Gittin

and not divorced?  — Abaye replied: [We suppose that] he makes two conditions with her, thus: If I reach Galilee, this will be a Get at once, and also if I remain on the road thirty days and do not return it will be a Get. If then he reached Antipras and came back, so that he did not get to Galilee nor did he remain on the road thirty days, his condition has been broken. HERE IS YOUR GET ON CONDITION THAT I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS [AND HE GOT AS FAR AS ACCO]. This would imply that Acco is in foreign parts.  But how can this be, seeing that R. Safra has said: When the Rabbis took leave of one another,  they did so in Acco, because it is forbidden for those who live in Eretz Yisrael to go out of it? — Abaye replied: He made two conditions with her, thus: If I reach foreign parts, this will be a Get at once, and if I remain on the road and do not return within thirty days it will be a Get. If he got as far as Acco and returned, so that he neither reached foreign parts nor remained on the road thirty days, his condition is broken. HERE IS YOUR GET SO SOON AS I SHALL KEEP AWAY etc. But he does not keep away?  — R. Huna replied: What is meant by 'PRESENCE here? Marital intercourse. And why is it called PRESENCE'? A polite expression is used. R. Johanan, however, said: The word 'PRESENCE is to be taken literally. For it does not say that [if he comes and goes] she is divorced, but 'THE GET IS VALID', that is to Say, it does not become an 'old' Get  and when thirty days have passed [without his seeing her] it is a valid Get. It has been taught in accordance with R. Johanan: '[If he says,] Here is your Get so soon as I shall keep away from your presence thirty days, even though he was constantly coming and going, so long as he was not closeted with her the Get is valid, and we have no fear of its being an 'old' Get, since he was not closeted with her.' But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her?  — Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher, in the name of Rab: This rule applies where he gives an undertaking  that he will accept her word if she says he did not come [to her]. Some attach this statement to the Mishnah,  thus: [If a man says, this is your Get] from now if I do not return within twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, the Get is valid. But is there not the possibility that he made it up with her? Rabbah son of R. Huna replied: Thus said my father, my teacher in the name of Rab: The rule applies where he gives an undertaking that he will accept her word if she says that he did not come to her. Those who attach this statement to the Mishnah would without question attach it to the Baraitha  also. But those who attach it to the Baraitha might hesitate to attach it to the Mishnah, because [as far as we know] he has not come to see her. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS NO GET.  [IF HE SAYS,] THIS IS YOUR GET FROM NOW IF I DO NOT RETURN WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIES WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IT IS A GET. [IF HE SAYS,] IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, AND THEY WROTE A GET BEFORE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. [IF HE SAID,] WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND THEY WROTE IT BEFORE THE TWELVE MONTHS HAD PASSED AND GAVE IT AFTER, IT IS NO GET. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT A GET LIKE THAT IS VALID.  IF THEY WROTE IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND DELIVERED IT AFTER TWELVE MONTHS AND HE DIED, IF THE DELIVERY OF THE GET PRECEDED HIS DEATH THE GET IS VALID, BUT IF HIS DEATH PRECEDED THE DELIVERY OF THE GET IT IS NOT VALID. IF IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH WAS FIRST, THE WOMAN IS IN THE CONDITION KNOWN AS 'DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED'. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: 'Our Rabbis allowed her to marry'.  Who are meant by 'our Rabbis'? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The Beth din which permitted the oil [of heathens].  They concurred with R. Jose, who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication. R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Judah the Prince, the son of Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi, gave this ruling, but none of his colleagues [saya'to] agreed with him, or, as others report, [his ruling did not find acceptance] during the whole of his life [sha'ato]. R. Eleazar asked a certain elder [who had been present there]: When you permitted her to marry, did you permit her to do so at once,  or after twelve months?  Did you permit it at once, since there is no chance of his coming again, or did you permit it only after twelve months, when his condition would be fulfilled? — But should not this question be attached to the Mishnah: [IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET] FROM NOW IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND HE DIED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, THIS IS A GET: would it be a Get at once, seeing that he will not come again, or only after twelve months when his condition will have been fulfilled? — Indeed it might have been, but it was put in this way because he [the old man] asked had been present on that occasion. Abaye said: All are agreed that if he Says, 'When the sun issues from its sheath'