(Mishnah): If one said 'this is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz', she is divorced, and she gives;

If he said ' on condition that you give me within 30 days', she is only divorced if she gave within 30 days.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel: A case occurred in Tzidon in which a man gave a Get on condition that she return his garment. She lost the garment. Chachamim ruled that it suffices that she return its value.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says 'and she gives.' What does this mean?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): (She is divorced immediately), provided that she eventually gives;

Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah): She is divorced when she gives.

Question: What difference does it make when the divorce takes effect?

Answer: If the Get was torn or lost in between, according to Rav Huna, the Get works. According to Rav Yehudah, she needs another Get.

Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argued similarly about Kidushin.

(Mishnah): If David said 'you are Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give you 200 Zuz', she is Mekudeshes, and he gives;

Question: The Mishnah says 'and he gives.' What does this mean?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): (She is Mekudeshes immediately,) provided that he eventually gives;

Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah): She is Mekudeshes when he gives.

Question: What difference does it make when the Kidushin takes effect?

Answer: If Reuven was Mekadesh her in between, according to Rav Huna, she is Mekudeshes to David. He must merely fulfill his condition;

According to Rav Yehudah, she is not Mekudeshes to David until he gives (so Reuven's Kidushin takes effect).

Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah needed to argue both about divorce and Kidushin;

Had they argued only about Kidushin, one might have thought that only there Rav Huna says that he is Mekudeshes immediately, for he comes close to her. In divorce he separates from her, so Rav Huna would agree that she is not divorced until she gives the money.

Had they argued only about divorce, one might have thought that only there Rav Huna says that she is divorced immediately, for he is not ashamed to ask her for the money. Regarding Kidushin, she is ashamed to ask him for the money, so Rav Huna would agree that she is not Mekudeshes until he gives the money.

Also, had they argued only about divorce, one might have thought that only there Rav Yehudah says that she is not divorced until she gives the money, for he separates from her. In Kidushin, he comes close to her, Rav Yehudah would agree that she is Mekudeshes immediately;

Had they argued only about Kidushin, one might have thought that only there Rav Yehudah says that she is not Mekudeshes until he pays, for she is ashamed to ask him for the money. Regarding divorce, he is not ashamed to ask her for the money, so Rav Yehudah would agree that she is not divorced until she gives the money.

Therefore, they needed to argue in both cases.

Question #1 (against Rav Yehudah - Beraisa): If one said 'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz', even if the Get was torn or lost, she is divorced;

She may not remarry until she pays.

Question #2 (against Rav Yehudah - Beraisa): If one said 'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz', and he died (without children), if she gave him, she is (divorced and) exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah. If not, she must do Yibum or Chalitzah;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may give to his father, brother or another relative (to exempt herself from Yibum and Chalitzah).

They argue only about whether or not 'to me' also connotes 'or to my heirs', but all agree that she is divorced immediately, on condition that she give the money.

These refute Rav Yehudah.

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The Beraisos are like Rebbi. I hold like Chachamim, who argue:

(Rav Huna citing Rebbi): Saying 'on condition' is like saying 'from now.'

(R. Zeira): In Bavel, we used to say that Chachamim argue with Rebbi about 'on condition';

When I went to Eretz Yisrael, I heard R. Asi cite R. Yochanan to say that all agree that saying 'on condition' is like saying 'from now.' They argue only about 'from today and after death.'

(Beraisa): If one gave a Get 'from today and after death', she is divorced and not divorced;

Rebbi says, this is a (proper) Get.

Question: According to Rav Yehudah, they argue even about 'on condition.' The Beraisa should rather teach that case!

Answer: They argue about 'from today and after death', to show that Rebbi holds that it works even in that case.

Question: Rather, they should argue about 'on condition', to show that Chachamim say it does not work (immediately) even there!

Answer: It is better to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion (Rebbi).

(Mishnah): If one said 'on condition that you give me within 30 days', she is divorced only if she gave within 30 days.

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that really, he is not insistent that she pay within 30 days, and he said this just to get her to pay quickly. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): A case occurred in Tzidon...

Question: The case does not illustrate a law of the Mishnah!

Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means as follows. If he said to her 'on condition that you return my garment', and she lost the garment, since he specifically wanted the garment, she cannot fulfill the condition;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, it suffices that she return its value;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel: A case occurred in Tzidon in which a man gave a Get on condition that she return his garment. She lost the garment, and Chachamim ruled that it suffices that she return its value.

Question (R. Asi): If one said 'this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz', and then he pardoned her from paying, what is the law?

We can ask according to Chachamim and according to R. Shimon.

Chachamim said that she cannot fulfill the condition with money only because he did not pardon her. Here, he pardoned her!

R. Shimon said that she can give its value only because she appeases him with the money. Here, she did nothing!

Answer (R. Yochanan): She is not divorced.

Question (Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven told Shimon 'my property is forbidden to you (to benefit from) like a Korban, unless you give to my son a Kor of wheat and two barrels of wine', he is forbidden until he gives;

Chachamim say, Reuven can permit this vow by himself, by saying 'I consider it as if I received.'

Answer: Here is different, for he stipulated in order to pain his wife, so the Get cannot work until she pays. There, Reuven stipulated for his own benefit. He may decide that he does not need it.

A case occurred in which a man told his sharecropper 'other sharecroppers irrigate the grain three times a year and receive a quarter of the yield. If you will irrigate four times, I will give you a third.' Rain came, and there was no need for the extra irrigation.

Rav Yosef: He did no extra work, so he receives only the usual quarter.

Rabah: It was not needed (he did not detract from his contract). He gets the full third.

Suggestion: Rav Yosef holds like Chachamim, and Rabah holds like R. Shimon. (Just like money helps in place of the garment, rain is in place of irrigation.)

Rejection: This cannot be. The Halachah follows Rabah, and the Halachah in our Mishnah is unlike R. Shimon!

Conclusion: Indeed, Rav Yosef holds like Chachamim. However, Rabah (who surely could hold like R. Shimon) could also hold like Chachamim;

Chachamim said that money cannot replace the garment only regarding divorce, for he intended to pain her. Here, Reuven intends for his own profit. He does not need the extra irrigation!

(Mishnah): At first, one who bought a house in a walled city would hide on the day which completed one year after buying it (so the seller would be unable to redeem it, and the buyer would be able to keep it forever);

Hillel enacted that the seller may deposit the redemption money in a chamber and forcibly enter the house. The buyer can take his money when he wants.

Version #1 (Rava) Inference: From Hillel's enactment, we learn that if one says 'this is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz', the Get is valid only if he willingly takes the money.

Hillel needed to enact that the seller can give the money against the buyer's will. This implies that without the enactment, giving against his will does not work.

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps Hillel needed to enact for when the buyer is not around, but when he is around, whether or not he consents to accept the money, the redemption works!

Version #2 (Rava) Inference: From Hillel's enactment, we learn that if one says 'this is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz', the Get is valid whether or not he takes the money willingly.

Hillel needed to enact only for when the buyer is not around. When he is around, whether or not he consents to accept the money, the redemption works!

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps the Get is only valid when he consents to accept the money;

It sufficed for Hillel to enact that the money be put in the chamber not in front of the buyer.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): Whenever R. Shimon ben Gamliel appears in a Mishnah, the law is like him, except for three places: the Mishnayos about a cosigner, the Get in Tzidon (our Mishnah), and a party in a case who finds a proof after the time he was allotted.