Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IMPROPER STIPULATIONS

(a) (Beraisa): 'The Get is yours but the paper is mine' - she is not divorced;

1. 'On condition that you return the paper to me' - she is divorced.

(b) Question: What is the difference between the 2 clauses?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa is as R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that she may give money in place of the garment; here also, she can appease him with money in place of returning the Get!
(d) Objection (Abaye): R. Shimon ben Gamliel only said that she may give money in place of the garment when the garment is lost - here, the Get is around, we have no source to say that she can give money in its stead!
(e) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, the Beraisa is as R. Meir, who says that a condition is invalid unless doubled (if this, then...; if not, then...).

1. The case is, he only said 'You are divorced if you return the Get'; he did not double the condition (to say, you are not divorced if you don't return it), so the Get works unconditionally.

(f) Objection (Rava): You imply that had he doubled the condition, (the condition would be valid and) the Get would be void - but we learn conditions from the stipulation with the tribes of Reuven and Gad!

1. There, the stipulation (if they will fight valorously) precedes the outcome (they will inherit in Gilad); here, the outcome (the divorce) preceded the condition (returning the Get) - even if doubled, the condition is invalid!

(g) Answer #3 (Rava): The Get is valid because the outcome preceded the stipulation.
(h) Objection (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): You imply that had he mentioned the condition before the divorce, the condition would be valid and) the Get would be void - but we learn conditions from the stipulation with the tribes of Reuven and Gad!

1. There, the stipulation (fighting) and the outcome (inheritance) are unrelated matters - here, the stipulation (returning the Get) and the outcome (the divorce) are contradictory (Tosfos).

(i) Answer #4 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The Get is valid because the stipulation and the outcome contradict each other.
(j) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah is as Rebbi, who says that saying 'on condition that' is as saying 'from now' (so there is no contradiction between the stipulation and the outcome).
(k) Shmuel enacted that a dying man who gives a Get should say: 'If I do not die (from this illness) - the Get is invalid; if I die - the Get is valid'.
(l) Question: Why not say 'If I die - the Get is valid; if I do not die - the Get is invalid'?
(m) Answer: A person does not start by saying something to his detriment.
(n) Question: Why not say 'The Get is invalid if I do not die?
(o) Answer: The stipulation must precede the outcome.
(p) Objection (Rava): We learn conditions from the stipulation with the tribes of Reuven and Gad!

1. There, the positive stipulation (if they will fight) precedes the negative stipulation (if they will not fight) - every condition must be as this;
2. In Shmuel's text, the negative stipulation comes first!

(q) (Rava): Rather, he should say; 'If I do not die - the Get is invalid; if I die - the Get is valid; if I do not die - the Get is invalid'.

1. His initial words (If I do not die) are favorable; the positive stipulation (if I die) precedes the (repetition of) the negative.

(a) (Mishnah): 'This is your Get on condition that you serve my father, or that you nurse my son' - the period of nursing is 2 years;

1. R. Yehudah says, it is 18 months.

(b) If the son or the father dies, the Get is valid.
(c) 'This is your Get on condition that you serve my father for 2 years, or that you nurse my son for 2 years' - if the son dies or the father says that he does not want her to serve him, even if she did nothing to upset him, the Get is invalid;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, such a Get is valid.

i. The rule is: whenever she does not inhibit fulfillment of the stipulation, the Get is valid.

(d) (Gemara) Question: Must she really nurse for 2 years?!:

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): If she served the father or nursed for 1 day, the Get is valid.

(e) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): Our Mishnah is as R. Shimon ben Gamliel (who said regarding a stipulation to return a garment that he seeks his own benefit - here also, he wants that she should nurse as long as is needed); the Beraisa is as Chachamim (that he intends to pain her - 1 day suffices).
(f) Question: Since R. Shimon ben Gamliel argues in the end of the Mishnah, the beginning of the Mishnah is not as R. Shimon ben Gamliel!
(g) Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa is as R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who is lenient by conditions; our Mishnah is as Chachamim.
(h) Answer #3 (Rava): The Mishnah is when he did not specify for how long she must nurse; in the Beraisa, he specified 1 day.
(i) Objection (Rav Ashi): Not specifying is as specifying 1 day!
(j) (Mishnah): The period of nursing is 2 years; R. Yehudah says, 18 months.

1. According to Rava, this is how long she must nurse when he did not specify.
2. Question: According to Rav Ashi - 1 day should suffice!
3. Answer: The Mishnah teaches that the day must be within the first 2 years (or 18 months) of the son's life.

(k) Question (Mishnah): 'This is your Get on condition that you serve my father for 2 years, or that you nurse my son for 2 years' - if the son dies or the father says that he does not want her to serve him, even if she did nothing to upset him, the Get is invalid.