Gittin - Daf 75
- If נתינה בעל כרחו is a נתינה
The previous Daf quoted a Mishnah which said that initially, one who bought a home in a walled city in Eretz Yisroel (which the seller may redeem for a year), would hide on the final day to prevent the seller from redeeming it. Hillel Hazaken enacted that the seller can place the redemption money in a designated chamber and repossess his home, and the buyer can retrieve his money when he wishes. Rava deduced that without Hillel’s takanah, the seller could not make the payment against the buyer’s will. This indicates that generally, נתינה בעל כרחיה לא הויא נתינה – giving something to a person against his will is not considered giving. Therefore, if a get was given on condition that the wife pays two hundred zuz, she can only pay with his consent, but cannot force him. Rav Pappa rejects Rava’s proof: ודלמא כי אצטריך ליה לתקוני – Perhaps the necessity for [Hillel’s] enactment was where the payment was madeשלא בפניו – not in the [buyer’s] presence, so the money cannot become his against his will. אבל בפניו – But in his presence, בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה – whether [the payment] is with his consent or against his will, it is considered giving. A second version of the dialogue between Rava and Rav Pappa is brought.
- Why "על מנת שתחזירי לי את הנייר" is a valid get
A Baraisa states: הרי זה גיטיך והנייר שלי – One who says, “This is your get, but the paper remains mine,” אינה מגורשת – she is not divorced (because he did not give her the get). על מנת שתחזירי לי את הנייר – But if he said, “on condition that you return the paper to me,” מגורשת – she is divorced. The Gemara asks how she is divorced in the second case if the get will only take effect once it leaves her possession, and brings Amoraim who list three disqualifications of the condition, which allow the divorce to take effect without its fulfillment: (1) The condition was not כפול - “doubled” (i.e., the terms of fulfillment and violation were not both described), which Rebbe Meir holds is invalid, (2) the מעשה – act (“This is your get”) was expressed before the תנאי (“on condition you return the paper”), which everyone agrees is invalid, and (3) תנאי ומעשה בדבר אחד – both the condition and act involve the same item (the get). Rav Ashi explains that the Tanna is Rebbe, who holds: כל האומר על מנת – anyone who says, “on condition” כאומר מעכשיו דמי – is like one who says it should take effect from now. The get is valid since it is hers when it takes effect.
- The duration of the conditions of ע"מ שתשמשי את אבא, על מנת שתניקי את בני
The next Mishnah states: הרי זה גיטיך ע"מ שתשמשי את אבא – If one said, “This is your get on condition that you serve my father,” על מנת שתניקי את בני – or “on condition that you nurse my son,” she must nurse him for two years according to the Tanna Kamma, or eighteen months according to Rebbe Yehudah, to fulfill the condition [Rashi adds that the service of the father is until he dies]. If the son or father died before the condition was completed, the get is valid (since the service is not needed). Our Mishnah contradicts a Baraisa, which teaches that a single day is sufficient to fulfill either condition!? Rav Chisda answers that the Baraisa is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who interprets conditions leniently (e.g., he ruled on Daf 74a that money can be given in place of a cloak), and rules here that one day is sufficient. Rava says the Mishnah is where no term was given, and the Baraisa is where he explicitly said a single day. Rav Ashi disagrees: כל סתם נמי כמפרש יום אחד דמי – Every unspecific [condition] is tantamount to specifying one day. He explains that our Mishnah is describing the time period within which she must nurse the son for one day.
