## Gittin Daf 78a

###### Gittin 78a:1
[Gittin 78a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:1)

שֵׁם לְוַוי, אֲבָל אִית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a modifier,** meaning that this board is not referred to by a unique name. **But** if **it has a modifier, even though it is not ten** handbreadths **higher** than the courtyard, **and even though** the board did **not have** an area of **four cubits,** it is still considered to be a separate domain, and it would therefore not be an effective divorce.


###### Gittin 78a:2
[Gittin 78a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:2)

אֲפִילּוּ הוּא עִמָּהּ בַּמִּטָּה כּוּ׳: אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמִטָּה שֶׁלּוֹ, אֲבָל בְּמִטָּה שֶׁלָּהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that if he throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in his house, she is not divorced, **even if** the bill of divorce **is with her in the bed,** i.e., he throws it onto the bed in which she is sitting or lying. **Rava says: They taught** this **only** in a case where he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her **in his bed. But** if he throws the bill of divorce to her and it is with her **in her bed,** then **she is divorced.**


###### Gittin 78a:3
[Gittin 78a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:3)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בְּמִטָּה שֶׁלּוֹ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, בְּמִטָּה שֶׁלָּהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer says:** If he throws the bill of divorce to her when she is **in his bed, she is not divorced;** if he throws it to her when she is **in her bed, she is divorced.**


###### Gittin 78a:4
[Gittin 78a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:4)

וּבְמִטָּה שֶׁלָּהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת? כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר הוּא; שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר – קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And if he throws the bill of divorce to her **in her bed, is she divorced?** But the bed **is** like **vessels of a buyer** that are **in the domain of the seller,** since the bed that belongs to her is in the house of the husband. Can **you conclude from** here that even if the **vessels of a buyer** are **in the domain of the seller, the buyer acquires** anything that is deposited into his vessels? This issue is disputed elsewhere. Some hold that when a vessel of the buyer is in the domain of the seller, the vessel cannot serve to acquire an item on behalf of the buyer.


###### Gittin 78a:5
[Gittin 78a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:5)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּגָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה. וְהָאִיכָּא מְקוֹם כַּרְעֵי! אַמְּקוֹם כַּרְעֵי לָא קָפְדִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this *halakha* in a case **where** the bed is **ten** handbreadths **high,** as then the bed is considered to be its own domain. The Gemara challenges this: **But there is the place** on which the **legs** of the bed are standing; the legs are standing in the husband’s domain. The Gemara answers: **People are not particular** about **the place of the legs** of the bed since it is so small. Therefore, since the bed is considered to be its own domain, it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband.


###### Gittin 78a:6
[Gittin 78a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:6)

לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קַלְתָּהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת: אַמַּאי? כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל לוֹקֵחַ בִּרְשׁוּת מוֹכֵר הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the mishna that if the husband threw the bill of divorce **into her lap, or into her basket,** then **she is divorced,** even if she is in her husband’s house at that time. The Gemara asks: **Why** is she divorced? **Is this** not like a case of **the vessels of a buyer** that are **in the domain of the seller,** with regard to which there is a dispute concerning whether the vessels can serve to acquire an item on the buyer’s behalf?


###### Gittin 78a:7
[Gittin 78a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:7)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה קַלְתָּהּ תְּלוּיָה בָּהּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה קַלְתָּהּ תְּלוּיָה בָּהּ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קְשׁוּרָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּלוּיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where her basket was hanging from her** body, and therefore it is not considered to be within the domain of the husband. **And so Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where her basket was hanging from her** body. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** If it was **tied** to her then that is enough, **even though it is not hanging** from her body.


###### Gittin 78a:8
[Gittin 78a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:8)

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה קַלְתָּהּ מוּנַּחַת לָהּ בֵּין יַרְכוֹתֶיהָ. רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בַּר רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בַּעְלָהּ מוֹכֵר קְלָתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where her basket was placed between her thighs** and is therefore in the place where she is sitting, and since her husband is not particular about the place in which she is sitting, it is considered her domain. **Rav Mesharshiyya bar Rav Dimi says:** The mishna is referring to a case **where her husband was a basket seller,** and therefore is not particular about the place where the basket is since his whole courtyard is full of baskets, and it is therefore considered to be her domain.


###### Gittin 78a:9
[Gittin 78a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מְקוֹם חֵיקָהּ קָנוּי לָהּ, מְקוֹם קַלְתָּהּ קָנוּי לָהּ. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מַקְפִּיד לֹא עַל מְקוֹם חֵיקָהּ וְלֹא עַל מְקוֹם קַלְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** There is no need for these explanations, since **the place of her lap belongs to her,** and **the place of her basket belongs to her. Rava said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s** statement? **Because a person is not particular, not about the place of** his wife’s **lap, nor about the place of her basket,** it is as though he transferred ownership of the place to her for her use.


