Gittin

, as it has been taught: '[If he says] From to-day and after [my] death, it is a Get and no Get. This is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi says, One like this is a Get'.  Now if Rab Judah is right in saying that they differ [as to the effect of] 'on condition', instead of joining issue [in the Baraitha] on the question of 'from now and after my death', let them join issue on 'on condition'? — This is to show you how far Rabbi is prepared to go.  But let them differ about 'on condition' to show how far the Rabbis are prepared to go?  — The Tanna [of the Baraitha] preferred to make the stronger instance one of permission. ON CONDITION THAT YOU GIVE ME WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM NOW. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that he is really not particular and that he only wants to urge her on.  We are told therefore that this is not so. RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: IT HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. Of what statement is this given as an illustration?  — There is a lacuna, and we should read thus: If he said to her, On condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, we rule that he meant his particular robe and nothing else. Rabban Gamaliel says that she can give him the money value; and [in confirmation] R. Simeon b. Gamaliel further said that a case happened in Sidon where a man said to his wife, This is your Get on condition that you give me my robe, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him the money value of it. R. Assi inquired of R. Johanan: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and he then changed his mind and said, You can keep the money,  what is the law? This is equally a problem whether we adopt the view of the Rabbis or whether we adopt that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. From the standpoint of the Rabbis it is a problem, because [we may hold that] the Rabbis only ruled as they did in the other case [of the robe] because he did not forgo his claim, but here we see that he tells her that she can keep the money. Or we may also hold that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled as he did only because she made it good for him with a money payment, but where she pays him nothing at all he would not say [that she is divorced]? — He replied: She is not divorced. He [R. Assi] therefore raised [the following] objection: If a man says to another Konam  be whatever benefit you have of me unless you give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, R. Meir says he is forbidden [to have any benefit of him] until he gives, but the Sages say that such a man also may release himself from his own Vow without consulting a wise man by saying to himself, I regard myself as having received them [on his behalf]?  — Are these two cases parallel? In that case his intention is to give her trouble and he has not done so, but in this case he was trying to obtain some positive advantage and found he could do without it. A certain man said to his metayer, The general rule is that [a metayer] irrigates [the land] three times [a year] and takes a fourth of the produce [as his share]. [I want] you to irrigate four times and take a third. Before [he had finished irrigating] the rain came. R. Joseph said, He has not actually irrigated [the fourth time].  Rabbah said, There was no need [for a fourth irrigation].  May we say that R. Joseph adopted the point of view of the Rabbis  and Rabbah that of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? — Can you really maintain this, seeing that it is a fixed rule with us that the law follows Rabbah,  and in this matter the halachah does not follow Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel?  — No. There can be no question that the law is as determined by the Rabbis.  R. Joseph follows the Rabbis without question, while Rabbah can say to you, My view can be justified even from the standpoint of the Rabbis. For the reason why the Rabbis ruled as they did in that case was only because his intention was to give her trouble,  but here he was after some advantage and he found that he could do without it. We have learnt in another place: At first a man [who had bought a house from another in a walled city] used to hide himself on the last day of the twelve-month period, so that [the house] should become his for ever.  Hillel the Elder, therefore, ordained that he [the owner] should throw his money into a certain chamber and that [having done so] he should be at liberty to break the door open and enter, and the other whenever he liked should come and take his money.  Raba remarked upon this: From this regulation of Hillel we may learn that if a man said, This is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and she gave it to him, if he accepted the money willingly she is divorced, but if she had to force it on him she is not divorced. For since Hillel found it necessary to ordain in this instance that a gift forced on the donee should be accounted a gift,