גיטין ח׳Gittin 8

Mishnah

משנה: הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ בְתוֹךְ חֲצֵירוֹ אֶפִילוּ הוּא עִמָּהּ בַּמִּיטָּה אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קָלָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

MISHNAH: If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced. If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced. Into her bosom or her wool basket, she is divorced.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. וְכָתַב וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְיָדָהּ. בְּגִינָּתָהּ בַּחֲצֵירָהּ מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְנָתַן. וְנָתַן. עַד כְּדוֹן כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַיִקַּח אֶת כָּל אַרְצוֹ מִיָּדוֹ וְעַד אַרְנֹן. וְכִי מִיָּדוֹ לָקַח. אֶלָּא מָהוּ מִיָּדוֹ. מֵרְשׁוּתוֹ.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael, “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.

וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ אֵינָן מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. עַד שֶיִּכְתּוֹב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. אֲפִילוּ לא כָתַב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי כְרַבָּנִין וּדְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי יַנַּאי כְרַבָּנִין. דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיַּד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ הוּא זָכָה גִיטּוֹ מִיָּדוֹ. וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהֵן מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. עַד שֶיִּכְתּוֹב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרַבָּנִין. הוּא יַד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וְהוּא זָכָה גִיטָהּ. וּדְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְיַד בַּעֲלָהּ הִוא זָכְתָה גִיטָּהּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְגִינָּתָהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מְשׁוּעֲבָדִין לָאִישׁ לַאֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת אֲפִילוּ לא כָתַב לָהּ. דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בְנִכְסַיִיךְ. נָפְלוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים וְלָהּ. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב. הָיָה נָשׂוּי אֶת בַּת אָחִיו. אֲפִילוּ כָתַב כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא כָתַב. נָתַן לָהּ אַחֵר מַתָּנָה. וְאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעֲלָהּ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁאַתְּ נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּפִיךְ. אֲפִילוּ לֹא כָתַב לָהּ כְּמִי שֶׁכָּתַב.

But are her garden and her courtyard not subject to her husband’s having the usufruct? Rebbi Joshua in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Only if he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqulah in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It turns out that Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis and Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yannai follows the rabbis, for the rabbis say, even though the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, he can acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand. But her garden and her courtyard are subject to her husband’s having the usufruct unless he writes to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” It is difficult for the rabbis: since the slave’s hand is his master’s hand, how can he acquire his document of manumission from [his master’s] hand? Rebbi Hoshaiah follows Rebbi Meїr, for Rebbi Meїr said since the wife’s hand is not her husband’s hand, she can acquire her bill of divorce from her husband. Her garden and her courtyard will not be subject to her husband, even if he has the usufruct, even if he did not write to her, “I have nothing to do with your properties.” If he inherited properties together with her, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write; [for example] if he had married his brother’s daughter, even if he wrote it is as if he did not write. If another person gave her a gift and told her, on condition that your husband have no rights to it, but it is for you to trade on your own account, then even if he did not write it is as if he wrote.

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן מָהוּ. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. צְרִיכָה לְרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רַב וְרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה. דָּמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי זְעִירָה רַב חִיָיה בַר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין מְשִׁיכָה קוֹנָה בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה וּפְלִיג. אֵימָתִי אָמְרוּ. הַמְטַלְטְלִין נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה. בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בְחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַלּוֹקֵחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו בִּרְשׁוּת הַמּוֹכֵר זָכָה. לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ אוֹ עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּמְשׁוֹךְ וְיוֹצֵא חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים. בִּרְשׁוּת זֶה שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיְּזַכּוּהוּ בָהֶן אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכִּיר לוֹ אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he threw it to her in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them, what is the rule? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: That is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Abin said, it is a disagreement between Rav and the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, for Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Drawing close does not acquire in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But Rebbi Ḥiyya stated in disagreement: “Under which circumstances did they say that movables are acquired by drawing close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which belongs to neither of them. But in the buyer’s domain he acquired the moment he accepted it. In the seller’s domain he does not acquire unless either he lifts it up or moves it out of its prior owner’s domain. In a domain where it was deposited he does not acquire unless he either is explicitly empowered or he leases its place.”

עוּלָּא בַּר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. לֹא עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לִזְכוֹת בְּקָלָתָהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיְתָה קָלָתָהּ שֶׁלְּזָהָב. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לִזְכוֹת בְּקָלָתָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁתַּמֶּשֶׁת בָּהּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. בִּקְשׁוּרָה לָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּבְמַגְבָּהַת מַחְמָתָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיֵה וּמְסַיֵּיעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲפִילוּ זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּלוֹשׁ שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

Ulla bar Ismael said, he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Think of it, if her wool basket was of gold? Certainly he never thought to have a right to her wool basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it is being used. Rebbi Yose said, only if she is using it at that moment. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if it is tied to her; Rebbi Yose said, if she lifts it for her purpose. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated in support of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if he threw it into her maloš she is divorced.

