, and he defiles himself for her [corpse];1 in a word, she is his wife in all respects, save that she does not require from him a second Get.2 This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says that if she has intercourse [with another man], judgment on it must be suspended.3 R. Jose says that its character is doubtful,4 while the Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced, provided only that he dies. How would the difference between R. Meir and R. Jose work out in practice? — R. Johanan says: In respect of a guilt-offering brought out of doubt;5 according to R. Meir the man does not bring a guilt-offering out of doubt,6 according to R. Jose he does. 'The Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced': the Sages say the same thing as R. Jose, do they not? — A practical difference arises in the application of the rule laid down by R. Zera; for R. Zera said in the name of Rabba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel: Wherever the Sages have said that a woman 'is divorced and not divorced', the husband is under obligation to maintain her.
MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, SHE IS DIVORCED THEREBY AND SHE HAS TO GIVE [HIM THE MONEY]. [IF HE SAYS], ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE [IT] ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW, IF SHE GIVES HIM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON THAT A MAN SAID TO HIS WIFE, THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME [BACK] MY ROBE, AND HIS ROBE WAS LOST, AND THE SAGES SAID THAT SHE SHOULD GIVE HIM ITS VALUE IN MONEY.
GEMARA. What precisely is meant by the words 'AND SHE HAS TO GIVE HIM'? — R. Huna says it means, 'and she shall [thereafter] give him'; Rab Judah says it means, 'when she gives him'. What difference does it make in practice which view we adopt? — It makes a difference if the Get is torn or lost [before the money is given]. According to R. Huna who said it means that she is [thereafter] to give, she does not require from him a second Get,7 according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when she gives', she requires from him a second Get.8 In connection with betrothals also we have an analogous statement, as we have learnt: 'If a man says to a woman, Behold thou art betrothed to me on condition that I give thee two hundred zuz, she is betrothed to him and he is to give her the money,9 'and in the discussion thereon it was said, What is meant by 'he is to give', and R. Huna said, It means, he shall [thereafter] give, while Rab Judah said, It means, When he gives. What practical difference does it make which view we adopt? — A difference arises if she puts forth her hand and receives betrothal money from another. According to R. Huna who said that it means, 'he shall [thereafter] give', the giving is a mere condition, and he has only to fulfil his condition,10 whereas according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when he gives', the betrothal takes effect only when he gives, but at the time it is no betrothal. And both cases required to be stated. For if the rule had been stated only in regard to betrothal, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said that it means 'and he is to give', because his intention is to bring her nearer [to himself],11 but in the case of divorce where his intention is to put her away [from himself]12 I might have thought that he accepts the view of Rab Judah. If again it had been stated in regard only to divorce, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said it means 'he shall [thereafter] give' because he would not be shy to ask her,13 but in the case of betrothal where she might be diffident to ask him, I might have thought that he would accept the view of Rab Judah. Again, if the rule had been stated in connection only with betrothal, I might have thought that Rab Judah said that in that case It means 'when she gives' because she is diffident to ask him, but in the case of divorce where he would not be shy to ask her I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. And if the rule had been stated only in connection with divorce, I might have thought that in that case Rab Judah says it means 'when she gives', because his intention is to put her away [from him], but in the case of betrothal where his intention is to bring her nearer [to him] I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. Therefore [both statements] were necessary.
An objection was raised [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, even though the Get is torn or lost she is divorced, though she cannot marry any other man until she gives him the money.14 Further it has been taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz and he dies, if she has already given [before he dies] she is not in any way tied to the brother-in-law, but if she has not yet given she is tied to the brother-in-law. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel Says, She can give the money to his father or his brother or to one of the relatives.15 Now the two authorities here differ only to this extent, that one holds that '[give] me' means 'to me but not to my heirs', and the other holds that it means 'to me or even to my heirs', but both hold that it is a mere condition. This would seem to be a refutation of Rab Judah! — Rab Judah, however, may answer: Who is the authority for this view? It is Rabbi, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now';16 but the Rabbis join issue with him, and I follow the Rabbis.
