This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Gittin 76
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא – רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא פָּרֵישׁ, סֵיפָא דְּפָרֵישׁ.
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.
אֶלָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי – מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? קַשְׁיָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ: ״אִם תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי – אִם לֹא תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי״; ״אִם תָּנִיקִי – וְאִם לֹא תָּנִיקִי״; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ 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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִין לָךְ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְגָמְרִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ.
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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – מֵת הָאָב אוֹ מֵת הַבֵּן, אֵינוֹ גֵּט; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט – יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי אָבִיךָ, וַאֲשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ״; ״תֵּן לִי בִּנְךָ, וַאֲנִיקֶנּוּ״.
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.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן!
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.
דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָתָם בִּדְלָא כַּפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ, הָכָא בִּדְכַפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ.
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.
וְרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, מַאן חֲכָמִים דְּהָכָא – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הֵימֶנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – לֹא בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; רָצְתָה – מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, רָצְתָה – נוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז.
§ 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.
אֲבָל אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז״ – בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים מִצְטָרְפִין.
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.
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – הֲרֵי בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא –
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.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֹּל לְקַיּוֹמֵי תְּנַאי – מִצְטָרְפִין; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִיהוּדָה לַגָּלִיל; הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרַס וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִגָּלִיל לִיהוּדָה, וְהִגִּיעַ לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״; הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּאַנְטִיפְרַס בְּגָלִיל הֲוָה קָיְימָא?! וּרְמִינְהִי: אַנְטִיפְרַס – בִּיהוּדָה; וּכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי – בַּגָּלִיל; בֵּינְתַיִם – מְטִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְחוּמְרָא, מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת
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
וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת!
or whether she is not divorced.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לְגָלִיל – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, וְאִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרַס וְחָזַר – דְּלָא לְגָלִיל מְטָא, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוֹיֵי נָמֵי אִשְׁתַּהִי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ כּוּ׳: לְמֵימְרָא דְּעַכּוֹ בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם קָיְימָא?! וְהָא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: כִּי הֲווֹ מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מֵהֲדָדֵי – בְּעַכּוֹ הֲווֹ מִפַּטְרִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָסוּר לָצֵאת מֵאָרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ!
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, אִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. הִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר – דְּלָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם מְטָא, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוֹיֵי נָמֵי אִשְׁתַּהִי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר״ וְכוּ׳: וְהָא לָא עֲבַר! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי ״פָּנַיִךְ״ – תַּשְׁמִישׁ; וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״פָּנַיִךְ״ – לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא נָקֵט.
§ 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם ״פָּנַיִךְ״ מַמָּשׁ. מִי קָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״? ״הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט״ קָתָנֵי – דְּלָא הָוֵי גֵּט יָשָׁן, וּלְכִי מָלוּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמֵי הָוֵי גִּיטָּא.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִנֶּגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא; הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
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.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.
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.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַבָּרַיְיתָא.
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.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא – אֲבָל אַמַּתְנִיתִין, הָא לָא אֲתָא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
״אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – כָּתְבוּ גֵּט בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.
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.
״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״ – כָּתְבוּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה – גֵּט.
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.
כָּתְבוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וָמֵת; אִם הַגֵּט קוֹדֵם לַמִּיתָה – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וְאִם מִיתָה קָדְמָה לַגֵּט – אֵינוֹ גֵּט; וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא.
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.
מַאן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בֵּי דִינָא דִּשְׁרוֹ מִישְׁחָא; סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי הוֹרָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ כׇּל סִיעָתוֹ; וְאָמְרִי לָהּ כׇּל שְׁעָתוֹ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְהָהוּא סָבָא: כִּי שְׁרִיתוּהָ – לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרִיתוּהָ, אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרִיתוּהָ? לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרִיתוּהָ – דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרִיתוּהָ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאוֹ?
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?
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי, דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאֵיהּ? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה בְּהָהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁתֵּצֵא חַמָּה מִנַּרְתִּיקָהּ״ –
§ 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],
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
New York, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Gittin 76
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא – רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא פָּרֵישׁ, סֵיפָא דְּפָרֵישׁ.
