Gittin 151

בשלמא לרבא רישא בדלא פריש סיפא דפריש

This creates no difficulty for Raba, who may say that the previous clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If the child dies&nbsp;… the Get is valid'. ');">¹</span>

אלא לרב אשי מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא קשיא

speaks of the case where he does not mention any time limit and this where he does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For the fact of his mentioning a time limit shows that he is particular about the child being suckled for two years. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf.] ');">²</span>

ת"ר הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים ועל מנת שתניקי את בני שתי שנים אע"פ שלא נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט לפי שלא אמר לה אם תשמשי אם לא תשמשי אם תניקי ואם לא תניקי דברי רבי מאיר

But on R. Ashi's view, why should the ruling be different in the first case from that in the second?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the first case also, if the child dies before she has suckled it one day, why should not the Get be void? ');">³</span>

וחכ"א נתקיים התנאי ה"ז גט ואם לאו אינו גט רשב"ג אומר אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול

— This is indeed a difficulty.

איכא דאמרי לר' מאיר קאמר ליה ואיכא דאמרי לרבנן קאמר להו איכא דאמרי לר' מאיר קאמר ליה והכי קאמר ליה אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול והוו להו שני כתובים הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, or on condition that you suckle my child for two years, even though the condition is not fulfilled, the Get is valid because he did not say to her, [first] 'if you look after' [and then] 'if you do not look after', 'if you suckle' and 'if you do not suckle'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he did not state the condition both affirmatively and negatively, after the model of the condition of the sons of Gad and Reuben. ');">⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי לרבנן קאמר להו והכי קאמר להו אין לך תנאי בכתובים שאינו כפול וגמרינן מינייהו

This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that if the condition is fulfilled it is a Get and if not it is no Get. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., Gen. XXIV, 3ff.; Num. XIX, V, 19ff.; Is., I, 19, 20. ');">⁵</span>

ורמינהו הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שתשמשי את אבא שתי שנים על מנת שתניקי את בני שתי שנים מת האב או מת הבן אינו גט דברי ר' מאיר

According to one explanation, he addressed this remark to R. Meir, and according to another he addressed it to the Sages. According to one view he addressed his remark to R. Meir, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated. Hence in this connection we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, and wherever we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, we do not base a rule upon them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 458, n. 9. ');">⁶</span>

וחכמים אומרים אע"פ שלא נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט יכולה היא שתאמר לו תן לי אביך ואשמשנו תן לי בנך ואניקנו

According to another explanation he addressed his remark to the Rabbis, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scripture which is not duplicated and we base our rules upon them.

קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן

A contradiction was raised [from the following]: [If a man said], 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 father or the child dies the Get is not valid. This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that although the condition has not been fulfilled the Get is valid, since she can say to him, Produce your father and I will wait on him, produce your child and I will suckle it. Now, R. Meir would seem to be in contradiction with himself, and the Rabbis would also seem to be in contradiction with themselves? — Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: the former [speaks of] where [the man] did not double his condition, the latter of where he did double it. Between the two statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction; for by the 'Sages' here mentioned we understand Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said that wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side the Get is valid.

דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר לא קשיא התם בדלא כפליה לתנאיה הכא בדכפליה לתנאיה

Our Rabbis taught: If a man said to his wife in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., showing it to her without giving it to her. ');">⁷</span>

ורבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא מאן חכמים דהכא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דאמר כל עכבה שאינה הימנה הרי זה גט

on condition that you look after my father for two years, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, the second statement does not nullify the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the condition is of an entirely different nature. ');">⁸</span>

תנו רבנן אמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתשמשי את אבא ב' שנים וחזר ואמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז לא ביטל דברי האחרון את הראשון רצתה משמשתו רצתה נותנת לו מאתים זוז

and she has the option of either waiting on the father or giving the husband the two hundred <i>zuz</i>. If, however, he said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred <i>zuz</i>, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me three hundred <i>zuz</i>, the second statement nullifies the first, nor can one of the first two witnesses and one of the second combine to form a pair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that there was a certain condition attached to the Get though not inserted in writing. ');">⁹</span>

אבל אמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתתני לי מאתים זוז וחזר ואמר לה בפני שנים הרי זה גיטך על מנת שתתני לי ג' מאות זוז ביטל דברי האחרון את הראשון ואין אחד מן הראשונים ואחד מן האחרונים מצטרפין

To which ruling [does this last statement belong]? It cannot be the second one, because [the first condition there] is nullified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even if the two witnesses to that condition came together, their evidence would be of no effect. ');">¹⁰</span>

אהייא אילימא אסיפא הרי בטל אלא ארישא

Rather it is the first one. But in this case it is self-evident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they cannot both testify to the same thing. ');">¹¹</span>

פשיטא מהו דתימא כל לקיומא תנאי מצטרפין קמ"ל:

— You might think that all [the witnesses who can help] to establish that there was a condition can be joined together. We are therefore told [that this is not so].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך מיהודה לגליל הגיע לאנטיפרס וחזר בטל תנאו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Antipatris, on the borders of Judea and Galilee. ');">¹²</span>

הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך מגליל ליהודה והגיע לכפר עותנאי וחזר בטל תנאו

AND THEN TURNED BACK, HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra, in the Gemara. ');">¹³</span>

הרי זה גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן עד שלשים יום והיה הולך למדינת הים והגיע לעכו וחזר בטל תנאו

[IF HE SAYS,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM GALILEE TO JUDEA, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS KEFAR 'UTHNAI<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the borders of Galilee and Judea, v. supra p. 34, n. 4. ');">¹⁴</span>

הרי זה גיטך כל זמן שאעבור מכנגד פניך שלשים יום היה הולך ובא הולך ובא הואיל ולא נתיחד עמה הרי זה גט:

AND THEN TURNED BACK, THE CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING INTO FOREIGN PARTS, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO [ACRE] AND TURNED BACK HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL HAVE KEPT AWAY FROM YOUR PRESENCE THIRTY DAYS, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME AND WENT CONSTANTLY, SO LONG AS HE WAS NOT CLOSETED WITH HER, THE GET IS VALID.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למימרא דאנטיפרס בגליל הוה קיימא ורמינהי אנטיפרס ביהודה וכפר עותנאי בגליל בינתים מטילין אותו לחומרא מגורשת

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS,] This would seem to imply that Antipras is in Galilee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara understands the Mishnah thus: If he actually went to Galilee but did not stay there thirty days, the Get is void, as his condition has not been fulfilled. If, however, he returns before reaching Galilee, he has not broken his condition, and is still able to fulfil it by going to Galilee and remaining there thirty days. Hence, since by going to Antipras and returning at once he makes the Get void, Antipras must be in Galilee, and similarly Kefar 'Uthnai must be in Judea. ');">¹⁵</span> which [apparently] contradicts the following: 'Antipras is in Judea and Kefar 'Uthnai in Galilee. The space between the two is subject to the disabilities of both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, we reckon the condition as both broken and not broken, to the wife's disadvantage. ');">¹⁶</span> so that [if he gets there and returns] she is divorced