Kiddushin, Daf Samekh, Part 4

 

Introduction

The Talmud now turns its attention to Rabbi s statement that anyone who says on condition it is as if he says from now. Meaning his statement takes effect immediately, even before the condition is fulfilled.

 

גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רבי כל האומר ע"מ כאומר מעכשיו דמי

אמר רבי זירא כי הוינן בבבל הוה אמרינן הא דאמר רב הונא אמר רבי כל האומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי פליגי רבנן עליה כי סלקי להתם אשכחיה לרבי אסי דיתיב וקאמר לה משמיה דרבי יוחנן הכל מודים באומר על מנת כאומר מעכשיו דמי לא נחלקו אלא מהיום ולאחר מיתה

 

The text [says]: R. Huna said in the name of Rabbi: One who says on condition, it is as though he said, From now.

R. Zera said: When we were in Babylonia we used to say that that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi, One who says on condition, it is as though he said, From now : the other rabbis dispute it. When I went up to [the land of Israel], I found R. Assi sitting and expounding in the name of R. Yohanan: All agree that if he says: on condition, it is as though he said, From now. They differ only in the case of from today and after death.

 

R. Zera, upon reaching Israel, learns that everyone agrees with Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi saying on condition is like saying from now. What they disagree about is whether when one says from today and after death he is making a condition, in which case the divorce is valid, or a retraction, in which case it is not.

 

והתניא מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט דברי חכמים רבי אומר כזה גט

 

And it was also taught: From today and after death : it is a get, yet not a get, the words of the Sages. Rabbi said: Like this is a get.

 

According to the sages, we don t know what from today and after death means is it a condition or a retraction. Therefore, she is doubtfully divorced. According to Rabbi this statement is a condition From today if I die and therefore when he dies, she is considered to be divorced from the time the get was given.

 

ולרב יהודה דאמר בעל מנת נמי פליגי אדמיפלגי במהיום ולאחר מיתה ניפלגי בעל מנת

 

Now, according to R. Yehudah who holds that they also disagree over on condition instead of disputing in [the case of] from today and after death, let them dispute over on condition.

 

R. Yehudah, as we learned earlier, holds that there is also a tannaitic dispute over the meaning of on condition [that I die]. Only Rabbi holds that this is equivalent to from now. The other sages would say that this is also ambivalent and thus she is only doubtfully divorced. So then, the Talmud asks, why don t we have a baraita in which the tannaim disagree over this subject, and from that dispute we could learn that all the more so they disagree over from today and after death.

 

להודיעך כח דרבי דמהיום ולאחר מיתה נמי הרי זה גט

 

To teach you the extent of Rabbi’s view, that even in the case of from today and after death, it is a valid divorce.

 

The dispute is placed in case of from today and after death to let you know that even in this case Rabbi considers it a condition and therefore she is divorced. Had we taught the dispute in the case of on condition we might have thought that only in that case does Rabbi hold that she is divorced, but not in a case of from today and after death.

 

וניפלגי בעל מנת להודיעך כח דרבנן כח דהיתירא עדיף

Then let them dispute with regard to on condition to teach you the extent of the rabbis view?

The extent of what is permitted is preferable.

 

The Talmud asks why not teach the dispute in the case of on condition and from here we could learn that even in this case the rabbis are not sure what he means and therefore she is only doubtfully divorced. All the more so we would know that in their opinion she is doubtfully divorced if he says from today and after death.

The answer is that it is better to frame the dispute in a way that we can see just how lenient Rabbi is in both cases we hold that she is divorced. It is better to teach a leniency because it takes greater halakhic boldness to teach leniencies than stringencies.