leeks”],

and let him descend and stand in water up to his neck until the world grows faint over him

[and let him descend and stand in water up to his neck, until he is close to fainting from great weakness],

and let him swim and ascend and sit

[and then he shall swim in the water, emerge from the water, and sit to rest].

For a fever

[for a fever] the remedy is: he shall eat

lean red meat on coals

[lean red meat roasted on coals],

and

he shall drink

diluted wine

[wine mixed with much water].

For snow

[for snow], an illness that seized him because of cold, the remedy is that he shall eat

fatty meat on coals

[fatty meat roasted on coals],

and

he shall drink

undiluted wine

[pure wine, which is not mixed with water].

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

Rav Amram the Pious, when they would distress him in the house of the Exilarch

[when the servants of the house of the Exilarch would distress him], because he was pious and ascetic, and he was stringent with them concerning prohibitions;

they would make him lie down on snow

[they would make him sleep on snow] until he became ill.

The next day they said to him

the servants:

What would be pleasing to my master that they bring him

[what is it pleasing to my master that they bring him to eat]?

He said

Rav Amram the Pious in his heart:

These

[these servants] want to distress me, and

everything that I say to them, I will do the opposite

[everything I say to them they will do the opposite], therefore

he said to them:

I want

lean red meat on coals and diluted wine

[lean red meat roasted on coals, and wine mixed with much water].

And it was as he had thought:

they brought him

[they brought him]

fatty meat on coals and undiluted wine

[fatty meat roasted on coals, and pure wine that is not mixed with water], and as stated, this was the remedy for the cold illness from which he suffered.

Yalta heard

the wife of Rav Nahman [who was the daughter of the Nasi and the wife of the head of the court, and was important] what happened to Rav Amram the Pious,

and she brought him

to the bathhouse

[she sent messengers to bring him up to the bathhouse],

and they stood him in the water of the bathhouse until they transformed the water of the bathhouse and it became blood,

[and they stood him in the water of the bathhouse until the water of the bathhouse turned red like blood] because of the red sweat that came out of him from the fatty meat he ate and the undiluted wine he drank,

and his flesh stood out, spreading and spreading

[and his flesh became round blotches].

Rav Yosef

when he suffered from cold,

would occupy himself with the millstone

[he would engage in grinding at the mill] in order to warm himself and sweat.

Rav Sheshet

when he suffered from cold,

would occupy himself with beams

[he would engage in carrying beams and loads],

he said: Great is labor, which warms those who perform it.

The Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet: Why does my master not dine with us

[what is the reason that my master does not eat with us]?

He said to him:

Because

they are not good

[they are not good],

my servants

of the household,

for they are suspected

[for they are suspected]

of a limb from a living animal.

He said to him: Who says so,

who will say and prove that they are suspected of this?

He said to him: Now I will show

[now I will show]

you.

Rav Sheshet said to

Rav Sheshet

his attendant

[his servant]:

Go, “steal,” and bring me one leg from an animal!

Go and “steal,” and bring me one leg from the animal that the servants of the Exilarch slaughtered for the meal.

His attendant went and

brought it to him

[and brought it to him].

He said to them

Rav Sheshet said to the servants of the house of the Exilarch:

Arrange before me the portions of the animal

[arrange the portions of the animal before me]!

They brought three legs and placed them before him

[they brought three legs and placed them before him].

He said to them

Rav Sheshet:

Is this

[is this] animal

one that had three legs

[was it]!?

The servants heard this,

cut off one from another while it was alive and placed it before him

[they cut off one leg from another animal while it was still alive, which is a limb from a living animal, and brought it before him].

He said to

Rav Sheshet

his attendant

[his servant]:

Place this one of yours also

[place before me also the leg that is with you].

He placed it

[the attendant placed it].

He said to them

Rav Sheshet said to the servants of the house of the Exilarch:

This

[this animal] — was it

one that had five legs

[was it]?

He said to him

the Exilarch said to Rav Sheshet, after being convinced of the correctness of Rav Sheshet’s words:

If so

[if that is so],

let them prepare it before

the attendant

of my master, and let him eat

[let them prepare the meat before my master’s attendant, so that he will see that everything is done according to kashrut, and then you can eat] without concern.

He said to him: For life

[all right].

Bring a table before them

[they brought a table before them],

and bring meat before him

[and they brought meat before him],

and place before him a small bone capable of choking, hidden in the flesh

[and the servants placed before him inside the meat a small bone from the thigh that could choke him]; Rav Sheshet was blind, and they thought that he would not see it and would eat and choke.

He felt it

[he felt the meat with his hand and sensed that bone].

And he took it

[and he took it], the entire piece of meat, and

wrapped it in his garment.

After he ate

[after they had eaten], they saw Rav Sheshet had wrapped something in his garment, and they wanted to check what it was.

They said to him

the servants: