Kommentar zu Gittin 7:18

מי שאחזו קורדייקוס – that his mind became confused as a result of a devil who reigns over those who drink new wine.

Introduction This mishnah is about a husband who is gripped by some sort of mental illness and hence may not be in his right mind when he decides to divorce his wife. The second section is about a mute husband’s ability to divorce his wife.

אין בדבריו האחרונים כלום – And there is no need to return and request another when he was clear-minded once again, but we write the Jewish bill of divorce and rely upon his earlier words. However, as long as his mind is confused, we do not write the Jewish bill of divorce.

If a man is gripped by the kordiakos illness and says, “Write a get for my wife”, he has not said anything. If he says, “Write a get for my wife”, and is then gripped by kordiakos and then says, “Do not write it”, his latter words are of no effect. “Kordiakos” is evidently some sort of mental illness. If a husband is gripped by this illness, his instructions to others to divorce his wife do not have any legal validity. Similarly, if a healthy person instructs others to divorce his wife, and then is gripped by “kordiakos” and then wishes to retract, his retraction is meaningless. In short, the instructions of a mentally sick person do not have legal validity.

הרכין – tilted/bent

If he becomes mute, and they say to him, “Should we write a get for your wife”, and he nods his head, he is tested three times. If he answers ‘no’ and ‘yes’ properly each time, then they should write the get. A mute person is not considered someone who lacks “da’at” awareness or intelligence. Hence he can legally divorce his wife. However, since he cannot speak, it is a slightly more difficult to ascertain whether he wants to divorce. The mishnah rules that he may answer questions with head gestures. Those asking the questions must be certain what these gestures mean and therefore they test him with other questions. For instance, if his name is Reuven, they can say, “Is your name Reuven?” If he nods, that means that nodding signifies an affirmative answer. They would repeat this test three times.

בודקין אותו – with other words

הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו – if he inclined his head over the Jewish bill of divorce an inclination of “yes.”

אמרו לו – to a healthy person or to a Sage on his death-bed.

Introduction This mishnah returns to the subject taught in 6:7, that if a husband instructs people to write a get, they themselves must write the get. They may have a scribe write the get only if he tells them that they may do so.

נכתוב גט לאשתך – that she should not be in need of the husband’s brother (in the case of the husband dying without issue, whose brother enters the estate and marries his wife).

They said to him, “Shall we write a get for your wife”, and he said to them, “Write!”, and they then told a scribe and he wrote and witnesses and they signed even if they wrote it and signed it and gave it back to him and he gave it to her, the get is void until he himself says to the scribe “Write” and to the witnesses, “Sign”. In this mishnah’s scenario the husband told others to write a get for his wife. The people whom he told then went and had a scribe write the get and other witnesses signed. This invalidates the get since the husband did not tell them that others could write the get. Even if after the scribe writes it they give the get back to the husband and the husband gives it to the wife, thereby tacitly agreeing to what they had done, the get is still invalid. Since he did not tell them beforehand that they could have a scribe write the get, his consent ex post facto cannot revalidate the get.

זה גטך אם מתי, לא אמר כלום – that implies, when I will die, but there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death.

Introduction On several occasions we have noted that husbands may have divorced their wives right before their death (the husband’s, that is) in order to prevent their wives from having to undergo levirate marriage or halitzah (release from levirate marriage). An obvious problem is that a person does not know when they will die. Our mishnah deals with a husband who tries to remedy this problem by making the divorce conditional upon his death.

מחולי זה – implying – from this illness and onwards, for since he died in the midst of this illness, the Jewish bill of divorce would not take effect until after death.

[If a husband says], “This is your get if I die”, [or] “This is your get if I die from this illness”, [or] “This is your get after my death”, he has not said anything. The stipulations that the husband makes in this section cause it to be impossible for the get to be valid, because by the time the get would become valid the husband is already dead. A dead husband cannot divorce, and therefore when this husband dies his wife’s legal status is that of a widow and not a divorcee.

מהיום ולאחר מילה גט ואינו גט – we doubt if he had made a condition to her, “from today if I die,” for when he died, the condition was fulfilled, and it follows that it was a Jewish bill of Divorce from the time he gave it [to her]; and if he retracted, it is that retracted from what he said “from today,” for he said, “after death it will be a Jewish bill of divorce,” and that is meaningless, since he did not say, “from today if I die.”

