Gittin 157

Chapter 157

א <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> היתה עומדת על ראש הגג וזרקו לה כיון שהגיע לאויר הגג הרי זו מגורשת הוא מלמעלה והיא מלמטה וזרקו לה כיון שיצא מרשות הגג נמחק או נשרף הרי זו מגורשת:
1 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF SHE WAS STANDING ON A ROOF AND HE THREW IT UP TO HER, AS SOON AS IT REACHES THE AIRSPACE OF THE ROOF, SHE IS DIVORCED. IF HE WAS ABOVE AND SHE BELOW AND HE THREW IT TO HER, ONCE IT HAS LEFT THE SPACE OF THE ROOF, EVEN THOUGH [IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS] THE WRITING WAS EFFACED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., by rain. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> והא לא מינטר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בגג שיש לו מעקה עסקינן
2 OR IT WAS BURNT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a fire in the courtyard. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג עולא בר מנשיא משמיה דאבימי אמר הכא בפחות משלשה סמוך לגג עסקינן דכל פחות משלשה סמוך לגג כגג דמי:
3 SHE IS DIVORCED.
ד הוא מלמעלה: והא לא מינטר א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל כגון שהיו מחיצות התחתונות עודפות על העליונות
4 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [AS SOON AS IT REACHES THE AIR-SPACE OF THE ROOF etc.] But it is not yet in safe keeping?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it may be blown away by the wind before landing. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה וכן אמר רבי אלעזר א"ר אושעיא כגון שהיו מחיצות התחתונות עודפות על העליונות וכן אמר עולא א"ר יוחנן כגון שהיו מחיצות התחתונות עודפות על העליונות
5 — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: We speak of a roof which has a parapet. 'Ulla b. Menashia said in the name of Abimi: The reference here is to [the air space] within three handbreadths of the roof, since any space less than three handbreadths from the roof is reckoned as the roof.
ו א"ל ר' אבא לעולא כמאן כרבי דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא
6 IF HE WAS ABOVE etc. But it is not yet in safe keeping?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it may be blown by the wind outside of the court. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ז א"ל אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלא לענין שבת אבל הכא משום אינטורי הוא והא קא מינטר
7 — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [The rule applies] if for instance the lower partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the courtyard. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ח וכן אמר ר' אסי א"ר יוחנן כגון שהיו מחיצות התחתונות עודפות על העליונות א"ל רבי זירא לר' אסי כמאן כרבי דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא
8 overtop the upper ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the roof. Hence even when the Get was thrown over the parapet of the roof, it was still within the enclosure of the courtyard. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט א"ל אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אלא לענין שבת אבל הכא משום אינטורי הוא והא קא מינטר:
9 So too R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia, If, for instance the lower partitions overtop the upper ones; and so too 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan, If, for instance, the lower partitions overtop the upper ones. Said R. Abba to 'Ulla: With whose view does this accord? With that of Rabbi, who said that being embraced [by the air space] is equivalent to coming to rest [upon the ground]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 97. The discussion there relates to an article thrown from one point to another in public ground across private ground, Rabbi holding that this constitutes a change of domain, v. also B.K. 70b. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י נמחק: א"ר נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא שנמחק דרך ירידה אבל נמחק דרך עלייה לא מאי טעמא מעיקרא לא למינח קאי:
10 — He replied: You can even say that it has the authority of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis might differ from Rabbi only in the case of Sabbath, but here the deciding factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being all the time surrounded by the partitions of the courtyard, and the question of change of domain does not arise. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא נשרף: אמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא שקדם גט לדליקה אבל קדמה דליקה לגט לא מ"ט מעיקרא לשריפה קאזיל
11 So too, when R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan, For instance, if the lower partitions overtop the higher, R. Zera said to R. Assi, With whose view does this accord? With that of Rabbi, who said that being embraced by the air space is equivalent to coming to rest [on the ground,] and he replied, You can even say that it has the authority of the Rabbis, since the Rabbis might differ from Rabbi only in the case of the Sabbath, but here the deciding factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping.
