Talmud for Gittin 9:1

הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ, הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לִפְלוֹנִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ וְיֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. וְאִם כְּתָבוֹ בְתוֹכוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּמְחָקוֹ, פָּסוּל:

If one divorced his wife, saying to her: "You are permitted to all men except this one" — R. Eliezer permits it, and the sages forbid it. [The rationale of R. Eliezer (Leviticus 21:7): "And a woman divorced from her husband they (Cohanim) shall not take" — Even if she were divorced only from her husband, as when he told her: "You are divorced from me, but not permitted to other men," she is forbidden to (marry into) the priesthood. We see, then, that it is a get; so that here, where he permits her to all men except this one, she is permitted to others. The rationale of the sages: They say that what is forbidden to the priesthood is different, Scripture having prescribed additional mitzvoth for Cohanim. So that even though it is a get to forbid her to the priesthood, it is not a get to permit her to others. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] What does he do? He takes it from her and gives it to her again, telling her: "You are permitted to all men." But if he had written it ("…except this one") in the get, even though he later erased it, it is void. [And the sages forbid it only when he tells her: "You are permitted to all men except this one," but if he says to her: "This is your get on condition that you not wed that man," the rabbis concede that it is a get. For he permitted her to all men in giving her the get. It is just that he stipulated that she not wed a particular man, which is like any other condition. And the rabbis forbade him to say: "This is your get on condition that you marry that man," so that their wives not be regarded as gifts to be given to one another. And any condition that one attaches to the get before he writes it, though it not be written in the get, invalidates it. But after he places the get in her hand, he may make any condition he desires.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife¹After the preliminary but before the definitive marriage, when he does not yet have the administration of her properties.: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues²If the wife invests some or all of the revenue from her holdings, these new holdings are not referred to in the renunciation. They represent new paraphernalia and as such their administration is the husband’s, who receives their yield. unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits³I. e., even the yield of the k-th re-investment of prior yields, k = 1,2, …, is excluded by this contract..” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah⁴Since in rabbinic interpretation (disputed by Sadducees/Karaites) the husband inherits from his wife but the wife not from her husband; cf. Babli Baba batra 111b, Sifry Num. 134. In the opinion of R. Ismael, this cannot be established from the pentateuchal law of inheritance (Num. 27:7–11) but from the books of Josua, 34:33, and 1Chr.2:22. According to R. Aqiba, the husband’s right of inheritance follows by twisting the text of Num. 27:11., and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid⁵As a general principle, this is Mishnaiot Baba meṣiʻa 7:14, Baba batra8:5. Quoted in Peah 6:10 (Note 159), Giṭṭin 9:1 (50a 1.48), Qiddušin 1:2 (59c 1.40), Baba meṣiʻa 7:10 (11c 1.11); Babli 56a/b, 83b, 84a, and 7 other quotes.
As far as money matters go, his opinion is that of a minority of one; cf. Chapter 5, Note 207. He will agree that in matters of revenues, whose assignment to the husband is purely rabbinic usage, there are no restrictions in the freedom to contract..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse