Gittin 150
דתנאי ומעשה בדבר אחד אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה משום דתנאי ומעשה בדבר אחד
where both the condition and the act relate to the same thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Get itself which has to be returned and so become a Get. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
רב אשי אמר הא מני רבי היא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי
No, said R. Ada b. Ahabah: the reason [why she is divorced] is because the condition and the act relate to the same thing. R. Ashi, however, said: The authority followed here is Rabbi; for R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi: The formula on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Contrary to what has been assumed hitherto (p. 357, n. 7) the Get therefore, is valid retrospectively, when she returns the paper, the gift of which is regarded as a temporary one.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אתקין שמואל בגיטא דשכיב מרע אם לא מתי לא יהא גט ואם מתי יהא גט
Samuel laid down that a Get given by a man on a sick bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to release the wife from all ties to her brothers-in-law. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ולימא אם מתי יהא גט ואם לא מתי לא יהא גט לא מקדים איניש פורענותא לנפשיה
should run, 'If I do not die, this will not be a Get, and if I die it will be a Get'. Why not rather say, If I die it will be a Get and if I do not die it will not be a Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to commence with the affirmative condition. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ולימא לא יהא גט אם לא מתי בעינן תנאי קודם למעשה
— A man does not like to commence with a mention of evil for himself. But why should he not say, This will not be a Get if I do not die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why did Samuel insist on the exact words of the formula? ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מתקיף לה רבא מכדי כל תנאי מהיכא גמרינן מתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן מה התם הן קודם ללאו אף כל לאפוקי הכא דלאו קודם להן
— The condition must be mentioned before the act. Raba strongly questioned [Samuel's dictum]: Let us see, he said; whence do we derive the rule for conditions? From the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben. Therefore just as there the affirmative comes before the negative, so it should be in all cases, which would exclude this one where the negative comes before the affirmative? No, said Raba; the Get should run as follows: 'If I do not die it will not be a Get: if I die it will be a Get, if I do not die it will not be a Get.' [We write] 'If I do not die it will not be a Get', so as to avoid his commencing with a mention of evil for himself. [Then we say] 'If I die it will be a Get, if I do not die it will not be a Get', so that the affirmative may precede the negative.
אלא אמר רבא אם לא מתי לא יהא גט אם מתי יהא גט אם לא מתי לא יהא גט
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF A MAN SAYS], HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER, ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE SUCK TO MY CHILD, (HOW LONG IS SHE TO GIVE IT SUCK? TWO YEARS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until it is two years old, (v. Keth. 60b). The words in brackets are best taken as a parenthesis. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אם לא מתי לא יהא גט לא מקדים איניש פורענותא לנפשיה אם מתי יהא גט אם לא מתי לא יהא גט בעינן הן קודם ללאו:
R. JUDAH SAYS, EIGHTEEN MONTHS), IF THE CHILD DIES OR THE FATHER DIES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, this means, before the time has expired; according to Tosaf., even before she has commenced her duties. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שתשמשי את אבא על מנת שתניקי את בני כמה היא מניקתו שתי שנים רבי יהודה אומר שמנה עשר חדש מת הבן או שמת האב הרי זה גט
THE GET IS VALID. [IF HE SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER FOR TWO YEARS, ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE SUCK TO MY CHILD FOR TWO YEARS, THEN IF THE CHILD DIES OR IF THE FATHER SAYS, I DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK AFTER ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS GIVEN NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, THE GET IS NOT VALID. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A GET LIKE THIS IS VALID. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL LAID IT DOWN AS A GENERAL RULE THAT WHEREVER THE OBSTACLE DOES NOT ARISE FROM HER SIDE, THE GET IS VALID.
הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים ע"מ שתניקי את בני שתי שנים מת הבן או שאמר האב אי אפשי שתשמשני שלא בהקפדה אינו גט
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Do we require so long a period [as two years]? The following seems to contradict this: If she waited on him one day, or gave the child suck one day, the Get is valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Cit. V. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כזה גט כלל אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כל עכבה שאינה הימנה הרי זה גט:
— R. Hisda replied: There is no contradiction; one statement gives the view of the Rabbis, the other that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Our Mishnah gives the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who said above that if the robe is lost she can give the money value, which shows that in his opinion, the husband's object in making a condition is to obtain some substantial advantage, and therefore she may have to suckle the child for as much as two years. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ומי בעינן כולי האי ורמינהי שמשתו יום אחד הניקתו יום אחד ה"ז גט
and the Baraitha that of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who said that she must give the robe itself, which shows that the condition is to be taken au pied de la lettre, and therefore one day is sufficient. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא רבנן והא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל
But since the later clause in our Mishnah states the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, it follows [does it not] that the earlier clause states a view which is not that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — We must say therefore that the Baraitha gives the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who insists only on a minimum fulfilment of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who is lenient in regard to'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מתניתין רשב"ג וברייתא רבנן
conditions, while the Mishnah gives the view of the Rabbis. Raba said: There is no contradiction; in the one case [the Mishnah] we suppose he mentions no time limit, in the other case he mentions a definite time limit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He said one day. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
הא מדסיפא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הוי מכלל דרישא לאו רשב"ג אלא ברייתא רשב"ג היא דמיקל בתנאי מתני' רבנן
Upon which R. Ashi remarked: Wherever no time limit is mentioned, it is the same as mentioning a limit of one day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Ashi has no intention for the present to reconcile the Mishnah and Baraitha; he merely disagrees with Raba's opinion.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
רבא אמר לא קשיא כאן בסתם כאן במפרש
We have learnt: HOW LONG IS SHE TO GIVE IT SUCK? TWO YEARS, RABBI JUDAH SAYS, EIGHTEEN MONTHS. If we accept the view of Raba, this creates no difficulty, but if we accept that of R. Ashi, why should we require two years or eighteen months? One day should be enough? — What it means is this: One day in the next two years, to exclude the period after two years; one day in the next eighteen months, to exclude the period after eighteen months. An objection was raised [against this from the following]: [IF HE SAYS] THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU LOOK AFTER MY FATHER FOR TWO YEARS, ON CONDITION THAT YOU SUCKLE MY CHILD FOR TWO YEARS, THEN IF THE CHILD DIES, OR THE FATHER SAYS, I DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK AFTER ME, EVEN THOUGH SHE GAVE NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, THE GET IS NOT VALID.