Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 75a

, we conclude that in general a gift forced on the donee is not accounted a gift. R. Papa (or as some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred to this, [saying:] But perhaps Hillel thought there was need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in the donee's presence, but where it was made to him personally, the gift would be effective whether he was willing to receive it or not? According to another version, Raba said: From the regulation of Hillel we may infer that if he said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz and she gave them to him, whether he accepted them willingly or she forced them on him, the transfer is effective. For Hillel felt the need for a special regulation only where the money was given not in his presence, but if given to him personally the gift, whether accepted or forced on one, is effective. To this R. Papa (or some say R. Shimi b. Ashi) strongly demurred, [saying], Perhaps even if made to him personally the gift if made with his consent is effective but if against his will not, and Hillel made only the adjustment which was required?¹

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel gives a ruling in our Mishnah, the halachah follows him, save in the matters of the 'Areb',²  of 'Sidon'³  and of the 'later proof'.⁴

Our Rabbis taught: If a man says, This is your Get on condition that the paper belongs to me, she is not divorced;⁵  if he says, On condition that you return me the paper, she is divorced.⁶  Why this difference between the two cases?⁷  — R. Hisda replied: The authority followed here is Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said [in an analogous case that] she should give the money value; so here too, it is possible for her to make it right for him with a money payment.⁸  Abaye strongly demurred to this, saying: I grant you that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel meant this ruling to apply where the object for which compensation is given cannot be produced,⁹  but would he have said the same where it can be produced? No, said Abaye: the authority followed here is R. Meir, who said that a condition to be binding must be duplicated,¹⁰  and here he has not duplicated his condition.¹¹  Raba strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that he did not duplicate the condition, so that if he had duplicated the condition it would not have been a Get. Let us see now. Whence do we derive [the rule governing] conditions? From [the condition] of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben.¹²  Therefore just as there the condition was mentioned before the act conditional on it,¹³  so in all cases the condition should be mentioned before the act, and that excludes the present case where the act is mentioned before the condition.¹⁴  No, said Raba: the reason is that the act is mentioned before the condition. R. Ada b. Ahabah strongly objected to this, saying, The reason [according to you] is that the act was mentioned before the condition, so that if the condition were mentioned before the act it would not be a divorce. Let us see now. Whence do we derive the rule of conditions? From that of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben. Therefore just as there the condition relates to one thing and the act to another,¹⁵  so it should be in all cases, to exclude such a one as this

1. He found that the owners hid themselves and consequently made the necessary regulation. And if it had been a common thing to refuse the payment when offered, he would have ordained that the gift should be effective in this case also, and therefore the money for the Get cannot be forced on him against his will.
2. 'Surety'. V. B.B. 173a, on the law of recovering from a surety if the borrower has assets.
3. Our own Mishnah.
4. I.e., evidence brought after the time allowed by the Beth din. Sanh. 31a.
5. Because he does not carry out the injunction, 'he shall give into her hand', Deut. XXIV, I.
6. V. supra 20b.
7. [It is assumed that in the latter case the Get comes into force only after the return of the paper when the condition has been fulfilled. Hence the question.]
8. And as the condition can be fulfilled the Get is valid.
9. As in the case of the lost robe.
10. I.e., expressed both affirmatively and negatively. Kid. 61a
11. And therefore it is a Get unconditionally.
12. Num. XXXII, 20ff, 'If ye shall do this thing … then this land shall be unto you a possession; and if ye shall not do so … behold ye have sinned, etc.
13. ['If ye shall do this thing … (condition), then his land shall be unto you a possession' (act).]
14. [He said first 'this is your Get and then added the condition that 'the paper belongs to me'.]
15. The condition to crossing the Jordan, and the act to their taking possession of the land of Sihon and Og.

where both the condition and the act relate to the same thing?¹  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'.²

Samuel laid down that a Get given by a man on a sick bed³  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?⁴  — 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?⁵  — 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.

MISHNAH. [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.⁶  R. JUDAH SAYS, EIGHTEEN MONTHS), IF THE CHILD DIES OR THE FATHER DIES,⁷  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.

GEMARA. 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?⁸  — 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,⁹  and the Baraitha that of the Rabbis.¹⁰  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 of¹¹  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.¹²  Upon which R. Ashi remarked: Wherever no time limit is mentioned, it is the same as mentioning a limit of one day.¹³

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.

1. The Get itself which has to be returned and so become a Get.
2. [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.]
3. In order to release the wife from all ties to her brothers-in-law.
4. So as to commence with the affirmative condition.
5. Why did Samuel insist on the exact words of the formula?
6. I.e., until it is two years old, (v. Keth. 60b). The words in brackets are best taken as a parenthesis.
7. According to Rashi, this means, before the time has expired; according to Tosaf., even before she has commenced her duties.
8. V. Tosef. Cit. V.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Lit., 'who is lenient in regard to'.
12. He said one day.
13. [R. Ashi has no intention for the present to reconcile the Mishnah and Baraitha; he merely disagrees with Raba's opinion.]