Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 22a

because he can take the whole pot and give it to her. Raba says it is not valid, because [if we declare it so], there is a danger lest he should pluck the leaf [and give it to her].

If a flowerpot belongs to one person and the seeds in it to another, then if the owner of the pot sells the pot to the owner of the seeds, as soon as the latter pulls it into his possession¹  he becomes the legal owner. If, however, the owner of the seeds sells [the seeds] to the owner of the pot, [the latter] does not acquire possession [of them] till he performs some act of hazakah.²  If the pot and the seeds both belong to the same man and he sells them to another, [the latter,] as soon as he has performed hazakah on the seeds, [ipso facto] acquires possession of the pot. This accords with the rule which we have learned:³  Movable property is transferred along with immovable property through money payment, through deed of assignment, and through hazakah. If he performs hazakah on the pot, he does not acquire possession even of the pot:⁴  hazakah must be performed if at all on the seeds. If the inside of the pot is in Eretz Yisrael but the leaves of the plant extend outside of Eretz Yisrael,⁵  Abaye says that we go by the inside,⁶  and Raba says that we go by the leaves. If the plant has taken root, all authorities agree [that it is subject to tithe]. Where they differ is when the plant has not taken root. But is there no difference in the case where it has taken root? Have we not learnt: 'If two gardens adjoin, one being higher than the other, and vegetables grow on the slope between,⁷  R. Meir says they belong to the upper garden and R. Judah to the lower'? — The reason for the difference in that case is stated [in the Mishnah itself]: 'Said R. Meir: If the owner of the upper garden wants to take away his earth, there will be no vegetables. To which R. Judah rejoined: If the owner of the lower one wants to fill in his garden [to the level of the higher], there would be no vegetables there.'⁸  But we may still [question whether] there is not a difference in the case where [the plant] has taken root, seeing that it has been taught: 'If part of a tree is in Eretz Yisrael and part of it outside, then titheable and non-titheable produce are mixed up in it. This is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, holds that that part of its fruit which grows in the place liable to tithe⁹  is titheable, and that part which grows in the place not liable to tithe¹⁰  is non-titheable.'¹¹  Now here we speak, [do we not], of a tree of which part of the branches are in Eretz Yisrael and part outside?¹²  — No: [we speak of one of which] some of the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and some outside. What then is the reason of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — [He speaks of a case] where a piece of hard stone separates [the roots inside and outside]. What is the reason of Rabbi? — He holds that in spite of this the saps mix again [higher up]. What is their difference in principle? — One holds that the air mingles the saps, and the other holds that each side remains separate.¹³

R. JUDAH B. BATHYRA SAYS etc. R. Hiyya b. Assi said in the name of 'Ulla: There are three kinds of skins, mazzah, hifa, and diftera. Mazzah, as its name implies,¹⁴  [is a skin] that has been neither salted nor treated with flour nor with gall-nut. What bearing has this distinction upon the halachah? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath — How much of it may be carried? As learnt by R. Samuel b. Judah: Enough to wrap a small weight [of lead] in.¹⁵  How much is that? — Abaye answered: About a 'fourth of a fourth' of Pumbeditha. Hifa [is skin] that is salted but not treated with flour or gall-nut. What bearing has this upon the halachah? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? — Even as we have learnt: '[The permitted quantity of skin] is enough to make an amulet¹⁶  out of.' Diftera [is skin] which is salted and treated with flour but not with gall-nut.¹⁷  What bearing has this upon the halachah? — In respect of carrying on Sabbath. How much of it may be carried? — Enough for writing a Get upon.

BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT VALID. Who are 'THE SAGES'? — Rab Eleazar [the Amora] said:

1. The recognised form of transfer of movable articles, y. Glos. s.v. meshikah.
2. As for immovable property. V. glos.
3. Kid. 26a.
4. Because hazakah does not effect transfer of movable articles.
5. The pot being exactly on the border.
6. In determining whether it is subject to tithe.
7. Being thus rooted in the soil of the upper garden while the leaves spread out into the air space of the lower.
8. But they agree that in ordinary cases we go by the root, v. B.M. 118b.
9. I.e., in Eretz Yisrael.
10. I.e., outside Eretz Yisrael.
11. B.B. 27b.
12. But the whole of the roots are either on one side or the other, and yet they differ,
13. Where however, the entire roots are in Eretz Yisrael all agree that the position of the branches is of no consequences.
14. Lit., 'unleavened bread'.
15. To save it from wearing away.
16. A small ornament used as a charm.
17. [Cf. [G]. The list includes only hides that are partly prepared for writing, and therefore omits [H] which has gone through the whole process and hence is no longer regarded as hide, but as parchment. (Rashi)].

R. Eleazar [the Tanna] is meant, for he said that it is the witnesses to the delivery who make [the Get] effective. R. Eleazar further said: R. Eleazar declared [such a Get] valid only if brought [by the woman] before the Beth din immediately,¹  but not if it is brought ten days later, because in that case we have to consider the possibility that there was some condition in it and she altered it.²  R. Johanan, however, said [that it is valid] even if produced ten days later, because if there was any condition in it the witnesses [to the delivery] will still remember it. R. Eleazar further said: R. Eleazar declared valid a document [of this kind] only if it was a Get,³  but no other documents,⁴  in virtue of the Scriptural verse, And thou shalt put them in an earthenware vessel, in order that they may stand many days.⁵  R. Johanan, however, held that even other documents of this nature are valid.⁶  But does not Scripture say, 'In order that they may stand'? — That is merely a piece of good advice.

MISHNAH. ALL [PERSONS] ARE QUALIFIED TO WRITE A GET, EVEN A DEAF-MUTE, A LUNATIC AND A MINOR. A WOMAN MAY WRITE HER OWN GET AND A MAN HIS OWN RECEIPT [FOR THE KETHUBAH], SINCE THE DOCUMENT IS MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY BY THE SIGNATURES ATTACHED TO IT.⁷

GEMARA. [How can a deaf-mute etc. be qualified to write] seeing that they do not understand⁸  [what they are doing and therefore will not write with special reference to the woman in question]? — Said R. Huna:

1. I.e., on the same day, in order to notify them that she obtained her divorce.
2. And meanwhile the witnesses to the delivery have forgotten it.
3. Because once it has been produced in the Beth din the matter is known, and therefore the Get need not be kept.
4. E.g., bonds and promissory notes. These are necessary for substantiating the claim at a later date and there is a possibility of altering any condition contained in them without necessarily arousing the suspicion of the witnesses. (Rashi).
5. Jer. XXXII, 14.
6. [Consistent with his view that witnesses will recall any condition that might have been inserted. (Tosaf.)].
7. Lit., 'by them that sign it'.
8. Lit., 'not men of knowledge'.