Gittin - Daf 84
- על מנת שתינשאי לפלוני
It was taught in a Baraisa: הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתנשאי לפלוני – If one says, “This is your get, on condition that you marry Ploni,” הרי זו לא תנשא – this [woman] may not marry, ואם נשאת לא תצא – but if she married, she need not leave her husband. Rav Nachman explains that she may not marry that man, שמא יאמרו נשיהם נותנין במתנה – because perhaps people will say, “They are giving their wives to each other as gifts.” ואם נשאת לו לא תצא – But if she married him, she need not leave him after the fact, דמשום גזרה לא מפקינן – because we do not remove her based on a Rabbinical decree. Rava infers from Rav Nachman’s explanation that she is only forbidden to marry that specific man but may marry others. He asks, והא בעי קיומי לתנאה – but she needs to fulfill her condition to marry that man, otherwise the get is retroactively invalid!? Although it is possible that the second husband will divorce her, enabling her to marry “Ploni,” she cannot be in a position where her ability to fulfill the condition is out of her control. Therefore, Rava explains the Baraisa to mean she cannot marry others either and would even be forced to divorce if she married someone else. A Baraisa supports this interpretation.
- Conditions which are impossible, or forbidden
A Baraisa states: ה"ז גיטך ע"מ שתעלי לרקיע – One who says, “This is your get, on condition that you go up to the sky,” ע"מ שתרדי לתהום – or, “on condition that you descend to the depths,” or other such impossibilities, the Tanna Kamma says the get is invalid, but Rebbe Yehudah ben Teima says it is valid, and explained: כל תנאי שאי אפשר לו לקיימו בסופו – any condition which is impossible to eventually fulfill, והתנה עליו מתחילתו – and he stipulated it in the beginning, אינו אלא כמפליגה בדברים וכשר – he is merely pushing her off with words to make her suffer, but does not intend the condition. Rav said the halachah follows this opinion. Amoraim discuss a case of ע"מ שתאכלי בשר חזיר – on condition that you eat swine. Abaye says this is identical to an impossible condition, since she may not fulfill it, but Rava says: אפשר דאכלה ולקיא – it is possible for her to eat swine and get malkos for it, so it is a legitimate condition. Rava is challenged from a Baraisa, which implies that a condition that she have relations with his or her father is not a valid condition!? The Gemara explains that someone else violating a prohibition is out of her control.
- Why “This is your get on condition you eat swine,” is not מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה
Amoraim debated if a condition to transgress a prohibition is considered possible to fulfill. The Gemara asks that the condition should be void regardless, because it is made against a law of the Torah, וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה – and anyone who makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, תנאו בטל – his condition is void!? Rav Adda son of Rav Ika suggested that this principle applies where he who made the condition uproots the Torah law, such as one marrying a woman on condition not to owe her Biblical entitlements of שאר כסות ועונה – food, clothing, and marital relations, but here, the wife transgresses the Torah, not the husband making the condition. Ravina rejects this answer, since her transgression is only to fulfill his condition. Ravina answers that a condition made against the Torah is only void where it definitely violates the Torah, such as a condition to be exempt from a wife’s entitlements (which takes effect at marriage). Here, however, he did not require her to eat swine: לא תיכול ולא תיגרש – Let her not eat swine and not be divorced! Therefore, the condition is valid.
