Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CONCERN THAT SHE WILL NOT FULFILL THE STIPULATION

(a) (Beraisa): Reuven said 'This is your Get on condition that you will marry Peloni' - she may not remarry; if she did, she may stay married.
(b) Question: How do we understand this?
(c) Answer (Rav Nachman): She should not marry Peloni, lest people say that Reuven gave his wife to Peloni as a gift; if she married someone else, she remains married.
(d) Question: Do we make a decree (to discourage such Gitin) to permit a married woman to live with another man?!]
(e) Correction (Rav Nachman): Rather, she should not marry Peloni, lest people say that Reuven gave his wife to Peloni as a gift; if she married Peloni, she remains married - we do not force her to leave because of our decree.
(f) Question (Rava): Is she only forbidden to marry Peloni? She may not marry anyone, she must fulfill the stipulation!

1. Suggestion: You hold that it is possible for her to marry someone else now, get divorced later and then fulfill the stipulation, similar to your argument with Rav Yehudah.

i. (Rav Yehudah): A man vowed that he will not sleep today if he sleeps tomorrow - he may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow;
ii. (Rav Nachman): He may sleep today - we are not concerned that he will sleep tomorrow.

2. (Culmination of question): This comparison is faulty! There, a person can stop himself from sleeping, he can prick himself with thorns - here, a woman cannot divorce herself!

(g) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, she should not marry Peloni nor anyone else.

1. She should not marry Peloni, lest people say that Reuven gave his wife to Peloni as a gift;
2. She should not marry anyone else, lest she will not fulfill the stipulation.

i. If she did marry Peloni, she remains married - we do not force her to leave because of our decree;
ii. If she did marry someone else, she must leave - we are concerned that she will not fulfill the stipulation

(h) Support (Beraisa): She should not marry Peloni nor anyone else;

1. If she did marry Peloni, she remains married; if she married someone else, she must leave.

(a) (Beraisa): A man divorced his wife on condition that she ascends to Heaven, or descends to the depths, or swallows a reed of 4 Amos, or brings him a reed of 100 Amos, or crosses the sea on foot - the Get is invalid;

1. R. Yehudah ben Teima says, such a Get is valid;

i. The rule is: any stipulation that cannot be fulfilled - he merely taunts her with words, the stipulation is void, the Get is valid.

(b) (Rav Nachman): The law is as R. Yehudah ben Teima.
(c) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): A Mishnah is as R. Yehudah ben Teima.

1. (Mishnah): If one makes a stipulation that can be fulfilled, the stipulation is valid.

i. Inference: If the stipulation cannot be fulfilled, it is invalid.

(d) Question: 'This is your Get on condition that you eat pork' - what is the law?
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): This is a stipulation that cannot be fulfilled (it is void).
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): The stipulation can be fulfilled, albeit is forbidden.

i. Abaye explains R. Yehudah ben Teima's rule (any stipulation that cannot be fulfilled, the stipulation is void) includes a stipulation to eat pork.

2. Rava explains, 'such a Get is valid' excludes the case of eating pork (which is only valid if she fulfills the stipulation).

(g) Question ((against Rava) - Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you have relations with Peloni' - the Get is only valid if the stipulation is fulfilled;
(h) 'On condition that you do not have relations with my father or your father' - we are not concerned that she did (the Get is valid).

1. The Beraisa omits the case of 'on condition that you have relations with my father or your father'!

(i) Answer (Rava): I said that a stipulation to eat pork is valid, because she can do this (albeit she will be lashed for it); also, a stipulation to have relations with Peloni is valid, for she can bribe him;

1. But even if she is willing to sin, she cannot get her father or father-in-law to sin!

(j) Rava explains R. Yehudah ben Teima's rule (any stipulation that cannot be fulfilled) to include a stipulation to have relations with her father or father-in-law.

1. 'Such a Get is valid' excludes the case of eating pork.

(k) Abaye explains that the rule includes a stipulation to eat pork;

1. 'Such a Get is valid' excludes the case of having relations with Peloni.