[If he says, “This is your get] from today if I die”, [or “This is your get] from now if I die”, the get is valid. In this case, the stipulation is effective. When the husband dies, the get will become retroactively effective to the day that he actually gave her the get. This language may have been effective for a husband going off to war, or a husband who has gotten sick and looks like he will die soon. If he returns from war or recovers from illness he can retract the get. However, it would be problematic for a husband who is home and healthy because the minute he says this, he is potentially ending his marriage. This problem shall be dealt with in tomorrow’s mishnah.

חולצת – lest it is not a Jewish bill of divorce

[If he says, “This is your get] from today and after [my] death”, it is both a get and not a get. If he dies [without offspring] she must perform halizah but she cannot marry the husband’s brother. In this case the husband used ambiguous language. We don’t know whether he intended the get to be valid after his death or beforehand. Therefore, the status of the get is doubtful and the halakhah must rule stringently. Should he die without children, she cannot remarry without halitzah, lest the get was not valid and she has a connection to the brother-in-law. However, she cannot have yibbum (levirate marriage) lest she is a divorcee, in which case yibbum is strictly forbidden.

ולא מתיבמת – lest it was a Jewish divorce, and she would thereby the divorcee of his brother, we establish that she is subject to a prohibition which would involve extirpation [for it being violated].

[If he said], “This is your get from today if I die from this illness”, and he then got up and went about and fell sick and died, we estimate [the probable cause of his death]; if he died from the first illness, the get is valid, but otherwise not. In this case, the husband made his divorce conditional upon his dying from his current illness. If he seems to recover and then gets sick and dies, doctors or other qualified people would need to estimate whether he died of the original illness or of another cause. If he died of the original illness she is divorced; if not, she is a widow. If it is doubtful then she is a doubtful widow/divorcee. Again, she would be required to do halitzah and forbidden from contracting yibbum, as we learned in the previous section.

לא תתיחד עמו – This one who gave [her] a Jewish bill of divorce and said to her, “from today if I die,” she should not be alone with him, lest that he should come up upon her and she would need a second Jewish bill of divorce, for we are concerned lest he engaged in a sexual act with her for the purposes of betrothal.

Introduction The previous mishnah discussed a person who conditioned his wife’s divorce upon his subsequently dying. For this to work, he must state that the divorce would retroactively be effective from the time he gave her the get. However, until he dies she is not divorced because the get is conditional upon his death. Our mishnah discusses her status between the time he gives her the get and the time that he dies, thereby finalizing her divorce.

מה היא באותן הימים – This is not referring to the first part of the Mishnah, when he [i.e., the husband] says [to his wife] , “ [you will be divorced] from today if I die.” For this is surely the case that when he dies, the matter is revealed that it would be a Jewish bill of divorce from the time of the giving of [the Jewish bill of divorce] and he who comes upon her, is exempt. But when he says to her [at the time] when the Jewish bill of divorce is delivered, “this is your Jewish bill of divorce, and you will be divorced by it from the time that I am in the world, if I die,” Rabbi Yehuda thinks that this [this takes place] close to [his] death, that it is a [legitimate] bill of divorce, and before this, she is a married woman. But Rabbi Yosi holds that from when he gives her the Jewish bill of divorce, all that time, it is doubtful to us perhaps this is the time close to his death, and it is a questionable Jewish bill of divorce. And even though he lives more, there is no alternative. Therefore, it is doubtful and he who comes upon her {in a sexual act] is liable for special guilt-offering, made when in doubt as to the commission of a sinful act.

She should not be alone with him except in the presence of witnesses, even a slave or a handmaid [any witness is sufficient] except for her own female slave, since she can take liberties in front of her own handmaid. Once the husband gives her the conditional get, she will retroactively be divorced from that moment onward. Therefore, he is not allowed to have sexual relations with her. Furthermore, as we shall learn in a later mishnah (8:4), sexual relations with her at this point, renders the get invalid. In order to avoid the possibility that they would engage in sexual relations, they are not even allowed to be secluded together. Seclusion is defined as being totally alone. The presence of anyone else in the room means that they are not secluded. The one exception is her handmaid. Since she would not be embarrassed at having sexual relations in front of her own handmaid, the handmaid’s presence is not sufficient to prevent seclusion.

