## Gittin Daf 77b

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

אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּתַקָּנַת חֲכָמִים כְּגוֹן זוֹ – שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I do not want** to avail myself of **the ordinance of the Sages** that was instituted on my behalf, **such as** in **this** scenario, **we listen to him.**


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

מַאי ״כְּגוֹן זוֹ״? כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: יְכוֹלָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְבַעְלָהּ: ״אֵינִי נִיזּוֹנֶית וְאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is referred to by the words: **Such as** in **this** scenario? What case did Rava refer to that he indicated that in similar situations the *halakha* is the same? The Gemara explains that Rava was referring to **that which Rav Huna** says that **Rav says. As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: A woman can say to her husband: I do not** wish to **be sustained** by you, **and I will not do** work for you. Although the Sages instituted on her behalf that she would be sustained in exchange for her work, she has the choice of waiving that right if she prefers to retain her earnings. Rava adds that in any similar case where the Sages instituted an ordinance for one’s benefit, he can say that he does not wish to accept this rabbinic ordinance if it does not assist him.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: אַטּוּ יָדָהּ מִי לָא קַנְיָא לֵיהּ לְבַעַל?! אֶלָּא גִּיטָּהּ וְיָדָהּ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד; הָכָא נָמֵי – גִּיטָּהּ וַחֲצֵרָהּ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that one can resolve the question about the wife’s ability to acquire a bill of divorce in a courtyard in a more direct way: **Is that to say** that **her hand is not acquired by her husband?** Yet despite the fact that he owns her hand, she is divorced once she receives a bill of divorce in her hand. **Rather,** one must say that **her bill of divorce and her hand,** i.e., her complete ownership over her hand, **enter** her possession **simultaneously.** Since the bill of divorce releases her from her obligations to her husband, at that moment she acquires full rights to her hand. **Here too,** in the case of her courtyard, one can say that **her bill of divorce and her courtyard enter** her possession **simultaneously,** as her husband’s rights to her property are terminated at the time of divorce.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רָבָא – יָד דְּאִשָּׁה קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ?! נְהִי דְּקָנֵי לַהּ לְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, יָדָהּ גּוּפַהּ מִי קַנְיָ[א] לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Was** it **difficult for Rava** to understand the *halakha* that one can effect divorce by placing a bill of divorce in **the hand of a woman?** Why is this difficult? **Though** the rights **to her earnings belong to** the husband, **does her hand itself belong to him?** Therefore, since a woman owns her hand, she is divorced once she receives the bill of divorce in her hand; and it is not necessary to apply the principle that the bill of divorce and her hand enter her possession simultaneously. Therefore, there is no proof that the bill of divorce and her courtyard enter her possession simultaneously.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רָבָא – יַד הָעֶבֶד קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בִּשְׁטָר – עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, יַד עֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ דָּמְיָא! אֶלָּא גִּטּוֹ וְיָדוֹ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד; הָכִי נָמֵי – גִּיטָּהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him:** It was **difficult for Rava** to understand the *halakha* that one can effect emancipation by placing a bill of manumission in **the hand of a slave,** as follows: **According to the one who says** that a slave can be emancipated **with a bill** of manumission **by** receiving the bill **himself,** one can ask: How is this effective? Isn’t **the hand of a slave like the hand of his master,** as the master owns the slave’s body? Therefore, when the master gives the bill of manumission to his slave, it is as though he gave it to himself, and the bill is never considered as having reached the slave’s domain. How can the slave be emancipated in this manner? **Rather,** one must say that **his bill** of manumission **and his hand enter** his possession **simultaneously. So too,** with regard to a woman’s courtyard, one can explain that **her bill of divorce and her courtyard enter** her possession **simultaneously.**


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

הַהוּא שְׁכִיב מְרַע דִּכְתַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי פַּנְיָא דְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְמִיתְּבֵיהּ לַהּ. לִמְחַר, תְּקַף לֵיהּ עָלְמָא. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לֵיהּ, לַיקְנְיֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ לְהָהוּא דּוּכְתָּא דְּיָתֵיב בֵּיהּ גִּיטָּא, וְתֵיזִיל אִיהִי וְתֵיחוֹד וְתִפְתַּח וְתַחְזֵיק בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that there was **a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a bill of divorce for his wife toward the evening of the coming of the Shabbat, but he did not manage to give it to her. The next day his condition intensified** and he was unable to give her the bill of divorce. People **came before Rava** to ask what they should do. **He said to them: Go tell him to transfer to her** ownership **of that place where the bill of divorce is resting, and she should go and close** the door **and open** it **and assert ownership over it,** thereby acquiring the place together with the bill of divorce that is in it.


