Gittin

, both sides agree that [the Get is still] valid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT, and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] before the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with the Rabbis, or if you like I can say that it is assuming it [to be inserted] after the substantive part [has been written], so that it concurs with both authorities. Raba, however, said that they [Rabbi and the Rabbis] disagree in the case where [the reservation is inserted] after the substantive part has been written, Rabbi holding that we disallow the insertion in this case in virtue of having disallowed it before the substantive part [has been written], while the Rabbis considered that we need not disallow one in virtue of the other; but if [it is inserted] before the writing of the substantive part, both sides agree that [the Get is] invalid. As for the Mishnah which says. IF HE HAS WRITTEN IT. and which we have explained as referring to 'except', so that 'on condition' would not invalidate [the Get], it is assuming it to be inserted after [the writing] of the substantive part, and it follows the Rabbis. The father of R. Abin recited before R. Zera: 'If he wrote the Get with [the insertion of] a condition, the unanimous ruling is that it is invalid,' [He said to him:] The unanimous ruling is that it is invalid? [How can this be] seeing that there is a dispute on the subject? What you must say is, The unanimous ruling is that it is valid. And in what circumstances? If the words are inserted after the writing of the substantive part. Why did not R. Zera say to him, [Say,] This is invalid, [the ruling then being] according to Rabbi? — [R. Zera reasoned] that the tanna  had been taught to say 'The unanimous ruling is', and that he might confuse 'valid' and 'invalid', but that he would not confuse 'this is' with 'the unanimous ruling is'. MISHNAH. [IF HE SAID,] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN BUT MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, MY BROTHER AND YOUR BROTHER, A SLAVE. A HEATHEN, OR ANYONE TO WHOM SHE IS INCAPABLE OF BEING BETROTHED, THE GET IS VALID.  [IF HE SAYS.] YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANYONE BUT A HIGH PRIEST (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A WIDOW) OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A DIVORCEE OR A HALUZAH),  AN ORDINARY PRIEST, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS A BASTARD OR A NETHINAH),  A LAY ISRAELITE, OR, (SUPPOSING SHE WAS OF ISRAELITISH BIRTH). A BASTARD OR A NATHIN, OR ANYONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF BETROTHING HER ALBEIT IN TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW,  THE GET IS INVALID. GEMARA. The general statement in the first clause brings under the rule all other persons who become liable to kareth  [by having intercourse with her]; the general statement in the second clause brings under the rule all other persons who are forbidden [to marry her] only in virtue of a negative command,  (such as, for instance, an Ammonite, a Moabite,  a Nathin, an Egyptian and an Edomite).  Raba inquired of R. Nahman: [If he says, you may marry anyone] except [that you may not] be betrothed to a minor, what is the law?  Do we emphasise the fact that at the present at any rate he is not capable of betrothing her  or rather the fact that he will one day be capable? — He replied: [We have a teaching:] 'A girl under age can be divorced [after her father's death] even though her betrothal was contracted by her father.'  Now why should this be, seeing that we require that her separation should be on the same footing as her union?  The reason must be, because she will one day be capable of betrothal; so here we say that he will one day be capable of betrothal. [Suppose he says, You may marry anyone] except those still to be born, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that as yet at any rate they are not born, or on the fact that one day they will be born? — He replied: We have the answer in our Mishnah: [IF HE SAID, ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN, [IT IS VALID]. Now if we suppose [that this constitutes a reservation in the Get], then [the excepting of] a slave and a heathen also [should constitute a reservation in the Get], since it is possible for them to become proselytes? — [To this Raba rejoined:] Those are not bound to become proselytes in the ordinary course of things, these will be born in the ordinary course of things. [If he said she may marry anyone] except the husband of her sister, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that now at any rate she is not eligible for him, or rather perhaps on the fact that possibly her sister will die and she will become eligible for him? — He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] A SLAVE, A HEATHEN. Now [the excepting] of a slave and heathen also [should constitute a reservation] since they can become proselytes? — [He rejoined]: Conversion is not a usual occurrence, death is. [If he said, you may marry] excepting you commit fornication, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that he did leave a reservation in the sphere of intercourse? — He replied: We have [the answer] in our Mishnah: [ANY MAN BUT] MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER. Now to what [does the exception apply]? Shall I say to marriage? But are his father and her father capable of marrying her? It must be then to fornication, and when he excepts his father and her father this is no reservation,  which shows that when he excepts anyone else, it is counted as a reservation? — [He rejoined:] perhaps the exception refers after all to marriage, since he may transgress the law and marry her. [If he says], Excepting unnatural intercourse, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he made no reservation in the sphere of natural intercourse, or on the fact that the text says, as with a woman?  [If he says], Except [that I reserve to myself] the right of annulling your vows, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or rather perhaps on the text, her husband may establish it or her husband may make it void?  [If he says], Except that you may not eat terumah,  what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage, or on the fact that it is written the purchase of his money [shall eat of it]?  Suppose he said, Excepting that I shall inherit you, what is the law? Do we lay stress on the fact that he has left no reservation in the sphere of marriage or that the text says, to his kinsman and he shall inherit it?  [If he says,] Except for your being betrothed by a document, what is the law? Do we say that it is possible for one to betroth her by a money present or by intercourse,  or rather perhaps do we go by the text and she shall depart and marry,  which indicates that all kinds of marrying are on the same footing? — These questions are left undecided. MISHNAH. THE ESSENCE OF THE GET IS THE WORDS, BEHOLD YOU ARE HEREBY PERMITTED TO ANY MAN.