R. Zera said: When we were in Babylon, we used to state that [the ruling] which R. Huna said in the name of Rabbi, that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now', is disputed by the Rabbis. When I went up [to Eretz Yisrael], I found R. Assi sitting and saying in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'; a difference of opinion arose only with regard to the formula 'from to-day and after [my] death',
, as it has been taught: '[If he says] From to-day and after [my] death, it is a Get and no Get. This is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi says, One like this is a Get'.1 Now if Rab Judah is right in saying that they differ [as to the effect of] 'on condition', instead of joining issue [in the Baraitha] on the question of 'from now and after my death', let them join issue on 'on condition'? — This is to show you how far Rabbi is prepared to go.2 But let them differ about 'on condition' to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go?3 — The Tanna [of the Baraitha] preferred to make the stronger instance one of permission.
ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that he is really not particular and that he only wants to urge her on.4 We are told therefore that this is not so.
RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. Of what statement is this given as an illustration?5 — There is a lacuna, and we should read thus: If he said to her, On condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, we rule that he meant his particular robe and nothing else. Rabban Gamaliel says that she can give him the money value; and [in confirmation] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel further said that a case happened in Sidon where a man said to his wife, This is your Get on condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him the money value of it.
R. Assi inquired of R. Johanan: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and he then changed his mind and said, You can keep the money,6 what is the law? This is equally a problem whether we adopt the view of the Rabbis or whether we adopt that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. From the standpoint of the Rabbis it is a problem, because [we may hold that] the Rabbis only ruled as they did in the other case [of the robe] because he did not forgo his claim, but here we see that he tells her that she can keep the money. Or we may also hold that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled as he did only because she made it good for him with a money payment, but where she pays him nothing at all he would not say [that she is divorced]? — He replied: She is not divorced. He [R. Assi] therefore raised [the following] objection: If a man says to another Konam7 be whatever benefit you have of me unless you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, R. Meir says he is forbidden [to have any benefit of him] until he gives, but the Sages say that such a man also may release himself from his own Vow without consulting a wise man by saying to himself, I regard myself as having received them [on his behalf]?8 — Are these two cases parallel? In that case his intention is to give her trouble and he has not done so, but in this case he was trying to obtain some positive advantage and found he could do without it.
A certain man said to his metayer, The general rule is that [a metayer] irrigates [the land] three times [a year] and takes a fourth of the produce [as his share]. [I want] you to irrigate four times and take a third. Before [he had finished irrigating] the rain came. R. Joseph said, He has not actually irrigated [the fourth time].9 Rabbah said, There was no need [for a fourth irrigation].10 May we say that R. Joseph adopted the point of view of the Rabbis11 and Rabbah that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — Can you really maintain this, seeing that it is a fixed rule with us that the law follows Rabbah,12 and in this matter the halachah does not follow Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel?13 — No. There can be no question that the law is as determined by the Rabbis.14 R. Joseph follows the Rabbis without question, while Rabbah can say to you, My view can be justified even from the standpoint of the Rabbis. For the reason why the Rabbis ruled as they did in that case was only because his intention was to give her trouble,15 but here he was after some advantage and he found that he could do without it.
We have learnt in another place: At first a man [who had bought a house from another in a walled city] used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve-month period, so that [the house] should become his for ever.16 Hillel the Elder, therefore, ordained that he [the owner] should throw his money into a certain chamber and that [having done so] he should be at liberty to break the door open and enter, and the other whenever he liked should come and take his money.17 Raba remarked upon this: From this regulation of Hillel we may learn that if a man said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and she gave it to him, if he accepted the money willingly she is divorced, but if she had to force it on him she is not divorced. For since Hillel found it necessary to ordain in this instance that a gift forced on the donee should be accounted a gift,
- To Next Folio -