Gittin 76

בשלמא לרבא רישא בדלא פריש סיפא דפריש

Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, the first clause in the mishna is speaking about when the husband did not explicitly mention a period of time, and the latter clause is referring to when he did explicitly mention a period of two years.

אלא לרב אשי מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא קשיא

But according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who holds that when the husband does not mention a period of time the wife can fulfill her obligation by performing the action for even a single day, it is necessary to explain that the first clause in the mishna is referring to when she did fulfill the condition for even one day. And therefore, what is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? The Gemara states: According to Rav Ashi’s opinion this is difficult.

תנו רבנן הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים ועל מנת שתניקי את בני שתי שנים אף על פי שלא נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט לפי שלא אמר לה אם תשמשי אם לא תשמשי אם תניקי ואם לא תניקי דברי רבי מאיר

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or he said: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, even if the condition was not fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce because he did not say to her: If you will serve my father then this will be a valid bill of divorce, and if you will not serve him it will not be a valid bill of divorce, or: If you will nurse my son then this will be a valid bill of divorce, and if you will not nurse him it will not be a valid bill of divorce. And if he did not state his condition as a compound condition, stipulating both positive and negative outcomes, the condition is void and the bill of divorce is valid. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט ואם לאו אינו גט רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול

And the Rabbis say: The condition is valid even if it the husband does not stipulate both positive and negative outcomes. Consequently, if the condition was fulfilled this is a valid bill of divorce, and if it was not fulfilled this is not a valid bill of divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded.

איכא דאמרי לרבי מאיר קאמר ליה ואיכא דאמרי לרבנן קאמר להו איכא דאמרי לרבי מאיר קאמר ליה והכי קאמר ליה אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול והוו להו שני כתובים הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

To which side of the dispute is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement referring? There are those who say: He is speaking to Rabbi Meir. And there are those who say: He is speaking to the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: There are those who say that this means he is speaking to Rabbi Meir and this is what he is saying to him: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded, and therefore the compound conditions mentioned in the Torah have the status of two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach about other cases. Consequently, one cannot derive from them that every condition must be compounded.

איכא דאמרי לרבנן קאמר להו והכי קאמר להו אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול וגמרינן מינייהו

There are those who say: He is saying this to the Rabbis, and this is what he is saying to them: There is no condition in the Bible that is not compounded, and we learn from the conditions written in the Bible that a condition is not valid unless it is compounded.

ורמינהו הרי זה גיטיך על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים על מנת שתניקי את בני שתי שנים מת האב או מת הבן אינו גט דברי רבי מאיר

And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or he said to her: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, and the father died or the son died, then it is not a valid bill of divorce, as its condition was not fulfilled. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים אף על פי שלא נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט יכולה היא שתאמר לו תן לי אביך ואשמשנו תן לי בנך ואניקנו

And the Rabbis say: Even though the condition was not fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce, as she could have said to him: Give me your father and I will serve him, or: Give me your son and I will nurse him.

קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן

It is difficult to reconcile one statement of Rabbi Meir with the other statement made by Rabbi Meir, for the second baraita indicates that the husband’s condition does not need to be compounded. And it is difficult to reconcile one statement of the Rabbis with the other statement of the Rabbis, for in the second baraita they say that if the condition was fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce, and if it was not fulfilled it is not a valid bill of divorce.

דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר לא קשיא התם בדלא כפליה לתנאיה הכא בדכפליה לתנאיה

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult to reconcile one statement of Rabbi Meir with the other statement of Rabbi Meir, as there, in the case where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to when he did not compound his condition. Here, where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to when he did compound his condition, but the tanna of the baraita did not mention that fact explicitly.

ורבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא מאן חכמים דהכא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דאמר כל עכבה שאינה הימנה הרי זה גט

And it is not difficult to reconcile one statement of the Rabbis with the other statement of the Rabbis, because whose is the opinion mentioned here anonymously as the Rabbis? It is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says: If there is any hindrance to fulfilling the condition that is not from her, it is a valid bill of divorce.

