Gittin

he means that [the Get is to take effect only] when the sun does come out, and if he dies in the night it would be a Get after death.  If, again, he says, 'On condition that the sun issues from its sheath,' he means it to take effect as from now, since R. Huna has said in the name of Rabbi, The formula 'on condition' Is equivalent to 'as from now'. Where opinions differ is when he says 'if it shall issue', One authority  adopts the view of R. Jose who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication, so that his words are analogous to 'from to-day if I die, from now if I die,'  while the other  did not accept the view of R. Jose, and his words are analogous to the bare 'if I die'. WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, IF I DO NOT COME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, IF THEY WROTE etc. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: May we conclude from this that in R. Jose's opinion, if one writes a Get subject to a certain condition [even if the condition is not fulfilled] the document is a valid one? — No; I may still hold that it is not valid, and R. Jose has a special reason here, because he ought to have said 'If I do not come, write and deliver', and he actually said, 'Write and deliver if I do not come', and [we presume him] therefore to have meant, Write from now and deliver if I do not come. The Rabbis, however, do not differentiate between the two forms. Our Rabbis taught: [If he says, 'This is your Get if I do not return] till after the septennate,' we wait an extra year;  'till after a year', we wait a month; 'till after a month', we wait a week. If he Says, 'till after the Sabbath',  what [do we do]? — When R. Zera was once sitting before R. Assi, or, as others report, when R. Assi was sitting before R. Johanan, he said: The first day of the week and the second and third are called 'after the Sabbath'; the fourth and fifth days and the eve of Sabbath are called 'before the Sabbath.' It has been taught: [If he says] 'Till after the festival', we wait thirty days. R. Hiyya went forth and preached this in the name of Rabbi, and he was commended [for doing so].  He then preached it in the name of the majority and was not commended.  This shows that the law is not as laid down by him. MISHNAH. IF A MAN THROWS A GET TO HIS WIFE WHILE SHE IS IN HER HOUSE OR IN HER COURTYARD,  SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT TO HER INTO HIS HOUSE OR INTO HIS COURTYARD, EVEN THOUGH HE IS WITH HER ON THE SAME BED, SHE IS NOT THEREBY DIVORCED. IF HE THROWS IT INTO HER LAP OR INTO HER WORK-BASKET,  SHE IS THEREBY DIVORCED. GEMARA. What is the Scriptural warrant for this rule? — As our Rabbis taught: 'And give it in her hand:  this only tells me that [the Get may be placed] in 'her hand'. Whence do I learn that [it may also be placed] on her roof, or in her courtyard or enclosure? The text says significantly. 'And he shall give', which means, in any manner.  It has been taught in a similar manner regarding a thief: His hand:  this tells me on]y that [he is liable if the theft is found] in his hand. Whence do I learn that [he is equally liable if it is found] on his roof, or in his courtyard or his enclosure? From the significant words, 'If it be found at all', which means, under all circumstances.  And [both expositions are] necessary. For had I only the one regarding the Get, I should have said that the reason is because [she is divorced] against her will,  but [that this rule does] not apply to a thief who cannot become such against his will.  And had I been given the rule in regard to the thief only, I should have said [that it applied to him] because the All-Merciful imposed a fine upon him,  but not to a Get. Hence both were necessary. It says]. HER COURTYARD. [How can this be, Seeing that] whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? — R. Eleazar said: We presume him to have given her a written statement that he has no claim on her property. But suppose he did do so, what difference does it make, seeing that it has been taught.  'If a man says to another [a partner.] I have no claim on this field, I have no concern in it, I entirely dissociate myself from it, his words are of no effect'?  — The school of R. Jannai explained: We suppose him to have given her this written statement while she was still betrothed, and we adopt [at the same time] the maxim of R. Kahana; for R. Kahana said that a man may stipulate beforehand that he will not take up a prospective inheritance from an outside source.  This too is based on a ruling of Raba, who said: If one says.