Talmud - Gittin 76a גיטין ע״ו א׳

Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, the first clause in the mishna is speaking about when the husband did not explicitly mention a period of time, and the latter clause is referring to when he did explicitly mention a period of two years.

But according to the opinion of Rav Ashi, who holds that when the husband does not mention a period of time the wife can fulfill her obligation by performing the action for even a single day, it is necessary to explain that the first clause in the mishna is referring to when she did fulfill the condition for even one day. And therefore, what is different in the first clause and what is different in the latter clause? The Gemara states: According to Rav Ashi’s opinion this is difficult.

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or he said: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, even if the condition was not fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce because he did not say to her: If you will serve my father then this will be a valid bill of divorce, and if you will not serve him it will not be a valid bill of divorce, or: If you will nurse my son then this will be a valid bill of divorce, and if you will not nurse him it will not be a valid bill of divorce. And if he did not state his condition as a compound condition, stipulating both positive and negative outcomes, the condition is void and the bill of divorce is valid. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis say: The condition is valid even if it the husband does not stipulate both positive and negative outcomes. Consequently, if the condition was fulfilled this is a valid bill of divorce, and if it was not fulfilled this is not a valid bill of divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded.

To which side of the dispute is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement referring? There are those who say: He is speaking to Rabbi Meir. And there are those who say: He is speaking to the Rabbis. The Gemara explains: There are those who say that this means he is speaking to Rabbi Meir and this is what he is saying to him: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded, and therefore the compound conditions mentioned in the Torah have the status of two verses that come as one, i.e., to teach the same matter. And any two verses that come as one do not teach about other cases. Consequently, one cannot derive from them that every condition must be compounded.

There are those who say: He is saying this to the Rabbis, and this is what he is saying to them: There is no condition in the Bible that is not compounded, and we learn from the conditions written in the Bible that a condition is not valid unless it is compounded.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or he said to her: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, and the father died or the son died, then it is not a valid bill of divorce, as its condition was not fulfilled. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rabbis say: Even though the condition was not fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce, as she could have said to him: Give me your father and I will serve him, or: Give me your son and I will nurse him.

It is difficult to reconcile one statement of Rabbi Meir with the other statement made by Rabbi Meir, for the second baraita indicates that the husband’s condition does not need to be compounded. And it is difficult to reconcile one statement of the Rabbis with the other statement of the Rabbis, for in the second baraita they say that if the condition was fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce, and if it was not fulfilled it is not a valid bill of divorce.

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult to reconcile one statement of Rabbi Meir with the other statement of Rabbi Meir, as there, in the case where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to when he did not compound his condition. Here, where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to when he did compound his condition, but the tanna of the baraita did not mention that fact explicitly.

And it is not difficult to reconcile one statement of the Rabbis with the other statement of the Rabbis, because whose is the opinion mentioned here anonymously as the Rabbis? It is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says: If there is any hindrance to fulfilling the condition that is not from her, it is a valid bill of divorce.

§ The Gemara continues discussing a conditional bill of divorce. The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:6): If a husband said to his wife in the presence of two people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, and afterward he returned and said to her in the presence of two other people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, the latter statement does not nullify the first statement. Rather, he is giving her the choice, and if she fulfills either one of the conditions, the bill of divorce is valid. If she wishes, she serves his father and is divorced, or if she wishes, she gives him two hundred dinars and is divorced.

But if he said to her in the presence of two people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and afterward he returned and said to her in the presence of two other people: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me three hundred dinars, then the latter statement nullifies the first statement, and she is not divorced unless she gives him three hundred dinars. And one of the first pair of witnesses and one of the last pair of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies concerning the condition.

The Gemara asks: To which clause of the baraita is the statement that the witnesses cannot combine their testimonies referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause, where the husband demanded an additional one hundred dinars, then it already said that the first condition is nullified. It is unnecessary to mention that the two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since the condition witnessed by the first witnesses no longer exists. Rather, it is referring to the first clause.

But isn’t it obvious that these two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since each of them are testifying about a different condition? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that all of those who testify to the existence of conditions can combine their testimonies to testify that a bill of divorce was given with a condition, it teaches us that this is not the case.

MISHNA: If a resident of the region of Judea intending to embark on a journey to the Galilee said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and when he was going from Judea to the Galilee he reached Antipatris and he returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to the Galilee for longer than thirty days. The reason for this is because he reached the Galilee and returned to Judea within the time he had allotted.

Similarly, if a resident of the region of the Galilee intending to embark on a journey to Judea said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going from the Galilee to Judea, and he reached Kefar Otnai and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to Judea for longer than thirty days.

Similarly, if a resident of Eretz Yisrael intending to embark on a journey to a country overseas said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going to a country overseas, and he reached Akko and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently travels to a country overseas for longer than thirty days.

If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days, this is a valid bill of divorce.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Antipatris was in the Galilee? It appears from the mishna that Antipatris was on the border of the Galilee, since the condition of the resident of Judea became void by his reaching Antipatris and returning. And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:9): Antipatris is in Judea, and Kefar Otnai is in the Galilee. And with regard to the area between them, a stringent ruling is placed on it, and it is treated as though it is located in both Judea and the Galilee. If the husband who made such a condition reached this area and returned home, it is uncertain whether the condition attached to the bill of divorce was fulfilled. Therefore, there is uncertainty whether she is divorced

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Gittin 76a examines Rava and Rav Ashi's dispute over conditional divorce timing, then explores whether conditions require both positive and negative clauses to be valid.