Gittin 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

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

She is

divorced

with regard to being disqualified from marrying a kohen , but

she is not divorced

with regard to marrying on the basis of this get.

Since there is uncertainty whether the get was nullified when he traveled the first time, because he passed Antipras, and the status of that place is uncertain: perhaps it is the Galilee, in which case the get was nullified because he returned within thirty days; and perhaps it is Judea, in which case he did not violate his condition, and the condition was fulfilled when he traveled the second time, so the get took effect.

This beraita presents a difficulty against the Mishna, since according to this beraita the ruling in the Mishna should have been that if he was traveling from Judea to the Galilee and reached Antipras and returned, he did not violate his condition, since he had not yet entered the Galilee; and if he traveled later and stayed in the Galilee, the get would take effect. Similarly, if he was traveling from the Galilee to Judea and reached Kefar Utnai and returned, he did not violate his condition, since he had not yet reached Judea. Yet the Mishna states that in both of these cases his condition is violated.

Abaye said:

In fact, Antipras is in Judea and Kefar Utnai is in the Galilee, as explained in the beraita.

The Mishna is speaking of a case in which he stated

two

conditions:

he stated to her

:

And this is what he said:

He said:

If I reach

the

Galilee

—

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 Antipras and returned

within thirty days, the condition was not fulfilled and the get is void, since

he did not reach the Galilee

—reach it—

and he also did not remain on the road for thirty days

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

his condition is void.

Likewise, the second case in the Mishna, concerning one who was in the Galilee, must be explained as referring to two conditions: a. If I reach Judea, the get will take effect immediately; b. If I do not reach Judea, the get will take effect only if I remain on the road for thirty days from the day I leave the house. Therefore, the ruling is that if he reached Kefar Utnai and returned within thirty days, since he did not reach Judea and also did not remain on the road for thirty days, she is not divorced and the condition is void.

We learned in the Mishna: If one 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 an overseas country, and reached Akko and returned within thirty days—his condition is void.

Apparently, the condition is void because upon reaching Akko he is considered to have left for an overseas country, and since he returned within thirty days, he did not fulfill the condition; she is therefore not divorced and the condition is void.

We raised a difficulty:

Is this to say that Akko is located in an overseas country

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

But

—yet—

Rav Safra said

: Residents of overseas countries who traveled to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael were escorted by their fellow scholars from Eretz Yisrael as far as the border of Eretz Yisrael when they returned home, and

when the Sages took leave of one another

—when the scholars parted from one another—

they took leave in Akko

—they would part there.

Because it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside Eretz Yisrael!

This indicates that Akko is located in Eretz Yisrael, which conflicts with the implication of the Mishna that Akko is already considered outside Eretz Yisrael.

Abaye said:

In fact, Akko is located in Eretz Yisrael, and the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he stated

two

conditions:

he stated to her

:

And this is what he said:

He said:

If I reach

the

overseas country

—

the get shall take effect immediately

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

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

—

let it be—

a get.

Therefore, the ruling is that if he

reached Akko and returned

within thirty days, since

he did not reach the overseas country

—reach it—

and he also did not remain on the road for thirty days

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

his condition is void.

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

“This is your get as long as I remain away from opposite your face

[so that I do not appear before you] for thirty consecutive days,” even if he was going and coming, if he did not seclude himself with her for thirty days—this is a get.

We raised a difficulty: Why does the get take effect if he did not seclude himself with her?

But

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

did not remain away

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

Rav Huna said:

It should be said:

What

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

your face”?

It refers to

marital relations.

Since he did not seclude himself with her for thirty days, thirty days passed without marital relations, and the condition was fulfilled; consequently, the get took effect.

And why does he call it

—why does he refer to marital relations using the expression—

“your face”?

Because

he used an elevated expression,

speaking in clean language.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Actually,

the expression “your face” in the Mishna refers to

your actual face,

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.

The words of the Mishna are not difficult.

For

does it teach

in the Mishna in the wording:

“She is divorced,”

which would imply that the get takes effect immediately?

Rather, it teaches the wording:

“This is a get,”

in the Mishna!

That is, the get has not yet been disqualified,

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 have elapsed, it is a get

—when thirty days have elapsed [during which he did not appear before her], the get will take effect.

It was taught

—an explicit beraita—

in accordance with

—according to the opinion of—

Rabbi Yohanan:

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

“This is your get as long as I remain opposite your face for thirty days.”

And he was going and coming, going and coming.

Since he did not seclude himself with her

—

this is a get, and we are not concerned that it is an old get, since he did not seclude himself with her.

This indicates that the concern according to Rabbi Yohanan is that it might be an old get, and this is what the Mishna addressed: there is no concern that it is an old get when he did not seclude himself with her. In fact, however, the get does not take effect until thirty consecutive days have passed during which he does not appear before her.

We challenge this: Why do they validate the get when he was going and coming?

But let us be concerned lest he reconciled

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

trusted by me

like one hundred witnesses

to say that I did not come

and seclude myself with her and reconcile with her.

Since he trusts her regarding this, if she says that he did not seclude himself with her, he is not believed, and the get remains valid.

There are those who transmit it

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

with regard to the later Mishna

—the Mishna below:

For it is written in the later Mishna: 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 raised the following difficulty: Why is the get valid?

Let us be concerned lest he reconciled

with his wife during the period until his death and secluded himself with her!

Regarding this,

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

It is speaking

in

a case in which

the husband says

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

trusted by me

like one hundred witnesses

to say that I did not come

and seclude myself with her and reconcile with her!

Since the woman says that her husband did not reconcile with her, there is no longer concern that the husband reconciled with her after the get was written, since she is trusted.