Mishnah

משנה: אָמַר לָהּ כִּינְסִי שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאַתּוּ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו קוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִיטָּהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ. נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁינָה נֵיעוֹרָה קוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִיטָּהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ. הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ קָרוֹב לָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת קָרוֹב לוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

MISHNAH: If he said to her, “take this bond,” or she found it behind his back, she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If he put it into her hand while she was asleep, after she awoke she read it and it turned out to be her bill of divorce, it is no bill of divorce until he says to her “this is your bill of divorce”. If she was standing in the public domain when he threw it to her and it landed close to her it is a bill of divorce, close to him it is no bill of divorce, half and half she is divorced and not divorced.

Halakhah

הלכה: אָמַר לָהּ כִּינְסִי שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ בִּשְׁעַת מַתָּנָה. הֵא גִיטֵּיךְ.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to her, ‘take this bond,’” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan says, this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon, since Rebbi Eleazar ben Simeon says it never is a bill of divorce unless he says at the moment of delivery: “this is your bill of divorce.”

כַּמָּה הוּא קָרוֹב. רַב אָמַר. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִלַאי הַיּוֹרֵשׁ. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. כְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִים. וְתַנִּינָן. בְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִם. רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. בְּפִישׁוּט יָדַיִם. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר אָכֵן. כָּאן לַהֲלָכָה כָּאן לְמַעֲשֶׂה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לָזֶה מִלְּזוֹ וּבָא הַכֶּלֶב וּנְטָלוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמוּאֵל כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר וּפְלִיג. הַמְחָוּוָר בְּכוּלָּן עַד שֶׁיִתְּנֶנָּה לְתוֹךְ יָדָהּ. הָיָה פוֹשֵׁט יָדַיִים בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קָרוֹב לָהּ מִלּוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. לוֹ מִלָּהּ אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. אַבָּא בַּר רַב יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. כָּל הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מְזוֹנוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ.

How close is “near”? Rav said, four cubits. Rebbi Ilai the heir said, four cubits. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Stretching out hands, and we have stated: “stretching out hands.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah, in the name of Rav: Stretching out hands. The argument of Rav is inverted; there, he says four cubits and here he says so? There in theory, here in practice. “Rebbi Eleazar stated: Even if it was closer to her than to him but a dog came and took it away, she is not divorced.” Samuel agrees with Rebbi Eleazar and disagrees. The clearest way is that he puts it into her hand. If there was room for stretching out hands between him and her, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan [states]: If it was closer to her than to him she is divorced, closer to him than to her she is not divorced, half and half she is divorced and not divorced. Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: In all cases in which we have stated “divorced and not divorced”, support is on him.

Mishnah

משנה: וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין וּלְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לוֹ זְרוֹק לִי חוֹבִי וּזְרָקוֹ לוֹ קָרוֹב לַמַּלְוֶה זָכָה הַלּוֹוֶה קָרוֹב לַלּוֹוֶה הַלּוֹוֶה חַיָיב. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה שְׁנֵיהֶן יַחֲלוֹקוּ. הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַגַּג וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַאֲוֵיר הַגַּג הָרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. הוּא מִלְּמַעֲלָן וְהִיא מִלְּמַטָּן וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא מֵרְשׁוּת הַגַּג נִמְחַק אוֹ נִשְׂרַף הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

MISHNAH: The same applies for preliminary marriages and for [liquidation of] debts. If he said to him, throw to me what you owe me and he threw it close to the lender, the borrower is acquitted, close to the borrower, the borrower remains obligated, in the middle both of them must share it. If she was standing on top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced. If he was on top and she below, once it left the domain of the roof she is divorced even if it was blotted out or burned.

Halakhah

הלכה: וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַקִּידּוּשִׁין כול׳. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא כֹהֵן בַּר דָּלָא אם זָכָה בִּמְצִיאָה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַה טַעַם. הִנֵּה בְּעוֹנְיִי הֲכִינוֹתִי לְבֵית יי זָהָב כִּכָּרִים מֵאָה אֶלֶף וְכֶסֶף אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים כִּכָּרִים וְלַנְּחוֹשֶׁת וְלַבַּרְזֶל אֵין מִשְׁקָל כִּי לָרוֹב הֲכִינוֹתִי וְעֵצִים וַאֲבָנִים הֲכִינוֹתִי וַעֲלֵיהֶם תּוֹסִיף.

