Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 79a

MISHNAH. 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 EFFACED¹  OR IT WAS BURNT,²  SHE IS DIVORCED.

GEMARA. [AS SOON AS IT REACHES THE AIR-SPACE OF THE ROOF etc.] But it is not yet in safe keeping?³  — 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.

IF HE WAS ABOVE etc. But it is not yet in safe keeping?⁴  — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [The rule applies] if for instance the lower partitions⁵  overtop the upper ones.⁶  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]?⁷  — 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.⁸  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.

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,⁹  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].¹⁰

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.

R. Hisda said: Spaces marked off from one another¹¹  remain distinct for purposes of bills of divorce.¹²  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,¹³  [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.¹⁴

Raba said: There are three cases in which a Get forms an exception to a general rule.¹⁵  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 something¹⁶  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 here¹⁷  the decisive factor is whether it is in safe keeping, and in fact it is not in safe keeping.¹⁸

1. E.g., by rain.
2. By a fire in the courtyard.
3. Because it may be blown away by the wind before landing.
4. Because it may be blown by the wind outside of the court.
5. Those of the courtyard.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Being all the time surrounded by the partitions of the courtyard, and the question of change of domain does not arise.
9. Over the parapet.
10. And therefore so long as it was ascending it is not regarded as having been 'given'.
11. E.g., a roof and a courtyard.
12. 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.
13. The roof or the courtyard as the case may be.
14. 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.
15. Lit., 'three measures', 'norms', in regard to a Get.
16. From a public domain.
17. If the husband throws a Get into a basket on top of a high pole stuck in her ground.
18. Because it may be blown by the wind outside the court.

The third is the rule laid down by Rab Judah in the name of Samuel; A man should not stand on one roof and gather rain water from his neighbour's roof, because just as dwellings are distinct below so they are distinct above. This applies to Sabbath, but in regard to a Get the decisive factor is whether the owner is particular, and to this extent men are not particular.¹

Abaye said: If there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one belonging to her and the outer one to him, and the outer partitions are higher than the inner ones, if he throws it to her, as soon as it reaches the air-space of the partitions of the outer one she is divorced, the reason being that the inner one itself is protected by the partitions of the outer one. The same, however, does not hold good with baskets; if there were two baskets one inside the other, the inner one belonging to her and the outer one to him and he threw the Get to her, even if it came into the air space of the inner one²  she is not divorced, the reason being that it has not come to rest.³  And supposing even that it comes to rest, what of it? It is a case of the vessels of the purchaser in the domain of the vendor?⁴  — We are speaking here of a basket which has no bottom.⁵

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT A MAN MAY DIVORCE HIS WIFE WITH AN OLD GET, BUT BETH HILLEL FORBID THIS. WHAT IS MEANT BY AN OLD GET? ONE AFTER THE WRITING OF WHICH HE WAS CLOSETED WITH HER.

GEMARA. What is the ground of their difference? — Beth Shammai hold that we are not to prohibit her [to marry again] out of fear that people may [afterwards] say that her Get came before her child,⁶  whereas Beth Hillel hold that we do prohibit her for fear people will say her Get came before her child. R. Abba said in the name of Samuel: If she married [on the strength of such a Get]⁷  she need not leave [the second husband]. According to another report, R. Abba said in the name of Samuel, If she was divorced [with such a Get], she has full liberty to marry again.⁸

MISHNAH. IF THE GET WAS DATED BY A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT,⁹  BY THE EMPIRE OF MEDIA,¹⁰  BY THE EMPIRE OF GREECE,¹¹  BY THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE OR BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE,¹²  OR IF BEING IN THE EAST THE WRITER DATED IT FROM THE WEST, OR BEING IN THE WEST HE DATED IT FROM THE EAST, THE WOMAN [WHO MARRIES AGAIN ON THE STRENGTH OF IT] MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS¹³  AND REQUIRES A GET FROM BOTH AND HAS NO CLAIM EITHER FOR A KETHUBAH OR FOR INCREMENT¹⁴  OR FOR MAINTENANCE OR FOR WORN CLOTHES¹⁵  FROM EITHER OF THEM: IF SHE TAKES THESE FROM EITHER OF THEM SHE MUST RETURN THEM. A CHILD BORN TO HER FROM EITHER OF THEM IS A MAMZER.¹⁶  NEITHER OF THEM [IF A PRIEST] IS TO DEFILE HIMSELF FOR HER: NEITHER OF THEM HAS A RIGHT TO HER FINDS OR TO THE PRODUCT OF HER LABOUR, AND NEITHER CAN ANNUL HER VOWS. IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE SHE IS DISQUALIFIED FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.¹⁷

1. And if he lends her one roof for receiving the Get, this is held to include the next adjoining to it.
2. But was then destroyed before it came to rest at the bottom of the basket.
3. And the sides of a basket do not afford safe keeping.
4. V. supra 782.
5. I.e., the outer basket has no bottom, so that the inner basket rests on the ground and is not in the husband's domain.
6. Suppose he used the Get to divorce her a year or two after it was written and she had had a child from him in the meanwhile.
7. Without the permission of the Beth din.
8. I.e., the Beth din do not prevent her.
9. [Lit., 'unworthy'; v. the Gemara infra. Mishnayoth texts read 'another'; i.e., he dated the Get by a Government not corresponding to the country in which the Get was written.]
10. I.e., by the Achemenid era.
11. I.e., by the Seleucid era, beginning 311 B.C., v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 42, n. 7.
12. [The reference is, according to Blau Ehescheidung I, p. 66, to the First Temple, since documents were dated from the destruction of the Second, v. A.Z. 92].
13. I.e., she must leave the second husband and cannot remarry the first.
14. Her 'property of plucking' (v. Gloss. s.v. Mulug); she loses the right to be redeemed from captivity, which the Sages assigned to her in lieu of such increment.
15. From what she brought in with her dowry.
16. V. Glos.
17. Being regarded as a 'loose woman'.