Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if a man divorced his wife 'me'Eis she'Ani ba'Olam im Meisi', in the period between the handing over of the Get and his death she remains his wife. Besides the fact that he receives whatever she find or produces the other three ramifications of this ruling are - that he has jurisdiction over her as regards annuling her vows, he inherits her should she die and he is obligated to bury her (even if he is a Kohen).

(b) The one exception to the ruling that she is his wife in all regards is - that the Get he gave her will take effect just before his death.

(a) When Rebbi Meir says 'Be'ilasah Teluyah', he means - that in all the above regards, she is a Safek Eishes Ish, because, should he die, the Get will take effect retroactively, and it will transpire that she was not his wife from the time that he handed her the Get (which is how Rebbi Meir interprets 'me'Eis she'Ani ba'Olam'), and it is only if he does not die that she is a Vaday Eishes Ish.

(b) The Machlokes between ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi, who holds that anyone who has relations with her is a Safek is - whether they need to bring an Asham Taluy (Rebbi Yossi) or not (Rebbi Meir - because the issue stands to be clarified; once he dies, she will not be an Eishes Ish, if he does not, then she is).
2. ... the Chachamim, who refer to her as 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' and Rebbi Yossi is - whether her husband remains obligated to sustain her. Everyone agrees with Rebbi Zeira ... Amar Shmuel's principle (that that the husband is obligated to sustain anyone who is referred to as 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes'. Only according to Rebbi Yossi, she is not referred to as Megurehes ve'Einah Megureshes'

(c) We reconcile this Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who also refers to the woman as 'Megureshes ve'Einah Megureshes' - by presenting the two opinions as a Machlokes Tana'im in Rebbi Yossi (Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah holds like the Rabbanan, whilst Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa argues with them.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that if a husband gives his wife a Get ...

1. ... 'Al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz - Harei Zu Megureshes ve'Titein'.
2. ... 'Al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'n ve'Ad Sheloshim Yom - Im Nasnah Lo be'Soch Sheloshim Yom, Megureshes, ve'Im La'av, Einah Megureshes'.

(b) In the case that took place in Tzidon regarding a man who gave his wife a Get on condition that she gave him his coat, and the coat got lost, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules - that she should give him the value of the coat.

(a) Rav Huna explains 've'Titein' in the Reisha of the Mishnah to mean - that the Get takes effect immediately (and she remains obligated to pay him the money). According to Rav Yehudah - the Get takes effect only after she pays the money (retroactively).

(b) The ramifications of their Machlokes are - if the Get should get torn or lost during the thirty days (according to Rav Huna it is nevertheless valid, according to Rav Yehudah, it is not).

(c) They repeat their Machlokes in Kidushin, where the Tana states exactly the same condition with regard to Kidushin, concluding 've'Titein'. The ramifications there will be - if, during the thirty days, she accepted Kidushin from somebody else (according to Rav Huna, the second Kidushin will not take effect, according to Rav Yehudah, they will).

(a) Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah need to present their Machlokes both by Get and by Kidushin. Having taught us that the transaction takes immediately in the case of ...

1. ... Kidushin, Rav Huna nevertheless needed to repeat it in the case of Gitin - because we might otherwise have thought that it is only by Kidushin, where his intention is to marry her, that he wants the transaction to take place immediately), but by Get, where his intention is to separate from his wife, he will agree with Rav Yehudah, that he wants to delay the transaction for as long as possible.
2. ... Gitin, he nevertheless needed to repeat it in the case of Gitin - because we might otherwise have thought that, it is only in the case of Get, where he will not feel embarrassed to claim the money from his ex-wife (whom he knows well), that he wants the transaction to take effect immediately, but by Kidushin, where he will be embarrassed to claim the money from a woman whom he barely knows, he will agree with Rav Yehudah, that the transaction will not take effect until he has the money.

(b) Having taught us that the transaction takes immediately in the case of ...

1. ... Kidushin, Rav Yehudah nevertheless needed to repeat it in the case of Gitin - because we might otherwise have thought that it is only by Kidushin that he delays the transaction until the money is paid, because the husband is embarrassed to claim the money from the woman, whereas in the case of Get, where he is not embarrassed (as we explained), he will agree with Rav Huna that the transaction is valid immediately.
2. ... Gitin, he nevertheless needed to repeat it in the case of Kidushin - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the case of Gitin that he delays the transaction seeing as his intention is to separate from his wife, but by Kidushin, where he wants to marry her, he will agree with Rav Huna ... .

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa rules - that if a man says to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-M'nas sheTitni Li Masayim Zuz' and the Get got torn or lost - she is nevertheless divorced, and remains obligated to pay the two hundred Zuz. In the interim, she is not permitted to re-marry.

(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya - on Rav Yehudah.

(a) A similar Kashya emerges from another Beraisa, where the Tana Kama exempts the woman from Yibum, if the man died before she gave him the two hundred Zuz. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - she is still able to give the money to the heirs, thereby validating the Kidushin.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Li' inorporates the heirs (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or not (the Rabbanan).

(c) We know that both Tana'im consider the Get valid immediately and the money merely a T'nai (like Rav Huna) - because otherwise, it would be a 'Get le'Achar Misah', which is not valid.

(d) Rav Yehudah reconciles his opinion with these two Beraisos, by establishing them like Rebbi, whom Rav Huna quotes as saying - 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas, ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami'. Rav Yehudah himself holds like the Rabbanan.

(a) Rebbi Zeira said in the name of ...