HALAKHAH: “The same applies for preliminary marriages”, etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba Cohen Bar Dalaia: A person acquires a find within four cubits of himself. What is the reason? ( 1Chr. 22:14) “Look, in my poverty I prepared for the House of the Eternal 100’000 kikkar of gold, 1’000’000 kikkar of silver, bronze and iron unweighed because it was so much; I prepared wood and stones, and you should add to them.”

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָּעִי. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עָשִׁיר הוּא. וְאִם חוּץ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת יֵשׁ אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. קִיַימְּנוּהָ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Hoshaiah asked: What are we talking about? If this was within four cubits from him, he was rich. If it was outside of four cubits, may anybody dedicate anything that is not his? We confirmed it if he dedicated it piece by piece.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. מַהוּ בְּעוֹנְיִי. שֶׁאֵין עֲשִׁירוּת בִּפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. דָּבָר אַחֵר. הִנֵּה בְעוֹנְיִי. שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַנֶּה וּמַקְדִּישׁ סְעוּדָתוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.

Rebbi Abun said, what means “in my poverty?” That there is no wealth before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence! Another explanation: בְּעוֹנְיִי “in my deprivation,” because he fasted and donated the price of his meal to Heaven.

הָתִיב רב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִּי קוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. רָאָה אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְנָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ וּבָא אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ. זֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָהּ. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר. יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָתַנִּינָן. נָפַל לוֹ עָלֶיהָ פָרַס טַלִּיתוֹ עָלֶיהָ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ הֵימֶינָּהּ. עוֹד הִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר יִזְכּוּ לִי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּי רִבִּי חִיָיא. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְבַּתְּשִׁין עַל הָעוֹמֶר וּבָא אַחֵר וַחֲטָפוֹ. זֶה שֶּׁחֲטָפוֹ זָכָה בּוֹ. עוֹד הֵם בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ. יִזְכּוּ לָנוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Did we not state: ( Mishnah Baba Meẓi‘a 1:4) “If somebody saw a find and fell on it, when another person came and grabbed it, he who grabbed it had the rights to it?” He answered him: Explain it if the first one did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did we not state: “If he fell on it or spread his talith on it, one removes him from it?” He said to him, that is the same, if he did not say that his four cubits should acquire it for him. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: ( Tosephta Peah 2:2) “If two were pushing one another because of a sheaf and another person came and grabbed it from before them, the one who grabbed is entitled to it. He said to him, it is the same, they did not say that our four cubits should acquire it for us.

רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זוֹ בְגִיטִּין מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנָה. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרוּבָּהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. רוּבָּהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה אִם מְצִיאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה בָּהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַתָּנָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ מִדַּעַת אַחֵר לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. רוּבָּהּ דְּרֵישּׁ לָקִישׁ. מַה אִם מַתָּנָה שֶׁאִם זָכָה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הֲרֵי הוּא זוֹכֶה מִדַּעַת אַחֵר. מְצִיאָה שֶׁהוּא זוֹכֶה בָהּ בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן.

Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which could only be acquired within four cubits by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?

הָתִיב רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין קִידּוּשִׁין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הוּא גִּיטִּין הוּא קִידּוּשִׁין. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. וְכֵן לְעִנְיָין הַחוֹב. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לוֹ. זוֹרְקֵיהוּ לַיָּם וִיהֵא מָחוּל לָךְ. מָחוּל לוֹ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ קָרוֹב לְלוֶֹה זָכָה הַלּוֶֹה. וְתַנִּינָן. קָרוֹב לַלּוֹוֶה הַלּוֹוֶה חַיָיב. שֶׁכֵּן אִם אָמַר לוֹ. זוֹרְקֵיהוּ עַד שֶׁיִיכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. וַאֲדַיִין לֹא נִכְנַס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין כָּל אִילֵּין מְתִיבָתָא דַּהֲוָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא מֵשִּׁיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְרֵישּׁ לָקִישׁ מֵשִׁיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינַייהוּ פָּתַר לָהּ כְּאִילֵּין פִּתְרָיָיתָא.

Rebbi Zeïra objected before Rebbi Yasa: But did we not state: The same applies to marriage? He answered him, divorce documents and marriage contracts have the same rules. But did we not state: The same applies to debt? He said to him, because if he said to him: Throw it into the sea and your debt will be forgiven, it would be forgiven. But if that is true, even if it fell down close to the debtor, the debtor should have the benefit! But we have stated, if it falls down close to the debtor, the debtor is still obligated. For he said to him, throw it so that it will enter my domain, but it did not yet enter his domain. Rebbi Abbahu said, all those objections that Rebbi Zeïra raised before Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish raised before Rebbi Joḥanan. Did he accept them from him? He solved them with those same solutions.