תנו רבנן אמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים וחזר ואמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז לא ביטל דברי האחרון את הראשון רצתה משמשתו רצתה נותנת לו מאתים זוז

§ The Gemara continues discussing a conditional bill of divorce. The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:6): If a husband said to his wife in the presence of two people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, and afterward he returned and said to her in the presence of two other people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, the latter statement does not nullify the first statement. Rather, he is giving her the choice, and if she fulfills either one of the conditions, the bill of divorce is valid. If she wishes, she serves his father and is divorced, or if she wishes, she gives him two hundred dinars and is divorced.

אבל אמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז וחזר ואמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי שלש מאות זוז ביטל דברי האחרון את הראשון ואין אחד מן הראשונים ואחד מן האחרונים מצטרפין

But if he said to her in the presence of two people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and afterward he returned and said to her in the presence of two other people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me three hundred dinars, then the latter statement nullifies the first statement, and she is not divorced unless she gives him three hundred dinars. And one of the first pair of witnesses and one of the last pair of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies concerning the condition.

אהייא אילימא אסיפא הרי בטל אלא ארישא

The Gemara asks: To which clause of the baraita is the statement that the witnesses cannot combine their testimonies referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, where the husband demanded an additional one hundred dinars, then it already said that the first condition is nullified. It is unnecessary to mention that the two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since the condition witnessed by the first witnesses no longer exists. Rather, it is referring to the first clause.

פשיטא מהו דתימא כל לקיומא תנאי מצטרפין קא משמע לן

But isn’t it obvious that these two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since each of them are testifying about a different condition? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that all of those who testify to the existence of conditions can combine their testimonies to testify that a bill of divorce was given with a condition, it teaches us that this is not the case.

מתני׳ הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך מיהודה לגליל הגיע לאנטיפרס וחזר בטל תנאו

MISHNA: If a resident of the region of Judea intending to embark on a journey to the Galilee said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and when he was going from Judea to the Galilee he reached Antipatris and he returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to the Galilee for longer than thirty days. The reason for this is because he reached the Galilee and returned to Judea within the time he had allotted.

הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך מגליל ליהודה והגיע לכפר עותנאי וחזר בטל תנאו

Similarly, if a resident of the region of the Galilee intending to embark on a journey to Judea said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going from the Galilee to Judea, and he reached Kefar Otnai and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to Judea for longer than thirty days.

הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך למדינת הים והגיע לעכו וחזר בטל תנאו

Similarly, if a resident of Eretz Yisrael intending to embark on a journey to a country overseas said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going to a country overseas, and he reached Akko and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently travels to a country overseas for longer than thirty days.

הרי זה גיטך כל זמן שאעבור מכנגד פניך שלשים יום היה הולך ובא הולך ובא הואיל ולא נתיחד עמה הרי זה גט

If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days, this is a valid bill of divorce.

גמ׳ למימרא דאנטיפרס בגליל הוה קיימא ורמינהי אנטיפרס ביהודה וכפר עותנאי בגליל בינתים מטילין אותו לחומרא מגורשת

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Antipatris was in the Galilee? It appears from the mishna that Antipatris was on the border of the Galilee, since the condition of the resident of Judea became void by his reaching Antipatris and returning. And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:9): Antipatris is in Judea, and Kefar Otnai is in the Galilee. And with regard to the area between them, a stringent ruling is placed on it, and it is treated as though it is located in both Judea and the Galilee. If the husband who made such a condition reached this area and returned home, it is uncertain whether the condition attached to the bill of divorce was fulfilled. Therefore, there is uncertainty whether she is divorced

ואינה מגורשת

or whether she is not divorced.

אמר אביי תרי תנאי קאמר לה אי מטינא לגליל לאלתר ליהוי גיטא ואי משתהינא באורחא תלתין יומין ולא אתינא ליהוי גיטא הגיע לאנטיפרס וחזר דלא לגליל מטא ולא אישתהויי נמי אשתהי תלתין יומין בטל תנאו

Abaye said: It may be that Antipatris is in Judea and Kefar Otnai is in the Galilee. The mishna can be explained as follows: The husband was saying a statement including two conditions to her: If I arrive in the Galilee then this will be a bill of divorce immediately, or if I will tarry on the way for thirty days and I do not come back home, this will be a valid bill of divorce. If he reached Antipatris and returned within thirty days, as he did not arrive in the Galilee and he also did not tarry for thirty days, then his condition is void and his wife is not divorced.

הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שלשים יום כו׳ למימרא דעכו במדינת הים קיימא והא אמר רב ספרא כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מהדדי בעכו הוו מפטרי משום דאסור לצאת מארץ לחוצה לארץ

The continuation of the mishna taught: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Akko is in a country overseas, and is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael? But didn’t Rav Safra say: When the Sages would take leave from one another before departing Eretz Yisrael, they would take their leave in Akko, because it is prohibited to leave from Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? This indicates that Akko is within Eretz Yisrael.

אמר אביי תרי תנאי קאמר לה אי מטינא למדינת הים לאלתר ליהוי גיטא אי משתהינא באורחא תלתין יומין ולא אתינא ליהוי גיטא הגיע לעכו וחזר דלא למדינת הים מטא ולא אישתהויי נמי אשתהי תלתין יומין בטל תנאו

Abaye said: The husband was saying a statement including two conditions to her: If I arrive in a country overseas, then this will be a valid bill of divorce immediately, or if I tarry thirty days on the way and I do not come back home, this will be a valid bill of divorce. If he reached Akko and returned, as he did not reach a country overseas and he also did not tarry for thirty days, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced.

הרי זה גיטך כל זמן שאעבור וכו׳ והא לא עבר אמר רב הונא מאי פניך תשמיש ואמאי קרי ליה פניך לישנא מעליא נקט

§ The continuation of the mishna states: If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days this is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara challenges: But did he not pass from her presence during this time, as he was going and coming the entire time? Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of the term your presence in this context? It means sexual intercourse. His actual condition was that if he will not engage in sexual intercourse with her for thirty days then the bill of divorce will be valid. And why does he call sexual intercourse your presence? He employed a euphemistic expression when he made his condition.

ורבי יוחנן אמר לעולם פניך ממש מי קתני הרי זו מגורשת הרי זה גט קתני דלא הוי גט ישן ולכי מלו תלתין יומי הוי גיטא

And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: Actually, the husband means literally: Your presence, i.e., that he would not be in his wife’s presence for thirty consecutive days. Is the mishna teaching that she is divorced immediately? No, it is teaching only that this is a valid bill of divorce. This means that although the condition was not fulfilled during these thirty days, since he was not secluded with her this is not considered to be an outdated bill of divorce, which the Sages said may not be used for divorce. And when, at some point in the future, the thirty days during which he does pass from her presence are fulfilled, this will be a valid bill of divorce.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן הרי זה גיטך כל זמן שאעבור מנגד פניך שלשים יום והיה הולך ובא הולך ובא הואיל ולא נתייחד עמה הרי זה גט ולגט ישן אין חוששין שהרי לא נתייחד עמה

The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, and he was going and coming, going and coming for the entire thirty days, since he was not secluded with her during that time, this is a valid bill of divorce. And one is not concerned that it is now considered an outdated bill of divorce, because he was not secluded with her.

וליחוש שמא פייס אמר רבה בר רב הונא הכי אמר אבא מרי משמיה דרב באומר נאמנת עלי לומר שלא באתי

The Gemara asks: But let there be a concern that perhaps he appeased his wife during this time that he was going and coming, and he was secluded with her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: So said my father, my teacher, Rav Huna, in the name of Rav: The baraita is referring to a situation where the husband says: She is deemed credible by me to say that I did not come. Since the husband states explicitly that he believes her about this, if she said that he was not secluded with her then the bill of divorce remains valid.

איכא דמתני לה אמתניתין מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חדש הרי זה גט וליחוש שמא פייס אמר רבה בר רב הונא הכי אמר אבא מרי משמיה דרב באומר נאמנת עלי לומר שלא באתי

There are those who teach this statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav with regard to the mishna mentioned later on, which says that if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But let there be a concern that perhaps he appeased his wife during this time and was secluded with her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: So said my father, my teacher, Rav Huna, in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a situation where the husband says: She is deemed credible by me to say that I did not come, and he did not appease her.

מאן דמתני לה אמתניתין כל שכן אברייתא

The Gemara comments: Concerning the one who taught that statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav with regard to the mishna, all the more so would he teach this statement with regard to the baraita. Since he was constantly going and coming, the bill of divorce would be valid only if the husband stated that he trusts his wife to say that she was not secluded with him.

