QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when a man says to a woman, "You are hereby Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give you 200 Zuz" (and he gives her a Perutah at that moment, RASHI), "she becomes Mekudeshes to him, and he must give her 200 Zuz." Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagree about how to understand this ruling. Rav Huna maintains that when the man gives the 200 Zuz to the woman and fulfills his condition, she becomes Mekudeshes to him retroactively. Rav Yehudah says that she becomes Mekudeshes to him only from the time he gives her the 200 Zuz and onward, not retroactively.

The Gemara explains that the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah depends on how to understand the intention of the man who is Mekadesh the woman. Does he want the Kidushin to take effect immediately, but contingent on the fulfillment of a condition later, or does he want the Kidushin to take effect only later, at the time of the fulfillment of the condition? Both agree that the Kidushin, when it takes effect, is the result of the original act of giving money (i.e. the Perutah) for the sake of Kidushin, and that the requirement to give 200 Zuz is merely a condition which either delays the Kidushin from taking effect (Rav Yehudah) or which lets the Kidushin take effect now with the provision that the condition be fulfilled later (Rav Huna).

RASHI, however, seems to understand the view of Rav Yehudah differently. RASHI (DH l'Rav Yehudah Havu Kidushei) writes that according to Rav Yehudah, the man is Mekadesh the woman with the 200 Zuz and he has no intention to be Mekadesh her with the Perutah. Why does Rashi explain that the act of Kidushin, according to Rav Yehudah, is comprised of an entirely different act from the original giving of money (the Perutah)? (MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The MAHARSHA answers that the words of Rashi must be read differently. Rashi does not mean to say that the 200 Zuz is the money of Kidushin (Kesef Kidushin). Rather, Rashi means that the Kidushin, which is made by the initial Perutah that was given, should not take effect until the 200 Zuz are given. When Rashi writes that "he did not intend to be Mekadesh her with the Perutah but with 200 Zuz," he means that the Kidushin should not take effect at the time of the giving of the Perutah but rather at the time of the giving of the 200 Zuz. When the Kidushin does take effect, it is the initial Perutah which causes it to take effect.

QUESTION: Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagree about the law in the case of money of Kidushin given with a condition, and in the case of a Get given with a condition. In the case of Kidushin, the man says, "You are hereby Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give you 200 Zuz." Rav Huna maintains that when the man gives the 200 Zuz to the woman and fulfills his condition, she becomes Mekudeshes to him retroactively. Rav Yehudah says that she becomes Mekudeshes to him only from the time he gives her the 200 Zuz and onward.

In the case of a Get, the man says, "This is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz." Rav Huna maintains that the divorce takes effect retroactively when she fulfills the condition. Rav Yehudah maintains that the Get takes effect only from the time she fulfills the condition and onward.

The Gemara says that a practical difference between the two opinions in the case of Kidushin is a case in which the woman accepts Kidushin from another man before the first man fulfills his condition. According to Rav Huna, the second man's Kidushin does not take effect because when the first man fulfills his condition his Kidushin takes effect retroactively and precedes the second man's Kidushin. According to Rav Yehudah, the second man's Kidushin takes effect because it precedes the moment at which the first man's Kidushin takes effect.

The Gemara says that a practical difference between the two opinions in the case of a Get is a case in which the Get was lost or destroyed before the woman fulfilled the condition. According to Rav Huna, the Get takes effect retroactively and thus does not need to be present at the time she fulfills the condition. According to Rav Yehudah, the Get is not valid unless it exists at the moment the condition is fulfilled.

Why does the Gemara not give the same practical difference for both Kidushin and Gerushin? The Gemara should say that the difference between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in the case of Kidushin is a case in which the money of Kidushin became lost or destroyed, like the practical difference it gives for the case of Gerushin. Alternatively, the Gemara should say that the difference between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in the case of Gerushin is a case in which the woman accepts Kidushin from another man before the condition of the first husband's Gerushin is fulfilled, like the practical difference it gives for the case of Kidushin.

ANSWER: TOSFOS explains that the Gemara cannot give the same practical difference for both the case of Kidushin and the case of Gerushin. In the case of Kidushin, the Gemara cannot say that the difference is in a case in which the money of Kidushin was lost, because the previous Sugya teaches that when a man is Mekadesh a woman and states that the Kidushin should take effect only after thirty days, the money is not considered a loan but the operative money of Kidushin, and thus the money she owes to him (the money he gave her for Kidushin) effects Kidushin even if it is no longer present. According to Rav Yehudah, if the Kidushin takes effect only after the fulfillment of the condition, the money of Kidushin which he gave her is the same as the money of Kidushin in a case of "l'Achar Sheloshim Yom," since the money was given originally for the sake of Kidushin.

