Gittin 148

והתניא מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט דברי חכמים רבי אומר כזה גט

, as it has been taught: '[If he says] From to-day and after [my] death, it is a Get and no Get. This is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi says, One like this is a Get'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 72b. And since they differ on 'from today etc.' we presume that they agree on 'on condition'. V. Tosaf. s.v. ');">¹</span>

ולרב יהודה דאמר בעל מנת פליגי אדמיפלגי במהיום ולאחר מיתה ליפלגי בעל מנת להודיעך כחו דרבי

Now if Rab Judah is right in saying that they differ [as to the effect of] 'on condition', instead of joining issue [in the Baraitha] on the question of 'from now and after my death', let them join issue on 'on condition'? — This is to show you how far Rabbi is prepared to go.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In permitting her to marry again. ');">²</span>

וליפלגו בעל מנת ולהודיעך כחן דרבנן כח דהיתירא עדיף ליה:

But let them differ about 'on condition' to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In forbidding her to marry. ');">³</span>

על מנת שתתני לי מכאן ועד שלשים יום וכו': פשיטא מהו דתימא קפידיה לאו קפידא ולזרזה קאתי קא משמע לן:

— The Tanna [of the Baraitha] preferred to make the stronger instance one of permission.

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מעשה בצידן כו: מאי תנא דקתני מעשה

ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that he is really not particular and that he only wants to urge her on.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To fulfil the condition the sooner. ');">⁴</span>

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אם אמר לה ע"מ שתתני לי איצטליתי ואבדה איצטליתו איצטליתי דוקא קאמר לה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר תתן לו את דמיה ואמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מעשה נמי בצידן באחד שאמר לאשתו הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי אצטליתי ואבדה אצטליתו ואמרו חכמים תתן לו את דמיה

We are told therefore that this is not so.

בעא מיניה רבי אסי מרבי יוחנן הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז וחזר ואמר לה מחולים לך מהו

RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. Of what statement is this given as an illustration?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what did he teach that he states an incident'. Seeing that there has been no mention of money so far. ');">⁵</span>

תיבעי לרבנן תיבעי לרשב"ג

— There is a lacuna, and we should read thus: If he said to her, On condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, we rule that he meant his particular robe and nothing else. Rabban Gamaliel says that she can give him the money value; and [in confirmation] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel further said that a case happened in Sidon where a man said to his wife, This is your Get on condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him the money value of it.

תיבעי לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא דלא אחלה גבה אבל הכא הא קאמר לה מחולים לך או דלמא אפילו רשב"ג לא קאמר אלא דקא מפייסה ליה בדמי אבל לגמרי לא אמר ליה אינה מגורשת

R. Assi inquired of R. Johanan: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and he then changed his mind and said, You can keep the money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are forgiven thee'. ');">⁶</span>

איתיביה האומר לחבירו קונם שאתה נהנה לי אם אי אתה נותן לבני כור אחד של חטין ושתי חביות של יין ר"מ אומר אסור עד שיתן וחכמים אומרים אף זה יכול להתיר את נדרו שלא ע"פ חכם ואומר הריני כאילו התקבלתי

what is the law? This is equally a problem whether we adopt the view of the Rabbis or whether we adopt that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. From the standpoint of the Rabbis it is a problem, because [we may hold that] the Rabbis only ruled as they did in the other case [of the robe] because he did not forgo his claim, but here we see that he tells her that she can keep the money. Or we may also hold that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled as he did only because she made it good for him with a money payment, but where she pays him nothing at all he would not say [that she is divorced]? — He replied: She is not divorced. He [R. Assi] therefore raised [the following] objection: If a man says to another Konam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁷</span>

הכי השתא התם לצעורה קא מכוין ולא ציערה הכא משום הרווחה הוא והא לא איצטריך

be whatever benefit you have of me unless you give my son a <i>kor</i> of wheat and two barrels of wine, R. Meir says he is forbidden [to have any benefit of him] until he gives, but the Sages say that such a man also may release himself from his own Vow without consulting a wise man by saying to himself, I regard myself as having received them [on his behalf]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ned. 24a. Which shows that to waive the claim is equivalent to receiving the money. ');">⁸</span>

ההוא גברא דאמר ליה לאריסיה כולי עלמא דלו תלת דלוותא ואכלי ריבעא את דלי ארבעה ואכול תילתא לסוף אתא מיטרא

— Are these two cases parallel? In that case his intention is to give her trouble and he has not done so, but in this case he was trying to obtain some positive advantage and found he could do without it.

אמר רב יוסף הא לא דלה רבה אמר הא לא איצטריכא

A certain man said to his metayer, The general rule is that [a metayer] irrigates [the land] three times [a year] and takes a fourth of the produce [as his share]. [I want] you to irrigate four times and take a third. Before [he had finished irrigating] the rain came. R. Joseph said, He has not actually irrigated [the fourth time].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And decided in favour of the owner, assigning the metayer only a fourth. ');">⁹</span>

לימא רב יוסף דאמר כרבנן ורבה דאמר כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

Rabbah said, There was no need [for a fourth irrigation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And decided in favour of the metayer, since after all the field had been properly watered. ');">¹⁰</span>

ותיסברא והא קיימא לן הילכתא כוותיה דרבה ובהא אין הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

May we say that R. Joseph adopted the point of view of the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the condition must be fulfilled to the letter. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא לעולם כרבנן רב יוסף כרבנן ורבה אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא דלצעורה קא מיכוין אבל הכא משום הרווחה הוא והא לא איצטריך

and Rabbah that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — Can you really maintain this, seeing that it is a fixed rule with us that the law follows Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 114b. ');">¹²</span>

תנן התם בראשונה היה נטמן יום שנים עשר חדש כדי שיהא חלוט לו התקין הלל הזקן שיהא חולש את מעותיו ללשכה ויהא שובר את הדלת ונכנס ואימתי שירצה הלה יבוא ויטול את מעותיו

and in this matter the <i>halachah</i> does not follow Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 75a. ');">¹³</span>

ואמר רבא מתקנתו של הלל נשמע הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז ונתנה לו מדעתו מגורשת על כורחו אינה מגורשת

— No. There can be no question that the law is as determined by the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rain being to irrigation as money to the robe. ');">¹⁴</span>

מדאיצטריך ליה להלל לתקוני נתינה בעל כורחיה דהויא לה נתינה

R. Joseph follows the Rabbis without question, while Rabbah can say to you, My view can be justified even from the standpoint of the Rabbis. For the reason why the Rabbis ruled as they did in that case was only because his intention was to give her trouble,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a man who divorces his wife may be presumed to dislike her, we suppose that the reason why he made it a condition that she should give him money was in order to annoy her and not because he wanted to make some Profit. ');">¹⁵</span> but here he was after some advantage and he found that he could do without it. We have learnt in another place: At first a man [who had bought a house from another in a walled city] used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve-month period, so that [the house] should become his for ever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXV, 29, 30. ');">¹⁶</span> Hillel the Elder, therefore, ordained that he [the owner] should throw his money into a certain chamber and that [having done so] he should be at liberty to break the door open and enter, and the other whenever he liked should come and take his money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Ar. 31b. ');">¹⁷</span> Raba remarked upon this: From this regulation of Hillel we may learn that if a man said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and she gave it to him, if he accepted the money willingly she is divorced, but if she had to force it on him she is not divorced. For since Hillel found it necessary to ordain in this instance that a gift forced on the donee should be accounted a gift,