רִבִּי אָבִין בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. נִשְׂכָר הַלִּבֶּלָּר שֵׁינִי.

Rebbi Abin in the name of Ḥizqiah: The second scribe earns money.

אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא בְּגַג שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַעֲקֶה וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר מַעֲקֶה. וְשֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַעֲקֶה וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לַגַּג. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לַגַּג כַּגַּג הֵן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי בָּא בַּר הַמְנוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב אָדָא בַּר אֲחַוָוה. לְעִנְיָין שַׁבָּת. שֶׁכָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵן סְמוּכִין לִמְחִיצָה כִּמְחִיצָה הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. דְּלָא דַמְיָא. גִיטִּין מִלְּמַעֲלָן וְשַׁבָּת מִלְּמַטָּן. גִּיטִּין אֲפִילוּ לֹא נַח. שַׁבָּת עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ. רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּרַד לַאֲוֵיר מְחִיצוֹת. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי עֲבַד מְחִיצָה כְמַמָּשׁוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא הָכָא דְגִיטִּין. וְיָתִיבִינֵיהּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. מְקוּרָה. וְאַתְּ אוֹמֶרֶת. אֵינָהּ מְקוּרָה. מַה בֵין גִּיטִּין וּמַה בֵין שַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא. בַּשַׁבָּת כְּתִיב לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה. נַעֲשֵׂית הִיא מֵאֵילֶיהָ. בְּרַם הָכָא וְנָתַן בְיָדָהּ. בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks of a roof with a parapet when it descended lower than the parapet, or one without a parapet when it descended lower than within three handbreadths of the roof, since anything within three handbreadths of the roof is as if it were part of the roof. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abba bar Hamnuna in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥawa: This refers to the rules of the Sabbath, where anything within three handbreadths of a partition is considered part of the partition. Rebbi Yasa said, they are not comparable, for bills of divorce are about the top, the rules of the Sabbath about the below. For bills of divorce even if it never came to rest, for the Sabbath only if it rested. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, here in the matter of bills of divorce it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Abba said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work;” it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,” into her domain.

Mishnah

משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים פּוֹטֵר אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט יָשָׁן וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. וְאֵי זֶהוּ גֵּט יָשָׁן כָּל שֶׁנִּתְיָיחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce, but the House of Hillel forbid it. And what is an old bill of divorce? If he was again alone with her after he wrote it for her.

Halakhah

הלכה: בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים כול׳. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְמוּאֵל. וְכוּלָּן אִם נִישְׂאוּ לֹא תֵצֵא. שֶׁלֹּא לְהוֹצִיא לִיזָה עַל בָּנֶיהָ.

HALAKHAH: “The House of Shammai say,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: And any one of them if she was married should not leave, in order not to cause talk about her children.

אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. מְסַיֵיעַ לְבֵית שַׁמַּי. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. מְסַיֵיעַ לְבֵית הִלֵּל.

We stated: “After he wrote it for her.” Some Tannaïm state “after he delivered it to her.” He who says “after he wrote it for her” supports the House of Shammai; he who says “after he delivered it to her” supports the House of Hillel.

Mishnah

משנה: כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּלְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת יָוָן לְבִנְיַין הַבַּיִת וּלְחוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת. הָיָה בַמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב בַּמַּעֲרָב וְכָתַב בַּמִּזְרָח תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּצְרִיכָה גֵּט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתוּבָּה וְלֹא פֵירוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה וְאִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה תַּחֲזִיר וְהַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. לֹא זֶה וְזֶה מְטַמְּאִין לָהּ וְלֹא זֶה וְזֶה זַכָּאִין לא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהוּנָה בַּת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. אֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁלָּזֶה וְשֶׁלָּזֶה יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. מֵתוּ אָחִיו שֶׁלָּזֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁלָּזֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת הָלְכוּ הַצָּרוֹת הָאֵילּוּ וְנִישְּׂאוּ וְנִמְצְאוּ אֵילּוּ אַיְלוֹנִיּוֹת תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

MISHNAH: If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media or the government of Greece, from the construction of the Temple or the destruction of the Temple; if he was in the West and wrote “in the East” or in the East and wrote “in the West”, she needs a bill of divorce from both of them, she has neither ketubah nor usufruct nor used clothing from either of them, and if she took anything she must return it. Any child from either of the men is a bastard; neither of them may defile himself for her. Neither man has any claim on what she finds or earns, or on invalidation of her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israel, she is disabled from priesthood, the daughter of a Levite from tithe, the daughter of a Cohen from heave. The heirs of neither man inherit her ketubah. If they died, the brothers of both of them perform ḥaliṣah but not levirate. If he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Referring to all the close relatives about whom they said that their co-wives are permitted, if any of the co-wives went and married otherwise but the relatives turned out to be she-rams, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