In the case of Gerushin, the Gemara cannot say that the difference is in a case in which the woman accepts Kidushin from another man before the condition of the Get is fulfilled, because, as Tosfos explains, Rav Yehudah is in doubt about the intention of the man who betroths the woman (in the case of Kidushin) and the intention of the man who divorces the woman (in the case of the Get). Rav Yehudah does not rule that the Kidushin or Gerushin certainly does not take effect immediately, but rather he is in doubt that perhaps the man's intention was that the Kidushin should take effect only after the fulfillment of the condition. Hence, when a man gives a Get "on condition that you give me 200 Zuz" and the woman then accepts Kidushin from another man before she fulfills the condition of the Get, both Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah agree that the woman must receive a Get from the second man if she wishes to marry someone else. (According to Rav Huna, it is a Get for a Vadai Kidushin. According to Rav Yehudah, it is a Get for a Safek Kidushin.) In the case of Kidushin, however, according to Rav Huna there is no need for the second man to give a Get, while according to Rav Yehudah the second man must give a Get because of the Safek. (See MAHARSHA.)

QUESTION: Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah disagree about the law in the case of money of Kidushin given with a condition, and in the case of a Get given with a condition. In the case of a Get, the man says, "This is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz." Rav Huna maintains that the divorce takes effect retroactively when she fulfills the condition. Rav Yehudah maintains that the Get takes effect only from the time she fulfills the condition and onward (see previous Insight).

The Gemara challenges Rav Yehudah's ruling from two Beraisos. In the second Beraisa, the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree about the law in a case in which a man says to his wife, "This is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz," and then dies with no children before she fulfills the condition. The Tana Kama maintains that the Get does not effect and she must do Yibum. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that she may give the money to her husband's heirs and thereby make the Get take effect retroactively, freeing her from the obligation of Yibum.

The Gemara points out that both the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that if she fulfills the condition, the Get takes effect retroactively, in clear contrast to the view of Rav Yehudah. They differ only with regard to the husband's intention. The Tana Kama maintains that the man meant that his wife should fulfill the condition by giving the money only to him. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that he meant that she could fulfill the condition by giving the money even to his heirs.

Why does the Gemara assume that the point of dispute between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is whether the man's condition included his heirs or not, and, based on that assumption, cite the Beraisa as proof against Rav Yehudah? Perhaps both Tana'im agree that even the heirs were included in the man's condition, and the point of dispute between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is whether the man's statement of "on condition" implies that the Get should take effect "me'Achshav," from now (the view of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), or only later, at the time the condition is fulfilled (the view of the Tana Kama)? If his intention was "me'Achshav," the Get indeed was given and took effect while he was still alive, but if his intention was not "me'Achshav," the Get does not take effect because "Ein Get l'Achar Misah," a Get cannot take effect after the man's death. Accordingly, the view of the Tana Kama supports the opinion of Rav Yehudah.

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers that even Rav Yehudah agrees that there is a doubt about what the man meant. Perhaps he meant "me'Achshav," from now, when he gave the Get on condition that the woman give him 200 Zuz, and perhaps he meant that it should take effect only later (when the condition is fulfilled). The Beraisa states that according to the Tana Kama, if the woman does not fulfill the condition, she is obligated to do Yibum. She may perform Yibum, however, only if the Get certainly (Vadai) did not take effect, but if it is a situation of doubt (Safek) even Rav Yehudah agrees that Yibum may not be performed. Since there is a doubt about whether the man's intent was "me'Achshav," the Get might have taken effect while he was still alive, and thus she may not do Yibum, even according to Rav Yehudah. Therefore, the only conclusion the Gemara can make is that both Tana'im agree with Rav Huna; the Get certainly takes effect retroactively, and they disagree about a different point (i.e. whether the man included his heirs in his condition).

The Rishonim offer further proof for the explanation of Tosfos from the continuation of the Sugya. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses a case of "meha'Yom ul'Achar Misah," in which a man gives his wife a Get and says, "This is your Get from today, and after death." The Tana'im disagree about whether the Get certainly takes effect or whether it takes effect out of doubt. The Gemara asks that according to Rav Yehudah, why does the Tana choose to teach such an odd case of a Get ("meha'Yom ul'Achar Misah") and not a normal case of a Get given on condition? The Gemara's question implies that Rav Yehudah would apply his opinion to the dispute in the Beraisa and would rule like the Chachamim, while Rav Huna would rule like Rebbi. The Chachamim clearly state that the Get is a Safek, and hence Rav Yehudah also maintains that there is a doubt about the man's intention: perhaps the man meant that the Get should take effect only later when the condition is fulfilled, and perhaps he meant "me'Achshav" and the Get took effect while he was still alive. Accordingly, the validity of the Get remains in doubt.