## Gittin Daf 22a

###### Gittin 22a:1
[Gittin 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:1)

דְּשָׁקֵיל לֵיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. רָבָא אָמַר פָּסוּל – גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as he** can **take** the pot with the leaf inside it **and give it to her. Rava says** that it is **invalid.** Although it should be valid if he gave her the leaf together with the potted plant, the Sages instituted **a decree** that it is invalid, **lest one detach** the leaf and give it to her. In that case, all agree that a bill of divorce that is fully written while attached is invalid.


###### Gittin 22a:2
[Gittin 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:2)

עָצִיץ שֶׁל אֶחָד וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אַחֵר; מָכַר בַּעַל עָצִיץ לְבַעַל זְרָעִים – כֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ, קָנָה. מָכַר בַּעַל זְרָעִים לְבַעַל עָצִיץ – לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara has another discussion with regard to a perforated pot: In the case of **a pot** that **belongs to one** person **and the plants** in it **belong to another** person, if the **owner of** the **pot sold** it **to** the **owner of** the **plants,** then **once** the owner of the plants **pulled** the pot, **he has acquired** the pot, as it is a movable object, which can be acquired via pulling. However, if the **owner of** the **plants sold** the plants **to** the **owner of** the **pot,** then the owner of the pot **does not acquire** the plants **until he takes possession of the plants** themselves, e.g., by raking or weeding the dirt surrounding them. Since the plants are considered to be attached to the ground, as they are in a perforated pot, they are considered to be part of the ground, which cannot be acquired by pulling.


###### Gittin 22a:3
[Gittin 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:3)

עָצִיץ וּזְרָעִים שֶׁל אֶחָד, וּמְכָרָן לְאַחֵר; הֶחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים – קָנָה עָצִיץ. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין עִם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת – בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the pot and plants belong to one** person, **and he sold them to another** person, then once the buyer **took possession of the plants** and acquired them, **he acquired the pot** as well. **And this is** an example of the principle **that we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 26a): **Property that does not serve as a guarantee,** i.e., movable property, **can be acquired with property that serves as a guarantee,** i.e., land, **through** the giving of **money, or with a document, or by taking possession.** Therefore, once one takes possession of the plants, which are considered to be like land, he also acquires the pot, which is a movable object.


###### Gittin 22a:4
[Gittin 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:4)

הֶחְזִיק בְּעָצִיץ – אַף עָצִיץ לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק בִּזְרָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, if the buyer **took possession of** just **the pot,** then **he does not even acquire the pot,** as movable property cannot be acquired through taking possession, **until he takes possession of the plants.** To acquire the pot, one must either perform an act of acquisition specific to movable items, such as pulling, or acquire the plants through taking possession of them, resulting in the acquisition of the pot, as stated earlier.


###### Gittin 22a:5
[Gittin 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:5)

נִקְבּוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וְנוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בָּתַר נִקְבּוֹ אָזְלִינַן. רָבָא אָמַר: בָּתַר נוֹפוֹ אָזְלִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses another issue with regard to perforated pots: If a perforated pot was on the border of Eretz Yisrael, and **its perforation was in Eretz** Yisrael **but its branches** were **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, then what is the *halakha* with regard to mitzvot that apply to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, such as *terumot* and tithes? **Abaye said: We follow its perforation,** and it is considered to be growing in Eretz Yisrael. **Rava said: We follow its branches,** and it is considered to be growing outside of Eretz Yisrael.


###### Gittin 22a:6
[Gittin 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:6)

בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בִּדְלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **In** a case **where** the plant in the pot **took root** in the ground, **everyone agrees** that it has the status of a plant that grows in the place where its roots are. **When they disagree,** it is **with regard to** a case **where it did not take root.** Since its roots are contained within the pot, there is a disagreement whether we follow the perforation or the branches in determining its status.


