## Gittin Daf 76a

###### Gittin 76a:1
[Gittin 76a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:1)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא – רֵישָׁא בִּדְלָא פָּרֵישׁ, סֵיפָא דְּפָרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to** the opinion of **Rava, the first clause** in the mishna is speaking **about** when the husband **did not explicitly mention** a period of time, and **the latter clause** is referring to when he did **explicitly mention** a period of two years.


###### Gittin 76a:2
[Gittin 76a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:2)

אֶלָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי – מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rav Ashi,** who holds that when the husband does not mention a period of time the wife can fulfill her obligation by performing the action for even a single day, it is necessary to explain that the first clause in the mishna is referring to when she did fulfill the condition for even one day. And therefore, **what is different** in **the first clause and what is different** in **the latter clause?** The Gemara states: According to Rav Ashi’s opinion this **is difficult.**


###### Gittin 76a:3
[Gittin 76a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהּ: ״אִם תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי – אִם לֹא תְּשַׁמְּשִׁי״; ״אִם תָּנִיקִי – וְאִם לֹא תָּנִיקִי״; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve** my **father** for **two years, or** he said: This is your bill of divorce **on the condition that you will nurse my son** for **two years, even if the condition was not fulfilled it is** a valid **bill of divorce because he did not say to her: If you will serve** my father then this will be a valid bill of divorce, and **if you will not serve** him it will not be a valid bill of divorce, or: **If you will nurse** my son then this will be a valid bill of divorce, **and if you will not nurse** him it will not be a valid bill of divorce. And if he did not state his condition as a compound condition, stipulating both positive and negative outcomes, the condition is void and the bill of divorce is valid. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Gittin 76a:4
[Gittin 76a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:4)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** The condition is valid even if it the husband does not stipulate both positive and negative outcomes. Consequently, if **the condition was fulfilled this is** a valid **bill of divorce, and if** it was **not** fulfilled **this is not** a valid **bill of divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded.**


###### Gittin 76a:5
[Gittin 76a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר קָאָמַר לֵיהּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לְךָ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד – אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To which side of the dispute is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement referring? **There are** those **who say: He is speaking to Rabbi Meir. And there are** those **who say: He is speaking to the Rabbis.** The Gemara explains: **There are** those **who say** that this means **he is speaking to Rabbi Meir and this is what he is saying to him: You do not have a condition in the Bible that is not compounded,** and therefore the compound conditions mentioned in the Torah **have** the status of **two verses that come as one,** i.e., to teach the same matter. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** about other cases. Consequently, one cannot derive from them that every condition must be compounded.


###### Gittin 76a:6
[Gittin 76a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:6)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לְרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִין לָךְ תְּנַאי בַּכְּתוּבִים שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּפוּל, וְגָמְרִינַן מִינַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say: He is saying** this **to the Rabbis, and this is what he is saying to them: There is no condition in the Bible that is not compounded, and we learn from** the conditions written in the Bible that a condition is not valid unless it is compounded.


###### Gittin 76a:7
[Gittin 76a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:7)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״; ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתָּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״ – מֵת הָאָב אוֹ מֵת הַבֵּן, אֵינוֹ גֵּט; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** based on what was taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:6): If a husband said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve** my **father** for **two years,** or he said to her: This is your bill of divorce **on the condition that you will nurse my son** for **two years,** and **the father died or the son died,** then **it is not** a valid **bill of divorce,** as its condition was not fulfilled. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Gittin 76a:8
[Gittin 76a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:8)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט – יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר לוֹ: ״תֵּן לִי אָבִיךָ, וַאֲשַׁמְּשֶׁנּוּ״; ״תֵּן לִי בִּנְךָ, וַאֲנִיקֶנּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: Even though the condition was not fulfilled it is** a valid **bill of divorce,** as **she could have said to him: Give me your father and I will serve him,** or: **Give me your son and I will nurse him.**


###### Gittin 76a:9
[Gittin 76a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:9)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **difficult** to reconcile one statement **of Rabbi Meir with** the other statement made by **Rabbi Meir,** for the second *baraita* indicates that the husband’s condition does not need to be compounded. And it is **difficult** to reconcile one statement **of the Rabbis with** the other statement of **the Rabbis,** for in the second *baraita* they say that if the condition was fulfilled it is a valid bill of divorce, and if it was not fulfilled it is not a valid bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 76a:10
[Gittin 76a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:10)

דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָתָם בִּדְלָא כַּפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ, הָכָא בִּדְכַפְלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult** to reconcile one statement **of Rabbi Meir with** the other statement **of Rabbi Meir,** as **there,** in the case where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to **when he did not compound his condition. Here,** where the bill of divorce is valid, it is referring to **when he did compound his condition,** but the *tanna* of the *baraita* did not mention that fact explicitly.


