Gittin 153

לכי נפקא קאמר לה וכי מיית בליליא הוי גט לאחר מיתה

he means that [the Get is to take effect only] when the sun does come out, and if he dies in the night it would be a Get after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore of no effect. ');">¹</span>

על מנת שתצא חמה מנרתיקה מעכשיו קאמר לה דאמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי

If, again, he says, 'On condition that the sun issues from its sheath,' he means it to take effect as from now, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' Is equivalent to 'as from now'. Where opinions differ is when he says 'if it shall issue', One authority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah the Prince. ');">²</span>

לא נחלקו אלא באם תצא מר סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו והוה ליה כמהיום אם מתי כמעכשיו אם מתי מר לא סבר כרבי יוסי והוה ליה כאם מתי גרידא:

adopts the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication, so that his words are analogous to 'from to-day if I die, from now if I die,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore in the case of the Mishnah, where he said 'IF I DO NOT RETURN', if he died within the twelve months the Get takes effect retrospectively. ');">³</span>

כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי אם לא באתי מכאן ועד י"ב חדש כתבו כו':

while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of our Mishnah. ');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה רב יימר לרב אשי לימא קסבר ר' יוסי כתב גט על תנאי כשר לא לעולם אימא לך פסול ושאני הכא מדהוה ליה למימר אם לא באתי כתבו ותנו ואמר כתבו ותנו אם לא באתי הכי קאמר כתבו מעכשיו ותנו אם לא באתי ורבנן לא שנא הכי ולא שנא הכי

did not accept the view of R. Jose, and his words are analogous to the bare 'if I die'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the Get is not valid (v. supra 72a), and similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the Get takes effect only after twelve months and should he die in the meantime the Get is no Get. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ר לאחר שבוע שנה לאחר שנה חדש לאחר חדש שבת

WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IF THEY WROTE etc. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: May we conclude from this that in R. Jose's opinion, if one writes a Get subject to a certain condition [even if the condition is not fulfilled] the document is a valid one? — No; I may still hold that it is not valid, and R. Jose has a special reason here, because he ought to have said 'If I do not come, write and deliver', and he actually said, 'Write and deliver if I do not come', and [we presume him] therefore to have meant, Write from now and deliver if I do not come. The Rabbis, however, do not differentiate between the two forms.

לאחר שבת מאי יתיב ר' זירא קמיה דרבי אסי ואמרי לה רבי אסי קמיה דרבי יוחנן וקאמר חד בשבא ותרי ותלתא בתר שבתא ארבעה וחמשא ומעלי שבתא קמי שבתא

Our Rabbis taught: [If he says, 'This is your Get if I do not return] till after the septennate,' we wait an extra year;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To allow for the 'after'. ');">⁶</span>

תניא רבי אומר לאחר הרגל שלשים יום נפק ר' חייא דרשה משמיה דרבי וקלסוה משמיה דרבים ולא קלסוה אלמא לית הילכתא כוותיה:

'till after a year', we wait a month; 'till after a month', we wait a week. If he Says, 'till after the Sabbath',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sabbath in Hebrew denotes either week or Sabbath. ');">⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך מי שאחזו:</strong></big><br><br>

what [do we do]? — When R. Zera was once sitting before R. Assi, or, as others report, when R. Assi was sitting before R. Johanan, he said: The first day of the week and the second and third are called 'after the Sabbath'; the fourth and fifth days and the eve of Sabbath are called 'before the Sabbath.'

