## Gittin Daf 70b

###### Gittin 70b:1
[Gittin 70b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:1)

לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִן הַבֵּיצִים, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִן הַבֵּיצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the Gemara mentioned letting blood from **below** it meant **below the testicles,** and when it mentioned letting blood from **above** it meant **above the testicles.**


###### Gittin 70b:2
[Gittin 70b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:2)

וּכְשׁוּת שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ. תָּנָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ, כָּךְ יָפָה בִּזְמַנָּהּ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זְמַנָּהּ – תַּמּוּז, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ – טֵבֵת, יוֹמֵי נִיסָן וְיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי – לָא מְעַלּוּ וְלָא קָשׁוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught: **And dodder** eaten **not in its time,** before it is ripe, causes harm. The Gemara explains: A Sage **taught: Just as** eating dodder **not in its time** is **harmful** to the body, **so too,** eating it **in its time,** when it is ripe, is **good** for the body. **Rav Pappa said: Its time** is **Tammuz,** in the summer, and **not in its time** is **Tevet,** in the winter. And during **the days of Nisan,** spring, **and the days of Tishrei,** autumn, **they neither help nor harm.**


###### Gittin 70b:3
[Gittin 70b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:3)

אָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וַאֲחָזוֹ קוּרְדְּיָיקוֹס, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״אַל תִּכְתְּבוּ״ – אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין גֵּט לְאַלְתַּר. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּפֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the *halakhot* mentioned in the mishna. The mishna teaches: If **he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife,** when he was lucid, **and was** then **afflicted with** temporary **insanity and he retracted** his previous statement **and said: Do not write it, his latter statement** is considered to be **nothing,** i.e., it is not halakhically valid. The Gemara comments on this that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** In that case the court **writes and gives the bill of divorce immediately,** because even though he is insane, the court does not wait for him to return to his senses. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** They **write** this bill of divorce based on his instructions **only once he is healed** and returns to a sound state of mind.


###### Gittin 70b:4
[Gittin 70b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:4)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵין בִּדְבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לָךְ: אֵין בִּדְבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם – דִּלְכִי מִתְּצִיל לָא צְרִיךְ לְמִיהְדַּר אִימְּלוֹכֵי בֵּיהּ; וּלְעוֹלָם אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶלָּא לִכְשֶׁיִּשְׁתַּפֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Reish Lakish? As it teaches** in the mishna: **His final statement** is considered to be **nothing,** which indicates that his initial statement stands and the court should act in accordance with his instructions. By contrast, **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you** as follows: When the mishna said that **his final statement** is considered to be **nothing** it means **that when** his mind **becomes lucid** it is **not necessary** for the court **to return and confirm** his instructions; rather, they rely on his statement. **But** the court **actually writes** the bill of divorce **only once he is healed.**


###### Gittin 70b:5
[Gittin 70b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:5)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְיָשֵׁן, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְדַמֵּי לֵיהּ לְשׁוֹטֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan **disagree? Reish Lakish compares** one afflicted with temporary insanity **to one who is sleeping.** If one said to write a bill of divorce and went to sleep then the court may write it without waiting for him to awaken. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan compares him to an imbecile:** When he is afflicted with temporary insanity he is not of sound mind and is therefore unfit to give a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 70b:6
[Gittin 70b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נָמֵי לִידַמְּיֵהּ לְיָשֵׁן! יָשֵׁן – לָא מְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה, הַאי – מְחוּסָּר מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan also could compare him to one who is sleeping,** so why does he not do so? The Gemara answers: **One who is sleeping is not lacking an action,** meaning that no action is needed in order to awaken him, and he can awaken on his own. **This** one, who is afflicted with temporary insanity, is **lacking an action** by not taking the remedy mentioned earlier.


