Gittin 155

שם לווי אבל אית ליה שם לווי אע"ג דלא גבוה עשרה ואע"ג דלא הוי ארבע אמות:

individual name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'an attached name', but is merely referred to as 'the block'. ');">¹</span>

אפילו הוא עמה במטה כו': אמר רבא לא שנו אלא במטה שלו אבל במטה שלה מגורשת

but if it has a special name [it is not included] even though it is not ten handbreadths high and is not four cubits by four.

תניא נמי הכי רבי אליעזר אומר במטה שלו אינה מגורשת במטה שלה מגורשת

EVEN THOUGH HE IS WITH HER ON THE SAME BED. Raba said: This applies only if the bed is his, but if it is her bed, she is divorced. It has been taught to the same effect: R. Eliezer says: If it is on his bed she is not divorced, but if it is on her bed she is divorced. And if it is on her bed is she divorced? Is it not a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning which there is a difference of opinion whether the purchaser acquires the article of purchase put therein; v. B.B. (Sonc ed.) 85b p. 348 q.v. for notes. ');">²</span>

ובמטה שלה מגורשת כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא שמעת מינה כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר קנה לוקח

This shows [does it not] that if [the article purchased is placed in] the vessels of the purchaser standing in the domain of the vendor, the purchaser acquires possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we decide the question in B.B. From here. ');">³</span>

לא צריכא דגבוה עשרה והאיכא מקום כרעי אמקום כרעי לא קפדי אינשי:

— This, however, is not conclusive, as we may suppose the bed to be ten handbreadths high.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so it forms a domain of its own and is not merely a vessel. ');">⁴</span>

לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה מגורשת: אמאי כליו של לוקח ברשות מוכר הוא

But there is the place of the legs?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The place occupied by the legs which belongs to the husband. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה וכן אמר ר' אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא כגון שהיתה קלתה תלויה בה ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר קשורה אע"פ שאינה תלויה

— Men are not particular about the place of the legs.

רב אדא בר אהבה אמר כגון שהיתה קלתה מונחת לה בין ירכותיה רב משרשיא בר רב דימי אמר כגון שהיה בעלה מוכר קלתות

IF HE THROWS IT INTO HER LAP OR INTO HER WORK-BASKET SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. Why so? This is a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We suppose, for instance, that her work-basket was hanging from her. So too R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: We suppose, for instance, that her work-basket was hanging from her. R. Simeon b. Lakish said that [it would be sufficient] if it was tied to her even without hanging from her. R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If, [or instance, her work-basket was between her legs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case he would not be particular about the place occupied by it, even if it rested on the ground. ');">⁶</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר מקום חיקה קנוי לה מקום קלתה קנוי לה אמר רבא מ"ט דר' יוחנן לפי שאין אדם מקפיד לא על מקום חיקה ולא על מקום קלתה

R. Mesharsheya son of R. Dimi said: If her husband was a seller of handbags.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case also he would not be particular about the place occupied by it. ');">⁷</span>

תניא נמי הכי זרקו לה לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה או לתוך כל דבר שהוא כקלתה הרי זו מגורשת

R. Johanan said: The place occupied by the folds of her dress is acquired by her and the place occupied by her work-basket is acquired by her. Raba said: What is R. Johanan's reason? Because a man is not particular about the place occupied by the folds of her dress or the place occupied by her work-basket. If has also been taught to the same effect: 'If he threw her [the Get] into her lap or into her work-basket or into anything like her work basket, she is thereby divorced.' What is added by 'anything like her work-basket'? — It adds the dish from which she eats dates.

כל דבר שהוא כקלתה לאיתויי מאי לאיתויי טסקא דאכלה בה תמרי:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HE SAID TO HER, TAKE THAT BOND, OR IF SHE FOUND IT BEHIND HIM AND READ IT AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE HER GET, IT IS NO GET, UNTIL HE SAYS TO HER, THERE IS YOUR GET. IF HE PUT IT INTO HER HAND WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP AND WHEN SHE WOKE UP SHE READ IT AND FOUND IT WAS HER GET, IT IS NO GET UNTIL HE SAYS TO HER, THAT IS YOUR GET.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או שמצאתו מאחוריו קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. And suppose he says to her, That is your Get, what does it matter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where she found the Get behind him. ');">⁸</span>

נתן בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה קוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך:

It is the same as if he said, Pick up your Get from the floor, and Raba has laid down that [if a man says,] Pick up your Get from the floor, his words are of no effect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 24a. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כי אמר לה הא גיטיך מאי הוי הוה ליה טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע

— We must suppose that she pulls it out from behind him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From where it was stuck between his girdle and his robe. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואמר רבא טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע לא אמר כלום אימא ששלפתו מאחוריו

And suppose even that she pulls it out, do we not require that 'he give it into her hand,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 3. ');">¹¹</span>

שלפתו נמי הא בעינא ונתן בידה וליכא לא צריכא דערק לה חרציה ושלפתיה

and this condition is not fulfilled? — The rule would apply where he jerked his side towards her and she pulled it out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this is also a kind of giving. ');">¹²</span>