###### Gittin 76a:11
[Gittin 76a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:11)

וְרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, מַאן חֲכָמִים דְּהָכָא – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הֵימֶנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it is **not difficult** to reconcile one statement of **the Rabbis with** the other statement **of the Rabbis,** because **whose** is the opinion mentioned **here** anonymously as **the Rabbis? It is** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says:** If there is **any hindrance** to fulfilling the condition **that is not from her, it is** a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 76a:12
[Gittin 76a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:12)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – לֹא בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; רָצְתָה – מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, רָצְתָה – נוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues discussing a conditional bill of divorce. **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 6:6): If a husband **said to** his wife **in the presence of two** people: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve** my **father** for **two years, and** afterward **he returned and said to her in the presence of two** other people: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, the latter statement does not nullify the first** statement. Rather, he is giving her the choice, and if she fulfills either one of the conditions, the bill of divorce is valid. If **she wishes, she serves** his father and is divorced, or if **she wishes, she gives him two hundred dinars** and is divorced.


###### Gittin 76a:13
[Gittin 76a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:13)

אֲבָל אָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת זוּז״ – בִּיטֵּל דִּבְרֵי הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן; וְאֵין אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **he said to her in the presence of two** people: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and** afterward **he returned and said to her in the presence of two** other people: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me three hundred dinars,** then **the latter statement nullifies the first** statement, and she is not divorced unless she gives him three hundred dinars. **And one of the first** pair of witnesses **and** one **of the last** pair of witnesses **cannot combine** their testimonies concerning the condition.


###### Gittin 76a:14
[Gittin 76a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:14)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַסֵּיפָא – הֲרֵי בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא אַרֵישָׁא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **To which** clause of the *baraita* is the statement that the witnesses cannot combine their testimonies referring? **If we say** that it is referring to **the latter clause,** where the husband demanded an additional one hundred dinars, then it already said that the first condition **is nullified.** It is unnecessary to mention that the two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since the condition witnessed by the first witnesses no longer exists. **Rather,** it is referring **to the first clause.**


###### Gittin 76a:15
[Gittin 76a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:15)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֹּל לְקַיּוֹמֵי תְּנַאי – מִצְטָרְפִין; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **isn’t** it **obvious** that these two pairs of witnesses cannot combine their testimonies, since each of them are testifying about a different condition? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **all** of those who testify **to the existence of conditions can combine** their testimonies to testify that a bill of divorce was given with a condition, it **teaches us** that this is not the case.


###### Gittin 76a:16
[Gittin 76a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִיהוּדָה לַגָּלִיל; הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפְרַס וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a resident of the region of Judea intending to embark on a journey to the Galilee said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce if I do not come** back **from now until** the conclusion of **thirty days, and** when **he was going from Judea to the Galilee** he **reached Antipatris and he returned** immediately, **his condition is void** and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to the Galilee for longer than thirty days. The reason for this is because he reached the Galilee and returned to Judea within the time he had allotted.


###### Gittin 76a:17
[Gittin 76a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:17)

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִגָּלִיל לִיהוּדָה, וְהִגִּיעַ לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if a resident of the region of the Galilee intending to embark on a journey to Judea said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce if I do not come** back **from now until** the conclusion of **thirty days, and he was going from the Galilee to Judea, and he reached Kefar Otnai and returned** immediately, **his condition is void** and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to Judea for longer than thirty days.


###### Gittin 76a:18
[Gittin 76a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:18)

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְהִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר – בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if a resident of Eretz Yisrael intending to embark on a journey to a country overseas said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce if I do not come** back **from now until** the conclusion of **thirty days, and he was going to a country overseas, and he reached Akko and returned** immediately, **his condition is void** and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently travels to a country overseas for longer than thirty days.


###### Gittin 76a:19
[Gittin 76a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:19)

״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבוֹר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״; הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Gittin 76a:20
[Gittin 76a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/76a:20)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמֵימְרָא דְּאַנְטִיפְרַס בְּגָלִיל הֲוָה קָיְימָא?! וּרְמִינְהִי: אַנְטִיפְרַס – בִּיהוּדָה; וּכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי – בַּגָּלִיל; בֵּינְתַיִם – מְטִילִין אוֹתוֹ לְחוּמְרָא, מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Antipatris was in the Galilee?** It appears from the mishna that Antipatris was on the border of the Galilee, since the condition of the resident of Judea became void by his reaching Antipatris and returning. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** based on what is taught in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:9): **Antipatris** is **in Judea, and Kefar Otnai** is **in the Galilee.** And with regard to the area **between them, a stringent** ruling **is placed on it,** and it is treated as though it is located in both Judea and the Galilee. If the husband who made such a condition reached this area and returned home, it is uncertain whether the condition attached to the bill of divorce was fulfilled. Therefore, there is uncertainty whether **she is divorced**