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

דִּתְנַן: נָעַל, גָּדַר, פָּרַץ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Batra* 42a): If **one locked, fenced** in, or **breached any amount, this is** a valid act of **taking possession** through which land is acquired.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עִילִישׁ לְרָבָא: מָה שֶׁקָּנְתָה אִשָּׁה קָנָה בַּעְלָהּ! אִיכְּסִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ilish said to Rava:** How will it help for her to acquire the place, since **that which a woman acquired** is **acquired** by **her husband?** Rava **was embarrassed** that he issued an incorrect ruling.


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

לְסוֹף אִיגַּלַּי מִילְּתָא דַּאֲרוּסָה הֲוַאי. אָמַר רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה, יֹאמְרוּ בַּאֲרוּסָה?! הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָא שְׁנָא אֲרוּסָה וְלָא שְׁנָא נְשׂוּאָה – גִּיטָּהּ וַחֲצֵירָהּ בָּאִין כְּאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ultimately, it was revealed that she was a betrothed woman. Rava said:** I ruled correctly, as even **if they said with regard to a married woman** that everything she acquires belongs to her husband, would **they say** the same **with regard to a betrothed woman?** A betrothed woman’s hand is not considered to be like the hand of her husband. **Rava then said:** There **is no difference** if she is **a betrothed woman, and there is no difference** if she is **a married woman,** as **her bill of divorce and her courtyard enter** her possession **simultaneously.**


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

וְהָא אַמְרַהּ רָבָא מֵעִיקָּרָא! כִּי אַמְרַהּ רָבָא – אַהַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אַמְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** didn’t **Rava** already **say this** *halakha*, that her bill of divorce and her courtyard enter her possession simultaneously, **at the outset?** The Gemara answers: **When Rava said this** *halakha*, **he said it in connection with this** very **incident.**


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

וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ. אָמַר עוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֶדֶת בְּצַד בֵּיתָהּ וּבְצַד חֲצֵרָהּ. רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הִיא בִּטְבֶרְיָא וַחֲצֵרָהּ בְּצִיפּוֹרִי; הִיא בְּצִיפּוֹרִי וַחֲצֵרָהּ בִּטְבֶרְיָא – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that if a husband throws his wife a bill of divorce **and she is in her house,** then she is divorced. **Ulla says: This is** only if **she is standing next to her house and next to her courtyard,** as only then will her house and courtyard acquire it for her. **Rabbi Oshaya says: Even** if **she** is **in Tiberius and her courtyard** is **in Tzippori,** or if **she** is **in Tzippori and her courtyard** is **in Tiberius, she is divorced.**


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

וְהָא ״הִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּבְתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וְהִיא כְּמִי שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ״; ״וְהִיא כְּמִי שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ״ – דְּכֵיוָן דְּחָצֵר מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְדַעְתָּהּ הִיא, מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **But isn’t** it **taught** in the mishna that **she is in her house and in her courtyard?** The Gemara answers: **This is what** the mishna **is saying: And she is** considered to be **like one who is in her house; and she is** considered to be **like one who is in her courtyard.** This means that **since it is a courtyard that is secured with her knowledge,** it is as though she is there, and **she is divorced.**


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

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: חָצֵר מִשּׁוּם יָדָהּ אִתְרַבַּאי; וּמָר סָבַר: חָצֵר מִשּׁוּם שְׁלִיחוּת אִתְרַבַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this** issue: One **Sage,** Ulla, **holds** that a **courtyard is included** in the areas where she can obtain ownership of a bill of divorce **as** an extension of **her hand.** Consequently, it has the same *halakhot* as her hand, so that just as her hand is close to her, so too, her courtyard must be close to her in order for her to acquire the bill of divorce through it. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Oshaya, **holds** that a **courtyard is included** in the areas where she can obtain ownership of a bill of divorce **as** an extension of **agency,** and therefore, like an agent, her courtyard can acquire the bill of divorce for her when she is far away.