What is her status during those days? Rabbi Judah says that she is regarded as a married woman in every respect. Rabbi Yose says that she is both divorced and not divorced. The mishnah now asks what her status is in-between the time that the divorce was given and the husband dies. According to Rabbi Judah, she is fully married. Rabbi Judah seemingly disagrees with the previous clause and holds that when the husband dies the get is retroactively effective to a point a moment before he died. It is not retroactively effective to the time when he gave her the get. Therefore, she can continue to live with him as a married woman. Rabbi Yose disagrees and holds that the get is retroactively effective to the point at which he gave it to her. Therefore, she is both married and not married. This means that she could not have relations with him and not eat terumah if he was a priest. However, she could not marry anyone else and if she did have relations with someone else, it might have the status of adultery.

הרי זו מגורשת ותתן – she is divorced from now – from the time of the receiving of the Jewish bill of divorce, and she is required to give [according to] the condition he made with her. But if the Jewish bill of divorce was lost or torn prior to it being given, there is no need for a new Jewish bill of divorce, for anyone who states "on condition” is like someone who says, “from now.”

Introduction The remainder of chapter seven discusses conditional divorces. Today’s mishnah discusses someone who divorces his wife on the condition that she pay him a large sum of money.

אמר רשב"ג מעשה בצידן – The Gemara explains that this Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: If he [i.e., the husband] said to her: “on condition that you give me my suit but his suit was lost, specifically when he mentions it; Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel states that she should give him its monetary value since the husband only had the intention for his own comfort; and there was an episode in Sidon with one who said to his wife, etc., and the Sages said that she should give him its monetary value, but the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

[If a husband says], “This is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz”, she is divorced and she has to give [him the money]. In this case, the divorce is effective immediately and she must give him the two hundred zuz. If she elects not to give him the two hundred zuz, then the get is invalid.

[If he says], “On condition that you give [the money to] within thirty days from now, if she gives him within thirty days she is divorced, but if not she is not divorced. In this case, the husband wisely set a time limit for her to pay the divorce money. If she wishes to be divorced, she must give him the money immediately. If she does not do so, the get is invalid. I should note that the amount of 200 zuz is probably not accidental. This is the amount of money that the husband would have to pay her for her ketubah if he divorces her. What we may have here is a husband who wants to divorce his wife, and perhaps a wife who wants to be divorced, but he cannot afford to pay her the ketubah. He is in essence saying that he wants to divorce her without paying her marriage settlement. She has a right to forego her ketubah, should she wish to be divorced.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “It happened in Sidon that a man said to his wife, “This is your get on condition that you give me my robe”, and his robe was lost, and the Sages said that she should give him its value in money. In the case that happened in Sidon (on the coast of modern Lebanon), a husband wanted to retrieve his robe from his wife. However, the robe was lost and therefore the question arose whether the wife could fulfill the get’s condition by returning to him the value of the robe. The Sages answered that she could. In essence, the husband was not asking for the robe back but for the value of the robe.

על מנת שתשמשי את אבא, על מנת שתניקי את בני – In the Gemara it is proven that every undefined [period] where the time was not fixed- how much time she should wait upon his father or how long she should nurse his son, it is like specifying one day and the condition is fulfilled if she waits upon his father or nurses his son for only one day.

Introduction In this mishnah, instead of conditioning the get upon her paying him money, the husband stipulates that to be divorced she must continue to look after his father. We can easily see the social situation reflected in this stipulation. The husband no longer wishes to remain married, but the wife has performed an important function in the family. The mishnah discusses when we consider the stipulation fulfilled. I should make an important note when discussing these situations. The Mishnah does not generally provide an opinion whether a husband, or really any person, has done something “virtuous”. The Mishnah is often interested in the technical, legal details and implications of things that can potentially occur. These mishnayoth are not providing approval of a husband’s essentially blackmailing his wife. Rather, they admit that such action is legally possible and hence its implications must be discussed.

כמה היא מניקתו – that is to say, how long is the period of nursing, for she nursed him one day in that time period, the condition has been fulfilled.

[If a husband says], “This is your get on condition that you look after my father”, [or] “On condition that you nurse my child” How long must she nurse? Two years. Rabbi Judah says, eighteen months. In this scenario, the husband made the get conditional upon his wife’s continuing to look after his father or to nurse his child. The time limit for looking after the father is the remainder of the father’s life. However, the wife need only nurse the child for two years, the standard length of time in which an average child nursed in mishnaic times. Rabbi Judah says she need nurse only for eighteen months, which was probably the minimum amount of time that children nursed in this time period.

