Gittin 147

ומטמא לה כללו של דבר הרי היא כאשתו לכל דבר אלא שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני דברי ר' יהודה

, and he defiles himself for her [corpse];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he is a priest. ');">¹</span>

ר"מ אומר בעילתה תלויה ר' יוסי אומר בעילתה ספק וחכ"א מגורשת ואינה מגורשת ובלבד שימות

in a word, she is his wife in all respects, save that she does not require from him a second Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he had intercourse with her and died subsequently, since the Get takes effect just immediately before his death. ');">²</span>

מאי איכא בין ר"מ לרבי יוסי

This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says that if she has intercourse [with another man], judgment on it must be suspended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband dies, she was divorced at the time, and there is no penalty for the intercourse; if the husband recovers, the man has to bring a sin-offering. ');">³</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן אשם תלוי איכא בינייהו לר"מ לא מייתי אשם תלוי ולר' יוסי מייתי אשם תלוי

R. Jose says that its character is doubtful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband dies, R. Jose is doubtful whether retrospectively the Get had or had not taken effect when the intercourse took place, and consequently whether the man is or is not liable to a guilt-offering. ');">⁴</span>

וחכ"א מגורשת ואינה מגורשת חכמים היינו רבי יוסי איכא בינייהו דרבי זירא דאמר רבי זירא אמר רבה בר ירמיה אמר שמואל כל מקום שאמרו חכמים מגורשת ואינה מגורשת בעלה חייב במזונותיה:

while the Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced, provided only that he dies. How would the difference between R. Meir and R. Jose work out in practice? — R. Johanan says: In respect of a guilt-offering brought out of doubt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. where he is in doubt as to whether the sin has been committed or not. V. Lev. V, 17ff. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתתני לי מאתים זוז הרי זו מגורשת ותתן

according to R. Meir the man does not bring a guilt-offering out of doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband dies. ');">⁶</span>

ע"מ שתתני לי מיכן ועד שלשים יום אם נתנה לו בתוך שלשים יום מגורשת ואם לאו אינה מגורשת

according to R. Jose he does. 'The Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced': the Sages say the same thing as R. Jose, do they not? — A practical difference arises in the application of the rule laid down by R. Zera; for R. Zera said in the name of Rabba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel: Wherever the Sages have said that a woman 'is divorced and not divorced', the husband is under obligation to maintain her.

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מעשה בצידן באחד שאמר לאשתו ה"ז גיטך ע"מ שתתני לי איצטליתי ואבדה איצטליתו ואמרו חכמים תתן לו את דמיה:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF A MAN SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME TWO HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, SHE IS DIVORCED THEREBY AND SHE HAS TO GIVE [HIM THE MONEY]. [IF HE SAYS], ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE [IT] ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW, IF SHE GIVES HIM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON THAT A MAN SAID TO HIS WIFE, THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME [BACK] MY ROBE, AND HIS ROBE WAS LOST, AND THE SAGES SAID THAT SHE SHOULD GIVE HIM ITS VALUE IN MONEY.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי ותתן רב הונא אמר והיא תתן רב יהודה אמר לכשתתן

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What precisely is meant by the words 'AND SHE HAS TO GIVE HIM'? — R. Huna says it means, 'and she shall [thereafter] give him'; Rab Judah says it means, 'when she gives him'. What difference does it make in practice which view we adopt? — It makes a difference if the Get is torn or lost [before the money is given]. According to R. Huna who said it means that she is [thereafter] to give, she does not require from him a second Get,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the Get takes effect retrospectively whenever the money is paid. ');">⁷</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שנתקרע הגט או שאבד רב הונא אמר והיא תתן אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני רב יהודה אמר לכשתתן צריכה הימנו גט שני

according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when she gives', she requires from him a second Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Get comes into force only from the moment of payment, but since at that time the Get is no longer in existence it has no effect. ');">⁸</span>

ותנן נמי גבי קידושין כי האי גוונא דתנן האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאתן לך מאתים זוז הרי היא מקודשת ויתן ואיתמר מאי ויתן רב הונא אמר והוא יתן רב יהודה אמר לכשיתן

In connection with betrothals also we have an analogous statement, as we have learnt: 'If a man says to a woman, Behold thou art betrothed to me on condition that I give thee two hundred <i>zuz</i>, she is betrothed to him and he is to give her the money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 60a. ');">⁹</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שפשטה ידה וקיבלה קידושין מאחר רב הונא אמר והוא יתן תנאה בעלמא הוא מקיים תנאיה ואזיל רב יהודה אמר לכשיתן לכי יהיב לה הוא דהוו קידושין השתא לא הוו קידושין