הלכה: כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת. לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת מָדַי כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. עָשׂוּ אֶת הַוְולָד מַמְזֵר מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. כָּל הָדָא פִירְקָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. חוּץ מִשִּׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ. רִבִּי מָנָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אַף הַמְגָרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית פִּירְקָא דִידְכוֹן אֶלָּא דִידָן.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote in the name of an inappropriate government, in the name of the government of Media,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: They declared the child a bastard because of the danger. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: This entire Chapter is Rebbi Meїr’s except for “if he changed his or her name or the name of his or her city.” Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yasa: Also “if somebody divorced his wife”? He said to him, not your Chapter but our Chapter.

Mishnah

משנה: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה צָרָתָהּ וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְנִמְצְאָה זֹאת שֶׁהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

MISHNAH: If somebody married his sister-in-law while her co-wife went and married somebody else, if the sister-in-law turns out to be a she-ram, the co-wife shall be divorced from both of them and all the aforementioned consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ כול׳. לֹא הָיְתָה צְרִיכָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא אֶלָּא לְהִתְיַיבֶּם. וְזוֹ הִיא יְבָמָה שֶׁנִּיסֵּית בְּלֹא חֲלִיצָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. זֶה חוֹלֵץ וְזֶה מְקַיֵים. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי פִינְחָס. הֵיךְ רִבִּי סָבַר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲזוֹר בָּךְ. דִּלֹא כֵן אֲנָא כְתַב עֲלָךְ זָקֵן מַמְרֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְבִידָא. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים בָּהּ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵין מַמְזֵר מִיְּבָמָה. הָא לָצֵאת תֵּצֵא.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody married his sister-in-law,” etc. If she should not have married but entered levirate, this is the case of a sister-in-law who married without ḥalîṣah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this man performs ḥalīṣah, the other one keeps her. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: She must leave. Rebbi Yose asked Rebbi Phineas, how does the rabbi hold? He said, with Rebbi Jeremiah. He said to him, change your mind, for otherwise I shall publicly call you a rebellious Elder. Rebbi Zevidah said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “She must leave both of them and the thirteen items apply to her, following Rebbi Meïr who said it in the name of Rebbi Aqibah. But the Sages say, there is no bastard from a sister-in-law.” Therefore she must leave.

Mishnah

משנה: כָּתַב הַסּוֹפֵר וְטָעָה וְנָתַן גֵּט לָאִשָּׁה וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִישׁ וְנָתְנוּ זֶה לָזֶה וּלְאַחַר הַזְּמַן הֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִיַּד הָאִישׁ וְהַשּׁוֹבָר מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם לְאַלְתָּר יָצָא אֵין זֶה גֵט אִם לְאַחַר זְמָן יָצָא הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁלַּשֵּׁינִי.

MISHNAH: If the scribe wrote and then in error handed the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man and they exchanged them, then later the bill of divorce is found with the man and the receipt with the woman, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her. Rebbi Eliezer says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.

Halakhah

הלכה: כָּתַב הַסּוֹפֵר וְטָעָה כול׳. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁטָּעָה. אַף רִבִּי לָעְזָר מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא טָעָה. אוֹף רַבָּנִן מוֹדֵיי. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בִּסְתָם. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חָשַׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא לֹא טָעָה. וְרַבַּנִן חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא טָעָה.

HALAKHAH: “If the scribe wrote,” etc. Where do we hold? If he made a mistake, even Rebbi Eleazar agrees. If he made no error, even the rabbis agree. But we must hold that it was unexplained. Rebbi Eleazar suspects that possibly he made no mistake; the rabbis suspect that possibly he did make a mistake.

רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אִם עַל אָתָר יָצָא אֵינוֹ גֵט. וְאִם לְאַחַר זְמָן יָצָא הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּת שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. אֵיזֶהוּ עַל אָתָר. רִבִּי זְעִירָא אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְאָרְסָה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר חֲקוּלָה אָמַר. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּית וְנִיסֵּית. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַיְיעָא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא הַכֹּל מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ מִן הַשֵּׁינִי.

“Rebbi Eleazar says: If it was found out immediately, this is no bill of divorce. If it was found out later, it is a bill of divorce since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.” What is immediately? Rebbi Ze‘ira says, before she was preliminarily married, or when she was preliminarily married. Rebbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula said, before she was definitively married, or when she was definitively married. The Mishnah supports Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Since the first cannot destroy the rights of the second.”

Mishnah

משנה: כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ עַל תְּנַאי וְלֹא נַעֲשָׂה הַתְּנַאי לֹא פְסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

MISHNAH: If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind, the House of Shammai say, he disabled her from the priesthood. But the House of Hillel say, even if he handed her [the bill of divorce] and attached a condition, if the condition was not satisfied he did not disable her from the priesthood.

Halakhah

הלכה: כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ כול׳. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם יִיחוּס כְּהוּנָה וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְזָהֲמִין אוֹתָהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה וַעֲבַד כְבֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב. מָה רָאִיתָ לְהַכְנִיס עַצְמְךָ לְמִיסְפֵּק הַזֶּה הַמְרוּבֶּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה עִמִּי וְקָרָא עֲלֵיהוֹן טוֹבִים הַשְּׁנַיִם מִן הָאֶחָד.

HALAKHAH: “If he wrote a bill to divorce his wife and then changed his mind,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: There is no problem because of the purity of the priestly line and the court will not denigrate her. There came a case before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and he acted following the House of Hillel. Rav asked him, why did you bring yourself into this great doubt? He answered, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose was with me. He quoted about them: “Two are better than one.”

הַמְסַלֶּדֶת בִּבְנָהּ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ מְסַלְּדוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין.

“A woman who engages in sex play with her son, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.” Two women who mutually engage in sex play, the House of Shammai disqualify, the House of Hillel qualify.

Mishnah

משנה: הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּנְדָקֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. וּמוֹדִין בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ. כְּנָסָהּ בְּגֵט קֵרֵחַ תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵילּוּ בָהּ.

MISHNAH: If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him in a hostelry, the House of Shammai say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him, but the House of Hillel say that she needs a second bill of divorce from him. When? If she was divorced after definitive marriage. But they agree that if she was divorced after preliminary marriage, she does not need a second bill of divorce from him since he was not intimate with her. If somebody married her based on a bald bill of divorce, she shall be divorced from both of them and all the indicated consequences apply to her.

Halakhah

הלכה: הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בֵּית שַׁמַּי כְדַעְתְּהוֹן וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּדַעְתְּהוֹן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. פּוֹטֵר אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט יָשָׁן. אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי כְדַעְתְּהוֹן וּבֵית הִלֵּל כְּדַעְתְּהוֹן. בֵּית שַׁמַּי דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. מְזוֹהֶמֶת הִיא מִלְּפָנָיו וְאֵינוֹ חָשׁוּד עָלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁינִי. בֵּית הִלֵּל דְּאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. אֲפִילוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִילוֹ. אִינּוּן אִינּוּן דְּאָמְרִין. אֵינָהּ מְזוֹהֶמֶת מִלְּפָנָיו וְהוּא חָשׁוּד עָלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁינִי.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody divorced his wife but she stayed with him,” etc. Rebbi Mana said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man may send away his wife with an old bill of divorce,” they say that she does not need a second bill of divorce from him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the House of Shammai are consistent and the House of Hillel are consistent. Since the House of Shammai say that “a man shall not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of immorality,” thy say that she is dirty in his eyes and he is not suspected of having relations with her, therefore she does not need a second bill of divorce from him.. Since the House of Hillel say, “even if she spoiled his food”, they say that she is not dirty in his eyes, he is suspected of having relations with her, and she needs a second bill of divorce from him’.

הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לֹא תִדּוֹר עִמּוֹ לֹא בְאוֹתָהּ חָצֵר וְלֹא בְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. אִם הָיְתָה חָצֵר שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה אִישׁ מְפַנֶּה. וְשֶׁלָּאִישׁ אִשָּׁה מְפַנָּה. שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִי מְפַנֶּה מִפְּנֵי מִי. אִשָּׁה מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ. וְאִם יְכוֹלִין הֵן זֶה פוֹתֵחַ לְכָאן וְזֶה פוֹתֵחַ לְכָאן. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּשְּׂאוּ. הָא לֹא נִישְׂאוּ לֹא. וּבְכוֹהֶנֶת אֲפִילוּ לֹא נִישְׂאוּ. וְהָאֲרוּסָה שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה כִנְשׂוּאָה הִיא. הַחוֹלֵץ לִיבִמְתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה מַאֲמָר הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְפַנֶּה. שֶׁאֵין מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָין גָּמוּר.