###### Gittin 78a:10
[Gittin 78a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:10)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: זְרָקוֹ לָהּ לְתוֹךְ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קַלְתָּהּ, אוֹ לְתוֹךְ כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כְּקַלְתָּהּ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: If **he threw** the bill of divorce **to her into her lap, or into her basket, or into anything that is like her basket, then she is divorced.**


###### Gittin 78a:11
[Gittin 78a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:11)

״כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כְּקַלְתָּהּ״ – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי טַסְקָא דְּאָכְלָה בַּהּ תַּמְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the wording of the *baraita*: **What is included** by the expansive term: **Anything that is like her basket?** It serves **to include the basket [*taska*] from which she eats dates,** as he is not particular about its place as well.


###### Gittin 78a:12
[Gittin 78a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמַר לָהּ: ״כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה״, אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאַתּוּ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, קוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִּיטָּהּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַהּ: ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **he said to** his wife: **Take this promissory note,** and it was a bill of divorce, **or she found it behind him** and he did not tell her what it was but **she reads** what is written in **it and** discovers that **it is her bill of divorce, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 78a:13
[Gittin 78a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:13)

נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה; נֵיעוֹרָה, קוֹרְאָה, וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִּיטָּהּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he gave it** to her **in her hand and she** was **sleeping,** and he then **woke her, and** when **she reads** what is written in **it,** she finds that **it is her bill of divorce, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 78a:14
[Gittin 78a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** כִּי אָמַר לַהּ: ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״ מַאי הָוֵי? הָוֵה לֵיהּ ״טְלִי גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Apropos the mishna’s statement that if she found the bill of divorce behind him, it is not a valid bill of divorce until he says: This is your bill of divorce, the Gemara asks: And **when he says to her: This is your bill of divorce, what of it?** Why is it considered to be a valid bill of divorce if it was not given to her in the proper manner, being that **it is** as though he told her: **Take your bill of divorce from** where it is placed **on the ground?**


###### Gittin 78a:15
[Gittin 78a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:15)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: ״טְלִי גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם! אֵימָא: שֶׁשְּׁלָפַתּוּ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** that if one says to his wife: **Take your bill of divorce from** where it is placed **on the ground,** it is as though **he didn’t say anything** and it is not a valid bill of divorce, since a woman is divorced only when the bill of divorce is given to her by her husband. The Gemara answers: **Say that** the bill of divorce was not placed on the ground behind him, but rather **she pulled it out from behind him.** In other words, the bill of divorce was tucked into his belt and she pulled it out. Consequently, she received the bill of divorce from him.


###### Gittin 78a:16
[Gittin 78a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:16)

שְׁלָפַתּוּ נָמֵי, הָא בָּעֵינָא ״וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ״, וְלֵיכָּא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּעֲרַק לַהּ חַרְצֵיהּ, וּשְׁלַפְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: If **she pulled it out,** it is **also** not a valid bill of divorce, since it is **required** that the directive: **“And gives it in her hand”** (Deuteronomy 24:1), be fulfilled, **and** in this case **it is not** fulfilled, since he did not give it to her; rather, she took it. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he bent** [***da’arak***] **his waist** over toward her **and she pulled it out,** and by extending his waist to her, it is as though he gave the bill of divorce to her.


###### Gittin 78a:17
[Gittin 78a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:17)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָמַר לָהּ ״כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה״, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁלָפַתּוּ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, קְרָאַתּוּ וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִּיטָּהּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ, וְיֹאמַר לָהּ ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 8:1): If **he said to** his wife: **Take this promissory note, or** if **she pulled it out from behind him, read it, and** saw that **it is her bill of divorce; it is not** a valid **bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Actually, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 78a:18
[Gittin 78a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:18)

נְתָנוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה, נֵיעוֹרָה וְקוֹרְאָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא גִּיטָּהּ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ: ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ, וְיֹאמַר לָהּ ״הֵא גִּיטִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If **he gave it** to her **in her hand, and she** was **sleeping,** and he then **woke her, and** when **she reads** what is written in **it,** she finds that **it is her bill of divorce; it is not** a valid **bill of divorce until he says to her: This is your bill of divorce.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** It is not a valid bill of divorce **until he takes it from her and gives it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 78a:19
[Gittin 78a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:19)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי – מִשּׁוּם דְּבַת אִיגָּרוֹשֵׁי הִיא; אֲבָל נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה, דְּלָאו בַּת אִיגָּרוֹשֵׁי הִיא – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** it is **necessary** to mention this dispute in both cases. **As if** this dispute would have **been stated** only **with regard to** the cases in **the first clause,** one could assume that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **is saying** his opinion specifically **with regard to** the cases in **this** clause, **because she is subject to being divorced,** since she is awake and able to receive a bill of divorce, even though he did not tell her that this is a bill of divorce. **But** if **he gave it** to her **in her hand and she** was **sleeping, she is not subject to being divorced** since while she is sleeping she is a person who lacks the halakhic competence required to receive a bill of divorce. Therefore, one could **say** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar** that giving the bill of divorce while she was sleeping is totally not valid. It was therefore necessary to mention that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees in this case, as well.


###### Gittin 78a:20
[Gittin 78a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:20)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ – אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** this dispute would have **been stated** only **with regard to this** case, where she was sleeping, one could assume that specifically **with regard to this** case **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying** that he must give her the bill of divorce a second time. **But in the other** case, in which she was awake, one could **say** that **he concedes to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Therefore, it is **necessary** to mention this dispute in both cases.


