Kiddushin 120
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שנתקרע הגט או שאבד לרב הונא הוי גט לרב יהודה לא הוי גט
Wherein do they differ? - They differ where the divorce document is torn or lost [before the money is given]: according to R. Huna, it is a divorce; according to Rab Judah, it is not a divorce. Now, it is necessary [to state both cases]. For if we were told this of kiddushin [only, I would say] in that case R. Huna says thus, because he comes to attach her [to himself];but as for divorce, where he comes to alienate her, I might say that he agrees with Rab Judah. And if the latter were taught: only there does R. Huna rule thus, for he [the husband] is not ashamed to demand it of her; but here [in the case of marriage], seeing that she is ashamed to demand it of him, I would argue that he agrees with Rab Judah. Thus both are necessary.<br> <br> An objection was raised: 'Here is thy divorce, on condition that thou givest me two hundred zuz,' she is divorced even though the document is torn or lost;yet she may not marry another until she has given it. Again, it was taught: 'Here is thy divorce on condition that thou givest me two hundred zuz,' and then he dies, if she gave it [before his death], she is not bound to the yabam; if not, she is bound to the yabam.R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: She can give it to his brother, father, or one of his relations.Now, they differ only in so far as one Master holds, 'To me' [implies] 'but not to my heirs', whilst the other rules: 'Even to my heirs'; but all agree that it is a condition, which refutes Rab Judah! - Rab Judah answers you: Who is the authority for this? Rabbi. For R. Huna said in Rabbi's name:He who says. 'On condition,' is as though he says: 'From now';but the Rabbis disagree with him, and I hold with the Rabbis.<br> <br> The text [says]: R. Huna said in Rabbi's name: He who says, 'on condition,' is as though he says: 'From now.' R. Zera observed: When we were in Babylonwe used to say: With reference to R. Huna's dictum in Rabbi's name, 'One who says: "on condition," is as though he says: "from now'": the Rabbis dispute it. When I went up thither [Palestine], I found R. Assi sitting and expounding in R. Johanan's name: All agree that if he says: 'on condition,' it is as though he says: 'From now'. They differ only in respect of 'from to-day and after death'. And it was taught even so: 'From to-day and after [my death]': it is a divorce, yet not a divorce: this is the view of the Sages. Rabbi said: This indeed is a divorce.Now, according to Rab Judah who maintains that they differ in respect of 'on condition' too' instead of disputing in [the case of] 'from to-day and after [my] death,' let them dispute in respect of 'on condition?' - That is to teach you the extent of Rabbi's view,that even in the case of 'from to-day and after death,' it is a valid divorce. Then let them dispute with reference to 'on condition,' to shew you the extent of the Rabbis' view? - The extent of what is permitted is more important. <br> <br> ON CONDITION THAT I GIVE THEE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW etc. But it is obvious? - I might have thought that it is not a condition, and he said it to urge her on; hence we are told [that it is not so.]<br> <br> ON CONDITION THAT I POSSESS TWO HUNDRED ZUZ' etc. But let us fear that he may possess it [secretly]? Moreover, it was taught: We fear that he may possess it? - There is no difficulty: The one refers to certain kiddushin; the other, to doubtful kiddushin. 'ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ' etc. A Tanna taught: Her purpose was to see none but his.<br> <br> BUT IF HE SHEWS HER [MONEY LYING] ON THE COUNTER, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. But it is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only even when he holds the money in an investment. MISHNAH. [IF HE SAYS TO HER 'BE THOU BETROTHED UNTO ME] ON CONDITION THAT I OWN A BETH KOR OF LAND', SHE IS BETROTHED, PROVIDING THAT HE DOES OWN IT. ON CONDITION THAT I OWN IT IN SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE', IF HE OWNS IT THERE SHE IS BETROTHED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. 'ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE A BETH KOR OF LAND,' SHE IS BETROTHED, PROVIDING THAT HE DOES SHEW IT TO HER. BUT IF HE SHEWS IT TO HER IN A PLAIN, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED.<br> <br> GEMARA. But let us fear that he may possess it? Moreover, it was taught. We fear that he may possess it? - There is no difficulty: the one refers to certain kiddushin; the other, to doubtful kiddushin. <br> <br> Why must it be taught with respect to both land and money? - It is necessary: for if we were told this of money, [I would say] that is because people are accustomed to hide money; but as for land I would say: If he possesses land, it is known: hence we are informed [otherwise].<br> <br> ON CONDITION THAT I POSSESS IT IN SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE,' IF HE POSSESSES<br> <br> IT. etc. But it is obvious? - I might argue that he can say to her, 'What does it matter to you? I will take the trouble of bringing [its produce where you want it].' Hence we are informed [that it is not so].<br> <br> ON CONDITION THAT I SHEW THEE A BETH KOR OF LAND. A Tanna taught: Her meaning was to see none but his.<br> <br> BUT IF HE SHEWS IT TO HER IN A PLAIN, SHE IS NOT BETROTHED. But that is obvious? - It is necessary [to teach it] only if he holds it on a farming tenancy. <br> <br> With respect to hekdesh we learnt: