Gittin 131

דרא רבי אבינא לסילתיה ואזל לגבי דרב הונא רביה דאמר רב הונא גיטו כמתנתו מה מתנתו אם עמד חוזר אף גיטו אם עמד חוזר

Let R. Abina put his pack on his shoulder and go off to R. Huna his teacher,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would confirm his title. ');">¹</span>

ומה גיטו אע"ג דלא פריש כיון דאמר כתבו אע"ג דלא אמר תנו אף מתנתו כיון דאמר תנו אע"ג דלא קנו מיניה

since R. Huna had laid down that a man's Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given on a sick bed. ');">²</span>

מתקיף לה רבי אבא אי מה מתנה ישנה לאחר מיתה אף גט ישנו לאחר מיתה הכי השתא בשלמא מתנה איתה לאחר מיתה אלא גט לאחר מיתה מי איכא

is on the same footing as his gift; just as if he recovers he can withdraw his gift, so if he recovers he can withdraw his Get. Similarly [we may argue], just as in the case of his Get, even though he did not express himself clearly, if he says 'write' even though he does not say also 'give' [it is sufficient], so with his gift, since he has said 'give', even though no token was given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there was no kinyan. v. Glos. ');">³</span>

אלא רבי אבא הכי קא קשיא ליה מתנת שכיב מרע במקצת היא ומתנת שכ"מ במקצת בעיא קנין מכלל דרב הונא סבר לא בעיא קנין והא קי"ל דבעיא קנין שאני הכא דמצוה מחמת מיתה הוא

[it is sufficient]. R. Abba strongly demurred to this [dictum of R. Huna], saying, [Shall I argue on this principle that] just as a gift may take effect after death, so a Get may take effect after death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife becomes automatically released on the death of her husband, so that no Get can be effective after death. The Get is in fact meant to take effect before death, to release the wife from the obligation of halizah. ');">⁴</span>

מכלל דר' אבא סבר מצוה מחמת מיתה בעיא קנין והא קי"ל דלא בעי קנין

— Is there any comparison? A gift can take effect after death, but is there such a thing as a Get after death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the husband made such a stipulation. ');">⁵</span>

אלא רבי אבא הכי קא קשיא ליה חמרא לא קאמר דמי חמרא לא קאמר מחמרא קאמר ואידך מחמרא כדי לייפות את כחו שלחו מתם מחמרא כדי לייפות את כחו:

No; R. Abba's real difficulty was this. [Geniba's gift] was a gift made by one about to die of part of his property, and a gift made by one about to die of part of his property needs to be confirmed by a token gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because by giving only part, he shows that he has in mind the possibility of recovery, and therefore the gift is on the same footing as one given by a healthy person, v. B.B. 151b. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שהיה מושלך לבור ואמר כל השומע את קולו יכתוב גט לאשתו הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו:

This would seem to show that according to R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Huna would, it is held, confirm the title to the gift. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וליחוש שמא שד הוא א"ר יהודה כשראו לו דמות אדם

it does not need to be confirmed by a token gift, and yet we know for a fact that it does require a token gift? — There is a special reason here, because he was giving his last dispositions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ordering by reason of death'. ');">⁸</span>

אינהו נמי אידמויי אידמו דחזו ליה בבואה אינהו נמי אית להו בבואה דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה ודלמא אינהו נמי אית להו א"ר חנינא לימדני יונתן בני בבואה אית להו בבואה דבבואה לית להו

This again would show that in R. Abba's opinion even where one gives his last dispositions, there must be a token gift, and we know for a fact that this is not the case? — No; the real difficulty of R. Abba is this. He did not say, [Give] wine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the value of four hundred zuz. ');">⁹</span>

ודלמא צרה היא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אע"פ שאין מכירין:

nor did he say, [Give] the money value of wine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sell four hundred zuz worth and give him the money. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי רצה לשחק בה

What he said was 'of the wine'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., money from wine, which has no meaning. ');">¹¹</span>

מעשה בבריא אחד שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת אמר רשב"ג אם מעצמו נפל הרי זה גט אם הרוח דחתו אינו גט:

— What does the other [R. Zera] [make of this]? — [He says that] he used the expression 'of the wine' to make his title more secure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he should have a lien on the whole of the wine in case any of it went sour or the money obtained from the sale of it was lost, the words 'of wine' including both the wine and its money value. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מעשה לסתור

They sent from there [Palestine] to say, 'Of the wine' makes his title more secure.

