Gittin 76b — the Talmud in English

Therefore, if he was traveling from Judea to the Galilee and passed Antipatris but did not reach Kfar Otnai, and returned within thirty days, and after some time again traveled to the Galilee and stayed there more than thirty days.

She is

divorced

—to disqualify her from the priesthood

but she is not divorced

to marry with this get.

Since there is uncertainty whether the get was canceled on his first journey, because he passed Antipatris, and the status of that place is uncertain: perhaps it is the Galilee—and the get was canceled because he returned within thirty days; and perhaps it is Judea—and then he did not nullify his condition, and the condition was fulfilled on his second journey, and the get takes effect.

This beraita is difficult against the Mishna, for according to this beraita, the ruling in the Mishna should have been that if he was traveling from Judea to the Galilee, reached Antipatris, and returned, he did not nullify his condition, since he had not yet left for the Galilee; and if he traveled after some time and stayed in the Galilee, it would be a get. And likewise, when he was traveling from the Galilee to Judea, reached Kfar Otnai, and returned, he did not nullify his condition, since he had not yet reached Judea. Yet in the Mishna it is written that in both of these cases his condition is nullified.

Abaye said:

In truth, Antipatris is in Judea and Kfar Otnai is in the Galilee, as explained in the beraita.

But the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he stated

two

conditions,

he stated them:

:

And this is what he said:

And this is what he said:

If I reach

the

the Galilee—

the get shall take effect immediately.

the get shall take effect immediately.

And if I remain on the road for thirty days and do not come—

—and if [I do not reach the Galilee and] I remain on the road for thirty days [from the day I leave here] and do not come—

let it be

—let it be—

a get.

Therefore, the ruling is that if he

reached Antipatris and returned

within thirty days, the condition was not fulfilled, and the get is nullified, because

he did not reach the Galilee,

—reach it—

and he also did not remain for thirty days on the road; therefore she is not divorced and

—and he likewise did not remain on the road for a period of thirty days. Consequently, she is not divorced and

his condition is nullified.

And likewise, the second case in the Mishna, where he was in the Galilee, is to be explained as referring to one who stated two conditions: (a) if I reach Judea, the get shall take effect immediately; (b) if I do not reach Judea, the get shall take effect only if I remain on the road for thirty days from the day that I leave the house. Therefore, the ruling is that if he reached Kfar Otnai and returned within thirty days, since he did not reach Judea and also did not remain on the road for thirty days, therefore she is not divorced and the condition is nullified.

We learned in the Mishna: If he gave a get to his wife and said to her,

“This is your get if I do not come from now until thirty days,”

and he was traveling to a country overseas, reached Acre, and returned within thirty days—his condition is nullified.

Apparently, the condition is nullified because when he reached Acre he is considered to have left for a country overseas, and since he returned within thirty days, he did not fulfill the condition; she is not divorced and the condition is nullified.

And we raised a difficulty:

Does this mean that Acre is situated in a country overseas, and is not considered the Land of Israel?

—is it situated there—and is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael?

But

—yet—

Rav Safra said:

Residents of a country overseas who traveled to study Torah in the Land of Israel, when they returned to their homes, their colleagues, the residents of the Land of Israel, would accompany them to the border of the Land of Israel, and

when the Sages took leave of one another—

—when the scholars parted from one another—

they took leave in Acre.

—they would part there.

Because it is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land of Israel!

It follows that Acre is located in the Land of Israel, and this is difficult, since in the Mishna it appears that Acre is already considered outside the Land of Israel.

Abaye said:

In truth, Acre is located in the Land of Israel, and the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he

stated two

conditions:

conditions,

:

he stated them:

And this is what he said:

If I reach

the

a country overseas—

the get shall take effect immediately;

the get shall take effect immediately

if I remain on the road for thirty days and do not come—

and if I remain on the road for thirty days and do not come

let it be

let it be—

a get. Therefore, the ruling is that if he

Therefore, the ruling is that if he

reached Acre and returned

within thirty days, since

he did not reach a country overseas,

—reach it—

and he also did not remain for thirty days on the road, therefore she is not divorced and

—and likewise did not remain on the road for thirty days—she is not divorced and

his condition is nullified.

