## Gittin Daf 74a

###### Gittin 74a:1
[Gittin 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:1)

וּמִטַּמֵּא לָהּ. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכׇל דָּבָר – אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and he becomes ritually impure for her** if he is a priest. **The principle of the matter** is as follows: At that time **she is like his wife in every sense, but she does not require a second bill of divorce from him** when he dies. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Gittin 74a:2
[Gittin 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:2)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּעִילָתָהּ תְּלוּיָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּעִילָתָהּ סָפֵק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיָּמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says:** If she engages in sexual intercourse with another man, the legal status of **her sexual intercourse depends** on whether or not her husband dies from this illness. If he dies, she is considered to have been divorced from the time the bill of divorce was given, and her sexual intercourse is not deemed adulterous. **Rabbi Yosei says: Her sexual intercourse** has an **uncertain** status. **And the Rabbis say:** There is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced,** and this is an uncertainty **provided that he dies** from this illness. If he does not, they are certainly not divorced.


###### Gittin 74a:3
[Gittin 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:3)

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What** difference **is there between** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who says that the status of her sexual intercourse depends on whether or not her husband dies from his illness, **and** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who says that the status of her sexual intercourse is uncertain?


###### Gittin 74a:4
[Gittin 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לָא מַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – מַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The** practical difference **between them is** with regard to the bringing of **a provisional guilt-offering,** which is brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin-offering. **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** the paramour **does not bring a provisional guilt-offering** (see Leviticus 5:17–19), because, although there was uncertainty at the time of the act of sexual intercourse, the matter will eventually be clarified once the husband either dies or recovers from his illness. If the husband survives her paramour must bring a sin-offering, and if the husband dies the other man is exempt from bringing any offering. **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** her status is uncertain, and even if the husband dies from this illness Rabbi Yosei is uncertain when the bill of divorce took effect. Therefore, her paramour must **bring a provisional guilt-offering.**


###### Gittin 74a:5
[Gittin 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:5)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי! אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים ״מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת״ – בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* taught: **And the Rabbis say:** There is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced.** The Gemara comments: Apparently, the opinion of **the Rabbis is** the same as the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** Why are they recorded as having a dispute? The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to the halakhic ruling transmitted **by Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rabba bar Yirmeya says** that **Shmuel says: Wherever the Sages said:** There is uncertainty whether **she is divorced or** whether **she is not divorced, her husband is obligated to provide her** with **sustenance.** This formulation is stated only by the Rabbis, and Rabbi Zeira’s *halakha* would apply only according to them, not according to Rabbi Yosei.


###### Gittin 74a:6
[Gittin 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְתִתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a husband says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars,** then **she is divorced and must give** two hundred dinars in order to fulfill the condition of the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 74a:7
[Gittin 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:7)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מִיכָּן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״ – אִם נָתְנָה לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת; וְאִם לָאו, אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce **on the condition that you will give me** money **from now until** the conclusion of **thirty days, if she gives** the money **to him within thirty days she is divorced. And if not she is not divorced.**


###### Gittin 74a:8
[Gittin 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:8)

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַיְדָּן, בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי אִיצְטְלִיתִי״, וְאָבְדָה אִיצְטְלִיתוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: תִּתֵּן לוֹ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:** There was **an incident in** the city of **Tzaidan involving one who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me my coat [*itztaliti*], and she lost his coat,** so that she could not give it to him. **And the Rabbis said** that **she must give him the value** of the coat, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is divorced.


###### Gittin 74a:9
[Gittin 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״וְתִתֵּן״? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: וְהִיא תִּתֵּן. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לִכְשֶׁתִּתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: She is divorced and must give the money. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **And must give? Rav Huna says:** She is divorced immediately, once the bill of divorce has been given over to her, **and she must give** him the money subsequently in order to fulfill the condition. The bill of divorce takes effect retroactively, from the time when it was given, after she gives the money. **Rav Yehuda says:** She is divorced only **when she gives** him this sum.


