Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

July 31, 2023 | 讬状讙 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 76

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 住讬驻讗 讚驻专讬砖


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.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 拽砖讬讗


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鈥檚 opinion this is difficult.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜注诇 诪谞转 砖转谞讬拽讬 讗转 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 转砖诪砖讬 讗诐 诇讗 转砖诪砖讬 讗诐 转谞讬拽讬 讜讗诐 诇讗 转谞讬拽讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


To which side of the dispute is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇 讜讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


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.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖转谞讬拽讬 讗转 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 诪转 讛讗讘 讗讜 诪转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗讘讬讱 讜讗砖诪砖谞讜 转谉 诇讬 讘谞讱 讜讗谞讬拽谞讜


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.


拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉


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鈥檚 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.


讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讚讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛


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.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讛讻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇讗 讘讬讟诇 讚讘专讬 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 专爪转讛 诪砖诪砖转讜 专爪转讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝


搂 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.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讘讬讟诇 讚讘专讬 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


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.


讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讛专讬 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


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.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 诇拽讬讜诪讗 转谞讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


But isn鈥檛 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诪讬讛讜讚讛 诇讙诇讬诇 讛讙讬注 诇讗谞讟讬驻专住 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诪讙诇讬诇 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讙讬注 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛讙讬注 诇注讻讜 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 诪讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讞讚 注诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗谞讟讬驻专住 讘讙诇讬诇 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗谞讟讬驻专住 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讬谞转讬诐 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讙讜专砖转


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


讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


or whether she is not divorced.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转谞讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讟讬谞讗 诇讙诇讬诇 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜讗讬 诪砖转讛讬谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讙讬注 诇讗谞讟讬驻专住 讜讞讝专 讚诇讗 诇讙诇讬诇 诪讟讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 谞诪讬 讗砖转讛讬 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讻讜 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讬驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讛讚讚讬 讘注讻讜 讛讜讜 诪驻讟专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诇爪讗转 诪讗专抓 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转谞讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讟讬谞讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗讬 诪砖转讛讬谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讙讬注 诇注讻讜 讜讞讝专 讚诇讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪讟讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 谞诪讬 讗砖转讛讬 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 注讘专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 驻谞讬讱 转砖诪讬砖 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 驻谞讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 谞拽讟


搂 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.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻谞讬讱 诪诪砖 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讟 讬砖谉 讜诇讻讬 诪诇讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗


And Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed and said: Actually, the husband means literally: Your presence, i.e., that he would not be in his wife鈥檚 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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 诪谞讙讚 驻谞讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛


The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬


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.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗


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.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟


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鈥檚 death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟


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.


讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻转讘讜 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讙讟


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.


讻转讘讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讗诐 讛讙讟 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜讗诐 诪讬转讛 拽讚诪讛 诇讙讟 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


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鈥檚 death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband鈥檚 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.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗


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 岣litza because they hold that it is a valid bill of divorce.


诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪讬砖讞讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 住讬注转讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖注转讜


Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檃to] they did not concede to his opinion.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖专讬转讜讛 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讜


Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 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鈥檚 condition fulfilled?


讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讻砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛


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],


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 72-78 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about stipulations or conditions that the husband can make when he gives his wife the...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 76: Proactive Conditional Divorce

More on conditional divorce. Specifically, that the woman should do things for others. Plus combined conditions with witnesses. Also, a...

Gittin 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 76

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 住讬驻讗 讚驻专讬砖


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.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗 拽砖讬讗


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鈥檚 opinion this is difficult.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜注诇 诪谞转 砖转谞讬拽讬 讗转 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诐 转砖诪砖讬 讗诐 诇讗 转砖诪砖讬 讗诐 转谞讬拽讬 讜讗诐 诇讗 转谞讬拽讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉


To which side of the dispute is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讘讻转讜讘讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讻驻讜诇 讜讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜


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.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 注诇 诪谞转 砖转谞讬拽讬 讗转 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 诪转 讛讗讘 讗讜 诪转 讛讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专


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.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转拽讬讬诐 讛转谞讗讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讗讘讬讱 讜讗砖诪砖谞讜 转谉 诇讬 讘谞讱 讜讗谞讬拽谞讜


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.


拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉


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鈥檚 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.


讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讘讚诇讗 讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讛讻讗 讘讚讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛


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.


讜专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讛讻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 注讻讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转砖诪砖讬 讗转 讗讘讗 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇讗 讘讬讟诇 讚讘专讬 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 专爪转讛 诪砖诪砖转讜 专爪转讛 谞讜转谞转 诇讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝


搂 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.


讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讘驻谞讬 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讘讬讟诇 讚讘专讬 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


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.


讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗住讬驻讗 讛专讬 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


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.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 诇拽讬讜诪讗 转谞讗讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


But isn鈥檛 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诪讬讛讜讚讛 诇讙诇讬诇 讛讙讬注 诇讗谞讟讬驻专住 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诪讙诇讬诇 诇讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讙讬注 诇讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讛讙讬注 诇注讻讜 讜讞讝专 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 诪讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讞讚 注诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗谞讟讬驻专住 讘讙诇讬诇 讛讜讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗谞讟讬驻专住 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻驻专 注讜转谞讗讬 讘讙诇讬诇 讘讬谞转讬诐 诪讟讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讙讜专砖转


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


讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


or whether she is not divorced.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转谞讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讟讬谞讗 诇讙诇讬诇 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜讗讬 诪砖转讛讬谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讙讬注 诇讗谞讟讬驻专住 讜讞讝专 讚诇讗 诇讙诇讬诇 诪讟讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 谞诪讬 讗砖转讛讬 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讻讜 讘诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讬驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讛讚讚讬 讘注讻讜 讛讜讜 诪驻讟专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗住讜专 诇爪讗转 诪讗专抓 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓


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鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讬 转谞讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬 诪讟讬谞讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗讬 诪砖转讛讬谞讗 讘讗讜专讞讗 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讛讙讬注 诇注讻讜 讜讞讝专 讚诇讗 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 诪讟讗 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转讛讜讬讬 谞诪讬 讗砖转讛讬 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讘讟诇 转谞讗讜


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.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 讜讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 注讘专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 驻谞讬讱 转砖诪讬砖 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 驻谞讬讱 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 谞拽讟


搂 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.


讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻谞讬讱 诪诪砖 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 拽转谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讟 讬砖谉 讜诇讻讬 诪诇讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗


And Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed and said: Actually, the husband means literally: Your presence, i.e., that he would not be in his wife鈥檚 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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗注讘讜专 诪谞讙讚 驻谞讬讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讘讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诇讙讟 讬砖谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖讛专讬 诇讗 谞转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛


The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬


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.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗


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.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讗 诇讗 讗转讗


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟


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鈥檚 death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children.


讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讱 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟


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.


讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟


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.


讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻转讘讜 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讝讛 讙讟


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.


讻转讘讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讗诐 讛讙讟 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讬转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 讜讗诐 诪讬转讛 拽讚诪讛 诇讙讟 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讬讚讜注 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讗诪专讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转


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鈥檚 death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband鈥檚 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.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讬谞砖讗


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 岣litza because they hold that it is a valid bill of divorce.


诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪讬砖讞讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讛讜专讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讻诇 住讬注转讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖注转讜


Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檃to] they did not concede to his opinion.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讗讜 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖专讬转讜讛 诇讗诇转专 砖专讬转讜讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 砖专讬转讜讛 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讜


Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia鈥檚 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鈥檚 condition fulfilled?


讜转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讚讛讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘讛讛讜讗 诪注砖讛


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讻砖转爪讗 讞诪讛 诪谞专转讬拽讛


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],


Scroll To Top