מאן דמתני לה אברייתא אבל אמתניתין הא לא אתא

Concerning the one who taught this statement with regard to the baraita, it is possible that he taught this only with regard to the baraita, but with regard to the mishna, this is not the case, as he did not come back home within twelve months, but rather died. Therefore, even if he did not specify that he trusts his wife to say whether or not they were secluded, there is no concern that perhaps he was secluded with her without anyone knowing about it.

מתני׳ הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חדש אינו גט

MISHNA: If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce cannot take effect after the husband’s death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children.

הרי זה גיטך מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חדש הרי זה גט

By contrast, if he said to her: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce takes effect retroactively. Since he did not return within the year the condition was fulfilled.

אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי כתבו גט בתוך שנים עשר חדש ונתנו לאחר שנים עשר חדש אינו גט

If a husband said to others: If I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they wrote a bill of divorce during the twelve months and gave it to her after twelve months had elapsed, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed.

כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי אם לא באתי מכאן עד שנים עשר חדש כתבו בתוך שנים עשר חדש ונתנו לאחר שנים עשר חדש אינו גט רבי יוסי אומר כזה גט

Similarly, if he said to others: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and they wrote it during the twelve months but gave it to her after the twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed, when it was clear that he did not come back. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: In a case like this, it is a valid bill of divorce, as he did not tell them when to write the bill of divorce. Rather, he stipulated only the time of giving.

כתבו לאחר שנים עשר חדש ונתנו לאחר שנים עשר חדש ומת אם הגט קודם למיתה הרי זה גט ואם מיתה קדמה לגט אינו גט ואם אין ידוע זו היא שאמרו מגורשת ואינה מגורשת

If they wrote the bill of divorce after twelve months had elapsed, and gave it after twelve months had elapsed, but in the interim the husband died, if the giving of the bill of divorce occurred before the husband’s death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband’s death occurred before the giving of the bill of divorce it is not a valid bill of divorce. And if it is not known which occurred first, this is a case where the Sages said there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

גמ׳ תנא רבותינו התירוה לינשא

GEMARA: The mishna states that if a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and the husband died within that time, it is not a valid bill of divorce. With regard to this it is taught in a baraita: Our Rabbis disagreed and permitted her to marry without requiring ḥalitza because they hold that it is a valid bill of divorce.

מאן רבותינו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בי דינא דשרו מישחא סברי לה כרבי יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו

The Gemara clarifies: Who are our Rabbis mentioned in this baraita? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They are the court that permitted consuming oil manufactured by gentiles. Why do they hold that this is a valid bill of divorce? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect. Whenever a document is dated it is assumed that the intent is for it to take effect from that date even if it does not state explicitly: From now.

אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן רבי יהודה נשיאה בנו של רבן גמליאל בר רבי הורה ולא הודו לו כל סיעתו ואמרי לה כל שעתו

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, son of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, taught this matter, and all of his colleagues [siato] did not concede to his opinion. And some say that all of his life [she’ato] they did not concede to his opinion.

אמר ליה רבי אלעזר לההוא סבא כי שריתוה לאלתר שריתוה או לאחר שנים עשר חדש שריתוה לאלתר שריתוה דהא לא אתי או דלמא לאחר שנים עשר חדש שריתוה דהא איקיים ליה תנאו

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her to remarry immediately after her husband died or did you permit her only after twelve months? Did you permit her to remarry immediately after the husband died, because he will certainly not come back? Or perhaps you permitted her to remarry only after twelve months, because only then was the husband’s condition fulfilled?

ותיבעי ליה מתניתין מעכשיו אם לא באתי מכאן ועד שנים עשר חדש ומת בתוך שנים עשר חדש הרי זה גט לאלתר הוי דהא לא אתי או דלמא לאחר שנים עשר חדש דהא איקיים ליה תנאיה אין הכי נמי ומשום דהוה בההוא מעשה

The Gemara asks: And let his dilemma be raised also with regard to the mishna, in the case where the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. Is the bill of divorce valid immediately once the husband dies, because he will certainly not come back? Or perhaps the bill of divorce is valid only after twelve months have elapsed, because only then was his condition fulfilled? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed so; this question can be asked with regard to the case in the mishna. And Rabbi Elazar asked that particular elder because he was present at that incident, and he could answer based on what actually occurred.

אמר אביי הכל מודים היכא דאמר לכשתצא חמה מנרתיקה

§ Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where the husband said to his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect once the sun emerges from its sheath [minnartikah],