וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת!

or whether she is not divorced.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לָהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לַגָּלִיל – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, וְאִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא; הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרָס וְחָזַר, דְּלָא לַגָּלִיל מְטָא וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוּיֵי נַמִי אִשְׁתַּהֵי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.

Abaye said: It may be that Antipatris is in Judea and Kefar Otnai is in the Galilee. The mishna can be explained as follows: The husband was saying a statement including two conditions to her: If I arrive in the Galilee then this will be a bill of divorce immediately, or if I will tarry on the way for thirty days and I do not come back home, this will be a valid bill of divorce. If he reached Antipatris and returned within thirty days, as he did not arrive in the Galilee and he also did not tarry for thirty days, then his condition is void and his wife is not divorced.

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ כו׳. לְמֵימְרָא, דְּעַכּוֹ בִּמְדִינַת הַיָּם קַיְימָא? וְהָא אֲמַר רַב סָפְרָא: כִּי הָווּ מִיפַּטְרִי רַבָּנַן מֵהֲדָדֵי – בְּעַכּוֹ הָווּ מִפַּטְרִי, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָסוּר לָצֵאת מֵאָרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ!

The continuation of the mishna taught: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Akko is in a country overseas, and is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael? But didn’t Rav Safra say: When the Sages would take leave from one another before departing Eretz Yisrael, they would take their leave in Akko, because it is prohibited to leave from Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? This indicates that Akko is within Eretz Yisrael.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, תְּרֵי תְּנָאֵי קָאָמַר לָהּ: אִי מָטֵינָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם – לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, אִי מִשְׁתַּהֵינָא בְּאוֹרְחָא תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וְלָא אָתֵינָא – לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא; הִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר, דְּלָא לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם מְטָא וְלָא אִישְׁתַּהוּיֵי נַמִי אִשְׁתַּהֵי תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.

Abaye said: The husband was saying a statement including two conditions to her: If I arrive in a country overseas, then this will be a valid bill of divorce immediately, or if I tarry thirty days on the way and I do not come back home, this will be a valid bill of divorce. If he reached Akko and returned, as he did not reach a country overseas and he also did not tarry for thirty days, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced.

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר״ וכו׳. וְהָא לָא עֲבַר! אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי ״פָּנַיִךְ״? תַּשְׁמִישׁ, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ פָּנַיִךְ? לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא נְקַט.

§ The continuation of the mishna states: If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days this is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara challenges: But did he not pass from her presence during this time, as he was going and coming the entire time? Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of the term your presence in this context? It means sexual intercourse. His actual condition was that if he will not engage in sexual intercourse with her for thirty days then the bill of divorce will be valid. And why does he call sexual intercourse your presence? He employed a euphemistic expression when he made his condition.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: לְעוֹלָם פָּנַיִךְ מַמָּשׁ, מִי קָתָנֵי ״הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״? ״הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט״ קָתָנֵי, דְּלָא הָוֵי גֵּט יָשָׁן, וּלְכִי מָלוּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמֵי הָוֵי גִּיטָּא.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: Actually, the husband means literally: Your presence, i.e., that he would not be in his wife’s presence for thirty consecutive days. Is the mishna teaching that she is divorced immediately? No, it is teaching only that this is a valid bill of divorce. This means that although the condition was not fulfilled during these thirty days, since he was not secluded with her this is not considered to be an outdated bill of divorce, which the Sages said may not be used for divorce. And when, at some point in the future, the thirty days during which he does pass from her presence are fulfilled, this will be a valid bill of divorce.

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִנֶּגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וּלְגֵט יָשָׁן אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נִתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ.

The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta 7:10) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, and he was going and coming, going and coming for the entire thirty days, since he was not secluded with her during that time, this is a valid bill of divorce. And one is not concerned that it is now considered an outdated bill of divorce, because he was not secluded with her.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, הָכִי אֲמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.

The Gemara asks: But let there be a concern that perhaps he appeased his wife during this time that he was going and coming, and he was secluded with her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: So said my father, my teacher, Rav Huna, in the name of Rav: The baraita is referring to a situation where the husband says: She is deemed credible by me to say that I did not come. Since the husband states explicitly that he believes her about this, if she said that he was not secluded with her then the bill of divorce remains valid.

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנִי לָהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, הָכִי אֲמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בְּאוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי.

There are those who teach this statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav with regard to the mishna mentioned later on, which says that if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But let there be a concern that perhaps he appeased his wife during this time and was secluded with her. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: So said my father, my teacher, Rav Huna, in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a situation where the husband says: She is deemed credible by me to say that I did not come, and he did not appease her.