And we say:

The one who transmits

—the one who taught Rabba bar Rav Huna’s statement in Rav’s name—

with regard to the later Mishna

—the Mishna below—

all the more so

does his statement apply

to the beraita.

For if, in the case of the Mishna, where he was not going and coming, Rav concedes that we would be concerned lest he 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 reason for concern lest he reconciled.

The one who transmits

—the one who taught Rabba bar Rav Huna’s statement in Rav’s name—

with regard to the beraita.

But with regard to the later Mishna,

where he died within twelve months and we did not see him return to the city after leaving, there is no concern lest he reconciled, since

he did not come

—for he never came before her at all. Even if he did not initially stipulate that the woman should be believed that he did not come, we are not concerned lest he 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,”

meaning: 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,” the implication is that the get will take effect only after twelve months.

Therefore, when he died within that period,

it is not a get,

since a get does not take effect after death. If the husband died childless, she requires levirate marriage.

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 statement 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 this particular circumstance—that he would fail to come because of death—for death is not common,

this is a get,

since 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,”

meaning: After twelve months, write and give a get to my wife if I do not come during that period.

If the two

wrote

the

get within twelve months and gave

it

after twelve months—

It is not a valid get.

Because the husband's intention was that even the writing should take place only after twelve months.

And likewise, if he said:

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

even though he mentioned the writing before mentioning the time, and it is possible to say that he intended to insist only that the delivery take place after twelve months, but not that the writing take place after twelve months.

Nevertheless, even in such a case, if

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

it is not a valid 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 delivery take place after twelve months, but also that the writing take place after twelve months.

Rabbi Yosei says: This is a valid get,

since he mentioned the writing before mentioning the time. It is therefore a valid get, even though they wrote it within twelve months, since the meaning of this wording is: “Write it from now, and give it if I do not come from here within twelve months.” That is, he insisted on the time of delivery, but not on the time of writing.

But if the two men

wrote

the get only

after twelve months and gave it

to her

after twelve months,

having done everything in accordance with his condition,

and the husband died

—

in such a case, everyone agrees:

that

if the get

was given to the woman

before his death—

it is a valid get,

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

But if death preceded the

delivery of the

get

into the woman's hands—

it is not a valid get,

for the get took effect only at the time of delivery, and there is no get after death.

And if it is not known

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

this is the

divorce

that

the Sages spoke

of: She is divorced but not divorced,

as a matter of doubt.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he said to her, “This is your get if I do not come from here within twelve months,” and he died within those twelve months—it is not a valid get, since he did not say to her, “This is your get from now.” This indicates that the get will take effect only after twelve months, and a get cannot take effect after death. If the husband died without children, she is subject to levirate marriage.

The tanna

taught in a beraita:

Our Rabbis

disagreed with the ruling in the Mishna and

permitted her to marry

on the basis of this get, since they hold that even though he did not say, as part of 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 would be fulfilled.

And we raise a question concerning this:

Who

are they—

“our Rabbis”?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The court that permitted the oil

of gentiles [the court that permitted gentile oil], namely, the court of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, who lived in the era of the amoraim and was the grandson of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

They

hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

As

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

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

And even though the son acquires the produce only after his father's death, the law of inheritance does not apply to 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 to his son, Rabbi Yosei holds that he need not write in the deed that the property will be the son's “land from today, and produce after death.” Rather, it is sufficient for him to write, “My property is given to my son after my death,” since

the date of the

deed

proves its intent.

For this reason he wrote the date in the deed: to make known that from the day of its writing he gave his son ownership of the substance of the land, so that the son's brothers would not inherit it with him. And when he wrote, “My property is given to my son after my death,” he intended the produce of the land, which would belong to him after his death.

For with regard to every deed in which a date is written, we say that the intention of the holder of the deed is that it should take effect from the date 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 accordingly: When a man gives a get and stipulates with her that it should take effect if he does 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 dies within twelve months, since the condition was fulfilled, it is a valid get.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, the son of Rabban Gamliel bar

the son of

Rabbi

Yehuda HaNasi,

ruled

that she is permitted when her husband dies within twelve months, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the date of the deed proves that he intended it to take effect from now.

And his entire faction did not concede to him,

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

And some say

that they did not concede to him

throughout his entire lifetime,

that is, throughout all his days.

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elder:

When you permitted her

[when you permitted that woman] to marry—did

immediately,

when you heard that he had died,

you permit her

[you permitted her], even though twelve months had not yet passed?

Or

perhaps only

after twelve months did you permit her

[permit her]?

The explanation of the doubt is: Did

you permit her immediately—

for he will not come

[since he will [certainly] not come] within twelve months, as he is dead, and it is clear that the condition will be fulfilled, so that the get takes effect from the time it was delivered to her?

Or perhaps

only

after twelve months did you permit her—

for

[since] only then

was his condition fulfilled?

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

and he should have been uncertain

[he should have been uncertain] about the

Mishna,

which includes 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 within twelve months,” and he died within twelve months—

it is a valid get.

If so, with regard to the Mishna, where the ruling is according to everyone, he should have been uncertain whether

immediately she is

permitted to marry others and is not subject to levirate marriage—

for he will not come

[since he will not come],

or perhaps

only

after twelve months

is she permitted to marry others—

for

[since] only then

will his condition have been fulfilled!

And we answer:

Yes, indeed;

it is possible to be uncertain about the case in the Mishna as well.

And

the reason that Rabbi Elazar did not ask about the Mishna

was that

[the certain elder who had challenged him] had been

in that incident

in which our Rabbis permitted her.

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar asked him about that incident, since regarding that incident the elder could answer him on the basis of what he had heard: He had heard and knew how they had permitted her.