## Gittin Daf 66a

###### Gittin 66a:1
[Gittin 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:1)

דְּרָא רַבִּי אֲבִינָא לְסִילְּתֵיהּ, וַאֲזַל לְגַבֵּי דְּרַב הוּנָא רַבֵּיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גִּיטּוֹ כְּמַתְּנָתוֹ, מַה מַתְּנָתוֹ, אִם עָמַד – חוֹזֵר, אַף גִּיטּוֹ, אִם עָמַד – חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Let **Rabbi Avina lift his basket and go to Rav Huna his teacher,** as in order to acquire the item he must rely on the opinion of his teacher, **as Rav Huna said:** The legal status of **one’s bill of divorce** is **like** that of **his gift. Just as** with regard to a **gift** given by one on **his** deathbed, **if he** recovered from his illness and **arose** from his deathbed, **he revokes** his gift, **so too,** with regard to **his bill of divorce** given by one on his deathbed, **if he** recovered from his illness and **arose** from his deathbed, **he revokes** the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 66a:2
[Gittin 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:2)

וּמָה גִּיטּוֹ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״; אַף מַתְּנָתוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And just as** with regard to the **bill of divorce** of one on **his** deathbed, **even though he did not specify, once he said: Write** the bill of divorce, **even though he did not say: Give** it to my wife, they write and give it to his wife, as it was taught in the mishna. **So too,** with regard to a **gift** given by one on **his** deathbed, **once he said: Give** the gift, **even though** the recipients **did not acquire** the item **from him** by means of an act of acquisition, the one on his deathbed has given the gift. Based on the parallel drawn by Rav Huna between a bill of divorce and a gift, Rabbi Avina can go and collect the gift given him by Geneiva.


###### Gittin 66a:3
[Gittin 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: אִי – מָה מַתָּנָה יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, אַף גֵּט יֶשְׁנוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה?! הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתָּנָה – אִיתַהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, אֶלָּא גֵּט – לְאַחַר מִיתָה מִי אִיכָּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba objects to** that conclusion. **If** that parallel is valid, extend it and say: **Just as a gift is** valid **after death, so too, a bill of divorce is** valid **after death.** The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? Granted, a gift is** valid **after death; however, is a bill of divorce** valid **after death?** A bill of divorce severs the bond between husband and wife. After the husband dies, the bill of divorce is pointless. Therefore, the parallel certainly does not extend to after death.


###### Gittin 66a:4
[Gittin 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:4)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי אַבָּא, הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת הִיא, וּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן! מִכְּלָל דְּרַב הוּנָא סָבַר לָא בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן?! וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּבָעֲיָא קִנְיָן! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּמְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is what** is **difficult** according **to Rabbi Abba:** Geneiva’s instruction **is the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion** of his estate, **and the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion** of his estate **requires an act of acquisition.** The Gemara asks: Is that to say, **by inference,** that **Rav Huna,** according to whose opinion Rabbi Avina acquired the gift, **holds** that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate **does not require an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain** that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate **requires an act of acquisition?** The Gemara answers: It **is different here,** as this is not a standard case of the gift of a person on his deathbed. This is a case **where one issues an instruction** to give the gift **due to his** imminent **death.** In that case, the principle: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the deceased, applies even if it is a gift of a portion of his estate.


###### Gittin 66a:5
[Gittin 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:5)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא סָבַר: מְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן?! וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּלָא בָּעֵי קִנְיָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is that to say **by inference** that **Rabbi Abba holds** that **one who issues an instruction** to give the gift **due to his** imminent **death requires an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain that** one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death **does not require an act of acquisition?** What, then, is difficult for Rabbi Abba?


###### Gittin 66a:6
[Gittin 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:6)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי אַבָּא, הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: ״חַמְרָא״ – לָא קָאָמַר, ״דְּמֵי חַמְרָא״ – לָא קָאָמַר, ״מֵחַמְרָא״ קָאָמַר! וְאִידַּךְ, ״מֵחַמְרָא״ – כְּדֵי לְיַיפּוֹת אֶת כֹּחוֹ. שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: ״מֵחַמְרָא״ – כְּדֵי לְיַיפּוֹת אֶת כֹּחוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is what** is **difficult** according **to Rabbi Abba:** Geneiva **did not say** to give four hundred dinars of **wine** to Rabbi Avina, and **he did not say: The monetary value** of four hundred dinars **of wine. He said:** Four hundred dinars **from wine.** The question is: What did Geneiva seek to convey with that ambiguous expression? **And the other** *amora*, Rabbi Zeira, who does not find this difficult, holds that when Geneiva said: Four hundred dinars **from wine,** it was **in order to enhance** Rabbi Avina’s **ability** to collect the gift. Geneiva sought to give him a gift of value; in order to guarantee that Rabbi Avina would have access to his property and that the heirs would not be able to prevent him from receiving the gift with various claims, he specifically designated from which property Rabbi Avina could collect the gift. The Gemara notes: **They sent** a message **from there,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the term: **From wine,** is **in order to enhance** Rabbi Avina’s **ability** to collect the gift.


###### Gittin 66a:7
[Gittin 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁהָיָה מוּשְׁלָךְ לְבוֹר, וְאָמַר: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אֶת קוֹלוֹ יִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who was thrown into a pit** and thought that he would die there, **and he said** that **anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife,** and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, **those** who hear him **should write** this bill of divorce **and give** it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him.


###### Gittin 66a:8
[Gittin 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא שֵׁד הוּא! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כְּשֶׁרָאוּ לוֹ דְּמוּת אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **But let us be concerned** that **perhaps** the source of the voice in the pit **is a demon,** as no one saw the person in the pit. **Rav Yehuda says:** It is referring to a case **where they saw** that the being in the pit **has human form.**


###### Gittin 66a:9
[Gittin 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:9)

אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִידְּמוֹיֵי אִידְּמוֹ! דַּחֲזוֹ לֵיהּ בָּבוּאָה. אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ בָּבוּאָה! דַּחֲזוֹ לֵיהּ בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה. וְדִלְמָא אִינְהוּ נָמֵי אִית לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לִימְּדַנִי יוֹנָתָן בְּנִי: בָּבוּאָה אִית לְהוּ, בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה לֵית לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: Demons **too** can **appear** in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case **where they saw that he has a shadow [*bavua*].** The Gemara objects: Demons **also have a shadow.** The Gemara explains: It is a case **where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow.** The Gemara objects: **And perhaps** demons **too have** the shadow of a shadow? **Rabbi Ḥanina says: Yonatan my son taught me** that demons **have a shadow** but **they do not have the shadow of a shadow.**


###### Gittin 66a:10
[Gittin 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:10)

וְדִלְמָא צָרָה הִיא! תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה, כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps** the source of the voice in the pit **is a rival wife** of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage **from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger,** when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, **one writes and gives** a bill of divorce **even though** the people instructed to do so **are not familiar** with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue.


###### Gittin 66a:11
[Gittin 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבָּרִיא שֶׁאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לְשַׂחֶק בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife,** but did not say to give it to her, presumably **sought to mock her.** Since he told them to write the bill of divorce and not to give it, it is not a valid bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 66a:12
[Gittin 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:12)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבָרִיא אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְנָפַל וָמֵת; אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ נָפַל, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, אִם הָרוּחַ דָּחַתּוּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna relates: There was **an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and** then **ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own** initiative, taking his own life, **it is** a valid **bill of divorce,** as it is clear that he anticipated his death and instructed those listening to write the bill of divorce with the intent of giving it to her. However, **if the wind forced him** to fall, **it is not** a valid **bill of divorce,** as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 66a:13
[Gittin 66a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: Was **an incident** cited **to contradict** the *halakha* stated in the mishna? The *halakha* is that in a case where a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. From the incident it is clear that under certain circumstances when a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.


###### Gittin 66a:14
[Gittin 66a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:14)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אִם הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וּמַעֲשֶׂה נָמֵי בְּבָרִיא שֶׁאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְנָפַל וָמֵת, וְאָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: אִם מֵעַצְמוֹ נָפַל – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, אִם הָרוּחַ דָּחַתּוּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **is incomplete and this is what it is teaching:** In the case of a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but he did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. However, **if his ultimate** actions **prove** the nature of **his initial** intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, **it is** a valid **bill of divorce. And** there was **an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and** he then **ascended to the roof and fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own** initiative, **it is** a valid **bill of divorce.** However, **if the wind forced him** to fall, **it is not** a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 66a:15
[Gittin 66a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:15)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּעָל לְבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא, אַשְׁכַּח מַקְרֵי יָנוֹקָא וּבְרֵיהּ דְּיָתְבִי, וְיָתֵיב אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיכוּ נִכְתְּבוּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ. לְסוֹף שְׁכֵיב מַקְרֵי יָנוֹקָא, מִי מְשַׁוּוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּרָא שְׁלִיחָא בִּמְקוֹם אַבָּא, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain man who entered the synagogue and found a schoolteacher and his son who were sitting** there, **and another person** also **sat with them.** The man **said to them: Two of you should write a bill of divorce for my wife. Ultimately, the schoolteacher died.** The Sages considered the following question: **Do people designate a son** as **an agent in the presence of** his **father,** even though the two of them could not serve together as witnesses because they are relatives, **or not?** As the man’s intent was to designate two people who could serve as witnesses, the schoolteacher and the other person, the question is whether the son of the schoolteacher and the other person are agents and eligible to write and give the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 66a:16
[Gittin 66a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:16)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: לָא מְשַׁוּוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּרָא שְׁלִיחָא בִּמְקוֹם אַבָּא; וְרַב פַּפֵּי אָמַר: מְשַׁוּוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּרָא שְׁלִיחָא בִּמְקוֹם אַבָּא. אָמַר רָבָא, הִילְכְתָא: מְשַׁוּוּ אִינָשֵׁי בְּרָא שְׁלִיחָא בִּמְקוֹם אַבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: People do not designate a son** as **an agent in the presence of** his **father. And Rav Pappi said: People designate a son** as **an agent in the presence of** his **father. Rava said** that **the *halakha*** is: **People designate a son** as **an agent in the presence of** his **father.**


###### Gittin 66a:17
[Gittin 66a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/66a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a man **said to two** people: **Give a bill of divorce to my wife,**