'and in the discussion thereon it was said, What is meant by 'he is to give', and R. Huna said, It means, he shall [thereafter] give, while Rab Judah said, It means, When he gives. What practical difference does it make which view we adopt? — A difference arises if she puts forth her hand and receives betrothal money from another. According to R. Huna who said that it means, 'he shall [thereafter] give', the giving is a mere condition, and he has only to fulfil his condition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When his betrothal takes retrospective effect, so that that of the second is null and void. ');">¹⁰</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי קידושין בהא קאמר רב הונא והוא יתן משום דלקרובה קאתי אבל גבי גירושין דלרחוקה קאתי אימא מודה ליה לרב יהודה

whereas according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when he gives', the betrothal takes effect only when he gives, but at the time it is no betrothal. And both cases required to be stated. For if the rule had been stated only in regard to betrothal, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said that it means 'and he is to give', because his intention is to bring her nearer [to himself],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he meant it to take effect at once. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אשמעינן גבי גירושין בהא קאמר רב הונא והיא תתן משום דלא כסיף למיתבעה אבל גבי קידושין דכסיפא למיתבעיה אימא מודי ליה לרב יהודה

but in the case of divorce where his intention is to put her away [from himself]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he wishes to delay as long as possible. ');">¹²</span>

ואי אשמעינן גבי קידושין בהא קאמר רב יהודה לכשיתן משום דכסיפא למיתבעיה אבל גבי גירושין דלא כסיף למיתבעה אימא מודה ליה לרב הונא

I might have thought that he accepts the view of Rab Judah. If again it had been stated in regard only to divorce, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said it means 'he shall [thereafter] give' because he would not be shy to ask her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he does not mean to make the operation of the Get conditional on the receipt of the money, but intends it to take effect at once. ');">¹³</span>

ואי אשמעינן גבי גירושין בהא קאמר רב יהודה לכשתתן משום דלרחוקה קאתי אבל גבי קידושין דלקרובה קאתי אימא מודה ליה לרב הונא צריכא

but in the case of betrothal where she might be diffident to ask him, I might have thought that he would accept the view of Rab Judah. Again, if the rule had been stated in connection only with betrothal, I might have thought that Rab Judah said that in that case It means 'when she gives' because she is diffident to ask him, but in the case of divorce where he would not be shy to ask her I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. And if the rule had been stated only in connection with divorce, I might have thought that in that case Rab Judah says it means 'when she gives', because his intention is to put her away [from him], but in the case of betrothal where his intention is to bring her nearer [to him] I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. Therefore [both statements] were necessary.

מיתיבי ה"ז גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז אע"פ שנקרע הגט או שנאבד מגורשת ולאחר לא תנשא עד שתתן

An objection was raised [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, even though the Get is torn or lost she is divorced, though she cannot marry any other man until she gives him the money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she may after all not give, so that the Get will never take effect retrospectively. ');">¹⁴</span>

ועוד תניא ה"ז גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז ומת נתנה אינה זקוקה ליבם לא נתנה זקוקה ליבם רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר נותנת לאביו או לאחיו או לאחד מן הקרובים

Further it has been taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i> and he dies, if she has already given [before he dies] she is not in any way tied to the brother-in-law, but if she has not yet given she is tied to the brother-in-law. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel Says, She can give the money to his father or his brother or to one of the relatives.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Git. V. ');">¹⁵</span>

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר לי ולא ליורשי ומר סבר לי ואפילו ליורשי וכ"ע מיהא תנאה הוי תיובתא דרב יהודה

Now the two authorities here differ only to this extent, that one holds that '[give] me' means 'to me but not to my heirs', and the other holds that it means 'to me or even to my heirs', but both hold that it is a mere condition. This would seem to be a refutation of Rab Judah! — Rab Judah, however, may answer: Who is the authority for this view? It is Rabbi, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And makes the Get take effect retrospectively as soon as the condition is fulfilled. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר לך רב יהודה הא מני רבי היא דאמר רב הונא אמר רבי כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי ופליגי רבנן עליה ואנא דאמרי כרבנן

but the Rabbis join issue with him, and I follow the Rabbis.

וא"ר זירא כי הוינן בבבל אמרינן הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רבי כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי פליגי רבנן עליה כי סליקי אשכחתיה לרבי אסי דיתיב וקאמר משמיה דרבי יוחנן הכל מודים באומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי לא נחלקו אלא במהיום ולאחר מיתה

R. Zera said: When we were in Babylon, we used to state that [the ruling] which R. Huna said in the name of Rabbi, that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now', is disputed by the Rabbis. When I went up [to Eretz Yisrael], I found R. Assi sitting and saying in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'; a difference of opinion arose only with regard to the formula 'from to-day and after [my] death',