1)

(a)Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that if the husband stipulated 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Teshamshi Es Aba Shtei Shanim v'Al-Menas she'Teniki Es Beni Shtei Shanim, Harei Zeh Get'. According to the Chachamim, the Tenai is valid.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether a Tenai that is not Kaful (double) is valid (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Meir).

(c)When Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Ein Lecha Tenai bi'Kesuvim she'Eino Kaful', assuming that he is referring to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir he means to say that we cannot learn the Dinim of Tenai (including that of Tenai Kaful) from the Tenai Bnei Gad u'Bnei Reuven, since they are repeated on many occasions in Tanach, in which case we will apply the principle 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad, Ein Melamdin'.

2. ... the Chachamim he means that since, wherever the Pasuk mentions Tenai, it always cites a Tenai Kaful, we can extrapolate from there that a Tenai is only valid if it is a Tenai Kaful.

(d)According to the latter explanation, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel does not consider it a case of 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'in k'Echad' because each instance where the Pasuk mentions Tenai Kaful is needed (as the Sugya in Kidushin explains).

2)

(a)In another Beraisa which deals with the same case as the previous one, Rebbi Meir says 'Eino Get', whereas, according to the Chachamim the wife can claim that if her husband will produce his father or his son, she will be quite happy to fulfill her side of the condition.

(b)We reconcile the two (seemingly) contradictory opinions of ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir by establishing the first Beraisa when he did not make a Tenai Kaful (as we explained), and the second one when he did.

2. ... the Chachamim by equating the Chachamim in the second Beraisa with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says in our Mishnah that should the failure to fulfill the Tenai not lie with the woman, the Get takes effect, despite the fact that it was not fulfilled.

3)

(a)Another Beraisa rules that if someone declares in front of two witnesses 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Teshamshi Es Aba Shtei Shanim' and in front of two other witnesses ' ... Al-Menas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz' following which he handed his wife the Get, his second declaration does not negate the first.

(b)The Halachah is that she may choose whichever condition she wishes to fulfill. The reason for this is because he did not in any way indicate that the second condition was meant either to add to the first one or to negate it.

(c)The latter Tenai would negate the former one if he were to have first stipulated that she must give him two hundred Zuz, and then changed it to three hundred (because he did not indicate that the second condition was meant to add to the first one [to obligate her to give him five hundred], and it would be senseless to give her a choice of two or three hundred).

4)

(a)The Tana adds 've'Ein Echad min ha'Rishonim v'Echad min ha'Acharonim Mitztarfin'. This cannot possibly refer to the second of the two cases of the Beraisa because there, as we just explained, the first condition has been negated.

(b)In that case, it must refer to the first case. It is not so obvious that one witness from each group cannot combine (seeing as they are testifying on two different conditions, only of which she is obligated to observe) because there is room to believe that, since both sets of witnesses come to establish that there was a condition, they should be able to combine.

5)

(a)In the case cited by our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech im Lo Basi mi'Ka'n ad Sheloshim Yom, v'Hayah Holech ...

1. ... mi'Yehudah l'Galil, Higi'a l'Antipras v'Chazar (Miyad), Bitel Tena'o' Antipras appears to be in the south of the Galil, close to the border of Yehudah.

2. ... mi'Galil li'Yehudah, Higi'a li'Kfar Usna'i v'Chazar (Miyad), Bitel Tena'o' Kfar Usna'i appears to be in the north of Yehudah, close to the border of the Galil.

3. ... li'Medinas ha'Yam, v'Higi'a l'Ako, Bitel Tena'o' Ako appears to be just north of the northern border of Eretz Yisrael (in Chutz la'Aretz).

(b)In the above cases it will make no difference if he subsequently leaves Yehudah (in the first case), Galil (in the second case) or Eretz Yisrael (in the third) for thirty days ...

(c)... because the moment he returned to his place of residence within the thirty days, the Get becomes Batel.

(d)Our Mishnah rules that if a man said 'Harei Zeh Gitech, Kol Zman she'A'avor mi'Neged Panayich Sheloshim Yom' then even if he traveled backwards and forwards a number of times (totaling thirty days), his wife is divorced.

6)

(a)he Beraisa places ...

1. ... Antipras in Yehudah.

2. ... Kfar Usna'i in the Galil.

(b)Abaye resolves the apparent contradiction between our Mishnah (which seems to place Antipras in Galil and Kfar Usna'i in Yehudah) and the Beraisa, which explicitly places the former in Yehudah and the latter in the Galil), by explaining with regard to our Mishnah, 'T'rei Tena'i ka'Amar Lah' meaning that the man actually made a dual condition with his wife.

(c)That if he would travel to the Galil (even immediately) or if he would remain on the journey for thirty days (even in Yehudah [vice-versa with regard to Kfar Usna'i]), the Get would take effect. And now that he remained in Yehudah, added to the fact that he did not remain thirty days on the journey, the condition was not fulfilled and she was not divorced.

7)

(a)Regarding the area north of Antipras and south of Kfar Usna'i, the Tana rules 'Megureshes v'Einah Megureshes' because he has a Safek as to whether this belongs to Yehudah or the Galil.

(b)When he says ...

1. ... 'Megureshes' he means that she is Pasul to marry a Kohen ...

