Gittin 78a — the Talmud in English

and she is divorced,

but he has no ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

accompanying name,

but it is called merely “the stone.”

But,

if

it has an accompanying name

for the stone, then

even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, and even though it is not four cubits [high],

it has importance, and it divides an independent domain, and it is not nullified in relation to the courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna: If he threw it to her within his house or within his courtyard,

even if he is with her in the bed,

she is not divorced.

Rava said: They taught

that she is not divorced

only

when the bill of divorce is with her

in his bed.

But

if the bill of divorce is with her

in her bed,

this woman is

divorced,

even though the bed is located in the husband’s house.

It was also taught so in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: In his bed she is not divorced; in her bed she is divorced.

And we raise an objection:

A

nd if the bill of divorce was

in her bed,

why is she

divorced?

Is it not the case that

the vessel of a purchaser in the domain of the seller is [considered the domain of] the seller,

for although the bed is indeed hers, and she is the purchaser of the bill of divorce through it, it is nevertheless located in the husband’s domain, he being the one who transfers ownership of the bill of divorce?

Infer from this,

can one learn from this

that the vessel of a purchaser

located

in the domain of the seller, the purchaser acquires

the object that enters the vessels by the law of a courtyard? But the amoraim dispute this in tractate Bava Batra [85b]!

And we answer:

It is necessary

only

when it is ten [handbreadths] high.

The bed was higher than ten handbreadths, and it became an independent domain. Therefore the woman can receive the bill of divorce through it, since the bed is not considered nullified in relation to the seller’s domain.

And we raise an objection: How did you say that the bed divides an independent domain because it is ten handbreadths high,

and

yet

there is the place of the bed’s legs,

that is, the place between the legs of the bed, which rest on the ground, is below ten handbreadths, and it is not nullified in relation to the husband’s domain; consequently, the entire bed is located in the husband’s domain, and through this the “domain of the vessel” of the bed will be nullified?

And we answer:

With regard to the place of the legs, people are not particular.

With regard to the place beneath the bed, between its legs, people are not particular there about the place of their domain, since the bed is ten handbreadths above the ground, and they can use the space beneath the bed comfortably [despite the legs], and the owners are not particular about the place of the legs, and therefore the domain of the vessel above is not nullified in relation to the domain of the owners below.

We learned in the Mishna:

into her lap or into her basket

this woman is

divorced.

We consider this:

Why

is she divorced? For the basket is

the vessel of a purchaser in the domain of the seller!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The Mishna is speaking

for example, when her basket was hanging from her,

which is exactly like her hand.

And Rabbi Elazar likewise said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: For example, when her basket was hanging from her.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

For example, when her basket was

tied

to her

even though it was not hanging

from her but was dragging on the ground; nevertheless, it is considered like her hand.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: For example, when her basket was placed between her thighs,

even when it was placed on the ground. For a person is not particular about the place where his wife sits, and it remains acquired for her until now.

Rav Mesharsheya bar Dimi said: For example, when her husband sold baskets,

and he had a special house for this purpose, and therefore he was not particular about the place of her basket.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The place of her lap

of his wife

is acquired by her.

The place of her basket is acquired by her.

Rava said: What is Rabbi Yohanan’s reason?

Because a person is not particular either about the place of his wife’s lap or about the place of her basket

of his wife.

It was also taught so,

that the reason is because he is not particular about the place of her lap and basket, as it was taught:

If he threw it into her lap, or into her basket, or into anything that is like her basket, she is divorced.

And we explain:

“Anything that is like her basket”—what does this come to include?

It comes to include: a taska,

a small vessel

in which she eats dates.

And likewise anything designated for her regular use.

And it is proved from here that the reason is because of particularity: when a person brings his wife into his house, he brings her in with the intention that her small utensils of use should be with her.

Mishna:

He said to her

her husband, when he gave her the bill of divorce:

Take

take

this promissory note.

Or she found it behind him,

for she found the bill of divorce behind her husband. And when she

reads

it, she realizes

and behold, it is her bill of divorce—

it is not a bill of divorce until he says to her: Here is your bill of divorce!

And even if he says this to her after the bill of divorce has come into her hand, she is divorced [in accordance with Rabbi’s view in the Gemara].

He placed in her hand

the bill of divorce

while she was sleeping,

she is not divorced through it.

When she awakens,

if she subsequently awoke

and reads

it,

and behold, it is her bill of divorce—

it is not a bill of divorce until he says to her: Here is your bill of divorce.

And even after she awakens from her sleep.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if she found it behind him, it is not a bill of divorce until he says to her, “Here is your bill of divorce.”

We consider this:

And when he says to her, “Here is your bill of divorce,” what difference does that make,

why should she be divorced?

For it is to him,

as though the husband said to her:

Take your bill of divorce from upon the ground!

For here too she took the bill of divorce from the ground,

and Rava said: One who says:

“Take”

your bill of divorce from upon the ground has said nothing,

but she must receive the bill of divorce from his hand and not from the ground, as it is written: “And he gives” it into her hand!?

And we answer:

Say

that the intention of the Mishna is to say that the woman

pulled it out,

she pulled the bill of divorce

from behind him,

for the bill of divorce had been stuck between his belt and his loins, and she pulled it out from there. Consequently, she did not take it from the ground; rather, she took the bill of divorce from her husband’s hand.

And we raise an objection:

Even “she pulled it out”

will not help!

For we require, “And he gives it into her hand,”

meaning that the giving must be through the husband’s power,

and there is none!

For she herself took the bill of divorce.

And we answer:

It is necessary

that the Mishna is speaking in a situation

where he moved his loins toward her,

where the husband bent his loins to the side toward her in order to bring the bill of divorce closer to her,

and she pulled it out,

and she pulled the bill of divorce from him; through this it is as though the husband gave her the bill of divorce.

