individual name,1 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.
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?2 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?3 — This, however, is not conclusive, as we may suppose the bed to be ten handbreadths high.4 But there is the place of the legs?5 — Men are not particular about the place of the legs.
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.6 R. Mesharsheya son of R. Dimi said: If her husband was a seller of handbags.7 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.
MISHNAH. 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.
GEMARA. And suppose he says to her, That is your Get, what does it matter?8 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?9 — We must suppose that she pulls it out from behind him.10 And suppose even that she pulls it out, do we not require that 'he give it into her hand,'11 and this condition is not fulfilled? — The rule would apply where he jerked his side towards her and she pulled it out.12 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 him13 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,14 but in the other he accepts the view of Rabbi. Hence [both statements were] necessary.
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,15 but if he is awake it is no Get,16 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]17 when the slave is bound.18
MISHNAH. 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,19 SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.20 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.
GEMARA. 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.21 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?22 And should you retort that perhaps both came together — it is impossible that they should come exactly at the same moment?23 — R. Kahana therefore said: We suppose here that they are exactly eight cubits from each other,
and the Get extends from the four cubit space nearer to him into the four cubit space nearer to her.1 But then it is still [partly] attached to him?2 — Therefore Rabbah and R. Joseph [gave a different reply], both saying that we are dealing here with a case where there are two groups of witnesses, one of which says that it was nearer to her and the other that it was nearer to him. R. Johanan said: The words of our text are NEARER TO HER [which can include] even a hundred cubits away, and NEARER TO HIM, [which can include] even a hundred cubits away.
How are we to understand MIDWAY? — R. Shaman b. Abba said: It was explained to me by R. Johanan that where he is able to look after it3 but she is not able to look after it, this is NEARER TO HIM. Where she is able to look after it, but he is not, this is NEARER TO HER. If both of them are able to look after it, or neither of them is able [separately]4 to look after it, this is MIDWAY. The Rabbis repeated this explanation before R. Johanan as having been given by R. Jonathan.5 He thereupon remarked: Do our colleagues in Babylon also know how to give this explanation? It has been taught to the same effect: 'R. Eliezer says: Even though it is nearer to her than to him and a dog came and ran off with it, she is not divorced.' She is not divorced, you say? How long is she to go on keeping it?6 No; what he means to say is this: If it is nearer to her than to him, yet so placed that if a dog came and tried to make off with it he could save it but she could not, she is not divorced. Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,7 it must be so near that she can stoop down and pick it up, but do you not actually [declare it valid] until it comes into her hand.8 R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: There was an actual case of this kind,9 and she was compelled to give halizah.
SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: This rule10 was made with reference to bills of divorce and not to anything else. R. Abba thereupon pointed out to R. Assi the statement, SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. [He replied]: There is a special reason for that, because it is written, she may go forth and be [another man's wife].11 He raised an objection: SIMILARLY WITH A DEBT. IF THE LENDER SAYS [TO THE BORROWER], THROW ME MY DEBT, 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? — The case we are dealing with here is when he says, Throw me what you owe me and be quit. If that is all [he rejoined], what need was there to state it? — It is necessary [to state it] when he says, Throw me my debt in the same way as a Get. Still, what need is there to state even this? — You might think that he can say to him, I was only making fun of you; therefore we are told [that this is no plea].
R. Hisda said: If the Get is in her hand and the string12 in his hand, and he is able to pull it with a jerk to himself, she is not divorced, but if not, she is divorced. What is the reason? We require a 'cutting off', and this is not realised.13 Rab Judah said: If she held her hand sloping14 and he threw it to her, even if the Get reached her hand she is not divorced. Why so? When it falls to the ground it falls within four cubits of her? — We assume that it does not come to rest there. But should she not be divorced by dint of its having come into the air of the four cubits? [And since this is not so] may we decide from this the question raised by R. Eleazar, whether the four cubits spoken of include the air above them or not? May we decide that they do not include the air? — [No;] we suppose here that she is standing on the brink of a river, so that from the outset it is liable to be lost [if it falls from her hand].15
- To Next Folio -