###### Gittin 22a:7
[Gittin 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:7)

וּבִדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָתְנַן: שְׁתֵּי גִּינּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ, וְיָרָק בֵּינְתַיִם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל עֶלְיוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל תַּחְתּוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And do they not disagree with regard to** a case **where it took root?** Do all agree that its status is determined by where the roots are? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 118b): In a case of **two gardens** that belong to two different people that are on adjacent terraces **one above the other, and leafy vegetables** are growing **between them** on the wall of the step between the two gardens, **Rabbi Meir says:** These leafy vegetables **belong to** the owner of the **upper** garden, and **Rabbi Yehuda says:** These leafy vegetables **belong** to the owner of the **lower** garden. In this case, the roots emerge from the upper garden, but the vegetables grow into the airspace of the lower garden. This seems to be analogous to the case where the roots are in Eretz Yisrael and the branches are outside of Eretz Yisrael, or vice versa, and there is a dispute as to who is the owner of the vegetables.


###### Gittin 22a:8
[Gittin 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:8)

הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא – אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מָה אִם יִרְצֶה עֶלְיוֹן לִיטּוֹל אֶת עֲפָרוֹ, אֵין כָּאן יָרָק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara makes a distinction between the two cases: **There,** in the case cited in the mishna in *Bava Metzia*, **the reason** for that *halakha* is **as is taught** in the mishna, that **Rabbi Meir said: What if** the owner of the **upper** garden **would wish to take his earth?** This would result in a situation where **there are no** more **vegetables,** as the vegetables would not have earth from which to draw nutrients. The fact that the owner of the upper garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner.


###### Gittin 22a:9
[Gittin 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מָה אִם יִרְצֶה הַתַּחְתּוֹן לְמַלּאוֹת אֶת גִּנָּתוֹ עָפָר, אֵין כָּאן יָרָק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda said: What if** the owner of the **lower** garden **would wish to fill** the airspace above **his garden** with **earth?** This would result in a situation where **there are no** more **vegetables,** as they would be covered in the earth added by the owner of the lower garden. The fact that the owner of the lower garden has the ability to destroy the vegetables is an indication that he is the owner. Their dispute is not with regard to how to define where the vegetables are growing; rather, they disagree with regard to who has control over the continued existence of these plants. Therefore, this dispute is not related to the issue of the plant that is growing on the border.


###### Gittin 22a:10
[Gittin 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:10)

וְאַכַּתִּי, בִּדְאַשְׁרוּשׁ לָא פְּלִיגִי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אִילָן – מִקְצָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ; טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִין זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַגָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, וְהַגָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still, do they not disagree with regard to** a case **where** the plant **took root? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ma’asrot* 2:22): If there is **a tree,** and **part of it** is **in Eretz** Yisrael **and part of it** is **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, then **untithed produce and non-sacred produce are mixed together** in each one of these tree’s fruits; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The fruits in the part of the tree that is **growing in** a place that has **an obligation** to separate tithes, in Eretz Yisrael, are **obligated. And** the fruits that are **growing in** a place that has an **exemption** from separating tithes, outside of Eretz Yisrael, are **exempt.**


###### Gittin 22a:11
[Gittin 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:11)

מַאי לָאו, מִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת נוֹפוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** discussing a case **where some of its branches are in Eretz** Yisrael **and some of its branches are outside of Eretz** Yisrael, although its roots are in one of the two locations, and both Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that the place of the roots does not define the status of the tree?


###### Gittin 22a:12
[Gittin 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:12)

לֹא; מִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בָּאָרֶץ וּמִקְצָת שׇׁרָשִׁין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וּמַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? דְּמַפְסִיק צוּנְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it discusses a case where **some of the roots** are **in Eretz** Yisrael **and some of the roots** are **outside of Eretz** Yisrael. The Gemara asks: **And what is the reasoning of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?** It is not possible to determine which fruits drew nutrients from which roots, so how can he rule that some of the fruits are obligated in tithes and some are not? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement is referring to a case where **a rock divides** the roots up to the trunk, and therefore it is possible to distinguish between the parts of the tree that draw nutrients from Eretz Yisrael and the parts that draw nutrients from outside of Eretz Yisrael.


###### Gittin 22a:13
[Gittin 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:13)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? דְּהָדְרִי עׇרְבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If it is so that the roots are clearly distinguishable, **what is the reasoning of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? Why does he view the fruits as being a mixture? The Gemara answers: He holds that although there is a division between the roots, they cannot be distinguished from one another, **as they then become mixed** in the body of the tree.


###### Gittin 22a:14
[Gittin 22a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:14)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: אַוֵּירָא מְבַלְבֵּל, וּמָר סָבַר: הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: One **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds: The air** above the ground **mixes** the nutrients, **and** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds: This** part of the tree **stands alone and this** part of the tree **stands alone.** From the roots up to the branches, it is as if the tree were cut along the line of the border.


###### Gittin 22a:15
[Gittin 22a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:15)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳: אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַסִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, שְׁלֹשָׁה עוֹרוֹת הֵן: מַצָּה, חִיפָּה וְדִיפְתְּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says** that one may not write a bill of divorce on a material that enables forgery. Consequently, one may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara now clarifies what is defined as unfinished leather. **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: There are three hides,** i.e., three stages in the process of tanning hides. At each stage, the hide has a different name: ***Matza*, *ḥifa*, and *diftera*.**


###### Gittin 22a:16
[Gittin 22a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:16)

מַצָּה – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, דְּלָא מְלִיחַ וּדְלָא קְמִיחַ וּדְלָא אֲפִיץ. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כִּדְקָתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: כְּדֵי לָצוּר מִשְׁקָל קְטַנָּה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי רִיבְעָא דְרִיבְעָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Matza*, as per its plain meaning,** with no additives. It is **not salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts.** The Gemara clarifies: **For what *halakha*** is this type of leather mentioned? There is a *halakha* that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather **for** which one is liable if he **carries** it **out** from one domain to another on **Shabbat. And how much is the measure** that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? **As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda teaches:** It is **equivalent** to that which is used **to wrap** around **a small weight. And how** big is this small weight? **Abaye said: A quarter of a quarter of** a *litra* in the system of weights in use in **Pumbedita.**


###### Gittin 22a:17
[Gittin 22a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:17)

חִיפָּה – דִּמְלִיחַ, וְלָא קְמִיחַ וְלָא אֲפִיץ. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כְּדִתְנַן: עוֹר – כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קָמֵיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Ḥifa*** is hide **that is salted, and not treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what *halakha*** was this type of leather mentioned? There is a *halakha* that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather **for** which one is liable if he **carries** it **out** from one domain to another on **Shabbat. And how much is the measure** that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? **As we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 78b): The measure that determines liability for carrying out this **hide** is **equivalent** to that which is used **to make an amulet.**


###### Gittin 22a:18
[Gittin 22a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:18)

דִּיפְתְּרָא – דִּמְלִיחַ וּקְמִיחַ, וְלָא אֲפִיץ. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? לְהוֹצָאַת שַׁבָּת. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרוֹ? כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב עָלָיו אֶת הַגֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***Diftera*** is hide **that is salted, and treated with flour, and not treated with gallnuts. For what *halakha*** was this type of leather mentioned? There is a *halakha* that mentions the minimum measure of this type of leather **for** which one is liable if he **carries** it **out** from one domain to another on **Shabbat. And how much is the measure** that determines liability for carrying out this hide on Shabbat? The measure that determines liability for carrying it out is **equivalent to** the amount **on which a bill of divorce is written.**


###### Gittin 22a:19
[Gittin 22a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/22a:19)

וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין: מַאן חֲכָמִים? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught that **the Rabbis deem valid** bills of divorce that were written on erased paper or on unfinished leather. The Gemara asks: **Who are** these **Rabbis?** The *amora* **Rabbi Elazar said:**