משנה: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְתִתֵּן. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מִכָּן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם נָֽתְנָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַעֲשֶׂה בְצַייְדָן שֶׁאָמַר אֶחָד לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי אִיצְטָֽלְיָתִי וְאָֽבְדָה אִיצְטָֽלְיָתוֹ וְאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תִּתֵּן לוֹ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ. MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz;” she is divorced and has to pay113She is divorced immediately but she cannot act on the divorce (either claim the ketubah or remarry) before she paid up.. “On condition that you give me within thirty days,” if she paid within thirty days she is divorced, otherwise she is not divorced. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, it happened in Sidon that someone said to his wife “this is your bill of divorce on condition that you return to me my stole114Greek στολίς, στολή “garment” also “equipment, arms, etc.” Can the rabbinic Hebrew כֵּלִי “garment” (for biblical “vessel, equipment, arms”) be induced by analogy with the Greek (E. G.)? In Latin stola “garment, ceremonial robe”.” and it turned out that his stole was lost; then the Sages said, she shall pay him its value115Since this statement is labelled as Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s, it follows that others either invalidate the divorce if the stole cannot be found or that she has to replace it in kind..
הלכה: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז כול׳. תַּנִּי. לֹא הִסְפִּיקָה לִיתֵּן עַד שֶׁמֵּת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. תִּינָּתֵן לְאָבִיו וּלְאָחִיו וְהִיא פְטוּרָה מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם. אַף בְּקִידּוּשִׁין כֵּן. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶתֵּן לֵיךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתֵּן עַד שֶׁמֵּת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אָבְיו וְאָחִיו נוֹתְנִין לָהּ וְהִיא זְקוּקָה לַחֲלִיצָה וּלְיִיבּוּם. HALAKHAH: “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz,” etc. It was stated116In the Babylonian sources, Babli 74a (Qiddušin 60b), Tosephta 5:5, this is formulated as a dispute: “If he died before she paid, she is subject to levirate marriage; after she paid, she is not subject to levirate marriage; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said …”: If she did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, she pays his father or his brother and is free from ḥalîṣah and levirate marriage117If the husband died childless, cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot. As the Babli explains, 74a, “anybody who says ‘on condition that’ means to say ‘valid immediately on condition that’ ” (Tosephta 5:6). The delay in fulfilling the condition does not change the fact that the divorce preceded the husband’s death.. 118While the statement on divorce is also quoted in Qiddušin 3:2 (63d line 16) as tannaïtic, the parallel about marriage is presented as amoraic inference. It is obvious that at the moment of preliminary marriage the groom has to give some valuables to the bride. The same holds for preliminary marriage: “You are preliminarily married to me on condition that I shall give you 200 zuz;” if he did not manage to pay before he died, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, his father or his brother pay and she is subject to ḥalîṣah or levirate marriage.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. בְּשֶׁאָֽבְדָה בְּאוֹנֶס אֲנָן קַייָמִין. עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּמַתְנֶה שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וָכָא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם לִהְיוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַשְּׁבוּעָה. אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאָֽבְדָה בִּפְשִׁיעָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. דָּמִים עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּאִיצְטָלִית. רַבָּנִן אָֽמְרִין. אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מִשּׁוּם תְּנָאֵי גִיטִּין. Rebbi Yudan said, we deal with the case that it was lost by compulsion119The reason Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel does not insist that the condition on which the divorce was given be fulfilled to the letter is that the wife is an unpaid trustee who is not required to pay for damages beyond his control. In contrast to the unpaid trustee who has to swear that it was beyond his control if he does not want to pay, the wife does not have to swear (Ketubot 9:4, Note 121).. They treated her like an unpaid trustee who may stipulate to be free from an oath. Rebbi Yose said, do we state here that the unpaid trustee is free from an oath120If R. Yudan’s explanation were correct, some reference should have been made to the rules of trustees. Since no reference was made, it makes no difference why the stole was lost. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel from the start treats the request for the stole as a request for money.? But we deal with the case that it was lost by mishandling. They treated the stole according to its value. But the rabbis say that in any case it has to be treated as a case of condition of a bill of divorce121The rabbis who oppose Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel require fulfillment of the condition to the letter. If the stole cannot be produced for any cause whatever, the divorce is invalid. In the Babylonian sources (38a, 75a; Baba qama 69a, Baba meṣi‘a 38b, Baba batra174a, Ketubot 77a, Sanhedrin 31b, Bekhorot 24a), practice is decided following the rabbis. This is reported as Babylonian practice in Baba batra10:14 (17d 1. 9)..