It was also taught so

that the case is one in which she pulled the bill of divorce from behind him, and not one in which she found it upon the ground:

As it was taught:

If he said to her, “Take this promissory note,” or if she pulled it out from behind him, read it, and behold, it is her bill of divorce, it is not a bill of divorce until he says to her, “Here is your bill of divorce”—the words of Rabbi,

who holds that it is sufficient for him to say to her, “Here is your bill of divorce,” and he need not again take it from her and again give it to her at the time of the statement.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is never a bill of divorce until he takes it from her, returns and gives it to her, and says to her: Here is your bill of divorce.

Since the first giving was not valid, he must make a new giving.

He gave it into her hand while she was sleeping,

and afterward she

awoke, and reads it, and behold, it is her bill of divorce; it is not a bill of divorce until he says to her: Here is your bill of divorce—the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

It is never a bill of divorce

until he takes it from her, returns and gives it to her, and says to her: Here is your bill of divorce.

And it is necessary.

The beraita needed to inform us of their dispute in both situations.

For if it had been stated in the first one,

in the first situation, where he gave her the bill of divorce while she was awake, I would say that only

in that one Rabbi says

that he need not take the bill of divorce from her and give it to her anew, because

she is fit for divorce,

she is fit to receive a bill of divorce, since she is awake, and only the statement “Here is your bill of divorce” is lacking. Therefore the subsequent statement is effective, since the receipt of the bill of divorce was valid.

But

in the second situation, that

“he gave it into her hand while she was sleeping, for she is not fit for divorce”

at the time when she is sleeping,

say that Rabbi concedes

to him,

to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

that he must give it to her anew.

And if it had been stated in this one,

in the situation of the sleeping woman, I would have said that only

in this one Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says

that he must return and give it to her, because she was not fit for divorce at the time of the first giving.

But in that one,

the first situation, where she was fit for divorce,

say that he concedes to him,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar to

Rabbi,

that a new giving is not required.

Therefore

it is necessary.

The beraita needed to inform us of their dispute in both situations.

Rava said: If he wrote a bill of divorce for her and placed it in the hand of her slavewoman,

of his wife, if the slavewoman was

sleeping

and the woman

was guarding her, it is a bill of divorce.

For the slavewoman is like the woman’s courtyard, and this is a guarded courtyard according to the woman’s awareness, since, as the slavewoman is sleeping, she is guarded only through her.

But if she was

awake, it is not a bill of divorce, for it is a courtyard guarded not according to her awareness

of the woman, but the slavewoman guards herself and only what is in her hand; and such a courtyard does not acquire on behalf of a person, because it is not similar to a hand, which is guarded according to the person’s awareness.

And we raise an objection against Rava, who said:

If she is sleeping and he guards her, it is a bill of divorce.

But why

should the giving to the slavewoman be effective by the law of a courtyard? For with regard to the acquisition through a courtyard, a slavewoman who walks is

like a walking courtyard, and a walking courtyard does not acquire.

For the Sages said that a person’s courtyard acquires for him only with regard to a courtyard that does not walk!

And should you say

perhaps

sleeping is different,

for then she does not walk—

This cannot be said, because

Rava said: Anything that, if walking, does not acquire, standing or sitting

also

does not

acquire, because since she is fit to walk, she is not similar to a courtyard, and therefore the law of a courtyard does not apply to her. The same applies to one who is sleeping, since she is capable of awakening and walking.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is: When she is bound,

meaning that the slavewoman was bound and unfit to walk, at which point the law of a courtyard applies to her.

And concerning such a slavewoman Rava said that if she is sleeping, it is a bill of divorce.

Mishna:

She was standing in the public domain, and they threw the get to her there.

If it fell

near her

then she is

divorced.

And if it fell

near him, she is not divorced.

If it was

half-and-half

then she is

divorced and is not divorced.

That is, she is in doubtfully divorced status.

And likewise with regard to betrothal,

if he threw the money of betrothal to her in the public domain and the money fell near her, then she is betrothed; and if it fell near him, she is not betrothed; and if it was half-and-half, it is a doubtfully valid betrothal.

And likewise with regard to the debt.

How so?

His creditor said to him,

The lender said to the borrower:

Throw my debt to me,

the money that you owe me!

And he threw it to him

in the public domain, and the money was lost.

If the money fell

near the lender, the lender acquired it

at the moment of its falling, and the borrower was released from the debt.

And if it fell

near the borrower,

and the money was lost, still

the borrower remains liable.

For the lender did not acquire it.

If it was

half-and-half, they divide it between them.

That is, the borrower pays half of the debt.

Gemara:

And we raise it as a difficulty:

What are the circumstances of “near her,” and what are the circumstances of “near him,”

in what manner is the matter speaking?

Rav said:

If the get fell within

her four cubits, that is “near her,”

and she is divorced, because the Sages instituted that a person’s four cubits acquire for him. And if the get fell within

his four cubits, that is “near him,”

for the woman did not acquire the get.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

What are the circumstances of “half-and-half”?

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: For example, when both of them were standing

within

four cubits

of the get, this one on one side and that one on the other side, and it is found that the get is in the domain of both of them. And we object:

Let us see which of them preceded,

who among the two preceded in coming to the place where he is now standing, in which case he acquired all four cubits around him, and the other no longer has any right there!

And should you say,

perhaps you will say:

that they both came simultaneously,

that both arrived at the same moment within the four cubits of the get. It is impossible to say this, because:

But it is impossible to be exact

so that one of them would not precede the other into the four cubits of the get.

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Kahana said: Here,

in eight

cubits

exactly measured we are dealing,

that there was a distance of exactly eight cubits between them, neither less nor more.