We learned in the Mishna: He said to her at the time of delivering the get:

“This is your get provided that I pass

opposite your face [that I do not appear before you] for thirty consecutive days”; even if he was going and coming, if he did not be alone with her for thirty days—this is a get.

And we raised a difficulty: Why does the get take effect if he did not be alone with her?

But he did not fulfill the condition, for

—yet—he did not fulfill the condition, since he

he did not pass opposite her face for thirty consecutive days; rather, he was going and coming!

from opposite her face for thirty consecutive days; rather, he was going and coming!

Rav Huna said:

It may be said:

What is the meaning of the condition that he stipulated, “If I do not pass opposite

is the meaning of the condition he stipulated, “If I do not remain away from opposite

your face”?

The reference is to

marital relations.

And since he was not alone with her for thirty days, thirty days consequently passed without marital relations, and the condition was fulfilled, and the get took effect.

And why does he call it

marital relations by the expression

“your face”?

Because

he adopted an elevated expression,

for he spoke in a clean expression.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: In truth,

the expression “your face” in the Mishna refers to

your actual face—that is, that he not appear before her for thirty days; and in truth, the get does not take effect as long as he was going and coming before her.

meaning that he must not appear before her for thirty days; and in fact, the get does not take effect as long as he was going and coming before her.

And the words of the Mishna are not difficult.

For

does it teach in the Mishna in the wording

in the Mishna in the wording:

“she is divorced,”

whose meaning is that the get takes effect immediately?

The wording

“this is a get, it teaches

in the Mishna!

That is, the get has not yet been invalidated,

for it is not

—it is not—

an old get ,

and the get can still take effect if the condition is fulfilled,

and when thirty days are completed it shall be a get—

when thirty days have been completed [without his appearing before her], the get shall take effect.

It was taught

an explicit beraita

in accordance with

—according to the opinion of—

Rabbi Yohanan’s view:

For we learned in a beraita: He said to her:

“This is your get provided that I pass opposite your face for thirty days.”

And he was going and coming, going and coming.

Since he was not alone with her—

—

this is a get, and we have no concern for an old get, since he was not alone with her.

It follows in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s words that the concern is for an old get, and that is what the Mishna discussed: there is no concern for an old get when he was not alone with her. But in truth, the get does not take effect until thirty consecutive days pass without his appearing before her.

And we object: Why do they validate the get when he was going and coming?

And let us be concerned lest he became reconciled with his wife during the time that he was going and coming, and was alone with her! And after some time the husband will come and challenge the get, saying that he became reconciled with her.

with his wife during the time he was going and coming, and secluded himself with her! Later the husband might come and challenge the get, claiming that he had reconciled with her.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what Abba Mari said in the name of Rav:

It is speaking

of

a case in which the husband

says at the time of the stipulation that he is delivering the get to her on this condition: that she shall be

at the time of stipulating the condition: I am delivering the get to her on the condition that she be

trusted by me

as one hundred witnesses

to say that I did not come

and was not alone with her and did not become reconciled with her.

And since he trusts her concerning this—if she says that he was not alone with her, he is not believed, and the get remains valid.

There are those who teach it

[there are those who taught] Rabba bar Rav Huna’s answer

with regard to the Mishna

below:

For it is written in the Mishna below: If he said to her, “This is your get

from now if I do not come from now until twelve months, and he died within twelve months”—

this is a get.

And the Gemara asked: Why is the get valid,

and let us be concerned lest he became reconciled

with his wife during the time until he died, and was alone with her!

And concerning this

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what Abba Mari said in the name of Rav:

It is speaking

of

a case in which the husband

says at the time of the stipulation that he is delivering the get to her on this condition: that she shall be

at the time of stipulating the condition: I am delivering the get to her on the condition that she be

trusted by me

as one hundred witnesses

to say that I did not come

and was not alone with her and did not become reconciled with her!

And since the woman says that her husband did not become reconciled with her, there is no longer concern lest the husband became reconciled with her after the writing of the get, since she is trusted.

And we say:

Whoever teaches

[whoever taught] Rabba bar Rav Huna’s words in the name of Rav

with regard to the Mishna

below,

all the more so

that his words were stated

with regard to the beraita.

For if, in the case of the Mishna, where he was not going and coming, Rav concedes that we are concerned lest he became reconciled unless he initially stipulated that the woman would be trusted by him to say that he did not come, all the more so in the case of the beraita, where he was going and coming, there is certainly concern lest he became reconciled.

Whoever teaches

[whoever taught] Rabba bar Rav Huna’s words in the name of Rav

with regard to the beraita.

But with regard to the Mishna,

where he died within twelve months and we did not see that he returned to the city since he left, there is no concern lest he became reconciled,

for he did not come

[for he did not come] before her at all; and even if he did not initially stipulate that he trusted the woman concerning his not having come, there is no concern lest he became reconciled, and the get remains valid.

Mishna:

One who says to his wife:

“This is your get if I do not come from now until twelve months,”

that is, if I do not come within twelve months from the day the get is delivered, this shall be a get.

And he died within twelve months—

Since he did not say to her, “This is your get from now,” it follows that the get will take effect only after twelve months.

Therefore, when he dies within that period,

it is not a get,

since the get does not take effect after death. And if the husband died without children, she requires yibbum.

But if he said to her:

“This is your get from now if I do not come from now until twelve months.”

Since he said “from now,” the meaning of the wording is that if he does not come within twelve months, the get will take effect retroactively from the time the get was delivered into her hand.

And

therefore, if he

died within twelve months—

Even though the husband did not intend that his not coming be because of death, for death is not common.

This is a get,

for the get had already taken effect retroactively from the time of delivery.

He said to two men:

“If I do not come from now until twelve months, write and give a get to my wife,”

that is, after twelve months write and give a get to my wife, if I do not come within that period.

If they

wrote

the

get within twelve months and gave

it

after twelve months—

It is not a get.

For the husband’s intention was that even the writing should be only after twelve months.

And likewise, if he said:

“Write and give a get to my wife if I do not come from here until twelve months”—

even though he mentioned the writing before he mentioned the time, and it is possible to say that he intended to insist only on the giving, that it be after twelve months, but not on the writing.

Nevertheless, even in such a case, if

they wrote it within twelve months and gave it after twelve months—

it is not a get,

because he did not say “from now,” and the meaning of this wording, too, is that they should write the get only after twelve months; the husband insisted not only that the giving be after twelve months, but also that the writing be after twelve months.

Rabbi Yose says: Such is a get,

since he mentioned the writing before he mentioned the time , it is a get, even though they wrote it within twelve months, for the meaning of this wording is: “Write it from now, and give it if I do not come from here until twelve months”; that is, he insisted on the time of the giving, but not on the time of the writing.

But if the two

wrote

the get only

after twelve months and gave

it

after twelve months,

having done everything according to his condition,

and the husband died

.

In this case everyone agrees:

that

if the get

was given to the woman

before the death—

it is a get,

because the get took effect during the husband’s lifetime.

And if death preceded the

giving of the

get

into the woman’s hands—

it is not a get,

for the get did not take effect until the time of the giving, and there is no get after death.

And if it is not known

what preceded what—whether the get preceded the death or the death preceded the get—

this is the

divorce

about which

the Sages said:

divorced and not divorced

because of the uncertainty .

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he said to her, “This is your get if I do not come from here until twelve months,” and he died within those twelve months—it is not a get, since he did not say to her, “This is your get from now.” It follows that the get should take effect only after twelve months, and a get cannot take effect after death. And if the husband died without sons, she requires yibbum.