שתי שנים רבי יהודה אומר: י"ח חודש – but if she nursed him after the two year period of the Rabbis was completed or eighteen months according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is not nursing, and the condition has not been fulfilled. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If the child dies or the father dies, the get is valid. When the husband said that she must continue to take care of his father or child, his intention was that she should do so as long as the father or child was alive. Should they die, she has fulfilled the stipulation on the get and it is valid.

מת הבן – and she had not nursed him at all

[If he says], “This is your get on condition that you look after my father for two years”, [or] “On condition that you nurse my child for two years”, if the child dies or if the father says, “I don't want you to look after me”, even though she has not caused him to complain, the get is invalid. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: something like this is a get. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said a general rule: wherever the obstacle does not arise from her side, the get is valid. In this the husband stipulates a limit of two years to her having to take care of his father or child. The mishnah takes this to mean that she must take care of the father or nurse the child for a full two years no matter what happens. Therefore, in this case if the father or child dies, she has not fulfilled the stipulation. Furthermore, if the father decides he no longer wants her to wait on him, she still hasn’t fulfilled the stipulation. This is certainly true if she gave him reason to “fire” her, but according to the first mishnah, even if she was not at all at fault, she still has not fulfilled the condition. However, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with this. He holds that if she was not the obstacle which prevented the fulfillment of the stipulation, then the get is valid. Therefore, if the father gets angry at her and she was not at fault, she is divorced.

או מת האב – and she had not waited upon him

הרי זה גט – for he did not intend through his condition to cause her pain, but rather for his own comfort, and for this, it was not necessary, for if he knew that his father or son would die, he would not have made the condition.

שלא בהקפדה – even though she did not provoke him to anger , and there was no delay on her part, it is not a Jewish bill of divorce. And all the more so, if he exhibited a temper.

כזה גט – since she did not cause him to lose his temper and there was no delay on her part, but the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

הגיע לאנטיפטרס – The Gemara explains this Mishnah, such as two conditions were made: either I reach the Galilee, immediately it is a Jewish bill of divorce or if I do not reach the Galilee if we delay for thirty days and I do not come, it is a Jewish bill of divorce (i.e., it takes effect), and if not, it is not a Jewish bill of divorce (i.e., it does not take effect). If he went and arrived at Antipras which is at the end of the land of Judea and returned prior to thirty days, the Jewish bill of divorce is nullified, for he did not arrive in the Galilee and did not stay there for thirty days. And similarly if…

IntroductionIn this mishnah a man conditions the validity of his get upon his arrival at a certain place or lack of return within thirty days. The idea would be that if he arrived at his destination and did not return, he either was never intending on returning or something else had occurred to him, preventing his return and thereby validating the get.

היה הולך מגליל ליהודה והגיע לכפר עותנאי – which is at the edge of the border of the Galilee, for he did not go abroad nor did he stay there for thirty days.

[If a husband says,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going from Judea to Galilee, if he got as far as Antipatras and then returned, his condition is broken. [If he says,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going from Galilee to Judea, if he got as far as Kefar Otnai and then returned, the condition is broken. [If he said,] "This is your get if I do not return within thirty days", and he was going into foreign parts, if he got as far as Acco and then returned his condition is broken. All three of these sections have identical structures, so we will explain them together. According to the Talmud explains that in each case the husband made two conditions: 1) if he were to arrive at his destination the get would become effective immediately; 2) if he did not return within thirty days the get would come into effect. [I should note that there are other explanations of this mishnah, and its language is actually quite difficult and open to various interpretations.] In all three scenarios, he does not arrive at his destination and he returns within thirty days. Antipatras is on the border between Judea and the Galilee, but it is still in Judea. Kefar Otnai is still in the Galilee. Acco, while almost being considered outside the land of Israel (however, compare Gittin 1:2).

[If he said,] "This is your get as long as I shall keep away from you for thirty days", even though he came and went and came and went, since he was not secluded with her, the get is valid. In this case, the husband conditions the validity of the get upon his staying away from his wife’s presence for thirty days. The mishnah teaches that his intention was that he should not be secluded with his wife for thirty days. Therefore, even if he comes and goes but they are not secluded together, she is divorced.