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לָהּ אַמַּתְנִיתִין, כָּל שֶׁכֵּן אַבָּרַיְיתָא;

The Gemara comments: Concerning the one who taught that statement of Rav Huna in the name of Rav with regard to the mishna, all the more so would he teach this statement with regard to the baraita . Since he was constantly going and coming, the bill of divorce would be valid only if the husband stated that he trusts his wife to say that she was not secluded with him.

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לָהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא, אֲבָל אַמַּתְנִיתִין – הָא לָא אֲתָא.

Concerning the one who taught this statement with regard to the baraita , it is possible that he taught this only with regard to the baraita , but with regard to the mishna, this is not the case, as he did not come back home within twelve months, but rather died. Therefore, even if he did not specify that he trusts his wife to say whether or not they were secluded, there is no concern that perhaps he was secluded with her without anyone knowing about it.

מתני׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט;

If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce cannot take effect after the husband’s death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children.

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.

By contrast, if he said to her: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce takes effect retroactively. Since he did not return within the year the condition was fulfilled.

״אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, כָּתְבוּ גֵּט בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט;

If a husband said to others: If I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they wrote a bill of divorce during the twelve months and gave it to her after twelve months had elapsed, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed.

״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, כָּתְבוּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה גֵּט.

Similarly, if he said to others: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and they wrote it during the twelve months but gave it to her after the twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed, when it was clear that he did not come back. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: In a case like this, it is a valid bill of divorce, as he did not tell them when to write the bill of divorce. Rather, he stipulated only the time of giving.

כָּתְבוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמֵת, אִם הַגֵּט קוֹדֵם לְמִיתָה – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם מִיתָה קָדְמָה לְגֵט – אֵינוֹ גֵּט, וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ: מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

If they wrote the bill of divorce after twelve months had elapsed, and gave it after twelve months had elapsed, but in the interim the husband died, if the giving of the bill of divorce occurred before the husband’s death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband’s death occurred before the giving of the bill of divorce it is not a valid bill of divorce. And if it is not known which occurred first, this is a case where the Sages said there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

גמ׳ תָּנָא: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּהָ לִינָּשֵׂא.

The mishna states that if a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and the husband died within that time, it is not a valid bill of divorce. With regard to this it is taught in a baraita : Our Rabbis disagreed and permitted her to marry without requiring ḥalitza because they hold that it is a valid bill of divorce.

מַאן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ? אֲמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בֵּי דִּינָא דְּשָׁרוּ מִישְׁחָא, סָבְרִי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

The Gemara clarifies: Who are our Rabbis mentioned in this baraita ? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They are the court that permitted consuming oil manufactured by gentiles. Why do they hold that this is a valid bill of divorce? They hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date written in a document proves when it takes effect. Whenever a document is dated it is assumed that the intent is for it to take effect from that date even if it does not state explicitly: From now.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר רַבִּי הוֹרָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ כָּל סִיעָתוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: כָּל שְׁעָתוֹ.

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, son of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, taught this matter, and all of his colleagues [ siato ] did not concede to his opinion. And some say that all of his life [ she’ato ] they did not concede to his opinion.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְהַהוּא סָבָא: כִּי שְׁרֵיתוּהָ – לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרֵיתוּהָ, אוֹ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרֵיתוּהָ? לְאַלְתַּר שְׁרֵיתוּהָ – דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שְׁרֵיתוּהָ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאוֹ?

Rabbi Elazar said to a certain elderly man who was a member of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia’s court: When you permitted this woman to remarry, did you permit her to remarry immediately after her husband died or did you permit her only after twelve months? Did you permit her to remarry immediately after the husband died, because he will certainly not come back? Or perhaps you permitted her to remarry only after twelve months, because only then was the husband’s condition fulfilled?

וְתִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ מַתְנִיתִין: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; לְאַלְתַּר הָוֵי – דְּהָא לָא אָתֵי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – דְּהָא אִיקַּיַּים לֵיהּ תְּנָאֵיהּ! אִין הָכִי נַמִי, וּמִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה בְּהַהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה.

The Gemara asks: And let his dilemma be raised also with regard to the mishna, in the case where the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. Is the bill of divorce valid immediately once the husband dies, because he will certainly not come back? Or perhaps the bill of divorce is valid only after twelve months have elapsed, because only then was his condition fulfilled? The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed so; this question can be asked with regard to the case in the mishna. And Rabbi Elazar asked that particular elder because he was present at that incident, and he could answer based on what actually occurred.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים, הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לִכְשֶׁתֵּצֵא חַמָּה מִנַּרְתִּיקָהּ,

§ Abaye said: Everyone concedes that in a case where the husband said to his wife that the bill of divorce will take effect once the sun emerges from its sheath [ minnartikah ],