Explanation: This means that she is divorced forever.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that our second possibility according to Rebbi Eliezer was that it does not make a difference, implying that the Get would only be valid for a day, just as he holds that "besides Ploni" means it is valid for everyone else. (Note: How can we explain that according to Rebbi Eliezer she is divorced forever if we never entertained that possibility in the question according to his opinion?)

Answer: Even so (that we did not entertain this possibility in the question according to his opinion), the term "Paskah" implies totally stopped (and this must be what the Gemara is saying).

Implied Question: Later, the Gemara (86a) says that this excludes the question of Rava. (Note: This implies that Rava holds (according to Rebbi Eliezer as well) that she is not divorced forever, as otherwise we do not have to exclude his opinion (in the manner described below).)

Answer: The Gemara does not mean that we exclude his opinion, but rather that they established a good terminology in the Get of, "From this day and forever" in order that you should not make a mistake to say that she is only being divorced for the day she receives the Get.

Question: Originally, the Gemara did not think this! (Note: Why the sudden switch in logic?)

Answer: Originally, the Gemara thought that the Rabbanan take away the Kidushin from the second husband. However, the Gemara retracted this logic, as it is not logical that for a small suspicion (that people are giving their wives away as presents) the Rabbanan will take away a Kidushin.

Explanation: Now it is not possible to say that people might say that others are giving their wives away as gifts, because she was married to someone else in the interim.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that being that she cannot fulfill the condition of her original Get she is actually a married woman towards the person who has now "married" her. (Note: The second person has not actually married her, as she has not fulfilled the condition of her first husband's Get to marry a certain person. Accordingly, it is within her power to fulfill the condition, as she will always be open to marry the person by her husband (she cannot even marry anyone else if she wanted to)!)

Answer: Even so, she cannot move on and fulfill her condition without getting divorced from the second man. She will always need a Get due to a lingering doubt that she might end up fulfilling the condition of her first Get, but immediately before marrying the person specified by her first husband, he might die or give her another Get (without conditions, see end of Tosfos 82b, DH "Afilu"). This ends up causing the second person's kidushin to be valid, and might cause her to marry the third person without realizing that she needs a Get from the second person (Dvar Yaakov). (Note: This is why we always must ascertain that she received a Get from the second person, even though until now she was never married to him. See the Maharsha who asks many questions on Tosfos.)

Question#1: Rebbi Yehudah has difficulty with this. She certainly can make her husband divorce her, as she can claim, "he is disgusting to me," upon which we force him to divorce her.

According to Rashi and Rabeinu Tam who say that we do not force someone to divorce his wife when she claims this, there is no question.

Question#2: There is an additional difficulty in that we force him to divorce her, as she is a married woman to him. If so, why does the Gemara say, "Is it up to her to get divorced?" (Note: She has to get "divorced" (i.e. separate from him) regardless of what either of them think!)

If we would explain that the Gemara is saying that it is not in her power to divorce him and marry the person specified by her husband, as she cannot force this person to marry her, this would be understandable. However, the Gemara's terminology does not imply this explanation.

Answer: Being that the (second) husband can push her off and stall, it is not up to her to get divorced from him. (Note: Being that she needs a Get from him before being able to marry the third person, and he has the ability to stall and not be cooperative in giving her a Get right away, it is not called "up to her" to get divorced.)

Observation: In Bava Metzia (94a), the Gemara says that if the condition is fulfilled, this is a Get. If it is not, it is not a Get.

Question: This is difficult. How can she fulfill this condition (to ascend to Heaven)?

Answer: It is possible to answer that she does this through saying a name of Hash-m.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan has difficulty with this. We should have derived from Bnei Gad and Bnei Reuven that the condition must be able to be fulfilled. However, where someone cannot fulfill this condition as in our case, we should say that even though the condition is invalid the action is fulfilled. This is just as we derive in Yevamos (106a) that we require that this can be done through a messenger.

Answer: In Yevamos (ibid.), the Gemara only derives that the action has to be able to be done through a messenger. However, there is no reason to say that the condition has to be able to be done through a messenger or done at all.

Text: Some Sefarim had edited the Beraisa to read, "On condition that you will not have relations with my father or your father," we do not suspect that she may have relations with them."