מתני׳ <big><strong>הזורק</strong></big> גט לאשתו והיא בתוך ביתה או בתוך חצרה הרי זו מגורשת זרקו לה בתוך ביתו או בתוך חצרו אפילו הוא עמה במטה אינה מגורשת לתוך חיקה או לתוך קלתה הרי זו מגורשת:

It has been taught: [If he says] 'Till after the festival', we wait thirty days. R. Hiyya went forth and preached this in the name of Rabbi, and he was commended [for doing so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was praised'. Because he reported this ruling as the opinion of one individual which need not be accepted. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים כד, א) ונתן בידה אין לי אלא ידה גגה חצרה וקרפיפה מנין ת"ל ונתן מכל מקום

He then preached it in the name of the majority and was not commended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For reporting a non-recognised teaching in the name of many. ');">⁹</span>

ותניא נמי הכי גבי גנב ידו אין לי אלא ידו גגו חצרו וקרפיפו מנין ת"ל (שמות כב, ג) המצא תמצא מכל מקום

This shows that the law is not as laid down by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 77 and notes. ');">¹⁰</span>

וצריכא דאי אשמועי' גט משום דבעל כרחה מגרשה אבל גנב דליתיה בעל כורחיה אימא לא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN THROWS A GET TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE OR IN HER COURTYARD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the so-called 'property of plucking' (v. Glos. s.v. mulug) of which the husband has the usufruct while the wife retains the ownership. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אשמועינן גנב משום דקנסיה רחמנא אבל גט אימא לא צריכא

SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT TO HER INTO HIS HOUSE OR INTO HIS COURTYARD, EVEN THOUGH HE IS WITH HER ON THE SAME BED, SHE IS NOT THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT INTO HER LAP OR INTO HER WORK-BASKET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G]. ');">¹²</span>

חצרה מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה

SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED.

א"ר אלעזר בכותב לה דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the Scriptural warrant for this rule? — As our Rabbis taught: 'And give it in her hand:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. ');">¹³</span>

וכי כתב לה הכי מאי הוי והתניא האומר לחבירו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו ואין לי עסק בה וידי מסולקת הימנה לא אמר כלום

this only tells me that [the Get may be placed] in 'her hand'. Whence do I learn that [it may also be placed] on her roof, or in her courtyard or enclosure? The text says significantly. 'And he shall give', which means, in any manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 58. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמרי דבי ר' ינאי בכותב לה ועודה ארוסה וכדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא נחלה הבאה לו לאדם ממקום אחר אדם מתנה עליה שלא ירשנה

It has been taught in a similar manner regarding a thief: His hand:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 3. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכדרבא דאמר רבא האומר

this tells me on]y that [he is liable if the theft is found] in his hand. Whence do I learn that [he is equally liable if it is found] on his roof, or in his courtyard or his enclosure? From the significant words, 'If it be found at all', which means, under all circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. op. cit. p. 56. ');">¹⁶</span> And [both expositions are] necessary. For had I only the one regarding the Get, I should have said that the reason is because [she is divorced] against her will,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore her courtyard serves the purpose equally with her hand. ');">¹⁷</span> but [that this rule does] not apply to a thief who cannot become such against his will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if, for instance, an animal entered his courtyard and he locked it in without touching it, I might think that he would not be liable. ');">¹⁸</span> And had I been given the rule in regard to the thief only, I should have said [that it applied to him] because the All-Merciful imposed a fine upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To repay double. Ex. loc. cit. This would indicate that the law was in general more severe with him. ');">¹⁹</span> but not to a Get. Hence both were necessary. It says]. HER COURTYARD. [How can this be, Seeing that] whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? — R. Eleazar said: We presume him to have given her a written statement that he has no claim on her property. But suppose he did do so, what difference does it make, seeing that it has been taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 43a. ');">²⁰</span> 'If a man says to another [a partner.] I have no claim on this field, I have no concern in it, I entirely dissociate myself from it, his words are of no effect'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Unless and until he makes it over as a gift.] ');">²¹</span> — The school of R. Jannai explained: We suppose him to have given her this written statement while she was still betrothed, and we adopt [at the same time] the maxim of R. Kahana; for R. Kahana said that a man may stipulate beforehand that he will not take up a prospective inheritance from an outside source.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not his father, or next-of-kin according to the Torah. ');">²²</span> This too is based on a ruling of Raba, who said: If one says.