## Gittin Daf 77a

###### Gittin 77a:1
[Gittin 77a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:1)

לְכִי נָפְקָא קָאָמַר לָהּ, וְכִי מָיֵית בְּלֵילְיָא – הָוֵי גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**he is saying to her** that it will be valid **once** the sun **comes out** in the morning. **And** if the husband **dies during the night,** before sunrise, then this **will be** a **bill of divorce after** his **death** and is therefore invalid.


###### Gittin 77a:2
[Gittin 77a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:2)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּצֵא חַמָּה מִנַּרְתִּיקָהּ״ – מֵעַכְשָׁיו קָאָמַר לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if he said to her: **On the condition that the sun will emerge from its sheath,** then **he is saying to** his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect retroactively **from now** once the sun emerges. **As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: Anyone who states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** is **like** one who **states:** The agreement will take effect retroactively **from now.**


###### Gittin 77a:3
[Gittin 77a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:3)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּ״אִם תֵּצֵא״ – מָר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי״, כְּ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם מַתִּי״; מָר לָא סָבַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּ״אִם מַתִּי״ גְּרֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna’im* **disagreed only in** the case of one who said to his wife: This will be your bill of divorce **if** the sun **emerges** from its sheath, and the husband died during the night. One **Sage,** referred to as: Our Rabbis, **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who says** that **the date** written **in a document proves** when **it** takes effect, **and it is as** if the husband said: **From today if I die,** or **as** if he said: **From now if I die.** And one **Sage,** the unattributed *tanna* of the mishna, **does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, and it is as** if the husband said **only: If I die,** in which case the bill of divorce is not valid because it cannot take effect after the husband’s death.


###### Gittin 77a:4
[Gittin 77a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:4)

״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״ – כָּתְבוּ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that if a husband says to others: **Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not come** back **from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months,** and **they wrote** it within the twelve months but gave it to her after twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: It is a valid bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 77a:5
[Gittin 77a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לֵימָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי כָּתַב גֵּט עַל תְּנַאי – כָּשֵׁר? לָא; לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ פָּסוּל, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא – מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר: ״אִם לֹא בָּאתִי כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ״; וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי״; הָכִי קָאָמַר: כִּתְבוּ מֵעַכְשָׁיו, וּתְנוּ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי. וְרַבָּנַן – לָא שְׁנָא הָכִי וְלָא שְׁנָא הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say** that **Rabbi Yosei holds** that in general, if **he wrote a bill of divorce on condition** then it is **valid,** even if the condition was not fulfilled? Rav Ashi replied: **No, actually I** could **say to you** that according to Rabbi Yosei it is **invalid** if the condition is not fulfilled, **and here it is different. Since he could have said: If I do not come** back within twelve months, **write and give** the bill of divorce to my wife, which would emphasize that they may write the document only if he does not come; **but** instead **he said: Write and give** a bill of divorce **if I do not come** back, **this is what** the husband **is saying: Write** the bill of divorce **from now, and give** it to my wife **if I do not come** back within twelve months. **And** what do **the Rabbis** hold? They hold that **it is no different** whether the husband formulates his instructions like **this and it is no different** if the husband formulates his instructions like **that.** The court cannot differentiate based on the minor differences in the formulation.


###### Gittin 77a:6
[Gittin 77a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְאַחַר שָׁבוּעַ״ – שָׁנָה; ״לְאַחַר שָׁנָה״ – חֹדֶשׁ; ״לְאַחַר חֹדֶשׁ״ – שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since the mishna discussed conditions dependent on time, the Gemara cites a *baraita* on a similar topic. **The Sages taught:** If the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back **after a seven-**year Sabbatical cycle, the word after means that the bill of divorce is not valid until a full **year** after the conclusion of the seven-year cycle. If he said: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back **after** one **year,** it is not valid until one **month** after the end of that year. If he said: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back **after** one **month,** it is not valid until one **week** after the end of the month.


###### Gittin 77a:7
[Gittin 77a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:7)

״לְאַחַר שַׁבָּת״, מַאי? יָתֵיב רַבִּי זֵירָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקָאָמַר: חַד בְּשַׁבָּא, וּתְרֵי, וּתְלָתָא – בָּתַר שַׁבְּתָא. אַרְבְּעָה, וְחַמְשָׁא וּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא – קַמֵּי שַׁבְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies other similar cases not mentioned in the *baraita*. If the husband said: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back **after a week,** then **what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Zeira sat before Rabbi Asi, and some say** that it was **Rabbi Asi** who sat **before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said** the following: **Sunday and Monday and Tuesday** are called **after Shabbat. Wednesday and Thursday and Friday** are all called **prior to Shabbat.**


###### Gittin 77a:8
[Gittin 77a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:8)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״לְאַחַר הָרֶגֶל״ – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. נְפַק רַבִּי חִיָּיא דַּרְשַׁהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי – וְקַלְּסוּהּ; מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּים – וְלָא קַלְּסוּהּ; אַלְמָא לֵית הִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** If a man says: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back **after the pilgrimage Festival,** then the document is valid only **thirty days** after the festival. **Rabbi Ḥiyya went out** and **taught** this *halakha* in public **in the name of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and they praised it.** He then taught it **in the name of the majority,** as an unattributed opinion, **and they did not praise it. Apparently, the *halakha* is not in accordance with** this ruling. Consequently, the Sages did not praise Rabbi Ḥiyya when he taught it as if it were a majority ruling, as that would cause it to be accepted as *halakha*.