###### Gittin 70b:7
[Gittin 70b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:7)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ נָמֵי נִידַמְּיֵיהּ לְשׁוֹטֶה! שׁוֹטֶה לָא סַמֵּיהּ בִּידַן, הַאי, סַמֵּיהּ בִּידַן – בִּישְׂרָא סוּמָּקָא אַגּוּמְרֵי, וְחַמְרָא מַרְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Reish Lakish could also compare him to an imbecile,** so why does he not do so? The Gemara answers: There is a difference, as **there is no remedy in our possession** that can cure **an imbecile.** And since there is no remedy, a bill of divorce may not be written on his behalf. By contrast, for **this** one, who is afflicted with temporary insanity, **there is a remedy in our possession.** As the Gemara explained (67b): The remedy for this disease is for the afflicted person to eat lean **red meat** roasted **over coals and** drink **wine** that has been **diluted** with a large amount of water.


###### Gittin 70b:8
[Gittin 70b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:8)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁחַט בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וְרָמַז וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that the court must wait for him to regain his mental capabilities? **But didn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Shmuel says:** If one was attacked by another who **slit** his throat and severed the **two** pipes, his trachea and esophagus, **or the majority of** the **two** pipes, **and** the dying man **signaled and** thereby **stated** through his gestures: **Write a bill of divorce for my wife,** then **those** present **should write and give** a bill of divorce to his wife?


###### Gittin 70b:9
[Gittin 70b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:9)

וְתַנְיָא: רָאוּהוּ מְגוּיָּד אוֹ צָלוּב עַל הַצְּלִיבָה, וְרָמַז וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it was** similarly **taught** in a *baraita*: If **they saw** a man whose limbs had been **severed or crucified on a cross, and he signaled and** thereby **stated: Write a bill of divorce for my wife,** then **those** present **should write and give** the document to his wife. This teaches that it is permitted to write a bill of divorce even on behalf of one who cannot be cured and will certainly die. If so, why does Rabbi Yoḥanan claim that a bill of divorce may be written for someone afflicted with temporary insanity only once he has been cured?


###### Gittin 70b:10
[Gittin 70b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:10)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם דַּעְתָּא צִילּוּתָא הִיא, וּכְחִישׁוּתָא הוּא דְּאַתְחִילָה בֵּיהּ; הָכָא דַּעְתָּא שְׁגִישְׁתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** after his throat was slit or he was crucified, **his mind is lucid, but he has begun** to feel **weakness** and will die very soon. Consequently, he cannot speak, but his intellectual capabilities are assumed to be intact. But **here,** in the case of one afflicted with temporary insanity, **his mind is confused,** and he is not lucid enough to act with intent.


###### Gittin 70b:11
[Gittin 70b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:11)

וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁחַט בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם, וּבָרַח – מְעִידִין עָלָיו. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ חַי הוּא, אַמַּאי מְעִידִין עָלָיו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did Shmuel** actually **say this,** that someone whose throat has been slit is treated as though he is alive, and he can give a bill of divorce? **But didn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Shmuel says:** If someone **slit** the **two** pipes **in** his throat **or the majority of** the **two** pipes **and** the victim **fled** without the witnesses seeing what ultimately happened to him, then **they may testify with regard to him** that he is dead? **And if it enters your mind** to say that one whose throat has been slit **is alive** and able to instruct others to write a bill of divorce for his wife, then **why can** witnesses **testify with regard to him** that he is dead?


###### Gittin 70b:12
[Gittin 70b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:12)

אָמְרִי: חַי הוּא – וְסוֹפוֹ לָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **says** in response to this that **he is** currently **alive** and on account of this he can give a bill of divorce to his wife, **but ultimately** he will certainly **die** within a short period of time. Consequently, it is possible to testify with certainty that he died later on.


###### Gittin 70b:13
[Gittin 70b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:13)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְהֵא גּוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: שָׁחַט בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רוֹב שְׁנַיִם – הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that he is assumed to have ultimately died, then the one who slit his throat **should be exiled on his account** if he did so unintentionally. Exile is the punishment for unintentionally killing another. If so, **why is it taught** in a *baraita*: If **he** unintentionally **slit** the **two** pipes **in** his throat **or the majority of** the **two,** for example if one dropped a knife and accidentally cut another’s trachea and esophagus, then **this** one **is not exiled?**


###### Gittin 70b:14
[Gittin 70b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:14)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא הָרוּחַ בִּלְבְּלַתּוּ. אִי נָמֵי, הוּא קֵירַב אֶת מִיתָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it stated with regard to that** *baraita* that **Rabbi Hoshaya says: We are concerned that perhaps the wind made him senseless,** and it was not only the one who dropped the knife who caused this man’s death, but also the wind or some other factor. One who only partially causes the death of another is not exiled. **Or also** perhaps **he,** the one who had his throat slit, **brought his death closer** through his convulsions and his death throes.


