Gittin 149

מכלל דבעלמא נתינה בעל כרחיה לא הויא נתינה

, we conclude that in general a gift forced on the donee is not accounted a gift. R. Papa (or as some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred to this, [saying:] But perhaps Hillel thought there was need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in the donee's presence, but where it was made to him personally, the gift would be effective whether he was willing to receive it or not? According to another version, Raba said: From the regulation of Hillel we may infer that if he said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i> and she gave them to him, whether he accepted them willingly or she forced them on him, the transfer is effective. For Hillel felt the need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in his presence, but if given to him personally the gift, whether accepted or forced on one, is effective. To this R. Papa (or some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred, [saying], Perhaps even if made to him personally the gift if made with his consent is effective but if against his will not, and Hillel made only the adjustment which was required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He found that the owners hid themselves and consequently made the necessary regulation. And if it had been a common thing to refuse the payment when offered, he would have ordained that the gift should be effective in this case also, and therefore the money for the Get cannot be forced on him against his will. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא ואיתימא רב שימי בר אשי ודלמא כי אצטריך ליה לתקוני שלא בפניו אבל בפניו בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel gives a ruling in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> follows him, save in the matters of the 'Areb',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Surety'. V. B.B. 173a, on the law of recovering from a surety if the borrower has assets. ');">²</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבא מתקנתו של הלל ה"ז גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז ונתנה לו בין מדעתו ובין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה וכי איצטריך ליה להלל לתקוני שלא בפניו אבל בפניו בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה

of 'Sidon'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our own Mishnah. ');">³</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא ואיתימא רב שימי בר אשי ודלמא אפילו בפניו נמי מדעתו אין על כרחו לא והלל מאי דאיצטריך ליה תקין

and of the 'later proof'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., evidence brought after the time allowed by the Beth din. Sanh. 31a. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתינו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן

Our Rabbis taught: If a man says, This is your Get on condition that the paper belongs to me, she is not divorced;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he does not carry out the injunction, 'he shall give into her hand', Deut. XXIV, I. ');">⁵</span>

וראיה אחרונה

if he says, On condition that you return me the paper, she is divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 20b. ');">⁶</span>

ת"ר הרי זה גיטיך והנייר שלי אינה מגורשת על מנת שתחזירי לי את הנייר מגורשת

Why this difference between the two cases?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [It is assumed that in the latter case the Get comes into force only after the return of the paper when the condition has been fulfilled. Hence the question.] ');">⁷</span>

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר רב חסדא הא מני רשב"ג היא דאמר תתן לו את דמיה ה"נ אפשר דמפייסה ליה בדמי

— R. Hisda replied: The authority followed here is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said [in an analogous case that] she should give the money value; so here too, it is possible for her to make it right for him with a money payment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the condition can be fulfilled the Get is valid. ');">⁸</span>

מתקיף לה אביי אימור דאמר רשב"ג היכא דליתיה בעיניה היכא דאיתיה בעיניה מי אמר

Abaye strongly demurred to this, saying: I grant you that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel meant this ruling to apply where the object for which compensation is given cannot be produced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of the lost robe. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר אביי הא מני ר"מ היא דאמר בעינן תנאי כפול והכא הא לא כפליה לתנאיה

but would he have said the same where it can be produced? No, said Abaye: the authority followed here is R. Meir, who said that a condition to be binding must be duplicated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., expressed both affirmatively and negatively. Kid. 61a ');">¹⁰</span>

מתקיף לה רבא טעמא דלא כפליה לתנאיה הא כפליה לתנאיה לא הוי גיטא מכדי כל תנאי מהיכא גמרינן להו מתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן

and here he has not duplicated his condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is a Get unconditionally. ');">¹¹</span>

מה התם תנאי קודם למעשה אף כל תנאי קודם למעשה לאפוקי הכא דמעשה קודם לתנאי

Raba strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that he did not duplicate the condition, so that if he had duplicated the condition it would not have been a Get. Let us see now. Whence do we derive [the rule governing] conditions? From [the condition] of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXII, 20ff, 'If ye shall do this thing&nbsp;… then this land shall be unto you a possession; and if ye shall not do so&nbsp;… behold ye have sinned, etc. ');">¹²</span>

אלא אמר רבא משום דמעשה קודם לתנאי

Therefore just as there the condition was mentioned before the act conditional on it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['If ye shall do this thing&nbsp;… (condition), then his land shall be unto you a possession' (act).] ');">¹³</span>

מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה טעמא דמעשה קודם לתנאי הא תנאי קודם למעשה לא הוי גיטא מכדי כל תנאי מהיכא גמרינן להו מתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן מה התם תנאי בדבר אחד ומעשה בדבר אחר אף כל לאפוקי הכא

so in all cases the condition should be mentioned before the act, and that excludes the present case where the act is mentioned before the condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He said first 'this is your Get and then added the condition that 'the paper belongs to me'.] ');">¹⁴</span> No, said Raba: the reason is that the act is mentioned before the condition. R. Ada b. Ahabah strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that the act was mentioned before the condition, so that if the condition were mentioned before the act it would not be a divorce. Let us see now. Whence do we derive the rule of conditions? From that of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben. Therefore just as there the condition relates to one thing and the act to another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The condition to crossing the Jordan, and the act to their taking possession of the land of Sihon and Og. ');">¹⁵</span> so it should be in all cases, to exclude such a one as this