כל זמן שאעבור מנגד פניך ל' יום – By my staying there thirty days, I have been out of your sight, then it will be a Jewish bill of divorce.

והיה הולך ובא וכו' – And afterwards, when he will tarry there for thirty days, he will be out of her sight, and it will be a Jewish bill of divorce. But we do not say that since, from the beginning, he was coming and going, for we suspect lest he appeased a quarrel between them, and the Jewish bill of divorce was nullified, that in the aftermath, he did not cohabit with her at the time when he was coming and going , we do not suspect that perhaps he appeased [her], but when he fulfills his conditions and tarries for thirty days with him being out of her sight, it is a Jewish bill of divorce. And in the Gemara, it is maintained [that this refers to] when he says at the time of [making] the condition, “on the condition of this, I deliver the Jewish bill of divorce” – that she will be trustworthy to me like one-hundred witnesses as song as she says that I did not come and cohabit [with her] and that I appeased [her]. And such is the Halakha, for if he did not say this at the time of the condition, we suspect lest the husband will comeand raise a complaint and say that I appeased [her].

אינו גט – but since he did not say, “from now,” it implies that after twelve months it would be a Jewish bill of divorce, and behold, he died within that time period, and she would need her dead husband’s brother [if they had no children in their marriage while he was alive] to marry her.

[If a husband says,] “This is your get if I do not return within twelve months”, and he dies within twelve months, it is not a get.
[If he says,] “This is your get from now if I do not return within twelve months”, and he dies within twelve months, it is a get.
In today’s mishnah, a husband conditions his get upon is return home within twelve months. The mishnah discusses the validity of the get should he die within that time.
As we learned in mishnah three, there can be no divorce after death. In the first section, the wife is a widow because the get could not become valid until after twelve months. At the point when the get could become valid, the husband was already dead. In contrast, in the second section the husband says “From now…”, meaning that the get will become retroactively valid to the point at which it was given. When he fails to return after twelve months, she is considered a divorcee and not a widow. An interesting question asked, but not solved, in the Talmud, is whether or not she may remarry after he dies but before the twelve months are up. On the one hand, in the future she will be considered a divorcee at the point of the giving of the get. On the other hand, she has still not reached that point. [This is sort of a mishnaic time warp, and I love time warp scenarios].

Introduction In the last mishnah of the chapter, the mishnah discusses a husband who conditioned his get upon his return within twelve months, but unlike yesterday’s mishnah, he told agents to write and deliver the get rather than giving it directly to his wife.

[If a husband says,] “If I do not come back within twelve months, write a get and give it to my wife”, and they wrote a get before twelve months had passed and gave it to her after, it is not a get. In this scenario, the husband stipulated that his agents should not even write the get until twelve months had passed. Even though we could have interpreted his words to mean only that they should give the get after twelve months, the rabbis were quite strict in the interpretation of the language of gittin and in instructions given to deliver a get. Therefore, the get is invalid.

[If he said,] “Write a get and give it to my wife if I do not come back within twelve months”, and they wrote it before the twelve months had passed and gave it after, it is no get. Rabbi Yose says: like this is a get. In this case, the husband was not as clear as to when he wanted the get written. He said “Write a get…” before he said “If I do not come back within twelve months.” Hence, there is room to debate the validity of the get. The first opinion is that the get is invalid, for his intention may have been the same as it was in the previous section. However, here R. Yose disputes and says that in this case, the get is valid.

If they wrote it after twelve months and delivered it after twelve months and he died, if the delivery of the get preceded his death the get is valid, but if his death preceded the delivery of the get it is not valid. If it is not known which was first, this is the woman about whom they said, “[She is] divorced and not divorced.” If the husband’s agents faithfully fulfilled his instructions and wrote and delivered the get, then the only question left is whether or not the husband died before or after twelve months. If it is doubtful, then this woman is doubtfully divorced. In other words, she might be a widow but she also might be a divorcee. Therefore, should she be in a situation which would require yibbum (her husband left no children and had a brother) she could only do halitzah (yibbum would be prohibited lest she is a divorcee, and her brother-in-law be prohibited to her as her husband’s brother). On the other hand, without halitzah she could not remarry, lest she is a widow and obligated for yibbum.