יב אמר רב חסדא רשויות חלוקות בגיטין
12 THOUGH THE WRITING WAS EFFACED. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This applies only if it was effaced while [the Get was] falling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Over the parapet. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יג א"ל רמי בר חמא לרבא מנא ליה לסבא הא א"ל מתני' היא היתה עומדת על ראש הגג וזרקו לה כיון שהגיע גט לאויר הגג הרי זו מגורשת
13 but if it was effaced while [the Get was] ascending it is not so. Why? Because from the outset it was not destined to come to rest [in that way].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore so long as it was ascending it is not regarded as having been 'given'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יד במאי עסקינן אילימא בגג דידה וחצר דידה למה לי אויר הגג
14 OR IT WAS BURNT. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This applies only if the Get was thrown before the fire was started, but if the fire was started first, it is not so. Why is this? Because from the outset it was destined to be burnt.
טו אלא בגג דידיה וחצר דידיה כי הגיע לאויר הגג מאי הוי
15 R. Hisda said: Spaces marked off from one another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a roof and a courtyard. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
טז אלא פשיטא בגג דידה וחצר דידיה אימא סיפא הוא מלמעלה והיא מלמטה וזרקו לה כיון שיצא מרשות הגג נמחק או נשרף הרי זו מגורשת ואי בגג דידה וחצר דידיה אמאי מגורשת אלא בגג דידיה וחצר דידה
16 remain distinct for purposes of bills of divorce.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the outer one was lent to the wife for the purpose of receiving the Get therein, it does not follow that the inner one was lent with it. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יז רישא בגג דידה וחצר דידיה סיפא בגג דידיה וחצר דידה
17 Said Rami b. Hama to Raba: Whence does the old man derive this idea? — He replied: It is from our Mishnah: If SHE WAS STANDING ON THE ROOF AND HE THREW IT TO HER, AS SOON AS THE GET REACHES THE AIR SPACE OF THE ROOF SHE IS DIVORCED. Now with what circumstances are we dealing? Are we to say that the roof is hers and the courtyard is hers? If so, why do I require even the air space of the roof? What then? His roof and his courtyard? In that case, even if it reaches the air space of the roof, what of it? Obviously therefore we must suppose the roof to be hers and the courtyard to be his. Now let us look at the next clause: IF HE WAS ABOVE AND SHE BELOW AND HE THREW IT TO HER, SO SOON AS IT LEFT THE SPACE OF THE ROOF, EVEN THOUGH THE WRITING WAS EFFACED OR IT WAS BURNT SHE IS DIVORCED. Now if the roof is hers and the courtyard his, why is she divorced? It must be therefore that the roof is his and the courtyard hers. Now can it be that the first clause speaks of where the roof is hers and the courtyard his, and the second of where the roof is his and the courtyard hers? [Hardly so;] and it must be that he lends her a place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The roof or the courtyard as the case may be. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יח אלא לאו דאושלה מקום דחד מקום מושלי אינשי תרי מקומות לא מושלי אינשי
18 [and this shows] that men will lend one place but not two places! — He replied: Is this conclusive? Perhaps each case stands on its own footing, the first clause speaking of where the roof is hers and the courtyard his, and the second of where the roof is his and the courtyard hers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where it is not originally hers but lent to her by the husband it may be assumed that the loan of the one includes the other. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
יט א"ל מידי איריא דלמא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא רישא בגג דידה וחצר דידיה סיפא בגג דידיה וחצר דידה
19 Raba said: There are three cases in which a Get forms an exception to a general rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'three measures', 'norms', in regard to a Get. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כ אמר רבא שלש מדות בגיטין הא דאמר רבי קלוטה כמי שהונחה ופליגי רבנן עליה הני מילי לענין שבת אבל הכא משום אינטורי הוא והא מינטר
20 One is the rule laid down by Rabbi that being embraced [by the air space] is equivalent to coming to rest on the ground, regarding which the Rabbis joined issue with him. They only differed with regard to Sabbath, but here [in the case of a Get] the decisive factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is in safe keeping. The second is the rule laid down by R. Hisda: If a man stuck in private ground a pole, on the top of which was a basket, and he threw up something<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a public domain. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כא והא דאמר רב חסדא נעץ קנה ברשות היחיד ובראשו טרסקל וזרק ונח על גביו אפילו גבוה מאה אמה חייב לפי שרשות היחיד עולה עד לרקיע הני מילי לענין שבת אבל הכא משום אינטורי הוא והא לא מינטר
21 and it came to rest on it, even if it is a hundred cubits high he is liable, because private ground extends upwards to the sky. This applies only to Sabbath, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband throws a Get into a basket on top of a high pole stuck in her ground. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> the decisive factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is not in safe keeping.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it may be blown by the wind outside the court. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter