## Gittin Daf 28b

###### Gittin 28b:1
[Gittin 28b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:1)

שֶׁמָּא מֵת לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a different distinction: **We are not concerned** that **perhaps he** has already **died,** which is why the mishna rules that she may continue to partake of *teruma*. However, in the case of one who stipulates that the bill of divorce will take effect one hour before his death, **we are concerned** that **perhaps he will die** at an unknown moment in the future and she will no longer be permitted to partake of *teruma*.


###### Gittin 28b:2
[Gittin 28b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא: וְהָא נוֹד דִּכְשֶׁמָּא יָמוּת הוּא, וּפְלִיגִי! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִדִּסְקַרְתָּא: שָׁאנֵי נוֹד דְּאֶפְשָׁר דְּמָסַר לֵיהּ לְשׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: But** the concern in the case of the **wineskin** is that it might burst before one is able to separate the *teruma* and tithes, **which is similar** to the concern that **perhaps he will die,** as both are concerns with respect to the future, **and** Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir **disagree. Rav Yehuda of Diskarta said: A wineskin is different, as it is possible to give it to a watchman** who will protect it from bursting, which is why Rabbi Meir is not concerned that it might burst. This reasoning does not apply to the concern that the husband might die.


###### Gittin 28b:3
[Gittin 28b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: עָרְבָיךְ עָרְבָא צְרִיךְ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁמָּא מֵת – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya objects to this** answer: **Your guarantor** himself **needs a guarantor,** as there is no way of knowing that the guardian will not be negligent, so the wineskin may burst. **Rather, Rava said:** Everyone agrees that **we are not concerned** that **perhaps he** has already **died,** in accordance with the mishna here. As to the issue of whether there is a concern that **perhaps he will die,** as in the case of the *baraita*, this **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.**


###### Gittin 28b:4
[Gittin 28b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:4)

הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְכוּ׳: וְהָא בָּעֵינָא סְמִיכָה! אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּקׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in the case of **one who sends his sin-offering from a country overseas,** the priests may sacrifice it on the altar, based on the presumption that the one who sent it is still alive. The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** an offering **require** the **placing** of **hands** on the head of an offering by the one who brings the offering? In this case the owner of the offering is elsewhere and cannot place his hands on the offering. **Rav Yosef says:** The mishna states this ruling **with regard to the offering of women,** as women are not required to place their hands on the head of their offerings. **Rav Pappa says:** The mishna states this ruling **with regard to a bird** sacrificed as **a sin-offering,** where it is not required that the owner place his hands on the head of the offering.


###### Gittin 28b:5
[Gittin 28b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:5)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גֵּט – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה דְּאֶפְשָׁר – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Noting that the mishna states the same *halakha*, that the presumption is that one remains alive, in three different contexts, the Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** for the mishna to state this in all three cases, **as, if it** had **taught us** only the case of **a bill of divorce,** one might have said that it is **due to** the fact that it is **not possible** to take into account the possible death of the husband, as there would then be no way for the husband to send a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. That is why the presumption that the husband is alive is relied upon. **But** with regard to ***teruma*, where** it is **possible** for the wife to partake of non-sacred produce, **say** the presumption is **not** relied upon, and there is a concern that he died.


###### Gittin 28b:6
[Gittin 28b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:6)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן תְּרוּמָה – דְּזִמְנִין דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר; אֲבָל חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – מִסְּפֵיקָא לָא לֵיעוּל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it** had **taught us** also the case of ***teruma*,** one might have said **that** there are **times that** it is **not possible** for the wife to avoid partaking of *teruma*, e.g., if she does not have sufficient non-sacred produce. **But** with regard to **a bird** sacrificed as **a sin-offering,** one might say that **for** a situation of **uncertainty** as to whether the sin-offering may be sacrificed, since its owners might not be alive, **one should not bring non-sacred** animals, i.e., an animal that may not be sacrificed, **into the** Temple **courtyard.** Therefore, it is **necessary** for the mishna to mention all of these cases.


###### Gittin 28b:7
[Gittin 28b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פַּרְטָא לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְקִיְּימוּ אֶת דְּבָרָיו: עַל עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפָהּ כַּרְקוֹם, וְעַל הַסְּפִינָה הַמּוּטְרֶפֶת בַּיָּם, וְעַל הַיּוֹצֵא לִידּוֹן – שֶׁהֵן בְּחֶזְקַת קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Elazar ben Perata said three statements before the Sages** as testimony from previous generations, **and they upheld his statements:** He spoke **concerning** the residents of **a town that was surrounded** by **a camp of besiegers [*karkom*]; and concerning the** travelers in **a ship that is cast about in the sea; and concerning one who is going out to be judged** in a capital case; **that they are** all **presumed to be alive.**


###### Gittin 28b:8
[Gittin 28b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:8)

אֲבָל עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ כַּרְקוֹם, וּסְפִינָה שֶׁאָבְדָה בַּיָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג – נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחוּמְרֵי מֵתִים – בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** concerning the residents of **a town that was conquered** by **a camp of besiegers; and** the travelers on **a ship that was lost at sea; and one who is going out to be executed** after receiving his verdict; in these cases **one applies to them the stringencies of** the **living and the stringencies of** the **dead.** How so? **An Israelite woman** married **to a priest** in one of these situations **or a daughter of a priest** married **to an Israelite** in one of these situations **may not partake of *teruma*.** The first woman may not do so because she may partake of *teruma* only while her husband is alive, and the second may not do so because she may partake of *teruma* only if he has died.


###### Gittin 28b:9
[Gittin 28b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֲבָל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, כֵּיוָן דִּגְמִיר לֵיהּ דִּינָא לִקְטָלָא – מִיקְטָל קָטְלִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yosef says: They taught** that one applies the stringencies of the living **only** to one who is being taken to be executed **in a Jewish court,** where even once he is being taken to be executed, he will be released if the court finds evidence for his innocence; **but in a court of the nations of the world, once he is sentenced to death, he is killed** in any case. Therefore, he should be considered as a dead man in every regard.


###### Gittin 28b:10
[Gittin 28b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם נָמֵי, דִּמְקַבְּלִי שׁוּחְדָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי שָׁקְלִי – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלַחְתּוֹם פּוּרְסִי שְׁנָמַג; לְבָתַר דְּמִיחְתַּם פּוּרְסִי שְׁנָמַג – לָא שָׁקְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** In **a court of the nations of the world as well,** perhaps they will not execute him, **as they accept bribes.** Rav Yosef **said to him: When they take** a bribe, it is only **before the verdict [*puresei shenmag*] has been sealed;** but **after the verdict has been sealed, they do not take** bribes.


###### Gittin 28b:11
[Gittin 28b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:11)

מֵיתִיבִי, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ: ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג! דִּלְמָא בּוֹרֵחַ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rav Yosef, in a Jewish court, even after one’s verdict is complete the presumption is that he is alive. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this from a mishna (*Makkot* 7a) concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict had been issued: **Any place where two** witnesses **arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his judgment was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so** were **his witnesses,** the *halakha* is that **this** person **should be killed.** It is evident from the mishna in tractate *Makkot* that there is no concern that the court may have later found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: **Perhaps one who flees is different,** as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.


###### Gittin 28b:12
[Gittin 28b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמַע מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרָג״ – יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מֵקוֹמֶנְטָרִיסִין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרַג״ – אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear:** If one **heard from a Jewish court that they were saying:** The **man so-and-so died,** or: The **man so-and-so was killed,** then the court allows **his wife to marry.** If he heard **from a gentile judicial registrar [*komentirisin*]:** The **man so-and-so died,** or: The **man so-and-so was killed,** then the court does **not** allow **his wife to marry.**


###### Gittin 28b:13
[Gittin 28b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:13)

מַאי ״מֵת״, וּמַאי ״נֶהֱרַג״? אִילֵימָא ״מֵת״ – מֵת מַמָּשׁ, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – נֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What** does it mean when it says: **Died, and what** does it mean when it says: **Was killed? If we say** that: **Died,** means that he **actually died, and: Was killed,** means that he **was actually killed,** such **that** the case **concerning the gentiles** is stated in **a similar manner,** i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, **why** may the court **not** allow **his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that** with regard to **any** gentile who **speaks offhandedly,** the Sages **deemed him credible?** Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.


###### Gittin 28b:14
[Gittin 28b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:14)

אֶלָּא לָאו ״מֵת״ – יוֹצֵא לָמוּת, ״נֶהֱרַג״ – יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג? וְקָתָנֵי: בְּבֵית דִּין יִשְׂרָאֵל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** necessary to explain that when it says: **Died,** it means that he is **going out to die,** and when it says: **Was killed,** it means **going out to be executed. And** it **teaches** that if it occurred **in a Jewish court** then the court allows **his wife to marry,** as it is assumed that he was already executed, contrary to the statement of Rav Yosef.


###### Gittin 28b:15
[Gittin 28b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:15)

לְעוֹלָם מֵת מַמָּשׁ וְנֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם אַמַּאי לָא, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי; הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא שָׁיְיכִי בָּהּ, אֲבָל בְּמִילְּתָא דְּשָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, עָבְדִי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי שִׁיקְרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it can be explained that he **actually died, and actually was killed. And** with regard to **that which you said:** Such **that** the case **concerning the gentiles** is stated in **a similar manner, why** may the court **not** allow his wife to marry? **Don’t we maintain that** with regard to **any** gentile who **speaks offhandedly,** the Sages **deemed him credible?** The answer is that **this** credibility **applies** only **in a matter that is not relevant to** the gentiles; **but in a matter that is relevant to** the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is **common for them to reinforce their false** verdict, i.e., once they reach a verdict they will say that the accused was killed. Therefore, one cannot rely on their statements.


###### Gittin 28b:16
[Gittin 28b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/28b:16)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is one version of the discourse; there is also another version: **There are** those **who say** that **Rav Yosef said: They taught** that one applies the stringencies of the living and the dead **only in a court of the nations of the world;**