###### Gittin 74a:10
[Gittin 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:10)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁנִּתְקָרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד; רַב הוּנָא אָמַר ״וְהִיא תִּתֵּן״ – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי; רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״לִכְשֶׁתִּתֵּן״ – צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the opinion of Rav Huna and the opinion of Rav Yehuda? The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them if the bill of divorce was torn or lost** after she received it but before she gave the money. According to the opinion of **Rav Huna,** who **says: And she must give** but the bill of divorce takes effect retroactively, if it was torn or lost then **she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.** By contrast, **Rav Yehuda says** that the divorce takes effect only **when she gives** him the sum. Therefore, if the document is torn or lost **she requires a second bill of divorce from him,** as in his opinion it is not yet a valid bill of divorce until she has given him the money.


###### Gittin 74a:11
[Gittin 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:11)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא – דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה: ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי, עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶתֵּן לִיךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי הִיא מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיִתֵּן. וְאִיתְּמַר: מַאי ״וְיִתֵּן״? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: וְהוּא יִתֵּן. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it was also taught** in the mishna **with regard to betrothal** that Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda also disagreed about **a case like this, as we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 60a): If **one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that I will give you two hundred dinars,** then **she is betrothed, and he must give** the sum. **And it was stated** that Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed with regard to **what** is the meaning of: **And he must give. Rav Huna says: And he must give,** meaning that she is betrothed immediately, provided that the husband gives what he promised. **Rav Yehuda says:** She is betrothed only **when he gives.**


###### Gittin 74a:12
[Gittin 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:12)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ: אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְקִיבְּלָה קִידּוּשִׁין מֵאַחֵר. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר ״וְהוּא יִתֵּן״ – תְּנָאָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, מְקַיֵּים תְּנָאֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר ״לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן״ – לְכִי יָהֵיב לַהּ הוּא דְּהָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין, הַשְׁתָּא לָא הָווּ קִידּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between them?** The Gemara answers: **There is** a difference **between them** in a case **where she extended her hand and received betrothal from another** man before the first man gave her the money that he promised. **Rav Huna says: And he must give,** meaning that **it is merely a condition** that he accepted upon himself. **He fulfills his condition and moves on,** and the woman is betrothed to him immediately. Therefore, her betrothal to the second man has no validity. **Rav Yehuda says: When he gives,** which means that **when he gives her** the money **it will be** a valid **betrothal.** But **now it is not** a valid **betrothal** and therefore the betrothal from the second man takes effect.


###### Gittin 74a:13
[Gittin 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:13)

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא ״וְהוּא יִתֵּן״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּלְקָרוֹבַהּ קָאָתֵי; אֲבָל גַּבֵּי גֵירוּשִׁין – דִּלְרַחוֹקַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** to mention this dispute in both the case of divorce and the case of betrothal. **As if it would have taught us** their opinions only **with regard to betrothal,** then one may think that it is specifically **with regard to this** case that **Rav Huna says: And he should give, because he comes to draw her close** in marriage. Consequently, he does this willingly, and therefore there is an assumption that his intention was for the betrothal to take effect immediately. **But with regard to divorce, where he comes to distance her,** there is an assumption that he does so unwillingly, so that he makes the divorce dependent on a condition in order to delay the matter. Therefore, **say** that Rav Huna **concedes to Rav Yehuda** that the divorce does not take effect until the condition has been fulfilled.


###### Gittin 74a:14
[Gittin 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:14)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי גֵירוּשִׁין; בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא ״וְהִיא תִּתֵּן״ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא כְּסִיף לְמִיתְבְּעַהּ; אֲבָל גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין, דִּכְסִיפָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it would have taught us** their opinions only **with regard to divorce,** then one may think that it is specifically **with regard to this** case that **Rav Huna says: And she must give, because he is not embarrassed to demand** the money **from her** afterward to fulfill the condition of the bill of divorce, and his intent was to divorce her immediately. **But with regard to betrothal, where she is embarrassed to demand** the money that he promised would come **from him,** she may not agree to be betrothed to him until she actually receives the money. Therefore, you might **say** that Rav Huna **concedes to Rav Yehuda** that the betrothal is valid only once he gives her the money.