2. ... 'Einah Megureshes' that she is not permitted to re-marry with that Get.

8)

(a)Rav Safra informs us how the Rabanan of Eretz Yisrael would take leave in Ako of the Rabanan of Chutz la'Aretz, who had come to study Torah in Eretz Yisrael.

(b)Specifically in Ako because Ako was on the northern border of Eretz Yisrael, and a ben Eretz Yisrael is prohibited from leaving Eretz Yisrael.

(c)Abaye reconciles our Mishnah (which seems to place Ako in Chutz la'Aretz), with the testimony of Rav Safra (which specifically places it in Eretz Yisrael) by establishing our Mishnah by a dual condition, in exactly the same way as he explained the two previous sections of the Mishnah.

9)

(a)In the case in our Mishnah when the husband stipulated that the Get should take effect if he stayed away from her ('Im A'avor mi'Neged Panayich') for thirty days, why is the Get valid, seeing as he returned within thirty days because, as Rav Huna explains, 'mi'Neged Panayich' means, not from his wife's presence, but from Tashmish (because 'Panayich', really means 'Panim shel Matah', only this is a more refined expression).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan explains the Mishnah ('Panayich') literally and what the husband meant was that he would not be Misyached (seclude himself) with her, which he was not.

(c)It is not a Get Yashan, according to Rebbi Yochanan, because the Din of Get Yashan applies specifically when Yichud took place between the time that the husband wrote the Get and the time he handed it over. Rabah bar Rav Huna, citing his father in the name of Rav, explains that we do not even suspect that, when he returned, he made up with his wife, and secluded himself with her (in which case it would be a Get Yashan) because the Tana speaks when the husband added that he would believe his wife implicitly, should she declare that this did not happen.

(d)We rule like Rebbi Yochanan because he has the support of a Beraisa. In any event, seeing as the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan when he argues with Rav, it ought certainly to be like him when he argues with Rav Huna, Rav's Talmid.

10)

(a)There are others who cite Rabah bar Rav Huna, who cites his father in the name of Rav (who explains that the Tana speaks when the husband believed his wife) with regard to the forthcoming Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav Im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Shteim-Esreh Chodesh, u'Mes ... Harei Zeh Get', to answer the Kashya why we are not afraid that he may have made up with her. If he said this on ...

1. ... the Mishnah, then we would extrapolate that he certainly said it on the Beraisa because if we suspect that he made up with his wife even when he did not return, then we should certainly suspect that he did so when he did.

2. ... the Beraisa, we would extrapolate that he would not have said it on the Mishnah because we are only afraid that he may have made up with his wife when he returned, but not when he did not.

(b)Consequently, Rabah bar Rav Huna, who cites his father in the name of Rav, will not need to establish the Mishnah in the way that he does the Beraisa.

11)

(a)We just discussed our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Mes b'Toch Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get'. In the Reisha, where he did not say 'me'Achshav', the Tana rules 'Eino Get' because the Lashon implies that the Get is to take effect in twelve months time. Consequently, since by that time he is no longer alive, we apply the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah', in which case she is obligated to perform Yibum.

(b)If he said ...

1. ... 'Im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Kisvu u'Tenu Get l'Ishti', and they wrote the Get within twelve months and handed it to her after twelve months the Get will not be valid.

2. ... 'Kisvu u'Tenu Get l'Ishti, Im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh', according to the Tana Kama it will not be valid either.

(c)In the latter case Rebbi Yosi says 'ka'Zeh Get' (because, seeing as he switched the (regular) order as stated in the Reisha, he must have meant 'Kisvu Get Miyad u'Tenu Im Lo Basi').

(d)Even if, when he failed to return within twelve months, they wrote the Get and handed it to his wife after twelve months, the Get will not be valid, in the event that her husband died before she received it. In a case where nobody knows whether the Get preceded her husband's death or vice-versa, the Din will be 'Megureshes v'Einah Megureshes'.

12)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa (with regard to 'Im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Kisvu u'Tenu Get l'Ishti') 'Raboseinu Hitiruhah Linasei'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel ascribes the title 'Raboseinu' to the Beis-Din that permitted Nochri oil. 'Raboseinu' is Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah (the Amora), son of Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi.

(b)Raboseinu hold like Rebbi Yosi, who holds 'Zemano shel Shtar Mochi'ach Alav' (as we discussed earlier).

(c)Rebbi Aba the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba quoting Rebbi Yochanan said that this was only the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah, and that his contemporaries did not agree with him.

(d)Some say that 'Kol Si'aso' (all the members of his Beis-ha'Medrash) did not agree with him; others say 'Kol Sha'ato' meaning 'as long as he lived' (or all his contemporaries).

13)

(a)Rebbi Elazar asked that old man whether Raboseinu permitted her to marry immediately (since we know for sure that her husband will not come during the stipulated twelve-month period) or only after twelve months.

(b)In fact he could have posed exactly the same She'eilah with regard to our Mishnah 'Harei Zeh Gitech me'Achshav im Lo Basi mi'Kan v'ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, u'Mes b'Toch Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get' ...

(c)... and the reason that he posed it on the Beraisa of Raboseinu (rather than on the Mishnah) is because he was a member of Rebbi Yehudah's Beis-Din that permitted the woman to marry.