Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 76a

This creates no difficulty for Raba, who may say that the previous clause¹  speaks of the case where he does not mention any time limit and this where he does.²  But on R. Ashi's view, why should the ruling be different in the first case from that in the second?³  — This is indeed a difficulty.

Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, or on condition that you suckle my child for two years, even though the condition is not fulfilled, the Get is valid because he did not say to her, [first] 'if you look after' [and then] 'if you do not look after', 'if you suckle' and 'if you do not suckle'.⁴  This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that if the condition is fulfilled it is a Get and if not it is no Get. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated.⁵  According to one explanation, he addressed this remark to R. Meir, and according to another he addressed it to the Sages. According to one view he addressed his remark to R. Meir, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated. Hence in this connection we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, and wherever we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, we do not base a rule upon them.⁶  According to another explanation he addressed his remark to the Rabbis, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scripture which is not duplicated and we base our rules upon them.

A contradiction was raised [from the following]: [If a man said], This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, on condition that you suckle my child for two years, then if the father or the child dies the Get is not valid. This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that although the condition has not been fulfilled the Get is valid, since she can say to him, Produce your father and I will wait on him, produce your child and I will suckle it. Now, R. Meir would seem to be in contradiction with himself, and the Rabbis would also seem to be in contradiction with themselves? — Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: the former [speaks of] where [the man] did not double his condition, the latter of where he did double it. Between the two statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction; for by the 'Sages' here mentioned we understand Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said that wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side the Get is valid.

Our Rabbis taught: If a man said to his wife in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get⁷  on condition that you look after my father for two years, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, the second statement does not nullify the first,⁸  and she has the option of either waiting on the father or giving the husband the two hundred zuz. If, however, he said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me three hundred zuz, the second statement nullifies the first, nor can one of the first two witnesses and one of the second combine to form a pair.⁹  To which ruling [does this last statement belong]? It cannot be the second one, because [the first condition there] is nullified?¹⁰  Rather it is the first one. But in this case it is self-evident?¹¹  — You might think that all [the witnesses who can help] to establish that there was a condition can be joined together. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS¹²  AND THEN TURNED BACK, HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN.¹³  [IF HE SAYS,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM GALILEE TO JUDEA, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS KEFAR 'UTHNAI¹⁴  AND THEN TURNED BACK, THE CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING INTO FOREIGN PARTS, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO [ACRE] AND TURNED BACK HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL HAVE KEPT AWAY FROM YOUR PRESENCE THIRTY DAYS, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME AND WENT CONSTANTLY, SO LONG AS HE WAS NOT CLOSETED WITH HER, THE GET IS VALID.

GEMARA. [IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS,] This would seem to imply that Antipras is in Galilee,¹⁵  which [apparently] contradicts the following: 'Antipras is in Judea and Kefar 'Uthnai in Galilee. The space between the two is subject to the disabilities of both¹⁶  so that [if he gets there and returns] she is divorced

1. 'If the child dies … the Get is valid'.
2. [For the fact of his mentioning a time limit shows that he is particular about the child being suckled for two years. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf.]
3. I.e., in the first case also, if the child dies before she has suckled it one day, why should not the Get be void?
4. I.e., he did not state the condition both affirmatively and negatively, after the model of the condition of the sons of Gad and Reuben.
5. E.g., Gen. XXIV, 3ff.; Num. XIX, V, 19ff.; Is., I, 19, 20.
6. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 458, n. 9.
7. I.e., showing it to her without giving it to her.
8. Because the condition is of an entirely different nature.
9. To testify that there was a certain condition attached to the Get though not inserted in writing.
10. And even if the two witnesses to that condition came together, their evidence would be of no effect.
11. Because they cannot both testify to the same thing.
12. Antipatris, on the borders of Judea and Galilee.
13. This is explained infra, in the Gemara.
14. On the borders of Galilee and Judea, v. supra p. 34, n. 4.
15. The Gemara understands the Mishnah thus: If he actually went to Galilee but did not stay there thirty days, the Get is void, as his condition has not been fulfilled. If, however, he returns before reaching Galilee, he has not broken his condition, and is still able to fulfil it by going to Galilee and remaining there thirty days. Hence, since by going to Antipras and returning at once he makes the Get void, Antipras must be in Galilee, and similarly Kefar 'Uthnai must be in Judea.
16. That is to say, we reckon the condition as both broken and not broken, to the wife's disadvantage.

and not divorced?¹  — Abaye replied: [We suppose that] he makes two conditions with her, thus: If I reach Galilee, this will be a Get at once, and also if I remain on the road thirty days and do not return it will be a Get. If then he reached Antipras and came back, so that he did not get to Galilee nor did he remain on the road thirty days, his condition has been broken.

HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [AND HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO]. This would imply that Acco is in foreign parts.²  But how can this be, seeing that R. Safra has said: When the Rabbis took leave of one another,³  they did so in Acco, because it is forbidden for those who live in Eretz Yisrael to go out of it? — Abaye replied: He made two conditions with her, thus: If I reach foreign parts, this will be a Get at once, and if I remain on the road and do not return within thirty days it will be a Get. If he got as far as Acco and returned, so that he neither reached foreign parts nor remained on the road thirty days, his condition is broken.

HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL KEEP AWAY etc. But he does not keep away?⁴  — R. Huna replied: What is meant by 'PRESENCE here? Marital intercourse. And why is it called PRESENCE'? A polite expression is used. R. Johanan, however, said: The word 'PRESENCE is to be taken literally. For it does not say that [if he comes and goes] she is divorced, but 'THE GET IS VALID', that is to Say, it does not become an 'old' Get⁵  and when thirty days have passed [without his seeing her] it is a valid Get. It has been taught in accordance with R. Johanan: '[If he says,] Here is your Get so soon as I shall keep away from your presence thirty days, even though he was constantly coming and going, so long as he was not closeted with her the Get is valid, and we have no fear of its being an 'old' Get, since he was not closeted with her.' But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her?⁶  — Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher, in the name of Rab: This rule applies where he gives an undertaking⁷  that he will accept her word if she says he did not come [to her]. Some attach this statement to the Mishnah,⁸  thus: [If a man says, this is your Get] from now if I do not return within twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, the Get is valid. But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her? Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher in the name of Rab: The rule applies where he gives an undertaking that he will accept her word if she says that he did not come to her. Those who attach this statement to the Mishnah would without question attach it to the Baraitha⁹  also. But those who attach it to the Baraitha might hesitate to attach it to the Mishnah, because [as far as we know] he has not come to see her.¹⁰

MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS NO GET.¹¹  [IF HE SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET FROM NOW IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS A GET. [IF HE SAYS,] IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, AND THEY WROTE A GET BEFORE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. [IF HE SAID,] WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND THEY WROTE IT BEFORE THE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A GET LIKE THAT IS VALID.¹²  IF THEY WROTE IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND DELIVERED IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND HE DIED, IF THE DELIVERY OF THE GET PRECEDED HIS DEATH THE GET IS VALID, BUT IF HIS DEATH PRECEDED THE DELIVERY OF THE GET IT IS NOT VALID. IF IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH WAS FIRST, THE WOMAN IS IN THE CONDITION KNOWN AS 'DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED'.¹³

GEMARA. A Tanna taught: 'Our Rabbis allowed her to marry'.¹⁴  Who are meant by 'our Rabbis'? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The Beth din which permitted the oil [of heathens].¹⁵  They concurred with R. Jose, who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.¹⁶

R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Judah the Prince, the son of Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi, gave this ruling, but none of his colleagues [saya'to] agreed with him, or, as others report, [his ruling did not find acceptance] during the whole of his life [sha'ato].

R. Eleazar asked a certain elder [who had been present there]: When you permitted her to marry, did you permit her to do so at once,¹⁷  or after twelve months?¹⁸  Did you permit it at once, since there is no chance of his coming again, or did you permit it only after twelve months, when his condition would be fulfilled? — But should not this question be attached to the Mishnah: [IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET] FROM NOW IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, THIS IS A GET: would it be a Get at once, seeing that he will not come again, or only after twelve months when his condition will have been fulfilled? — Indeed it might have been, but it was put in this way because he [the old man] asked had been present on that occasion.¹⁹

Abaye said: All are agreed that if he Says, 'When the sun issues from its sheath'

1. The condition not having been broken, the Get is valid to the extent that she may not eat terumah. The condition having been broken, the Get is invalid and she cannot marry again on the strength of it.
2. V. supra 7b.
3. I.e., those who came from abroad to study were escorted by those of Palestine as far as Acre.
4. Since it says, IF HE CAME AND WENT etc.
5. A Get is called 'old' if after it was written the husband and wife were closeted together. Such a Get is invalid. V. infra 79b.
6. And so after divorcing her he may bring a charge that he was closeted with her in this period.
7. At the time of making the condition.
8. Infra.
9. For since we see him coming and going, the undertaking is all the more necessary.
10. And therefore perhaps the undertaking is not necessary.
11. And the levirate law still applies to her if the husband dies without issue.
12. The reason is given in the Gemara.
13. v. supra.
14. Even though he did not say 'from now', since it is understood that he meant this.
15. V. supra 72b.
16. V. supra 72a.
17. As soon as the death of the husband was announced.
18. I.e., had she to wait twelve months to he free from the levirate obligation.
19. [When the vote was taken to grant her permission to remarry; v. A.Z. 37a.]