Gittin

while according to Abaye 'general principle' covers swine's flesh and 'one like this' excludes 'So-and-so'. An objection was brought [from the following]: [If he says], 'Here is your Get on condition that you eat swine's flesh', or, supposing she was a lay woman, 'on condition that you eat terumah', or, supposing she was a nazirite, 'on condition that you drink wine', then if the condition has been fulfilled this is a Get, and if not it is not a Get.  This is consistent with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Abaye, [does it not]? — Abaye may reply to you: Do you imagine that this ruling represents a unanimous opinion? This represents the view of the Rabbis. But could he [Abaye] not base his view on the ground that [such a Get contains] a stipulation to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, and wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah, the condition is void?  — R. Adda the son of R. Ika replied: When we say that where a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we refer for instance to a stipulation to withhold the food, raiment and marriage duty [of a married woman], where it is the man who nullifies the injunction, but here it is she who nullifies it, Rabina strongly demurred to this [saying], Is not her whole purpose in nullifying only to carry out his condition, so that in point of fact it is he who nullifies? No, said Rabina. When we say that wherever a stipulation is made to break an injunction laid down in the Torah the condition is void, we mean, for instance, [a stipulation] to withhold her food, raiment and marriage duty, where he is unquestionably nullifying [the injunction]. But in this case [will anyone tell her that] she is absolutely bound to eat? She need not eat and will not be divorced. WHAT MUST HE DO? HE MUST TAKE IT FROM HER, etc. Who is the authority for this ruling? — Hezekiah said: It is R. Simeon b. Eleazar, as it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, [It is no Get] until he takes it from her and again gives it to her saying, Here is your Get.  R. Johanan said, You may even hold that it is Rabbi;  your colleague  has suggested that there is a special reason here, since she has already become possessed of it  to the extent of being disqualified in regard to the priesthood. IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. R. Safra said: The words here are  IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET. Surely this is self-evident? It says, IF HE WROTE IT IN THE GET? — You might think that this is the case  only [if he inserts them] after the substantive part of the Get  [has been written],  but where [he made the reservation] before the substantive part [has been written], then even [if he made it] orally [the Get] should be invalid. Therefore [R. Safra] tells us [that this is not so]. Raba on the other hand held that the rule  applies only if [he made the reservation] after the substantive part [was written], but if before the substantive part was written then even if made orally [the Get] is invalid. Raba was quite consistent in this, as he used to say to the scribes who wrote bills of divorce, Silence the husband till you have written the substantive part [of the Get]. Our Rabbis taught: All conditions [written] in a Get make it invalid. This is the view of Rabbi. The Sages, however, say that a condition which would render it invalid if stated orally makes it invalid if written, but one which does not invalidate it if stated orally does not invalidate it if written. [Hence] the word 'except'  which invalidates it [if expressed] orally also invalidates it [if inserted] in writing, whereas ['on condition'] which does not invalidate it [if expressed] orally does not invalidate it [if inserted] in writing. R. Zera said: They disagree only where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [was written], Rabbi holding that we disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except',  while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow 'on condition' in virtue of having disallowed 'except'. If, however, [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part [has been written].