Mesorat%20hashas for Kiddushin 3:4

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן, אֵינוֹ תְנַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לב), וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֲלֵהֶם אִם יַעַבְרוּ בְנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן, וּכְתִיב, וְאִם לֹא יַעַבְרוּ חֲלוּצִים. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, צָרִיךְ הָיָה הַדָּבָר לְאָמְרוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא כֵן, יֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמַע שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לֹא יִנְחָלוּ:

R. Meir says: Any condition which is not like the condition of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven [i.e., a condition and its converse] is not a (valid) condition [and even if the condition is not fulfilled, the commitment stands], viz. (Numbers 32:29-30): "And Moses said to them: 'If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven pass over … And if they do not pass over armed, (then they shall have a holding with you in the land of Canaan'"). [And if he had not stated the converse, the gift would stand and they would inherit the land of Gilead even if they did not pass over. And though he said: "If they pass over with you," we do not assume that the converse is implied. We are, likewise, apprised hereby that the condition must precede the commitment, it not being written: "Give it to them if they pass over," from which we infer that if he had stated it thus, the condition would not have preempted the preceding commitment. And we are also apprised that the positive must be stated before the negative, it not being written: "If they do not pass over, do not give them, and if they pass over, give them."] R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: It had to be stated, for if it were not, the implication would be that they would not even inherit in the land of Canaan. [R. Chanina differs vis-à-vis the converse, holding that the statement itself implies the converse. As to Moses' stating the converse, this was necessary (in that particular instance). As to the halachah: If one says: "on condition," it is not necessary to state the converse, the positive before the negative, or the commitment before the condition, but the condition stands. And if he does not say: "on condition," he must state all of the above, and if he does not, the condition is void and the commitment stands. And it makes no difference whether it be a condition in the context of monetary law or in the context of divorce and betrothal — all are the same in this regard.]

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Kiddushin 3:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.