###### Gittin 70b:15
[Gittin 70b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:15)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ בְּבֵיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא, וּפַירְכֵּס. אִי נָמֵי, דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ בְּבָרָא, וְלָא פַּירְכֵּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the difference **between** the first and second explanations with regard to why the killer is not exiled? The difference **between** them **is if he slit his** throat **in a marble house and** the victim **convulsed.** In such a case the death cannot be attributed to the wind, so according to the first explanation the killer would be exiled. Rather, his death can be attributed to his convulsions, so according to the latter explanation the killer would not be exiled. **Alternatively, he slit his** throat **outside and** the victim **did not convulse.** In such a case the death can be attributed to the wind, so according to the first explanation the killer would not be exiled. Since it cannot be attributed to his convulsions, according to the latter explanation the killer would be exiled.


###### Gittin 70b:16
[Gittin 70b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:16)

נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״נִכְתּוֹב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ״ כּוּ׳. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא שִׁיחְיָא דְּ״לָאו לָאו״ נַקְטֵיהּ, אִי נָמֵי שִׁיחְיָא דְּ״הֵן הֵן״ נַקְטֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where the husband **became mute, and** the members of the court **said to him:** Shall **we will write a bill of divorce for your wife?** And he nodded his head as a signal, and then the court checked his intent three times with different questions; if he said no, shaking his head to questions to which he should have answered no, and yes to questions to which he should have answered yes, this demonstrates that he understands the questions and his intent is clear. The Gemara asks: **But let** there be **a concern that perhaps the** involuntary **movement of: No, no, took hold of him,** and he continuously nods his head as if he were signaling no, even though he does not intend it? **Alternatively,** perhaps **the** involuntary **movement of: Yes, yes, took hold of him?**


###### Gittin 70b:17
[Gittin 70b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:17)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ בְּסֵירוּגִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says** that **Rav Naḥman says:** The meaning of the mishna is **that we,** the court, **say alternating** questions **to him,** switching between asking him questions to which he must answer yes and questions to which he must answer no.


###### Gittin 70b:18
[Gittin 70b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:18)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא שִׁיחְיָא דְּסֵירוּגִין נַקְטֵיהּ! דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ חַד ״לָאו״ וּתְרֵין ״הֵן״, וּתְרֵין ״לָאו״ וְחַד ״הֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** there be **a concern that perhaps alternating** involuntary **movements took hold of him,** such that he switches between nodding his head yes and nodding his head no. The Gemara answers: The meaning of the mishna is **that we,** the court, **say to him** questions to which he must answer **no once and yes twice, and twice no and one** time **yes.** If he nevertheless answers each question correctly there is no concern that his movements were involuntary.


###### Gittin 70b:19
[Gittin 70b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:19)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: אוֹמְרִים לוֹ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְשֶׁל יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** The court **says to him** questions concerning **matters of the summer in the rainy season, and** concerning matters **of the rainy season in the summer,** in order to check if he is answering coherently.


###### Gittin 70b:20
[Gittin 70b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/70b:20)

מַאי נִיהוּ? אִילֵּימָא גְּלוּפְקְרֵי וּסְדִינֵי – לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא קוֹרָא אַחְדֵּיהּ, אִי נָמֵי חַמָּה אַחְדֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are these** matters that the court asks him? **If we say** that the court asks him if he wants a warm **coat** in the summer or a thin **sheet** in the rainy season, and he answers that he does, this cannot serve as proof of his intellectual capabilities, as the following is possible: **Let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps he has the chills** even though it is the summer and needs a warm coat. **Alternatively,** that **the heat afflicted him** during the rainy season and he requires a thin sheet, in which case his response does not demonstrate a lack of comprehension.