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אם הוכיח סופו על תחילתו הרי זה גט ומעשה נמי בבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת ואמר רשב"ג אם מעצמו נפל הרי זה גט אם הרוח דחתו אינו גט

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN HAD BEEN THROWN INTO A PIT AND CRIED OUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving his name and the name of his town. ');">¹³</span>

ההוא גברא דעל לבי כנישתא אשכח מקרי ינוקא ובריה דיתבי ויתיב איניש אחרינא גבייהו אמר להו בי תרי מינייכו נכתבו גיטא לדביתהו לסוף שכיב מקרי ינוקא מי משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא או לא

THAT WHOEVER HEARD HIS VOICE SHOULD WRITE A GET FOR HIS WIFE, THE GET SHOULD BE WRITTEN AND PRESENTED TO HER.

רב נחמן אמר לא משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא ורב פפי אמר משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא אמר רבא הילכתא משוו אינשי ברא שליח' במקום אבא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But is there not a possibility that it may be a demon? — Rab Judah said: We assume that he can be seen to have the appearance of a man. But the demons also can look like men? — We assume that they see his shadow. But they also have a shadow? — We assume they see a shadow of a shadow. But perhaps they also have a shadow of a shadow? — R. Hanina said: Jonathan my son has taught me that they have a shadow, but not a shadow of a shadow. But perhaps it is her rival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who wants her to obtain a Get so that she may marry again and become forbidden to her present husband. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר לשנים תנו גט לאשתי

— A Tannah of the school of R. Ishmael taught: In time of danger<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of one who is in imminent danger of death. ');">¹⁵</span> we can write and [give a Get], even if we do not know him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether he is the man who he says he is. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN IN HEALTH SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without adding, Give it to her. ');">¹⁷</span> HIS INTENTION IS MERELY TO PLAY WITH HER. IT ONCE HAPPENED WITH A MAN IN GOOD HEALTH WHO SAID, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND THEN WENT UP ON TO A ROOF AND FELL DOWN FROM IT AND DIED, AND RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID THAT IF HE HAD THROWN HIMSELF DOWN THIS WAS A GET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, having had the intention to commit suicide, he was on the same footing as one in imminent danger of death. ');">¹⁸</span> BUT IF THE WIND HAD BLOWN HIM OVER IT WAS NO GET. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The instance adduced disproves the rule, [does it not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the rule is given without qualification. ');">¹⁹</span> — There is a lacuna, and the Mishnah should run thus: 'If his subsequent conduct reveals his intention [to kill himself], the Get is valid. IT ONCE HAPPENED WITH A MAN IN GOOD HEALTH WHO SAID, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND THEN WENT UP TO A ROOF AND FELL DOWN FROM IT AND DIED, AND RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IF HE HAD THROWN HIMSELF DOWN THIS WAS A GET, B UT IF THE WIND HAD BLOWN HIM OVER IT WAS NO GET. A certain man went into the synagogue and found a teacher of children and his son sitting there and a third man sitting by them. He said to them: I want two of you to write a Get for my wife. Before the Get was given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'At the end'. ');">²⁰</span> the teacher died. [The question arose], Do people usually make a son their agent in the place of his father or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband had gone away, and the question was whether when the man said 'two of you', his words could apply equally to the son alone as well as to the father alone in conjunction with the third man, or to the father only, the son being ineligible when the father was present. ');">²¹</span> — R. Nahman said: People do not make a son the agent in the place of his father, while R. Papi said that people do make a son their agent in the place of his father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the son can form the second man to write the Get. ');">²²</span> Raba said: The law is that people do make a son the agent in place of the father. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SAID TO TWO PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But did not say write'. ');">²³</span>