Gittin 78b — the Talmud in English

and a get passes from his four cubits into her four cubits,

where the husband threw the get to her, and it fell with one part of it in his four cubits and its second part in her four cubits, and it is therefore in the possession of both of them.

And we raise an objection:

But it is attached to him!

For part of the get is still in his possession, and the Torah says, “And he gives it into her hand,” that all of it must be in her possession, and if not, it is not a get; so why does the Mishna say that it is doubtful whether she is divorced?

And we resolve it:

Rather, Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say: Here we are dealing with two sets of witnesses,

one set

says

that the get fell

near him

within his four cubits, and

one set says

that the get fell

near her

within her four cubits. And this is the meaning of the Mishna: that it was half-and-half, and therefore it is doubtful whether she is divorced.

Rabbi Yohanan says: “Near her,” we learned

in the Mishna; its meaning is

even

if the get is far from her

one hundred cubits,

she is divorced, provided that it is near her, and not because of the acquisition of four cubits. And likewise,

“near him,” we learned,

and it implies

even

if it is far from him

one hundred

cubits, she is not divorced, as he explains it below.

And we examine this:

What are the circumstances

according to Rabbi Yohanan of

half-and-half?

And we answer: Rav Shaman bar Abba said: To me, it was explained by Rabbi Yohanan

all the circumstances: if the get fell in a place where

he can guard it and she cannot guard it, this is “near him,”

and she is not divorced.

And if it fell in a place where

she can guard it and he cannot guard it, this is “near her,”

and she is divorced.

And if it fell in a place where

both can guard it

or

both cannot

guard it,

this is half-and-half,

for it is doubtful whether she is divorced.

They stated it before Rabbi Yohanan

this interpretation of our Mishna,

in the name of Rabbi Yonatan, thus,

that he too had interpreted it like him.

He said

Rabbi Yohanan:

“Do our Babylonian colleagues know how to explain it with such a reason!”

Our colleagues in Babylonia [Rabbi Yonatan had gone up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel] know how to explain it with correct reasons.

It was also taught so,

that the nearness in our Mishna means the ability to guard it, for it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Whenever it is nearer to her

than to him,

and a dog came and took it,

the get,

she is not divorced.

And we examine this: Why is she not divorced? For the divorce already took effect at the moment when the get came near her, so what difference does it make to us that the dog took it afterward?

Should she guard it and continue going

and must she guard the get forever?

Rather, is it not that this is what it says:

the beraita:

Whenever it is nearer to her than to him,

that is, even in a case where the get is nearer to her than to him, nevertheless, if a river or an embankment of earth interrupts between her and the get,

and a dog came and took it,

then only if

he can protect it

from the dog

and

if

she cannot guard it is she not divorced.

Shmuel said to Rabbi Yehuda: “Sharp one!” [A0085]]A designation for Rav Yehuda because of his acumen. The nearness in our Mishna means

A title referring to Rav Yehuda’s sharpness. The “nearness” in our Mishna means

that she can bend down and take it,

that the get is so near the woman that she only needs to bend down and pick it up.

And although this is so according to the law in principle, nevertheless,

“As for you, do not perform a practical act”

in practice, do not permit a woman to marry on the basis of such a get,

“until the get reaches her hand,”

only when the get actually reaches her hand, because of an enactment, lest people say concerning a get that fell far from her that it is near her.

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: “There was such an incident”

involving a woman to whom the get came near, but she did not actually receive it in her hand, and afterward her husband died,

and they required her to perform halitza

as a rabbinic stringency, as though she had not been divorced.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And likewise concerning betrothal.”

Rabbi Asi said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: “They said this concerning gittin,”

only concerning a get was it said that the law is effective even when it came only near her, because in the case of a get it is effective even when he gives it to her against her will, and therefore such a giving is also sufficient.

“And not concerning anything else,”

such as a creditor who threw the repayment of the debt toward the lender, and the money came near him, and afterward the money was lost: we do not say that the lender had already acquired the money before it was lost, but rather the borrower still remains liable.

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Asi

from our Mishna:

“And likewise concerning betrothal!”

Is it not the case that the law of nearness was stated not only concerning a get?

And we answer:

There it is different, for it is written, “And she shall go out” —

“and she shall become,”

betrothal was compared to divorce in all their laws; this is not so concerning a debt, with regard to which the law of nearness was not stated.

He raised an objection

from our Mishna:

“And likewise concerning the debt.”

If his creditor said to him,

“Throw my debt to me,” and he threw it to him,

if it is near the lender, the borrower has acquired [A0120]]that is, the lender acquired the debt, and the borrower thereby became exempt.

meaning that the creditor acquired the debt and the debtor thereby became exempt].

If it is near the borrower, the borrower remains liable; if it is half-and-half, they both divide it.

Thus, concerning a debt as well, the law of nearness was stated.

And we resolve it:

What are the circumstances here? It is where he said to him

the lender to the borrower:

“Throw my debt to me and you will be exempt,”

and therefore it is effective even when the debt came only near the lender.

And we raise an objection:

“If so, what does it teach us?”

It is obvious that the borrower is thereby exempt, since the lender explicitly exempted him through such repayment!

And we resolve it:

It is necessary

that the case be one where he said to him:

“Throw my debt to me according to the law of gittin.”

The lender agrees that with regard to repayment of the debt, such a receipt as is effective concerning a get should be effective.

And we raise an objection:

“And still, what does it teach us?”

For it too is obvious that this is effective. And we resolve it:

Lest you say that he can say to him

the lender to the borrower:

“I was merely playing along with you,”

and I did not truly intend this.

It teaches us

that he cannot make such a claim.

Rav Hisda said:

The husband gave her

a get in her hand, with its cord

the end of the cord tied to the get remaining

in his hand.

If

the cord is strong, so that through it

the husband can

муж

detach it

the get from the woman’s hand

and bring it to himself, she is not divorced. And if not,

that the cord is not so strong, and if he pulls it, it will tear, she is

divorced.

What is the reason?

For the entire get is in the woman’s hand, so why is she not divorced?

Because

we require “severance,”

that they be separated from one another,

and there is none,

for they are bound together by this cord.

Rav Yehuda said: Her hand was made like a katferes,

like a slope, with her fingertips inclined downward on a slant, and she did not extend her hand upward in the manner of those who extend a hand; therefore,

even though the get reached her hand, she is not divorced,

because the get will immediately fall from her hand, and such a receipt is not considered receipt in her hand.

And we raise an objection:

Why

is she not divorced?

For when it falls, it falls within her four cubits!

Even without her receiving it in her hand, she should be divorced through the acquisition of four cubits!

And we resolve it:

Where it does not come to rest

on the ground, but when it falls from her hand, it is burned in the air.

And we raise an objection:

Then let her be divorced through the air within four cubits!

For the get entered the airspace of her four cubits, did it not?

Resolve it

from here, then:

for Rabbi Elazar asked: the four cubits that they said

that acquire for a person—do they

have airspace,

does only their airspace also acquire,

or do they not have airspace

and only when it reaches the ground does it acquire?

Resolve it

from the words of Rav Judah:

that they do not have airspace,

and therefore she is not divorced when her hand was made like a katperes, despite the fact that the get entered the airspace of the woman's four cubits.

And we reject this, for it is impossible to resolve it from here, because

here, with what are we dealing? With her standing on the bank of the river, since from the outset it is destined to be lost.

For the get is ultimately to fall into the river and be lost, and in such a case the airspace of four cubits certainly is not effective, because the arrival of an object into airspace in a manner in which it is not fit to come to rest on the ground does not acquire.