1. ... the B'nei Bavel - that 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas' is the opinion of Rebbi, but that the Rabbanan disagree with him.
2. ... Rebbi Asi quoting Rebbi Yochanan - that in fact it is unanimous.

(b) According to the latter, Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue over - whether 'me'ha'Yom u'le'Achar Misah' is a T'nai (Rebbi) or a Safek T'nai Safek retraction (the Rabbanan).

(c) We prove Rebbi Yochanan's opinion from a Beraisa, which presents their Machlokes in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', from which we extrapolate that Rebbi Yochanan is right - because by not presenting the Machlokes by 'al-M'nas', the Tana implies that both Tana'im agree there that 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas, ke'Omer me'Acshav Dami'.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, the Tana chose to present the Machlokes by 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah' - to teach us the extent of Rebbi's leniency.

(b) He preferred to do this rather than to present it by 'al-M'nas', in order to teach us the extent of the Rabbanan's stringency - because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Heteira Adif' (Anyone who is uncertain will take a strict line in Halachah, but to be lenient requires careful thought).

9)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'al-M'nas she'Titni Li mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sheloshim Yom, Im Nasnah Lah be'Toch Sheloshim Yom, Megureshes ... '. The Tana found it necessary to teach us this - because we might otherwise have thought that the husband is probably not fussy about the thirty day limit, and only mentioned it to encourage to get on with the payment.

(b) The Tana cites the episode that occurred in Tzidon with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, of the man who stipulated that his wife was to give him his coat ... . The problem with inserting this episode in the Mishnah is - that the Tana has not dealt with the case (of the required object getting lost), so what is the point of bringing an episode to illustrate it?

(c) To justify the insertion, we amend the Mishnah to read -'Im Amar Lah al-M'nas she'Titni Li Itzteleisi, ve'Avdah Itzteliso, Itzteleisi Dafka ka'Amar Lah; Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Amar Titen Lo es Damehah. u'Ma'aseh Nami ... '.

(a) Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan about a case where the husband stipulated that his wife gives him two hundred Zuz, and after giving her the Get, he subsequently tells her that he is Mochel (foregoes) the money. The She'eilah, according to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan is - whether perhaps the Rabbanan only insist that the wife gives the actual coat, when there is no Mechilah, but when there is, they will concede to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is - whether perhaps Raban Shimon ben Gamliel only permitted the woman to give her husband the money instead of the coat, because there at least, he received the value of the article, but in the case of Mechilah, where he receives nothing, he will concede to the Rabbanan.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan's immediate reply was - 'Einah Megureshes'.

(c) The Mishnah in Nedarim states the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who rules in a case of someone who forbids his friend all benefit unless he gives his son (who is about to get married) a Kur of wheat and two barrels of wine, that unless his friend fulfills the condition, the Neder takes effect. The Chachamim say - that Mechilah ('Hareini Ke'ilu Hiskabalti') will suffice.

(d) Even though Rebbi Yochanan just ruled like Rebbi Meir (in the case of 'Itzteleisi'), that is because there, it is possible that his initial intention was to hurt his ex-wife (in which case Mechilah is not applicable), unlike the case in Nedarim, where it is clear that it was the financial assistance that he originally wanted, and since that assistance is no longer necessary, Mechilah is appropriate.

(a) In the case of that man who stipulated with his Aris that, although the going rate for Arisus was a quarter of the produce for watering the field three times, he would be able to take a third provided he watered it four times. In the end, before he had a chance to water it the fourth time, it rained and the field received its extra watering naturally.

(b) Rav Yosef maintained that since he had not watered the field the extra time, he would receive only a quarter like everybody else. Rabah said - that, since the field did not need to be watered again, he was an O'nes, and would receive the stipulated third.

(c) We try to connect this Machlokes to that of the Rabbanan in our Mishnah (Rav Yosef), who requires that one adheres strictly to the condition, and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (Rabah), who accepts an alternative. We reject this suggestion however, on the basis of the fact that on the one hand, we rule like Rabah (against Rav Yosef), whilst on the other, the Halachah is not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah (as we shall see later).

(d) So we conclude that they argue according to the Rabbanan. Rav Yosef clearly holds like the Rabbanan. We reconcile Rabah with the Rabbanan, too - in exactly the same way as we concluded earlier; that the Rabbanan only insist on the condition being met to the letter in the case in our Mishnah, where it is possible that the husband initially wanted to hurt his wife, but in the current case, where the owner obviously had his own interest in mind, and that interest became obsolete, the Rabbanan concede to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(a) The Mishnah in Erchin relates that people 'used to hide for twelve months in order that it should become permanently his' - is referring to a house in a walled city, whose sale (unlike the sale of any other case of immovable property) becomes permanent after one year.

(b) So Hillel instituted a Takanah - permitting a seller of a house in a walled city, to place his money in a specially designated box (where it awaited the purchaser, who could come and collect it whenever he chose), and to then to force his way back into his home (should the purchaser not comply).

(c) Rava extrapolates from Hillel's Takanah that, in similar cases, where Hillel did not institute his Takanah, such a transaction (against the will of the recipient) would not be valid. Consequently, in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz', the husband would only need to refuse to accept the two hundred Zuz, for the Get to become annulled.

(d) Rav Papa (or Rav Shimi bar Ashi) refutes Rava's inference however - by restricting Hillel's Takanah to the case of Batei Arei Chomah, where the purchasers would go and hide, and it is when the recipient was absent that Hillel needed to make his Takanah. But in the case of Get, were she to hand over the money directly to her husband (even against his will), such a Takanah would not be necessary.