Gittin

: 'Below' means below the middle,  and 'above' means above the middle. In regard to cucumbers out of season a gloss was added: As they are bad out of season, so they are good in season. R. Papa said: 'In season' means Tammuz; 'out of season' means Tebeth; round about Nisan and Tishri they are neither good nor bad. IF HE SAYS, WRITE A GET FOR MY WIFE, AND IS THEN SEIZED WITH A KORDIAKOS AND THEN SAYS, DO NOT WRITE, HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: The Get may be written immediately;  R. Johanan, however, said that it is not to be written till he comes to himself again. What is the reason of Resh Lakish? — Because it is stated, HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. To this R. Johanan replies that the words HIS LAST WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT' mean that when he recovers the scribe need not consult him again, but all the same the Get is not written until he comes round. In what do they differ in principle? — Resh Lakish puts the man on a par with one who is asleep and R. Johanan with a madman. Why should not R. Johanan put him on the same footing as a sleeper? — A sleeper needs no treatment, this man does. Why does not Resh Lakish put him on the same footing as a madman? — For a madman we have no cure, for this man we have, namely red flesh broiled on the coals and wine much diluted. But can R. Johanan have said this, seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Samuel, If a man had two passages  or the greater part of two passages cut and he indicated by a gesture  that they should write a Get for his wife, the Get should be written and given,  and it has also been taught, 'If people saw him hacked or nailed to a cross and he indicated by a gesture, Write a Get for my wife, they should write and deliver it'? — Are the two cases comparable? In that case his mind was clear, and only physical weakness had set in,  but here his mind is clouded. But did Samuel really say this? Did not Rab Judah say in the name of Samuel: If he had two passages or the greater part of two passages cut and ran away, those who saw him can testify that he is dead.  Now if we presume that he is alive [after the passages have been cut],  why can they testify that he is dead? — We say that he is alive, but he is bound to die. But if that is the case, [the man who cut his throat] [accidentally] should be exiled [to a city of refuge] on account of him; why then has it been taught, 'If one cut [accidentally] two passages or the greater part of two passages of [the throat of] another, he is not exiled'? — It has been explained in regard to this that R. Oshaia said: We consider it possible that the wind troubled him or that he hastened his own death.  What difference does it make which reason we adopt? — There is a difference where he killed him in a marble room and he struggled,  or where he killed him outside and he did not struggle. IF HE IS STRUCK DUMB AND THEY SAY TO HIM, SHALL WE WRITE A GET FOR YOUR WIFE etc. But is there not a possibility that he was seized [just then] with an involuntary nodding of the head in a negative or a positive sense?  — R. Joseph b. Manyumi said, in the name of R. Nahman: [We suppose that] we question him at intervals. But perhaps the involuntary nodding seized him at the same intervals? — We suppose that we ask him two [questions requiring a] negative [answer] and one [requiring an] affirmative [answer], or two [requiring an] affirmative and one a negative [answer]. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: They talk to him about the requirements of the summer season in the rainy season and of the rainy season in the summer season. What is referred to here? Shall we say winter coat and summer coat? Perhaps just then he was seized with a shiver or a perspiration?