Gittin

, and he defiles himself for her [corpse];  in a word, she is his wife in all respects, save that she does not require from him a second Get.  This is the view of R. Judah. R. Meir says that if she has intercourse [with another man], judgment on it must be suspended.  R. Jose says that its character is doubtful,  while the Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced, provided only that he dies. How would the difference between R. Meir and R. Jose work out in practice? — R. Johanan says: In respect of a guilt-offering brought out of doubt;  according to R. Meir the man does not bring a guilt-offering out of doubt,  according to R. Jose he does. 'The Sages say that she is divorced and not divorced': the Sages say the same thing as R. Jose, do they not? — A practical difference arises in the application of the rule laid down by R. Zera; for R. Zera said in the name of Rabba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel: Wherever the Sages have said that a woman 'is divorced and not divorced', the husband is under obligation to maintain her. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS], THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, SHE IS DIVORCED THEREBY AND SHE HAS TO GIVE [HIM THE MONEY]. [IF HE SAYS], ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE [IT] ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW, IF SHE GIVES HIM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS SHE IS DIVORCED, BUT IF NOT SHE IS NOT DIVORCED. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON THAT A MAN SAID TO HIS WIFE, THIS IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME [BACK] MY ROBE, AND HIS ROBE WAS LOST, AND THE SAGES SAID THAT SHE SHOULD GIVE HIM ITS VALUE IN MONEY. GEMARA. What precisely is meant by the words 'AND SHE HAS TO GIVE HIM'? — R. Huna says it means, 'and she shall [thereafter] give him'; Rab Judah says it means, 'when she gives him'. What difference does it make in practice which view we adopt? — It makes a difference if the Get is torn or lost [before the money is given]. According to R. Huna who said it means that she is [thereafter] to give, she does not require from him a second Get,  according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when she gives', she requires from him a second Get.  In connection with betrothals also we have an analogous statement, as we have learnt: 'If a man says to a woman, Behold thou art betrothed to me on condition that I give thee two hundred zuz, she is betrothed to him and he is to give her the money,  'and in the discussion thereon it was said, What is meant by 'he is to give', and R. Huna said, It means, he shall [thereafter] give, while Rab Judah said, It means, When he gives. What practical difference does it make which view we adopt? — A difference arises if she puts forth her hand and receives betrothal money from another. According to R. Huna who said that it means, 'he shall [thereafter] give', the giving is a mere condition, and he has only to fulfil his condition,  whereas according to Rab Judah who said that it means 'when he gives', the betrothal takes effect only when he gives, but at the time it is no betrothal. And both cases required to be stated. For if the rule had been stated only in regard to betrothal, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said that it means 'and he is to give', because his intention is to bring her nearer [to himself],  but in the case of divorce where his intention is to put her away [from himself]  I might have thought that he accepts the view of Rab Judah. If again it had been stated in regard only to divorce, I might have thought that in that case R. Huna said it means 'he shall [thereafter] give' because he would not be shy to ask her,  but in the case of betrothal where she might be diffident to ask him, I might have thought that he would accept the view of Rab Judah. Again, if the rule had been stated in connection only with betrothal, I might have thought that Rab Judah said that in that case It means 'when she gives' because she is diffident to ask him, but in the case of divorce where he would not be shy to ask her I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. And if the rule had been stated only in connection with divorce, I might have thought that in that case Rab Judah says it means 'when she gives', because his intention is to put her away [from him], but in the case of betrothal where his intention is to bring her nearer [to him] I might have thought that he accepts the view of R. Huna. Therefore [both statements] were necessary. An objection was raised [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, even though the Get is torn or lost she is divorced, though she cannot marry any other man until she gives him the money.  Further it has been taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz and he dies, if she has already given [before he dies] she is not in any way tied to the brother-in-law, but if she has not yet given she is tied to the brother-in-law. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel Says, She can give the money to his father or his brother or to one of the relatives.  Now the two authorities here differ only to this extent, that one holds that '[give] me' means 'to me but not to my heirs', and the other holds that it means 'to me or even to my heirs', but both hold that it is a mere condition. This would seem to be a refutation of Rab Judah! — Rab Judah, however, may answer: Who is the authority for this view? It is Rabbi, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now';  but the Rabbis join issue with him, and I follow the Rabbis. R. Zera said: When we were in Babylon, we used to state that [the ruling] which R. Huna said in the name of Rabbi, that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now', is disputed by the Rabbis. When I went up [to Eretz Yisrael], I found R. Assi sitting and saying in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that the formula 'on condition' is equivalent to 'from now'; a difference of opinion arose only with regard to the formula 'from to-day and after [my] death',