Gittin

This creates no difficulty for Raba, who may say that the previous clause  speaks of the case where he does not mention any time limit and this where he does.  But on R. Ashi's view, why should the ruling be different in the first case from that in the second?  — This is indeed a difficulty. Our Rabbis taught: [If a man says,] This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, or on condition that you suckle my child for two years, even though the condition is not fulfilled, the Get is valid because he did not say to her, [first] 'if you look after' [and then] 'if you do not look after', 'if you suckle' and 'if you do not suckle'.  This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that if the condition is fulfilled it is a Get and if not it is no Get. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated.  According to one explanation, he addressed this remark to R. Meir, and according to another he addressed it to the Sages. According to one view he addressed his remark to R. Meir, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scriptures which is not duplicated. Hence in this connection we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, and wherever we have two texts from which the same inference may be drawn, we do not base a rule upon them.  According to another explanation he addressed his remark to the Rabbis, and what he meant was this: There is no condition in the Scripture which is not duplicated and we base our rules upon them. A contradiction was raised [from the following]: [If a man said], This is your Get on condition that you look after my father for two years, on condition that you suckle my child for two years, then if the father or the child dies the Get is not valid. This is the view of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that although the condition has not been fulfilled the Get is valid, since she can say to him, Produce your father and I will wait on him, produce your child and I will suckle it. Now, R. Meir would seem to be in contradiction with himself, and the Rabbis would also seem to be in contradiction with themselves? — Between the two statements of R. Meir there is no contradiction: the former [speaks of] where [the man] did not double his condition, the latter of where he did double it. Between the two statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction; for by the 'Sages' here mentioned we understand Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said that wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side the Get is valid. Our Rabbis taught: If a man said to his wife in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get  on condition that you look after my father for two years, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, the second statement does not nullify the first,  and she has the option of either waiting on the father or giving the husband the two hundred zuz. If, however, he said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and he subsequently said to her in the presence of two witnesses, Here is your Get on condition that you give me three hundred zuz, the second statement nullifies the first, nor can one of the first two witnesses and one of the second combine to form a pair.  To which ruling [does this last statement belong]? It cannot be the second one, because [the first condition there] is nullified?  Rather it is the first one. But in this case it is self-evident?  — You might think that all [the witnesses who can help] to establish that there was a condition can be joined together. We are therefore told [that this is not so]. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM JUDEA TO GALILEE, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS  AND THEN TURNED BACK, HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN.  [IF HE SAYS,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING FROM GALILEE TO JUDEA, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS KEFAR 'UTHNAI  AND THEN TURNED BACK, THE CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, AND HE WAS ON THE POINT OF GOING INTO FOREIGN PARTS, IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO [ACRE] AND TURNED BACK HIS CONDITION IS BROKEN. [IF HE SAID,] HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL HAVE KEPT AWAY FROM YOUR PRESENCE THIRTY DAYS, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME AND WENT CONSTANTLY, SO LONG AS HE WAS NOT CLOSETED WITH HER, THE GET IS VALID. GEMARA. [IF HE GOT AS FAR AS ANTIPRAS,] This would seem to imply that Antipras is in Galilee,  which [apparently] contradicts the following: 'Antipras is in Judea and Kefar 'Uthnai in Galilee. The space between the two is subject to the disabilities of both  so that [if he gets there and returns] she is divorced