תניא נמי הכי אמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה או ששלפתו מאחוריו קראתו והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר לעולם אינו גט עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך

It has been taught to the same effect: 'If he said to her, Take this bond [and she did so], or if she pulled it out from behind him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not merely 'found it' as our reading in the Mishnah has it. ');">¹³</span>

נתנו בידה והיא ישנה ניעורה וקוראה והרי הוא גיטה אינו גט עד שיאמר לה הא גיטיך דברי רבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הא גיטיך

and on reading it found it was her Get, it is no Get until he says to her, That is your Get. This is the ruling of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar Says: It does not become a Get until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, saying, That is your Get. If he puts it into her hand while she is asleep and when she wakes she reads it and finds it is her Get, it is no Get until he says to her, That is your Get. So Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Eleazar Says, [It is no Get] until he takes it from her and gives it to her again saying, That is your Get.' [Both cases] required [to be stated]. For if only the former had been stated, I might say that Rabbi ruled [as he did there] because she was at the time capable of being divorced, but where he put it into her hand while she was asleep, seeing that she was not at the time capable of being divorced, I might think that he accepts the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. If again only the latter case had been stated, I might have thought that R. Simeon b. Eleazar meant his ruling to apply to that case only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she was not at the time capable of being divorced. ');">¹⁴</span>

וצריכא דאי איתמר בהך קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי משום דבת איגרושי היא אבל נתן בידה והיא ישנה דלאו בת איגרושי היא אימא מודי ליה לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר

but in the other he accepts the view of Rabbi. Hence [both statements were] necessary.

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אבל בהך אימא מודי ליה לרבי צריכא

Raba said: If he wrote a Get for her and put it in the hand of her slave while he was asleep and she was watching him, it is a Get,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the slave is reckoned as her courtyard and it is being kept for her. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא כתב לה גט ונתנו ביד עבדה ישן ומשמרתו ה"ז גט ניעור אינו גט דהויא ליה חצר המשתמרת שלא לדעתה

but if he is awake it is no Get,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the slave when awake is regarded as looking after himself. ');">¹⁶</span>

ישן ומשמרתו הרי זה גט אמאי חצר מהלכת היא וחצר מהלכת לא קנה

But why should this be, seeing that he is a 'moving courtyard', and a 'moving courtyard' does not confer ownership? And should you reply that the fact of his being asleep makes a difference, has not Raba said, That which does not confer ownership when moving about does not confer ownership when standing still or sitting? — [The law is as stated by Raba]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., 'We must say that Raba means.' ');">¹⁷</span>

וכי תימא ישן שאני והא אמר רבא כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה עומד ויושב לא קנה והלכתא בכפות:

when the slave is bound.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 212. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> היתה עומדת ברשות הרבים וזרקו לה קרוב לה מגורשת קרוב לו אינה מגורשת מחצה על מחצה מגורשת ואינה מגורשת וכן לענין קדושין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF SHE WAS STANDING ON PUBLIC GROUND AND HE THREW IT TO HER, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO HER SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF IT LANDS NEARER TO HIM SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. IF IT LANDS MIDWAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'half by half'. ');">¹⁹</span>

וכן לענין החוב אמר לו בעל חובו זרוק לי חובי וזרקו לו קרוב למלוה זכה המלוה קרוב ללוה הלוה חייב מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו:

SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 350. ');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> היכי דמי קרוב לה והיכי דמי קרוב לו אמר רב ארבע אמות שלה זהו קרוב לה ארבע אמות שלו זהו קרוב לו

SIMILARLY WITH BETROTHALS AND SIMILARLY WITH A DEBT. IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS DEBTOR, THROW ME MY DEBT [IN PUBLIC GROUND] AND HE THROWS IT, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE LENDER, IT BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE LENDER; IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE BORROWER, HE STILL OWES THE MONEY; IF IT LANDS MIDWAY, THEY DIVIDE.

היכי דמי מחצה על מחצה אמר ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק כגון שהיו שניהן עומדין בארבע אמות

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. How are we to understand NEARER TO HIM and how are we to understand NEARER TO HER? — Rab said: Within four cubits of her is nearer to her, within four cubits of him is nearer to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle that a man's four cubits in a public ground acquire possession, v. B.M. 102. ');">²¹</span>

וליחזי הי מינייהו קדים וכי תימא דאתו תרוייהו בהדי הדדי והא אי אפשר לצמצם

How are we to understand 'MIDWAY'? — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac replied: If, for instance, they were both within four cubits of the Get. In that case let us see which was there first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so established a prior right to the four cubits. ');">²²</span>

אלא אמר רב כהנא הכא בח' אמות מצומצמות עסקינן

And should you retort that perhaps both came together — it is impossible that they should come exactly at the same moment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to be exact'. ');">²³</span> — R. Kahana therefore said: We suppose here that they are exactly eight cubits from each other,