Kiddushin, Daf Samekh, Part 3
Introduction
R. Yehudah holds that if the man says that he will divorce her on condition that she give him 200 zuz she is not divorced until she gives the money. Our sugya begins with a difficulty on this position.
מיתיבי הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתתני לי מאתים זוז אע"פ שנתקרע הגט או שאבד הרי זו מגורשת לאחר לא תנשא עד שתתן
An objection was raised: Behold this is your get, on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, she is divorced even though the get is torn or lost. But she may not marry another until she has given it.
According to the baraita, the divorce occurs immediately upon the giving of the get, even before she gives the money. Thus if the get is torn or lost before she gives the money she is still divorced. This is a direct contradiction against R. Yehudah.
ועוד תניא אמר לה הרי זה גיטך ע"מ שתתני לי מאתים זוז ומת נתנה אין זקוקה ליבם לא נתנה זקוקה ליבם רשב"ג אומר נותנת לאחיו או לאביו או לאחד מן הקרובים
עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר לי ולא ליורשיי ומר סבר אפי’ ליורשיי דכולי עלמא מיהא תנאה הוי תיובתא דרב יהודה
And it was also taught: If he said to her, Behold this is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and then he dies, if she gave it [before his death], she is not bound to the yavam; if not, she is bound to the yavam.
R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: She can give it to his brother, father, or one of his relations.
Now, they differ only in so far as one Master holds, To me [implies] but not to my heirs, while the other Master holds: Even to my heirs but all agree that it is a condition. This is a refutation of Rav Judah!
In this baraita, the man again makes the divorce dependent on her giving him 200 zuz. He then dies. If she gave the money she is a divorcee and not liable for yibbum. But if she did not give the money, she is a widow. According to the first opinion, she cannot give it to his heirs. According to R. Shimon b. Gamaliel she can give it to his heirs. Tje only dispute is about whether she can give the money to the heirs. All would hold that she is divorced immediately as long as at some point she gives the money (according to the first opinion, she simply will never have such an opportunity). Thus this is again a difficulty against R. Yehudah.
אמר לך רב יהודה הא מני רבי היא דאמר רב הונא אמר רבי כל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי ופליגי רבנן עליה ואנא דאמרי כרבנן
R. Yehudah could say you: Whose opinion is this? Rabbi [Yehudah Hanasi]. For R. Huna said: Rabbi said: Anyone who says, On condition, is as though he says: From now but the other rabbis disagree with him, and I hold like the other rabbis.
R. Yehudah could answer you that this baraita accords only with Rabbi [Yehudah Hanasi] according to whom when one says On condition the statement takes effect immediately. But R. Yehudah (the amora) holds like the other rabbis, according to whom On condition is a stipulation and the statement won t take effect until the condition is fulfilled. This is a common way of solving difficulties ascribe the tannaitic source to a minority position and then claim that the majority disagree.