(l) Question ((against Abaye) - Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you eat pork', or another forbidden food (Terumah to a non-Kohenes, wine to a Nezirah) - the Get is only valid if the stipulation is fulfilled.
(m) Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa is as Chachamim that argue on R. Yehudah ben Teima.
(n) Question: The stipulation should be invalid because it is contrary to the Torah!
(o) Answer #1 (Rav Ada brei d'Rav Ika): That rule only applies in a case such as engagement on condition that the husband has no obligation to supply his wife's needs for food, clothing and relations, for he uproots (his mid'Oraisa obligation to supply these);

1. Here, she must transgress to fulfill the stipulation!

(p) Objection (Ravina): But she only transgresses to fulfill his stipulation - he caused the Mitzvah to be uprooted!
(q) Answer #2 (Ravina): The rule that a stipulation contrary to the Torah is invalid only applies in a case such as engagement without obligation to supply food, clothing and relations, for he definitely uproots the Mitzvah;

1. Here, the Mitzvah need not be uprooted - she need not eat, the Get will not take effect!

(a) (Mishnah): He takes the Get back...
(b) Question: As whom is our Tana?
(c) Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): As R. Shimon ben Elazar.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): A Get (which she took believing it was a loan document) is only valid if he takes it back and gives it again, saying 'this is your Get'.

(d) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): Our Mishnah is even as Rebbi (who says that he need not take it back and give it again);

1. The reason is as Rav Kahana taught - here, the Get (partially) took effect to disqualify her to Kohanim, she already acquired it.

(e) (Mishnah): If he wrote (this stipulation) inside the Get...
(f) Opinion #1 (Rav Safra): The Mishnah speaks when he wrote the stipulation in the Get.
(g) Question: This is explicit!
(h) Answer: One might have thought, the Mishnah only applies when the stipulation was written after the Toref (the crux of the Get) - but if the stipulation preceded the Toref, even if the stipulation was not written in the Get, the Get is invalid;

1. We hear, this is not so (even a stipulation before the Toref does not invalid the Get if it is not written in the Get).

(i) Opinion #2 (Rava): The Mishnah speaks specifically when he wrote the stipulation after the Toref, but if the stipulation precedes the Toref, even if it was not written in the Get, the Get is invalid.

1. For this reason, Rava would silence the husband until the Toref was written.

(j) (Beraisa - Rebbi): All stipulations disqualify a Get;
(k) Chachamim say, the same stipulations disqualify a Get, whether written or oral.

1. 'Except for marrying Peloni' - this disqualifies orally, it also disqualifies if written;
2. 'On condition that you don't marry Peloni' - this does not disqualify orally, it does not disqualify if written.

(l) Opinion #1 (R. Zeira): Rebbi and Chachamim argue when the stipulation preceded the Toref - Rebbi says, we decree to disqualify 'on condition that' on account of 'except'; Chachamim do not decree.

1. All agree, stipulations after the Toref do not disqualify the Get.
2. The Mishnah says that only written stipulations disqualify it; we established the Mishnah as the case when he said 'except'.

i. The Mishnah can speak of before the Toref, it is as Chachamim;
ii. Or, it can speak of after the Toref, and all agree to it.

(m) Opinion #2 (Rava): Rebbi and Chachamim argue when the stipulation is after the Toref - Rebbi says, we decree to disqualify it on account of a stipulation before the Toref; Chachamim do not decree.

1. All agree, stipulations before the Toref disqualify a Get.
2. The Mishnah says that only written stipulations disqualify it, and specifically when he said 'except', not if he said 'on condition that'.

i. The Mishnah speaks of after the Toref, it is as Chachamim.

(n) (R. Avin's father citing a Beraisa): All agree, if a Get was written on condition, it is invalid.
(o) Objection: They argue in this case!
(p) Correction (R. Zeira): The proper text of the Beraisa must say that all agree it is valid, when the condition was after the Toref.
(q) Question: Why didn't R. Zeira leave the Beraisa to say that it is invalid, and the Beraisa is as Rebbi?
(r) Answer: It is reasonable that R. Avin's father mixed up 'valid' and 'invalid' - but he would not confuse 'all agree' with 'it is as Rebbi'.