Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : What is the difference between the explanations of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda? Even Rav Huna agrees that she cannot marry someone else until she gives him the money. Until that point the bill of divorce does not come into effect and she remains married to the first man. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where the bill of divorce was torn or lost after she received it but before she gave him the money. According to the opinion of Rav Huna it is a valid bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect from the moment he gives her the document. According to the opinion of Rav Yehuda it is not a valid bill of divorce, as he maintains that the bill of divorce goes into effect only later, which is impossible as it is either torn or lost.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁנִּתְקָרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, לְרַב הוּנָא הָוֵי גֵּט, לְרַב יְהוּדָה לָא הָוֵי גֵּט.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state both disputes, the one with regard to betrothal and the one with regard to divorce, as neither halakha could be derived from the other. As had it taught us only that the two Sages disagree with regard to betrothal, one might have said that it is there that Rav Huna says that the betrothal takes effect immediately, despite the fact that he must still give her the money, because betrothal comes to draw her near to him. Therefore, it is likely that he meant for the betrothal to take immediate effect. But with regard to divorce, when he comes to distance her, you might say that Rav Huna concedes to Rav Yehuda that the divorce comes into effect only from the moment she gives him the money.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְקָרוֹבַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֲבָל גֵּירוּשִׁין, דִּלְרַחוֹקַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And conversely, if the dispute had been stated only with regard to this case concerning a bill of divorce, one might have claimed that Rav Huna says that the bill of divorce comes into immediate effect only in this situation, because he is not ashamed to demand the money from her whenever he wants, and therefore he divorces her immediately. But here, concerning a betrothal, when she is ashamed to claim the money from him, you might say that Rav Huna concedes to Rav Yehuda that the woman does not accept the betrothal until she actually receives the money. It is therefore necessary for the dispute to be stated in both cases.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָךְ: בְּהָךְ קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיהוּ לָא כְּסִיף לֵיהּ לְמִתְבְּעַהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיהִי כְּסִיפָא לַהּ לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה, צְרִיכָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a baraita (Tosefta, Gittin 5:5): If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, even if the bill of divorce was torn or lost she is divorced. But she may not marry another man until she gives him the money. This ruling apparently accords with Rav Huna’s opinion that the bill of divorce goes into immediate effect from the moment it is given.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְקָרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, לְאַחֵר לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתִּתֵּן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And it is further taught in a baraita: With regard to a man who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and he died childless, if she gave him the money she is not bound by a levirate bond to the yavam, as she is already divorced. But if she did not give him the money she is bound by a levirate bond to the yavam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If she did not give it to her husband during his lifetime she may give the money to her late husband’s brother, or to his father, or to one of the relatives who inherit from him, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is retroactively divorced.
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: אָמַר לָהּ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ וָמֵת, נָתְנָה – אֵין זְקוּקָה לַיָּבָם, לֹא נָתְנָה – זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֶנֶת לְאָחִיו אוֹ לְאָבִיו אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִן הַקְּרוֹבִים.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The tanna’im disagree only with regard to the following: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that by the phrase: On the condition that you will give me, he meant: To me specifically but not to my heirs. Consequently, if she does not give the money to him she is not divorced, as she cannot fulfill the condition by giving the money to his heirs. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the husband meant: Even to my heirs. In any event, everyone agrees that it is a condition and the divorce takes effect from the moment the bill of divorce is given. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Yehuda.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: ״לִי וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁיי״, וּמָר סָבַר: ״אֲפִילּוּ לְיוֹרְשַׁיי״, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא תְּנָאָה הָוֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Anyone who states a condition employing the language: On the condition, is like one who states that the agreement will take effect retroactively from now, even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the phrase: On the condition, indicates that an action should take effect now provided that a certain action is fulfilled later. And the Rabbis disagree with him, claiming that this expression does not mean that the action should take immediate effect, but only from when the condition is fulfilled. And Rav Yehuda would conclude by adding: And I spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. וַאֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי כְּרַבָּנַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that anyone who states a condition employing the language: On the condition, is like one who states that the agreement will take effect retroactively from now, even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in Babylonia we would say: With regard to that which Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Anyone who states a condition employing the language: On the condition, is like one who states that the agreement will take effect retroactively from now, that is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, but the Rabbis disagree with him.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בְּבָבֶל הֲוָה אָמְרִינַן: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : When I ascended to there, to Eretz Yisrael, I found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying the following ruling in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: All concede that with regard to one who says to his wife: On the condition, he is like one who states that the divorce will take effect retroactively from now. They disagreed only with regard to one who said to his wife: From today and after my death, whether he is considered to have added a condition or to have retracted from his initial statement.
כִּי סָלְקִי לְהָתָם אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And it is taught in a baraita that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, it is uncertain whether it is a valid bill of divorce or whether it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is the statement of the Rabbis. The Rabbis are uncertain whether he has changed his mind from his initial intention of giving the document that day, and now wishes to give a bill of divorce after his death, which is not effective, or whether he was merely adding a condition that the bill of divorce should take effect from today only when he dies. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A document like this is a valid bill of divorce.
וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵּט, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה גֵּט.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, who said that the tanna’im also disagree with regard to one who says to his wife: On the condition, instead of disagreeing with regard to the case where one says to his wife: From today and after my death, let them disagree with regard to a case where the husband used the expression: On the condition.
וּלְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר בְּ״עַל מְנָת״ נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – נִיפְלְגֵי בְּ״עַל מְנָת״?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda maintains that they disagree over both cases, and the baraita taught the dispute in this manner to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that even if the husband says to his wife: From today and after my death, this is also a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: And let them disagree with regard to a husband who says to his wife: On the condition, to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that it is not a valid bill of divorce even in that case. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to emphasize the power of leniency. It is always better to formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the lenient opinion.
לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּרַבִּי, דְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ נָמֵי הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. וְנִיפְלְגִי בְּ״עַל מְנָת״, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּרַבָּנַן! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף.