## Gittin Daf 84b

###### Gittin 84b:1
[Gittin 84b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:1)

לְאַבָּיֵי, ״כְּלָל״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר; ״כָּזֶה״ – לְמַעוֹטֵי פְּלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **according to Abaye** this **principle** was stated **to include** the case of a condition that she should eat **pig meat,** and the expression: A bill of divorce **like this** is a valid bill of divorce, serves **to exclude** a condition that she should engage in sexual intercourse with **so-and-so,** in which case the divorce takes effect only once the condition is fulfilled, as it is possible to fulfill this condition in a permitted manner.


###### Gittin 84b:2
[Gittin 84b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:2)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאכְלִי בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר״; וְאִם הָיְתָה זָרָה – ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאכְלִי בִּתְרוּמָה״; וְאִם הָיְתָה נְזִירָה – ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן״; נִתְקַיֵּים הַתְּנַאי – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. לְרָבָא נִיחָא, לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from another *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:10): If the husband said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you eat pig meat; or** similarly, **if she was a non-priestess,** i.e., the daughter of an Israelite, and he stipulated: **On the condition that you partake of *teruma*; or if she was a nazirite** and he stipulated: **On the condition that you drink wine** (see Numbers 6:3); in all of these cases, if **the condition is fulfilled it is** a valid **bill of divorce, and if not, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce.** This **works out well according to Rava,** who holds that a condition that she should perform a forbidden act is binding; **according to Abaye** it is **difficult.**


###### Gittin 84b:3
[Gittin 84b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:3)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי: מִי סָבְרַתְּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא?! הָא מַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Abaye** could have **said to you: Do you hold** that this ruling **is agreed** upon **by everyone?** That is not the case. Rather, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima, maintaining that even a condition that cannot be fulfilled is a valid condition.


###### Gittin 84b:4
[Gittin 84b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:4)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּמַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה הוּא, וְכׇל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה – תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: Regardless of the issue of a condition that cannot be fulfilled, **derive** that this condition is void from the fact **that** the husband **is stipulating counter to that which is written in the Torah, and** there is a principle that with regard to **anyone who stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah, his condition is void.**


###### Gittin 84b:5
[Gittin 84b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:5)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל – כְּגוֹן שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעוֹנָתָהּ, דְּהוּא קָא עָקַר; אֲבָל הָכָא – אִיהִי קָא עָקְרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda son of Rav Ika said** in response: **When we say** that if one **stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah his condition is void,** the reference is to a case **such as** a man who betroths a woman on the condition that he will not be obligated to provide her with **her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights, as** there **he is uprooting** a matter of Torah law by fulfilling the condition. **But here,** it is **she** who **is uprooting** a matter of Torah law by fulfilling the condition and not him.


###### Gittin 84b:6
[Gittin 84b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: כְּלוּם קָא עָקְרָה אִיהִי – אֶלָּא לְקַיּוֹמֵי לִתְנַאי דִּידֵיהּ; אִישְׁתְּכַח דְּאִיהוּ קָא עָקַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina strongly objects to this** response: **Isn’t she uprooting** it **only** in order **to fulfill his condition?** It is therefore **found that he is uprooting** a matter of Torah law by attaching this condition to the divorce.


###### Gittin 84b:7
[Gittin 84b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:7)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל – כְּגוֹן שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעוֹנָתָהּ, דְּוַדַּאי קָא עָקַר; אֲבָל הָכָא – מִי קָאָמַר לַהּ: לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא אָכְלָה?! לָא תֵּיכוֹל, וְלָא תִּיגָּרַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ravina said: When we say** that if one **stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah,** that **his condition is void,** the reference is to a case **such as** that of a man who stipulates that he will not be obligated to provide his wife with **her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights, as** by attaching this condition **he is definitely uprooting** a matter of Torah law. **But here, is he saying to her** that it is **not possible for her not to eat? She may not eat and not get divorced.** The condition does not counter Torah law in and of itself, as the wife has the choice of whether or not to fulfill it.


###### Gittin 84b:8
[Gittin 84b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:8)

כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה – יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה וְכוּ׳: מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna: **What should he do** after giving her the bill of divorce and stipulating that she is not permitted to so-and-so? **He should take it from her,** and hand it to her again, and say to her: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** that? **Ḥizkiyya said** that **it is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.**


###### Gittin 84b:9
[Gittin 84b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:9)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ, וְיֹאמַר לָהּ: ״הֵי גִּיטִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a husband gives his wife a bill of divorce without her knowledge, **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says** that it does not take effect **until he takes it from her, and hands it to her again, and says to her: This is your bill of divorce.** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is not necessary for him to hand it to her a second time; rather, it is sufficient for him to tell her that he is giving her a bill of divorce. The mishna is therefore in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that the husband must hand it to her again.


###### Gittin 84b:10
[Gittin 84b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי – דִּילְכוֹן אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, הוֹאִיל וְקִנְאָתוֹ לִיפָּסֵל בּוֹ לַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You** can **even say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Your** Sage, referring to Rav Kahana, who came from Babylonia to study in Eretz Yisrael, **said** that **it is different here, since** the wife has already **acquired** the bill of divorce with regard **to** her **becoming disqualified** from marrying **into the priesthood due to it,** and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he need not take it back and give it to her again. Since the bill of divorce was already partially effective, it is in the wife’s possession and cannot be used by the husband to divorce her in full unless she gives it back to him and he gives it to her again. Therefore, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that he must give it to her a second time.


###### Gittin 84b:11
[Gittin 84b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:11)

כְּתָבוֹ בְּתוֹכוֹ: אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: ״כְּתָבוֹ בְּתוֹכוֹ״ תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that if the husband **wrote** his qualification **inside** the bill of divorce, it is invalid even if he subsequently erased it. **Rav Safra said: We learned** in the mishna that the bill is invalid only if **he wrote** the qualification **inside** the bill of divorce, not if he stated it orally.


###### Gittin 84b:12
[Gittin 84b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:12)

פְּשִׁיטָא, ״כְּתָבוֹ בְּתוֹכוֹ״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאַחַר הַתּוֹרֶף, אֲבָל לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֶף – אֲפִילּוּ עַל פֶּה נָמֵי פָּסוּל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It **is obvious** that this is the case, as **we learned** in the mishna explicitly that **he wrote it inside.** The Gemara answers: Rav Safra stated this **lest you say** that **this matter applies** only when the qualification was written **after the essential** part of the bill of divorce, which contains the names of the husband and wife and the date, **but before the essential** part was written; **even** if the qualification was stated **orally,** the bill of divorce is **invalid,** as it was written with the intention that the wife would not be permitted to marry any man. Rav Safra therefore **teaches us** that only a written qualification in the bill of divorce renders it invalid, and an oral statement does not render it invalid. Consequently, the husband can hand this bill of divorce to his wife without stating the qualification and it will be valid.


###### Gittin 84b:13
[Gittin 84b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:13)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַתּוֹרֶף, אֲבָל לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֶף – אֲפִילּוּ עַל פֶּה נָמֵי פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said: They taught** that it is specifically writing the qualification that invalidates the bill of divorce **only** when the qualification is stated **after** the writing of **the essential** part. **But** if the qualification is stated **before the essential** part of the bill of divorce is written, **even** if it is stated **orally,** the bill of divorce **is invalid.**


###### Gittin 84b:14
[Gittin 84b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:14)

וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לְהָנְהוּ דְּכָתְבִי גִּיטֵּי: שַׁתִּקוּ שַׁתּוֹקֵי לְבַעַל, עַד דְּכָתְבִיתוּ לֵיהּ לְתוֹרֶף דְּגִיטָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava followed his** line of **reasoning, as Rava said to those who write bills of divorce: Silence** the **husband until you write the essential** part **of the bill of divorce,** lest he state a condition, thereby rendering the bill of divorce invalid.


###### Gittin 84b:15
[Gittin 84b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל הַתְּנָאִין פּוֹסְלִין בַּגֵּט, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁפּוֹסֵל עַל פֶּה פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב – ״חוּץ״, שֶׁפּוֹסֵל עַל פֶּה, פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב; ״עַל מְנָת״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל עַל פֶּה, אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל בִּכְתָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: All conditions** that are written **in a bill of divorce invalidate** it, this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say: Any** qualification **that invalidates** the divorce when stated **orally** by the husband while he hands the bill of divorce to his wife **invalidates** it **when written, and any** qualification **that does not invalidate** it when stated **orally does not invalidate** it **when written.** Therefore, issuing a qualification that she is permitted to marry any man **except** for so-and-so, **which invalidates** the divorce when stated **orally, invalidates** it as well **when written,** whereas attaching a standard **condition, which does not invalidate** it when stated **orally, does not invalidate** it **when written.**


###### Gittin 84b:16
[Gittin 84b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/84b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֶף – דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: גָּזְרִינַן ״עַל מְנָת״ אַטּוּ ״חוּץ״; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא גָּזְרִינַן ״עַל מְנָת״ אַטּוּ ״חוּץ״. אֲבָל לְאַחַר הַתּוֹרֶף –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** This **dispute** applies to a case where the condition was written in the bill of divorce **before the essential** part was written, **as Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds** that **we issue a decree** that **a stipulation** invalidates the bill of divorce **due to** a case of **an exception, and the Rabbis hold** that **we do not issue a decree** that **a stipulation** invalidates it **due to** a case of **an exception. But** if it was written **after the essential** part,