If somebody divorces his wife she should not live in the same courtyard or the same place. If the courtyard was the wife’s property, the husband has to move out, if the husband’s, the wife has to move out. If it was common property, who has to move because of whom? The woman because of the man, unless they can manage to have separate exits. When has this been said? If they were definitively married, not if they were not definitively married. But the wife of a Cohen if she was not definitively married, as well as the status of a preliminarily married woman in Jehudah, is that of one definitively married. Nobody has to move if a person gives ḥalȋṣah to his sister-in-law even if he had “bespoken” her since “bespeaking” does not fully acquire.

Mishnah

משנה: גֵּט קֵרֵחַ הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִים עָלָיו כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֵין מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא קְרוֹבִים הָרְאוּיִן לְהָעִיד בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אֵי זֶהוּ גֵּט קֵרֵחַ. כָּל שֶׁקְּשָׁרָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעֵידָיו.

MISHNAH: Anybody can supplement a bald document following the words of Ben Nanas. Rebbi Aqiba says, one supplements the signatures only by relatives who would be able to testify under other circumstances. What is a bald document? One whose knots are more than its signatures.

Halakhah

הלכה: גֵּט קֵרֵחַ הַכֹּל מַשְׁלִימִין עָלָיו כול׳. וּמְנַיִין לְגֵט הַמְקוּשָּׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. כְּתִיב וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר וגו׳. וְאֶת זֶה הַמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי. זֶה הַפָּשׁוּט שֶׁבַּמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת הַחוּקִּים. חוּקִּים וּמִצְוֹת בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. שֶׁזֶּה בִשְׁנַיִם וְזֶה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה מִתּוֹכוֹ וְזֶה מֵאַחֲרָיו. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. פָּשׁוּט עֵדָיו לְרוֹחְבּוֹ. מְקוּשָּׁר עֵידָיו לְאוֹרְכּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין וּבִלְבַד מִלְּמַעֲלָן. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא זִיֵּיף. סָבַר רַב נַחְמָן לְמֵימַר. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעַדִים חוֹתְמִין בּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ לְמַעֲלָן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְלוֹנִי מְקַבֵּל עָלַי כָּל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא מָחַק וְחָזַר וְזִיֵיף. סָבַר רַב הוּנָא. מְקוּבָּל עָלַי מְקוּבָּל עָלַי שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים פּוֹסֵל בָּהּ. חָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא כָתַב דְּבָרִים אֲחֵרִים וְחָזַר וּמָחַק וְזִיֵיף. סָבַר רַב הוּנָא. מַחַק פָּסוּל אֲפִילוּ קִיֵים.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel, on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? Rav Naḥman wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֵית בָּהּ תֵּצֵא. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. כַּמָּה קוּפִּין דְּעוֹבְדָא הֲוָה עֲלִיל קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְקוֹמֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְאִינּוּן אָמְרִין. פּוּק וְשַׁלֵּם כְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: There is no “she shall be divorced”. Rebbi Immi said, several boxes of cases came before Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and they said, go and complete following Rebbi Aqiba.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָתְנִיתָא בִּמְחוּסָּר עֵד אֶחָד וּבִלְבַד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַעֲלָן. שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְמַעֲלָן פָּסוּל. וְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַטָּה כָשֵׁר. רִבִּי מָנָא בָעֵי. עָד כְּדוֹן בִּרְצוּפִין. הָיוּ מְסוּרָגִין. כַּיי דָּמַר. נַעֲשִׂין כְּהַרְחֵק עֵדוּת. שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ אֶלָּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט. וָכָא כָּאן. הָיוּ תִשְׁעָה. מַתִּיר שְׁנַיִם וּמְחַתֵּם שְׁנַיִם. אוֹ אֵין שְׁנֵי הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט הַמְקוּשָּׁר כְּלוּם. הָיוּ חֲמִשָּׁה. פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהוּא מַתִּיר אֶחָד וּמְחַתֵּם אֶחָד. נִמְצֵאתָ אוֹמֵר. הַתָּרָתוֹ מַתִּרָתוֹ. וּכְרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. הַתּוֹרֶף כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ קוֹשֵׁר וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹתֵם. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּשֶׁקּוֹשֵׁר כוּלְּהֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָתְמוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אֲבָל אִם קוֹשֵׁר שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוּנִים וְחוֹתֵם אֲפִילוּ מְקַשֵּׁר וּמְחַתֵּם כַּמָּה כָּשֵׁר. הִילְכְתָא. גֵּט הַמְקוּשָּׁר בְּקֶשֶׁר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְחַתֵּם. הָיָה מְקַשֵּׁר רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן וּמְחַתְּמָן. פְּשִׁיטָא רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁינִי לֹא נִמְצְאוּ חֲתוּמִין בְּגֵּט הִמְקוּשָּׁר.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah applies if one witness is missing, but only if there are three or more. Two or three at the beginning is invalid, one below the three is valid. Rebbi Mana asked: That is, if they are continuous. If they are with interruptions? As one says, they are considered like testimony at a distance, they only serve to certify the testimony. And so it is here. If there were nine, can he untie two and have two sign? Or are two witnesses on a knotted document nothing? If there were five, it is obvious that he unties one and has it signed. It turns out that his untying permits it following Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel, for Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, the essential part is what validates, even if he ties and signs after that. That is, if he ties all knots and after that the first three [witnesses] did sign. But if he tied the first three and had them signed, even if he makes many ties and lets many sign it is valid. Practice is that a knotted document is first knotted and then signed. If he made the first knots and had them signed right away, it is obvious that the first two did not sign the knotted document.

מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ מִבִּפְנִים. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת פָּשׁוּט. אִם בִּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתו פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁקְּשָׁרוֹ מִבִּפְנִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. בְּדָא רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. הֵשִׁיב רִבִּי עַל דְּבְרֵי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלָּגֵט. אִם בְּשֶׁקּוֹשָׁרוֹ וַחוֹתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁקִּישָׁרוֹ מִבִּפְנִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָמוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. בְּרַם רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָּשׁוּט. וְרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. אֵין יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתו פָּשׁוּט. הֵשִׁיב רִבִּי עַל דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו אִם פָּשׁוּט הוּא וְאִם אֵינוֹ פָשׁוּט. אֵי זֶהוּ גוּפוֹ שֶׁלַּגֵּט. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. כַּיי דָּמַר רַב הוּנָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעַדִים חוֹתְמִין בּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אֲנֵי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְלוֹנִי מְקוּבָּל עָלַי כָּל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ לְמַעֲלָן. וְהָא תַנֵּי. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת כֵּן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת מְקוּשָּׁרִין כָּךְ הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַר הוּא פָשׁוּט הוּא מְקוּשָּׁר. מְקוּשָּׁר הוּא מְעַכֵּב פָּשׁוּט אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. רִבִּי אָחָא אָמַר. בְּמוֹסִיף עַל הַהֲלָכָה. פָּשׁוּט בִּשְׁנַיִם וּמִנְהַג בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עוּשִׂין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מְקוּשָּׁר מֵאֲחוֹרִיו מִנְהָג מִתּוֹכוֹ וּמֵאֲחוֹרִיו. עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִתּוֹכו וּמֵאֲחוֹרִיו.

Where do we hold? If he knotted and signed it inside, everybody agrees that it can be made simple. If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple. {Rebbi objected to the statement of Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: “The body of the document.” If he knotted and signed it outside, everybody agrees that it cannot be made simple. But we must deal with the case that he knotted it from the inside and then signed it on the outside; in that case Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel said that it can be made simple, but the rabbis say, it cannot be made simple.) Rebbi objected to the statement of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The body of the document shows whether it is simple or not simple. What is the body of the document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But did we not state: “That is the formula of a document”? Rebbi Mana said, that is the formula of a knotted document. Rebbi Abin said, even if you say it is the same for knotted and simple, for a knotted document it is a necessity, for a simple one it is not a necessity. Rebbi Aḥa said, if one adds to practice. A simple document [is witnessed] by two persons. If common usage is to have three, one makes it with three. A knotted document is signed on its back. If common usage is to sign it inside and out, one signs it inside and out.

תַּנִּיתָהּ הָכָא וְתַנִּינָתָהּ תַּמָּן כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן. אִילּוּ תַנִּינָתָהּ הָכָא וְלֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ תַּמָּן הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. הָכָא עַל שֶׁהוּא חוֹמֶר בָּעֲרָיוֹת פָּסוּל. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹמֶר בָּעֲרָיוֹת כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵוי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן. אוֹ אִילּוּ מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן וְלֹא מַתְנִינָן הָכָא הֲוִינָן אָמְרִין. תַּמָּן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא גוֹבֶה בוֹ פָּסוּל. וְהָכָא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה בוֹ כָּשֵׁר. הֲוֵוי צְרִיכָה מִיתְנַיָיא הָכָא וְצוֹרְכָה מִיתְנַיָיא תַּמָּן.

The condition of validity is stated here and was stated there. It was necessary to state it there. If it had been stated here but not there, we would have said that here it is invalid because of the restrictions connected with adultery but there, since no restrictions connected with adultery are involved, it would be valid. Or if it had been stated there but not here, we would have said that there it is invalid since one comes to collect money based on that document but here, where one does not collect money, it would be valid. Therefore, it was necessary both to state it here and to state it there.