Gittin 168

Chapter 168

א לאביי כלל לאתויי בשר חזיר כזה למעוטי פלוני
1 while according to Abaye 'general principle' covers swine's flesh and 'one like this' excludes 'So-and-so'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she may be able to persuade him with money to marry her, the condition is considered capable of fulfilment. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב מיתיבי הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתאכלי בשר חזיר ואם היתה זרה על מנת שתאכלי בתרומה ואם היתה נזירה ע"מ שתשתי יין נתקיים התנאי הרי זה גט ואם לאו אינו גט לרבא ניחא לאביי קשיא
2 An objection was brought [from the following]: [If he says], 'Here is your Get on condition that you eat swine's flesh', or, supposing she was a lay woman, 'on condition that you eat terumah', or, supposing she was a nazirite, 'on condition that you drink wine', then if the condition has been fulfilled this is a Get, and if not it is not a Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the condition cannot be fulfilled without incurring the liability of a flogging. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר לך אביי מי סברת ד"ה היא הא מני רבנן היא
3 This is consistent with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Abaye, [does it not]? — Abaye may reply to you: Do you imagine that this ruling represents a unanimous opinion? This represents the view of the Rabbis. But could he [Abaye] not base his view on the ground that [such a Get contains] a stipulation to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, and wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, the condition is void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 51a; 94a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ותיפוק ליה דמתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה הוא וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל
4 — R. Adda the son of R. Ika replied: When we say that where a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we refer for instance to a stipulation to withhold the food, raiment and marriage duty [of a married woman], where it is the man who nullifies the injunction, but here it is she who nullifies it, Rabina strongly demurred to this [saying], Is not her whole purpose in nullifying only to carry out his condition, so that in point of fact it is he who nullifies? No, said Rabina. When we say that wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we mean, for instance, [a stipulation] to withhold her food, raiment and marriage duty, where he is unquestionably nullifying [the injunction]. But in this case [will anyone tell her that] she is absolutely bound to eat? She need not eat and will not be divorced.
ה אמר רב אדא בריה דרב איקא כי אמרינן מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל כגון שארה כסותה ועונתה דהוא קא עקר אבל הכא איהי קא עקרה
5 WHAT MUST HE DO? HE MUST TAKE IT FROM HER, etc. Who is the authority for this ruling? — Hezekiah said: It is R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, [It is no Get] until he takes it from her and again gives it to her saying, Here is your Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 78a. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו מתקיף לה רבינא כלום קא עקרה איהי אלא לקיומי לתנאי דידיה אישתכח דאיהו קא עקר
6 R. Johanan said, You may even hold that it is Rabbi;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in that case held that he need not actually give it to her again. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז אלא אמר רבינא כי אמרינן מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאו בטל כגון שארה כסותה ועונתה דודאי קא עקר אבל הכא מי קאמר לה לא סגיא דלא אכלה לא תיכול ולא תיגרש:
7 your colleague<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Kahana, R. Johanan was apparently speaking to some disciples of his from Babylon, whence R. Kahana also came; V. B.K. 117a. V, also Tosaf. s.v, ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח כיצד יעשה יטלנו הימנה וכו': מאן תנא אמר חזקיה ר"ש בן אלעזר היא
8 has suggested that there is a special reason here, since she has already become possessed of it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his first delivery of it, ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט דתניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר עד שיטלנו הימנה ויחזור ויתננו לה ויאמר לה הי גיטך
9 to the extent of being disqualified in regard to the priesthood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though she is not yet divorced, she is treated as a divorcee and must not marry a priest should the husband die without giving her the Get a second time as required. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י ר' יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבי דילכון אמר שאני הכא הואיל וקנאתו ליפסל בו לכהונה:
10 IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. R. Safra said: The words here are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we learn here'. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא כתבו בתוכו: אמר רב ספרא כתבו בתוכו תנן
11 IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. Surely this is self-evident? It says, IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET? — You might think that this is the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that merely speaking them does not invalidate the Get, ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב פשיטא כתבו בתוכו תנן מהו דתימא ה"מ לאחר התורף אבל לפני התורף אפילו על פה נמי פסול קמ"ל
12 only [if he inserts them] after the substantive part of the Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His name and her name, the name of his town and her town. V. supra. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג ורבא אמר לא שנו אלא לאחר התורף אבל לפני התורף אפילו על פה נמי פסול
13 [has been written],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a fortiori if before. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דאמר להו רבא להנהו דכתבי גיטי שתקו שתוקי לבעל עד דכתביתו ליה לתורף דגיטא
14 but where [he made the reservation] before the substantive part [has been written], then even [if he made it] orally [the Get] should be invalid. Therefore [R. Safra] tells us [that this is not so]. Raba on the other hand held that the rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That words which invalidate when written do not invalidate if only spoken. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו ת"ר כל התנאין פוסלין בגט דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים כל שפוסל על פה פוסל בכתב וכל שאינו פוסל על פה אינו פוסל בכתב חוץ שפוסל על פה פוסל בכתב ע"מ שאינו פוסל על פה אינו פוסל בכתב
15 applies only if [he made the reservation] after the substantive part [was written], but if before the substantive part was written then even if made orally [the Get] is invalid. Raba was quite consistent in this, as he used to say to the scribes who wrote bills of divorce, Silence the husband till you have written the substantive part [of the Get].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest he should say something which might invalidate it. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז אמר רבי זירא מחלוקת לפני התורף דרבי סבר גזרינן ע"מ אטו חוץ ורבנן סברי לא גזרינן ע"מ אטו חוץ אבל לאחר התורף
16 Our Rabbis taught: All conditions [written] in a Get make it invalid. This is the view of Rabbi. The Sages, however, say that a condition which would render it invalid if stated orally makes it invalid if written, but one which does not invalidate it if stated orally does not invalidate it if written. [Hence] the word 'except'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> which invalidates it [if expressed] orally also invalidates it [if inserted] in writing, whereas ['on condition'] which does not invalidate it [if expressed] orally does not invalidate it [if inserted] in writing. R. Zera said: They disagree only where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [was written], Rabbi holding that we disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for fear one might be confused with the other. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except'. If, however, [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [has been written].
Previous ChapterNext Chapter