Gittin

and the Get extends from the four cubit space nearer to him into the four cubit space nearer to her.  But then it is still [partly] attached to him?  — Therefore Rabbah and R. Joseph [gave a different reply], both saying that we are dealing here with a case where there are two groups of witnesses, one of which says that it was nearer to her and the other that it was nearer to him. R. Johanan said: The words of our text are NEARER TO HER [which can include] even a hundred cubits away, and NEARER TO HIM, [which can include] even a hundred cubits away. How are we to understand MIDWAY? — R. Shaman b. Abba said: It was explained to me by R. Johanan that where he is able to look after it  but she is not able to look after it, this is NEARER TO HIM. Where she is able to look after it, but he is not, this is NEARER TO HER. If both of them are able to look after it, or neither of them is able [separately]  to look after it, this is MIDWAY. The Rabbis repeated this explanation before R. Johanan as having been given by R. Jonathan.  He thereupon remarked: Do our colleagues in Babylon also know how to give this explanation? It has been taught to the same effect: 'R. Eliezer says: Even though it is nearer to her than to him and a dog came and ran off with it, she is not divorced.' She is not divorced, you say? How long is she to go on keeping it?  No; what he means to say is this: If it is nearer to her than to him, yet so placed that if a dog came and tried to make off with it he could save it but she could not, she is not divorced. Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,  it must be so near that she can stoop down and pick it up, but do you not actually [declare it valid] until it comes into her hand.  R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: There was an actual case of this kind,  and she was compelled to give halizah. SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: This rule  was made with reference to bills of divorce and not to anything else. R. Abba thereupon pointed out to R. Assi the statement, SO TOO IN REGARD TO BETROTHALS. [He replied]: There is a special reason for that, because it is written, she may go forth and be [another man's wife].  He raised an objection: SIMILARLY WITH A DEBT. IF THE LENDER SAYS [TO THE BORROWER], THROW ME MY DEBT, AND HE THROWS IT, IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE LENDER IT BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE LENDER; IF IT LANDS NEARER TO THE BORROWER, HE STILL OWES THE MONEY; IF IT LANDS MIDWAY, THEY DIVIDE? — The case we are dealing with here is when he says, Throw me what you owe me and be quit. If that is all [he rejoined], what need was there to state it? — It is necessary [to state it] when he says, Throw me my debt in the same way as a Get. Still, what need is there to state even this? — You might think that he can say to him, I was only making fun of you; therefore we are told [that this is no plea]. R. Hisda said: If the Get is in her hand and the string  in his hand, and he is able to pull it with a jerk to himself, she is not divorced, but if not, she is divorced. What is the reason? We require a 'cutting off', and this is not realised.  Rab Judah said: If she held her hand sloping  and he threw it to her, even if the Get reached her hand she is not divorced. Why so? When it falls to the ground it falls within four cubits of her? — We assume that it does not come to rest there. But should she not be divorced by dint of its having come into the air of the four cubits? [And since this is not so] may we decide from this the question raised by R. Eleazar, whether the four cubits spoken of include the air above them or not? May we decide that they do not include the air? — [No;] we suppose here that she is standing on the brink of a river, so that from the outset it is liable to be lost [if it falls from her hand].