###### Gittin 74a:15
[Gittin 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:15)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין; בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה ״לִכְשֶׁיִּתֵּן״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּכְסִיפָא לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ; אֲבָל גַּבֵּי גֵירוּשִׁין – דְּלָא כְּסִיף לְמִיתְבְּעַהּ, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **if it would have taught us** their opinions only **with regard to betrothal,** then one may think that it is specifically **with regard to this** case that **Rav Yehuda says** that the betrothal is valid only **when he gives** her the money, **because she is embarrassed to demand it from him** if he does not give it to her. Therefore, her intention is that she will be betrothed only once the condition is fulfilled. **But with regard to divorce, where** the husband **is not embarrassed to demand** the money **from her,** you might **say that** Rav Yehuda **concedes to Rav Huna** that the bill of divorce takes effect immediately.


###### Gittin 74a:16
[Gittin 74a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:16)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי גֵירוּשִׁין; בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה ״לִכְשֶׁתִּתֵּן״ – מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַחוֹקַהּ קָאָתֵי; אֲבָל גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין – דִּלְקָרוֹבַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֵימָא מוֹדֵה לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, **if it would have taught us** only **with regard to** the case of **divorce,** then one may think that it is specifically **with regard to this** case that **Rav Yehuda says** that the divorce is valid only **when she gives** him the money, **because** the husband **comes to distance her. But with regard to betrothal, where he comes to draw her close,** you might **say** that Rav Yehuda **concedes to Rav Huna.** Therefore, it is **necessary** to state this dispute in both cases.


###### Gittin 74a:17
[Gittin 74a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּקְרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת; וּלְאַחֵר לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתִּתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** based on what was taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:5): If one says to a woman: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars,** then **even though the bill of divorce was torn or lost she is divorced. And she may not marry another** man **until she gives** her first husband the money.


###### Gittin 74a:18
[Gittin 74a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:18)

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וָמֵת, נָתְנָה – אֵינָהּ זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם; לֹא נָתְנָה – זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֶנֶת לְאָבִיו אוֹ לְאָחִיו אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִן הַקְּרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught further** in that same *baraita*: If one says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give two hundred dinars to me, and** the husband **died** childless, if she had already **given** him the money, then **she is not bound** with a levirate bond **to the *yavam*** because she was already divorced from her husband through the bill of divorce that he gave her. But if **she had not given** him the money, then **she is bound** with a levirate bond **to the *yavam*** because the bill of divorce did not take effect and she is a widow. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should give** the money **to** her late husband’s **father, or to his brother, or to one of the relatives** who inherit from him, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is released from the levirate bond.


###### Gittin 74a:19
[Gittin 74a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:19)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי – אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: ״לִי״ – וְלָא לְיוֹרְשַׁי, וּמָר סָבַר: ״לִי״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ לְיוֹרְשַׁי; וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא תְּנָאָה הָוֵי – תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The first *tanna* and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **disagree only with regard to** the meaning of the condition. One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that when the husband said: On the condition that she will give **to me,** he meant: To me specifically **and not to my heirs.** Consequently, she cannot fulfill the condition by giving the money to his heirs. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that when the husband said that she will give the money **to me,** he meant **and even to my heirs. But in any event, everyone** agrees that this **is** a valid **condition,** yet its fulfillment does not change the date that the bill of divorce takes effect. This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Yehuda,** who said that the bill of divorce takes effect only when she gives.


###### Gittin 74a:20
[Gittin 74a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:20)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Yehuda** could have **said 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:** The agreement will take effect retroactively **from now,** even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. **And the Rabbis disagree with him. And I say** my ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Gittin 74a:21
[Gittin 74a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/74a:21)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בְּבָבֶל אָמְרִינַן, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי – פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. כִּי סְלִיקִי, אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ – כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Zeira says: When we were in Babylonia we** would **say** with regard to **this** following statement **that Rav Huna says** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Anyone who states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** is **like** one who **states:** The agreement will take effect retroactively **from now,** even though the condition is fulfilled only later on; we would say that **the Rabbis disagree with him. When I ascended** to Eretz Yisrael **I found Rabbi Asi, who was sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everyone concedes that with regard to** anyone who **states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** he is **like** one who **states:** The agreement will take effect retroactively **from now;** and the Rabbis **disagreed** with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **only in** a case where the bill of divorce included the condition: **From today and after** my **death.**