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.
אֶלָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי – מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? קַשְׁיָא.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ: ״אִם תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי – אִם לֹא תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי״; ״אִם תָּנִיקִי – וְאִם לֹא תָּנִיקִי״; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
§ 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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִין לָךְ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְגָמְרִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ.
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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – מֵת הָאָב אוֹ מֵת הַבֵּן, אֵינוֹ גֵּט; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט – יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי אָבִיךָ, וַאֲשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ״; ״תֵּן לִי בִּנְךָ, וַאֲנִיקֶנּוּ״.
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.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן!
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.
דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָתָם בִּדְלָא כַּפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ, הָכָא בִּדְכַפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ.
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.
וְרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, מַאן חֲכָמִים דְּהָכָא – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הֵימֶנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – לֹא בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; רָצְתָה – מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, רָצְתָה – נוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז.
§ 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.
אֲבָל אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז״ – בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים מִצְטָרְפִין.
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.
אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – הֲרֵי בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא –
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.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֹּל לְקַיּוֹמֵי תְּנַאי – מִצְטָרְפִין; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִיהוּדָה לַגָּלִיל; הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרַס וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִגָּלִיל לִיהוּדָה, וְהִגִּיעַ לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״; הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּאַנְטִיפְרַס בְּגָלִיל הֲוָה קָיְימָא?! וּרְמִינְהִי: אַנְטִיפְרַס – בִּיהוּדָה; וּכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי – בַּגָּלִיל; בֵּינְתַיִם – מְטִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְחוּמְרָא, מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת
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
וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת!
or whether she is not divorced.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לְגָלִיל – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, וְאִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרַס וְחָזַר – דְּלָא לְגָלִיל מְטָא, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוֹיֵי נָמֵי אִשְׁתַּהִי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ כּוּ׳: לְמֵימְרָא דְּעַכּוֹ בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם קָיְימָא?! וְהָא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: כִּי הֲווֹ מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מֵהֲדָדֵי – בְּעַכּוֹ הֲווֹ מִפַּטְרִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָסוּר לָצֵאת מֵאָרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ!
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לַהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, אִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא. הִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר – דְּלָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם מְטָא, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוֹיֵי נָמֵי אִשְׁתַּהִי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר״ וְכוּ׳: וְהָא לָא עֲבַר! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי ״פָּנַיִךְ״ – תַּשְׁמִישׁ; וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״פָּנַיִךְ״ – לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא נָקֵט.
§ 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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם ״פָּנַיִךְ״ מַמָּשׁ. מִי קָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״? ״הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט״ קָתָנֵי – דְּלָא הָוֵי גֵּט יָשָׁן, וּלְכִי מָלוּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמֵי הָוֵי גִּיטָּא.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִנֶּגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא; הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.
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.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב, בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.
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.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַבָּרַיְיתָא.
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.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא – אֲבָל אַמַּתְנִיתִין, הָא לָא אֲתָא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.
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.
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
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.
״אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – כָּתְבוּ גֵּט בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט.
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.
״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״ – כָּתְבוּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה – גֵּט.
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.
כָּתְבוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וָמֵת; אִם הַגֵּט קוֹדֵם לַמִּיתָה – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וְאִם מִיתָה קָדְמָה לַגֵּט – אֵינוֹ גֵּט; וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא.
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.
מַאן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בֵּי דִינָא דִּשְׁרוֹ מִישְׁחָא; סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי הוֹרָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ כׇּל סִיעָתוֹ; וְאָמְרִי לָהּ כׇּל שְׁעָתוֹ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְהָהוּא סָבָא: כִּי שְׁרִיתוּהָ – לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרִיתוּהָ, אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרִיתוּהָ? לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרִיתוּהָ – דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרִיתוּהָ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאוֹ?
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?
וְתִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי, דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא, לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאֵיהּ? אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וּמִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה בְּהָהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: ״לִכְשֶׁתֵּצֵא חַמָּה מִנַּרְתִּיקָהּ״ –
§ 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],
