Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that according to Rava, we can extrapolate from Hillel that, in all similar cases, where Hillel did not institute his Takanah, such a transaction (against the will of the recipient) would not be valid, whereas, Rav Papa (or Rav Shimi bar Ashi) restricts Hillel's Takanah to payments that are made in the recipient's absence. In the second Lashon, Rava and Rav Papa simply reverse their opinions - and it is Rava who maintains that Hillel restricted his Takanah to where he makes the payment in the recipient's absence, and Rav Papa who does not differentiate.

(b) According to Rav Papa in this Lashon (and Rava in the first Lashon), Raban Shimon ben Gamliel confined his Takanah to a case where the recipient was absent (not on principle, but) - because that happened to be the prevalent case at the time.

(c) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan says that wherever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's appears in a Mishnah - the Halachah is like him, except for three cases: 'Areiv' (in Bava Basra), 'Tzidon' (our case) and 'Re'ayah Acharonah' (in Sanhedrin).

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that in a case where the husband hands his wife a Get stipulating that ...

1. ... the paper is to remain his - the Get is invalid.
2. ... his wife is to return the paper - the Get is valid.

(b) According to our initial understanding (which will be explained shortly), there is no S'vara to differentiate between the two cases.

(c) Consequently, Rav Chisda suggests that the author of the Seifa is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the previous Mishnah - according to whom, the woman should have the option of giving her ex-husband the value of the paper instead of the paper.

(d) Abaye refutes this suggestion - on the grounds that seeing as the paper is still in existence, even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will concede that the woman would not be permitted to return the value of the paper

(a) So Abaye establishes the Seifa like Rebbi Meir - who (does not accept any inferences with regard to T'nai but) requires a 'T'nai Kaful' (a double T'nai [e.g. 'I will give you ... if you do ... , but not if you don't'), which is not the case in the Seifa. Consequently, the T'nai is Bateil, and the Ma'aseh stands.

(b) Both Rav Chisda and Abaye explain 'al-M'nas she'Tachziri ... ' like the Rabbanan (who hold 'al-M'nas is not like me'Achshav'. Consequently, the Ma'aseh only becomes valid when the woman returns the paper). That explains why they decline to solve the seeming contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa by explaining that, in the Seifa, the Get takes effect immediately, whereas the woman only returns the paper later.

(c) Rava attempts to resolve the contradiction by pointing out that even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, the T'nai would be Bateil, because we require the T'nai to precede the Ma'aseh, which is not the case in our Mishnah. The source of these Halachos of T'nai is - the condition that Moshe made with the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven, that they would not receive their portion of land on the West Bank, unless they crossed the Jordan River together with the other tribes and fought alongside them in the conquest of Cana'an.

(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah points out that, even without Rava's observation, the T'nai ought to be invalid in the Seifa - because we learn from the T'nai of the B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven that the T'nai and the Ma'aseh must pertain to different things (the T'nai regarding crossing the Yarden and fighting, and the Ma'aseh regarding the portion of land), whereas in our case, the T'nai and the Ma'aseh both concern the Get.

4) Rav Ashi resolves the contradiction by establishing the Seifa like Rebbi - meaning that 'al-M'nas she'Tachziri ... ' is effective immediately (because Rebbi holds 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami'), whereas the woman only returns the paper later.

5)

(a) Shmuel instituted that whenever a Shechiv-Mera gives a Sh'tar (a Get Shechiv-Mera), he must say 'Im Lo Meisi Lo Yehei Get; Im Meisi Yehei Get' - because one requires a T'nai Kaful.

(b) He did not reverse the order ...

1. ... 'Im Meisi Yehei Get; Im Lo Meisi Lo Yehei Get' - because one does not ask a person to bring his own punishment forward (to mention death first).
2. ... 'Lo Yehei Get Im Lo Meisi' - because we also learn from the B'nei Gad and Reuven that the T'nai must precede the Ma'aseh.

(c) The problem Rava has with the order of Shmuel's Takanah is - that the positive side of the condition must precede the negative one.

(d) So to eliminate all problems - he amends the wording to read 'Im Lo Meisi Lo Yehei Get; Im Meisi Yehei Get' (so as not to bring punishment forward), and then adds 'Im Lo Meisi Yehei Get' (so that the T'nai should precede the Ma'aseh).

(a) If the husband stipulated 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Teshamshi es Aba', says the Tana of our Mishnah, the wife must serve his father for as long as he lives.

(b) If he said ' ... al-M'nas she'Teniki es B'ni', she must feed the child for two years according to the Tana Kama. Rebbi Yehudah says - for eighteen months.

(c) In the event that his father or the baby died - the Get is valid (because he mentioned no time period, in which case he only meant her to perform the services for as long as they were needed, but not when they become obsolete).

(a) If, in the previous two cases, the husband actually stipulated a period of two years and then his father or the baby died, or if his father subsequently declined her services - then the Get is invalid (because the condition was not fulfilled).

(b) If, in the latter case, the woman did nothing to make her ex father-in-law angry (that caused him to decline her services) ...

1. ... according to the Tana Kama - the Get will nevertheless be Bateil (because when all's said and done, the condition was not fulfilled).
2. ... according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - the Get will be valid, (because any condition that is broken not on the woman's account does not negate the Get).

(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, it will suffice for the woman to feed the child or to serve her ex-husband's father for one day. When we initially establish our Mishnah like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Beraisa, like the Rabbanan, we mean - that just as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient in the previous Mishnah (where he permits giving her husband the value of his coat) based on the fact that he only has had his own convenience in mind, so too, will he be strict in our Mishnah for the same reason (that as long as his father requires serving or his baby feeding, she must do it); whilst the Beraisa follows the opinion of the Rabbanan (who adhere strictly to the words of the stipulation, and not to the stipulator's intentions).

(b) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds that seeing as the author of the Seifa is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, the author of the Reisha cannot be him.

(c) So we resolve the apparent contradiction based on the same Machlokes Tana'im - but based on different criteria. Our Mishnah follows the opinion of the Rabbanan, who are strict with regard to the Dinim of T'nai, whereas the Beraisa follows that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who is lenient.

(a) Rava disagrees. He says 'Kahn bi'S'tam, Kahn bi'Mefaresh' meaning - that (the Reisha of) our Mishnah speaks in a case of S'tam, whereas the Beraisa speaks when he specified two years (like the Seifa of our Mishnah).

(b) Rav Ashi disagrees with both the first answer and with Rava - he establishes even the Beraisa by S'tam. According to him, S'tam has the same Din as Mefaresh.

(c) Rav Ashi ...

1. ... explains our Mishnah, where the Tana Kama requires the woman to feed the baby for two years (and Rebbi Yehudah, for eighteen months) - to mean one day any time during the first two years (or eighteen months [but not afterwards]).
2. ... will establish the Reisha 'Meis ha'Ben O ha'Av' - when they died before she even had a chance to fulfil the T'nai for one day.

(d) The problem with this is - that, seeing as she has not fulfilled the T'nai at all, why should the Get be valid (any more than in the Seifa)? Rav Ashi has no solution to the problem.