###### Gittin 77a:9
[Gittin 77a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:9)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ**


###### Gittin 77a:10
[Gittin 77a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:10)

**הַזּוֹרֵק** גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. זְרָקוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ הוּא עִמָּהּ בַּמִּטָּה – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קַלְתָּהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who throws a bill of divorce to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard** at the time, then **she is divorced** as though he placed the bill of divorce in her hand. If **he threw it to her in his house or in his courtyard, even if** the bill of divorce **is with her in the bed, she is not divorced.** If he threw the bill of divorce **into her lap, or into her basket** [***kaltah***], **she is divorced,** even if she was in her husband’s house at the time.


###### Gittin 77a:11
[Gittin 77a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יָדָהּ; גַּגָּהּ, חֲצֵרָהּ וְקַרְפֵּיפָהּ – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From where are these matters** derived? What is the basis for the *halakha* that when the husband throws the bill of divorce into his wife’s house or courtyard, the divorce takes effect? The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught:** The verse states with regard to a bill of divorce: **“And gives it in her hand”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), from which **I have** derived that she is divorced **only** if he actually places it in **her hand.** But **from where** do I derive that she is divorced even if he places it on **her roof,** in **her courtyard, or** in **her enclosure? The verse states: “And gives it,”** indicating that she is divorced **in any case,** regardless of the manner in which he gives her the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 77a:12
[Gittin 77a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:12)

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי גַּבֵּי גַנָּב: ״יָדוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא יָדוֹ; גַּגּוֹ, חֲצֵרוֹ וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹ – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הִמָּצֵא תִמָּצֵא״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that is also taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to a thief.** It is written: “If the theft be found **in his hand”** (Exodus 22:3), from which **I have** derived that one is liable for theft **only** when the stolen item was found in **his hand.** But **from where** do I derive that one is liable for theft even if it was found on **his roof,** in **his courtyard, or** in **his enclosure,** i.e., if the item reached his domain and he secured it with the intent to steal it? **The verse states: “If** the theft **be found,”** indicating that he is liable **in any case,** whether it was found in his hand or in his domain.


###### Gittin 77a:13
[Gittin 77a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:13)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גֵּט – מִשּׁוּם דִּבְעַל כֻּרְחַהּ מִגָּרְשָׁה; אֲבָל גַּנָּב – דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּעַל כּוּרְחֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in both cases. **As if** the Torah **had taught us** only with regard to **a bill of divorce,** one could have said: **Because** a husband **divorces** his wife **against her will,** the divorce is effective regardless of how the husband places the document in her possession. **But a thief, who is not** accountable for theft that he performs **against his will, say no,** he is liable only when he actually steals the item with his hand, and not when it enters his domain by other means.


###### Gittin 77a:14
[Gittin 77a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:14)

וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גַּנָּב – מִשּׁוּם דְּקַנְסֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא; אֲבָל גֵּט – אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the Torah **had taught us** only with regard to **a thief,** one could have said: **Because the Merciful One penalized** the thief, obligating him to pay double the value of the item, it is clear that the Torah is strict with a thief. Similarly, the Torah also deemed him responsible for an item that was not actually in his hand. **But** with regard to a **bill of divorce, say no,** the divorce is not effective unless the husband places the document in her hand. Therefore, it is **necessary** to teach this *halakha* in both cases.


###### Gittin 77a:15
[Gittin 77a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:15)

חֲצֵרָהּ?! מָה שֶׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that if the husband threw the bill of divorce into his wife’s **courtyard,** she is divorced. The Gemara asks: How can she own a courtyard of her own? There is a principle: **That which a woman acquired** is **acquired** by **her husband,** which indicates that the husband has the rights to all profits generated by his wife’s property. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the courtyard belongs to him for the duration of their marriage.


###### Gittin 77a:16
[Gittin 77a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִּנְכָסַיִךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the husband **writes to** his wife: **I have no legal** dealings **or involvement in your property,** thereby relinquishing any ownership rights to her property.


###### Gittin 77a:17
[Gittin 77a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:17)

וְכִי כְּתַב לַהּ הָכִי – מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״; וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״; וְ״יָדִי מְסוּלֶּקֶת הֵימֶנָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And when he writes this to her, what of it? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **One who says to another** with whom he owns a field in a partnership: **I have no rights and claims to this field, or: I have no involvement with it, or: My hand is removed from it;** it is as though **he said nothing,** since these expressions are not considered to be a withdrawal of his rights to the field.


###### Gittin 77a:18
[Gittin 77a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:18)

אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּכוֹתֵב לָהּ – וְעוֹדָהּ אֲרוּסָה, וְכִדְרַב כָּהֲנָא – דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: נַחֲלָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אָדָם מַתְנֶה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁלֹּא יִרָשֶׁנָּה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **They say in the school of Rabbi Yannai:** The case is one **where he writes to her and she is still** only **betrothed;** he has yet to obtain ownership of her property, being that his rights to his wife’s property are only actuated at the time of the marriage. **And** this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana says:** With regard to **an inheritance that comes to a person from another place,** i.e., it is not an inheritance from his father, **a person can stipulate about it** from the outset **that he should not inherit it,** and this condition is effective in annulling his rights to the inheritance. This teaches that as long as the property has not yet entered his possession, he can withdraw his rights to it.


###### Gittin 77a:19
[Gittin 77a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77a:19)

וְכִדְרָבָא – דְּאָמַר רָבָא, הָאוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says: One who says:**