Gittin 154
אי אפשי בתקנת: חכמים כגון זו שומעין לו
I do not care to avail myself of the regulation of the Sages, in a case like this he is allowed to have his way. What did he mean by 'in a case like this'? — He was referring to the case mentioned by R. Huna in the name of Rab; for R. Huna said in the name of Rab, A woman is at liberty to say to her husband, You need not maintain me and I will not work for you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The regulation having been made for her benefit, she is not bound to avail herself of it. So too in the case of an heir-at-law outside those mentioned in the Torah, v. B.K. 8b. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
מאי כגון זו כדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונית ואיני עושה
Raba said: Does not her hand also belong to her husband? The fact is that her hand and her Get become hers simultaneously. So also her courtyard and her Get become hers simultaneously. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Can Raba have found any difficulty about the woman's hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he had to give a special reason for legalising it. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
רבא אמר אטו ידה מי לא קניא ליה לבעל אלא גיטה וידה באין כאחד הכא נמי גיטה וחצרה באין כאחד
Granted that the husband owns the labour of her hands, does he own the hand itself? — He replied: Raba's difficulty was [really] with the hand of a slave. For on the view of the authority who holds that a slave may acquire his freedom by means of a document which he receives himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 22. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי רבא יד דאשה קא קשיא ליה נהי דקני ליה למעשה ידיה ידה גופה מי קני ליה
[we may ask,] how can this be, seeing that the hand of the slave is like that of the master? Only we must suppose that his hand and his deed of emancipation become his simultaneously. So here, her Get and her courtyard become hers simultaneously.
אמר ליה רבא יד העבד קא קשיא ליה למ"ד בשטר על ידי עצמו יד עבד כיד רבו דמיא אלא גטו וידו באין כאחד ה"נ גיטה וחצירה באין כאחד
A certain man who was lying very ill wrote a Get for his wife on the eve of the Sabbath and had not time to give it to her [before Sabbath]. On the next day his condition became critical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the world was heavy for him'. And he was anxious to divorce her so that she should not become subject to the levirate law, but he could not give her the Get, as it was not allowed to be carried on Sabbath. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ההוא שכיב מרע דכתב לה גיטא לדביתהו בהדי פניא דמעלי שבתא ולא הספיק למיתביה לה למחר תקף ליה עלמא אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו זילו אמרו ליה ליקניה ניהלה לההוא דוכתא דיתיב ביה גיטא ותיזל איהי ותיחוד ותפתח ותחזיק ביה
Raba was consulted, and he said: Go and tell him to make over to her the place where the Get is, and let her go and close and open a door there and so take formal possession of it, as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 42a. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
דתנן נעל גדר פרץ כל שהוא הרי זו חזקה
'If one does anything in the way of locking up or fencing or breaking open, this constitutes formal occupation.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And by obtaining possession of the courtyard the Get automatically passes into her possession on the principle that movable property may be acquired along with immovable property; v. Kid. 26a (Rashi).] ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר ליה רב עיליש לרבא מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה איכסיף
Said R. 'Ilish to Raba: But whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? — He was nonplussed. Eventually it transpired that she was only betrothed. Thereupon Raba said: If this rule was laid down for a married woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That to the husband belongs whatever the woman acquires. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
לסוף איגלי מילתא דארוסה הואי אמר רבא אם אמרו בנשואה יאמרו בארוסה הדר אמר רבא לא שנא ארוסה ולא שנא נשואה גיטה וחצירה באין כאחד
is it to apply to a betrothed woman? Later Raba corrected himself and said: No matter whether she is married or betrothed, her Get and her courtyard become hers simultaneously. But this is just what Raba said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was he nonplussed? ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
והיא בתוך ביתה: אמר עולא והוא שעומדת בצד ביתה ובצד חצרה ר' אושעיא אמר אפילו היא בטבריא וחצרה בציפורי היא בציפורי וחצרה בטבריא מגורשת
WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE. 'Ulla said: That is so, provided she is standing by the side of her house or by the side of her courtyard. R. Oshaia said: She may even be in Tiberias and her courtyard in Sepphoris or she may be in Sepphoris and her courtyard in Tiberias; she is still divorced. But it says. WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE OR IN HER COURTYARD? — What it means is, While she is virtually in her own house or in her own courtyard on account of the fact that the courtyard is being kept [for her] with her knowledge and consent, and therefore she is divorced.
לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חצר משום ידה אתרבאי ומר סבר חצר משום שליחות אתרבאי
is this, that the one authority ['Ulla] holds that [the rule about] a courtyard is derived from 'her hand', and the other from its being regarded as analogous to her agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore she may be at any distance from it; v. supra 21a and B.M. 10b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
לא דכולי עלמא חצר משום ידה איתרבאי מר סבר כידה מה ידה בסמוכה אף חצרה בסמוכה
— No; both are agreed that the [rule about] a courtyard is derived from 'her hand'. One, however, interprets the analogy thus: just as her hand is close to her, so her courtyard must be close to her. And the other? — He will rejoin: Since her hand is attached to her, has her courtyard also to be attached to her? But [you must say] it is like her hand in this sense. Just as her hand is kept for her with her knowledge, so her courtyard must be kept for her with her knowledge, and what we exclude therefore is a courtyard which is kept for her [even] without her knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would include her slave. V. infra. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ואידך אי מה ידה בדבוקה אף חצרה בדבוקה אלא כידה מה ידה משתמרת לדעתה אף חצרה המשתמרת לדעתה לאפוקי חצר המשתמרת שלא לדעתה
A certain man threw a Get to his wife as she was standing in a courtyard and it went and fell on a block of wood. R. Joseph thereupon said: We have to see. If the block was four cubits by four, it forms a separate domain, but if not, it is one with the courtyard. What case are we dealing with? Are we to say that the courtyard is hers? If so, what does it matter if the block is four cubits by four?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either case she is divorced. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ההוא גברא דזרק לה גיטא לדביתהו הוה קיימא בחצר אזל גיטא נפל בפיסלא אמר רב יוסף חזינן אי הויא ארבע אמות על ארבע אמות פלג ליה רשותא לנפשיה ואי לא חדא רשותא היא
Is the courtyard his? Then if it is not four by four what does it matter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either case she is not divorced. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
במאי עסקינן אילימא בחצר דידה כי הוי ד' אמות מאי הוי אלא בחצר דידיה כי לא הוי ארבע אמות מאי הוי
— [R. Joseph's ruling] applies where he lent her the place, since men will usually lend one place but not two places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Therefore where the block was four cubits by four it forms a separate domain and is not one with the courtyard lent to her.] ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לא צריכא דאושלה מקום דחד מקום מושלי אינשי תרי מקומות לא מושלי אינשי
Further, we do not say [that it is one with the court] save only if it is not ten handbreadths high; but if it is ten handbreadths high, we do not say so, even if it is not four cubits by four. Nor even so do we say that it is included save only if it has no