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

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – חָצֵר מִשּׁוּם יָדָהּ אִיתְרְבַּאי; מָר סָבַר: כְּיָדָהּ – מָה יָדָהּ בִּסְמוּכָה, אַף חֲצֵרָהּ בִּסְמוּכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, everyone** agrees that a **courtyard is included** in the areas where she can obtain ownership of a bill of divorce **as** an extension of **her hand.** They disagree about how it is compared to her hand. One **Sage,** Ulla, **holds** that it is entirely **like her hand. Just as her** actual **hand is next to** her, **so too, her courtyard,** which is an extension of her hand, acquires the bill of divorce **when** it is **next to** her.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – אִי, מָה יָדָהּ בִּדְבוּקָה, אַף חֲצֵרָהּ בִּדְבוּקָה?! אֶלָּא כְּיָדָהּ – מָה יָדָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְדַעְתָּהּ, אַף חֲצֵרָהּ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת לְדַעְתָּהּ; לְאַפּוֹקֵי חֲצֵרָהּ הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, holds that **if** you derive matters in this way, you should say that **just as her** actual **hand is attached** to her, **so too, her courtyard** can acquire a bill of divorce only **when** it is **attached** to her, which cannot be. **Rather,** the comparison is as follows: Her courtyard is **like her** actual **hand,** and **just as her hand is secured with her knowledge, so too,** only **her courtyard that is consciously secured by her** can acquire a bill of divorce for her. This serves **to exclude her courtyard that is not consciously secured by her,** i.e., that she has no control over, which cannot acquire a bill of divorce for her, since it is not similar to her hand.


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

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּזְרַק לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ. הֲוָה קָיְימָא בְּחָצֵר. אֲזַל גִּיטָּא, נְפַל בְּפִיסְלָא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: חָזֵינַן, אִי הָוְיָא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פְּלַג לֵיהּ רְשׁוּתָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ; וְאִי לָא – חֲדָא רְשׁוּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that there was **a certain man who threw a bill of divorce to his wife** while **she was standing in a courtyard. The bill of divorce went** and **fell onto a board** of wood. **Rav Yosef said: We see** the precise circumstance: **If the** board encompassed an area of **four cubits by four cubits, it** thereby is considered to be **a separate domain of its own** and is not included in the courtyard within which she was standing, and she is consequently not divorced. **And if** the board was **not** that large, **it is** part of the courtyard and it is all **one domain,** and she is therefore divorced.


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

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּחָצֵר דִּידַהּ, כִּי הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? אֶלָּא בְּחָצֵר דִּידֵיהּ, כִּי לָא הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מַאי הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **With what are we dealing** here? **If we say** that the incident occurred **in her courtyard, if** the board **had** an area of **four cubits, what of it?** Since the board belongs to her as well, it should still be an effective divorce. **Rather,** say that the incident occurred **in his courtyard;** but then, even **if** the board did **not have** an area of **four cubits, what of it?** Since none of it belongs to her, why would it be an effective divorce?


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

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאוֹשְׁלַהּ מָקוֹם; דְּחַד מָקוֹם מוֹשְׁלִי אִינָשֵׁי, תְּרֵי מְקוֹמוֹת לָא מוֹשְׁלִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he lent her** the **place,** i.e., the courtyard, as a means to acquire the bill of divorce. And **since people lend one place,** but **people do not lend two places,** if the board is considered to be a separate domain then it was not included in the courtyard that was lent to her, and it would therefore not be an effective divorce.


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

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֹא גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And we said** that this is the *halakha* **only** in a case where the place onto which the bill of divorce fell **was not ten** handbreadths **higher** than the courtyard. **But** if the place onto which the bill of divorce fell was **ten** handbreadths **higher, even though** the board did **not have** an area of **four cubits,** it is still considered to be a separate domain.


###### Gittin 77b:20
[Gittin 77b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/77b:20)

וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we said** that this is the *halakha* **only** in a case where the place onto which the bill of divorce fell **does not have**