###### Gittin 78a:21
[Gittin 78a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:21)

אָמַר רָבָא: כָּתַב לָהּ גֵּט, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדָּהּ יָשֵׁן, וּמְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. נֵיעוֹר – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, דְּהָוְיָא לַיהּ חָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** If **he wrote a bill of divorce for her, and he placed it in the hand of her slave** when **he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is** a valid **bill of divorce.** Within the context of the *halakhot* of divorce, a slave has the same status as land, in the sense that both belong to their owner. Therefore, when the husband places the bill of divorce in the slave’s hand, it is as though he placed it into her courtyard. If her slave **was awake, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce** because **he is** like **a courtyard that is not consciously secured by her.** Since he guards himself, he therefore does not acquire it on her behalf.


###### Gittin 78a:22
[Gittin 78a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:22)

יָשֵׁן וּמְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. אַמַּאי? חָצֵר מְהַלֶּכֶת הִיא, וְחָצֵר מְהַלֶּכֶת לֹא קָנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: If **he is sleeping and she is guarding him, it is** a valid **bill of divorce.** The Gemara asks: But **why;** isn’t it true that the slave **is** like **a mobile courtyard, and a mobile courtyard does not acquire** items on behalf of its owner?


###### Gittin 78a:23
[Gittin 78a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:23)

וְכִי תֵּימָא יָשֵׁן שָׁאנֵי, וְהָא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ מְהַלֵּךְ לֹא קָנָה, עוֹמֵד וְיוֹשֵׁב – לֹא קָנָה! וְהִלְכְתָא: בְּכָפוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that a case in which he is **sleeping is different** because he is currently not moving, **but didn’t Rava say:** In **any** case in which **if he would be moving** he would **not acquire** items, then even if he is **standing or sitting,** he also does **not acquire** items? The Gemara concludes: **And** this ***halakha*** that Rava said, indicating that it is a valid bill of divorce, applies only **where** the slave is **bound** and sleeping, since in that case placing the bill of divorce in his hand is like placing it in her hand.


###### Gittin 78a:24
[Gittin 78a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:24)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ; קָרוֹב לָהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. קָרוֹב לוֹ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the woman **was standing in the public domain** and her husband took the bill of divorce **and threw it to her,** if it fell **closer to her, she is divorced,** and if it fell **closer to him, she is not divorced.** If it is **equally balanced,** there is uncertainty as to whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced. And** the **same** *halakhot* apply **with regard to betrothal.**


###### Gittin 78a:25
[Gittin 78a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:25)

וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַחוֹב, אָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ: ״זְרוֹק לִי חוֹבִי״, וּזְרָקוֹ לוֹ; קָרוֹב לַמַּלְוֶה – זָכָה הַמַּלְוֶה. קָרוֹב לַלֹּוֶה – הַלֹּוֶה חַיָּיב. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה – שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחְלוֹקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the **same** *halakhot* apply **with regard to a debt.** If **his creditor said to him: Throw** the payment for **my debt to me, and he threw it to him** and the money fell **closer to the creditor,** the **creditor acquired** the payment. The debtor is absolved of his obligation to pay even if the money did not reach the creditor’s hand, e.g., it was stolen or lost after it was thrown and before the creditor was able to take it. If it fell **closer to the debtor** and the money was lost, **the debtor** is still **obligated** to pay. If it was **equally balanced** and was lost, **the two of them divide** it, i.e., the debtor owes half of the amount.


###### Gittin 78a:26
[Gittin 78a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:26)

**גְּמָ׳** הֵיכִי דָמֵי קָרוֹב לָהּ, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי קָרוֹב לוֹ? אָמַר רַב: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ – זֶהוּ קָרוֹב לָהּ, אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ – זֶהוּ קָרוֹב לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara clarifies that which was taught in the mishna: **What is considered closer to her, and what is considered closer to him? Rav says:** If it fell within **four cubits of her, this is** what was meant by the mishna’s statement: **Closer to her;** if it fell within **four cubits of him, this is** what was meant by: **Closer to him.**


###### Gittin 78a:27
[Gittin 78a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:27)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה? אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is considered midway? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Such as** when **the two of them were standing within** the same **four cubits.**


###### Gittin 78a:28
[Gittin 78a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:28)

וְלִיחְזֵי הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ קְדֵים! וְכִי תֵּימָא דַּאֲתוֹ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְהָא אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְצַמְצֵם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let us see which of them preceded** the other into these four cubits, and the four cubits would then be considered as belonging to that person. **And if you would say that both of them came simultaneously, but** isn’t there a principle that **it is impossible to be** so **precise?** It is not possible that both events occurred at exactly the same time, and it is certain that one of them arrived there before the other.


###### Gittin 78a:29
[Gittin 78a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/78a:29)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הָכָא בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת מְצוּמְצָמוֹת עָסְקִינַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Kahana said: Here we are dealing with** a case of **precisely eight cubits,** where his four cubits are adjacent to her four cubits,