The tanna

in a beraita

our Rabbis

disagreed with the law in the Mishna and

permitted her to marry

with this get, since they hold that even though he did not say in the condition that the get should take effect “from now,” it is considered as though he said to her “from now,” for presumably he intended that the get take effect immediately if the condition were fulfilled.

And we inquire about it:

Who [

who are they]

“our Rabbis”?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The court that permitted oil [

the court that permitted the oil of gentiles; that is, the court of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a, who lived in the time of the amoraim and was the grandson of Rabbi the Holy].

For they

hold like Rabbi Yose.

For

Rabbi Yose said: One who writes his property to his son so that it will belong to the son after his death, and his brothers will not inherit with him these properties, must transfer to him the substance of the land before the law of inheritance takes effect upon it.

But since the father still needs the property for himself as long as he is alive, he transfers the produce of the land only after his death.

And even though the son acquires the produce only after the death of his father, the law of inheritance does not take effect upon the produce, since it is the produce of land, and the land already belongs to the son.

And when he writes the deed of gift for the son, Rabbi Yose holds that he need not write in the deed that the property will belong to the son as “land from today and produce after death”; rather, it is sufficient that he write, “My property is for my son after my death,” since

the date of the

the

deed proves concerning it,

that he wrote the date in the deed for this purpose: to inform that from the day of the writing he gave his son the substance of the land, so that his brothers would not inherit with him; and when he wrote, “My property is for my son after my death,” he intended the produce of the land that would belong to him after his death.

For every deed in which a date is written, we say that the intention of the owner of the deed is that it take effect from the time written in it, even if he did not explicitly say that it should take effect “from now.”

And the court of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds according to his method: when he gave a get and stipulated with her that it take effect if he did not come from now until twelve months, the date of the deed proves that he intended it to take effect from now. Therefore, even if he died within twelve months, since the condition was fulfilled, it is a get.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a, the son of Rabban Gamaliel, the son of

the son of

Rabbi

our Holy

ruled

this matter: that she should be permitted when her husband died within twelve months, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yose, who holds that the date of the deed proves that he intended it to take effect from now.

And all his group did not agree with him,

the members of his group, for even in his beit-midrash they did not all agree with him.

And some say [

and some say]: that they did not agree with him

throughout his entire time,

that is, throughout all his days.

Rabbi Elazar said to that old man:

When you permitted [

when you permitted that woman to marry—did you

immediately

when they heard that he had died

permit her [

permit her even though twelve months had not yet passed?

Or

perhaps only

after twelve months did you permit her [

permit her]?

And the explanation of the uncertainty is: did you

permit her immediately—

for he will not come [

for he certainly will not come within twelve months, since he is dead, and it is clear that the condition will be fulfilled, and the get takes effect from the time he gave it to her.

Or perhaps

only

after twelve months did you permit her—

for [

for only then

was his condition fulfilled?

And we raise an objection: Why was Rabbi Elazar uncertain only concerning that incident, in which there is a dispute whether the get takes effect,

and let him be uncertain [

concerning the

Mishna

which contains a case in which the get takes effect according to everyone?

For it was explained in the Mishna that when he said:

“From now, if I do not come from here until twelve months,” and he died within twelve months—

it is a get.

And if so, concerning the Mishna, which is stated according to everyone, he should have been uncertain whether

immediately she is

permitted to marry others and does not require yibbum—

for he will not come [

for he will not come],

or perhaps

only

after twelve months

is she permitted to others—

for [

for only then

was his condition fulfilled!

And we answer:

Indeed, so it is;

it is possible to be uncertain also concerning the words of the Mishna.

And

the reason that Rabbi Elazar did not ask this concerning the Mishna

is because

that old man, who raised the difficulty to him, was

concerning that incident

in which our Rabbis permitted her.

Therefore Rabbi Elazar asked him concerning that incident, since concerning that incident that old man could answer him from what he had heard, for he had heard and knew how they had permitted her.