This is because they have difficulty with the Gemara's deduction, "It doesn't say to my father your father!" According to the Gemara's text (before it was adjusted), who had mentioned "my father or your father" in a way that would cause us to make this deduction?

Question: However, this is not a reason to edit the Gemara. This is indeed a good deduction, from the fact that the Beraisa states, "on condition that you will have relations with Ploni." This implies that this is only true regarding Ploni, as it is not a farfetched idea that she will have relations with him because she is a single girl. However, this implies that if he made a condition about having relations with his or her father, where there is a prohibition of Arayos, this would be too farfetched.

Explanation: Rabeinu Elchanan explains that if someone says to his friend to tear his clothes on condition to be exempt from paying, even though the Gemara in Erchin (6b) says that damages are considered to be a loan that the Torah states is owed by the one who damages, it is not considered a condition against something stated in the Torah because he explicitly waives payment.

However, certainly if he said, "Tear my clothes on condition that you are not considered to be damaging me," it is considered to be a condition against the Torah, just like, "On condition that you do not have any Ona'ah on me" (when making a sale involving Ona'ah).

Observation: The Beraisa earlier (5b) and later (86a) also quotes this Beraisa that if someone brings a Get and does not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc...What should he do? They should take it from her, and he should go back and give it to her." This is even according to the opinion of Rebbi (who says that when a woman takes a Get from her husband that he has to afterwards say, "Here is your Get" but does not have to take it back and give it again).

Being that the Get was given according to Torah law, his stating after it was given that it was written and signed before him does not help (i.e. change the status of the Get according to Torah law) at all.

Additionally, the messenger is only careful when he says this when the Get is given. (Note: Accordingly, if there is a lack of b'Fanay Nechtav etc. the giving must be done again, as only then is the b'Fanay Nechtav etc. rectified.)

Opinion#1: Rashi implies that Rebbi Yochanan was saying this to Chizkiyah, who was his Rebbi. This is understandable, as he is remarking about a Beraisa quoted by Chizkiyah.

This is because Rav Kahana was from Bavel, as was Chizkiyah. (Note: This is why he said to Chizkiyah, "Yours said.") This is evident from the Gemara in Sukah (20a) that says that Rebbi Chiya and his sons (one of which was Chizkiyah, see Bava Basra 75a) went up and founded it.

Question: This does not appear to be correct according to the Ri. We assume that when Rav Kahana answered many queries that Rebbi Yochanan asked, as stated in Bava Kama (117b), Chizkiyah must have already died. If Chizkiyah was alive, Rebbi Yochanan would not have been asking his questions to Rav Kahana, but rather to Chizkiyah, who was Rav Kahana's Rebbi. This is as stated in Shabbos (112b) that Rebbi Yochanan said (to Chizkiyah) that you already taught us the law about a sandal etc.

Additionally, Rav Kahana would not have left Chizkiyah and sat by Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan himself did not even have a Yeshivah when Chizkiyah was alive.

Opinion#2: Rather, it appears that for his students who were from Bavel that were (learning) before him Rebbi Yochanan said, "Yours said this." This is as Rabeinu Tam, explained in Kidushin (29b), "This is for us and this is for them."

Implied Question: This is despite the Gemara in Zevachim (59a) that says that when Rav Kahana went, he found Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi. This implies that Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi was still alive and was a great man of the generation at the time. He was even greater than Rebbi Chiya, the father of Chizkiyah, as is evident from the fact that Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi taught Rebbi Chiya the book of Tehilim, as stated in Kidushin (33a).

It is not logical that he would leave Rebbi Shimon and learn before Rebbi Yochanan, as Rebbi Yochanan still required the answer to any doubts he himself had from Rav Kahana. (Note: Accordingly, Tosfos asks on himself, how can I say that Rebbi Yochanan only asked questions to Rav Kahana when Chizkiyah was dead if we say that Rav Kahana was indeed in Bavel as early as the days of Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi who taught Chizkiyah's father?)

Answer: It must be that Rav Kahana went up to Eretz Yisrael twice. (Note: Once early in his life, and once later in his life. It was after this second time that Rebbi Yochanan started asking him questions.)

Explanation: This means that because the Get was only written based on this condition, there is no "Kerisus."

Observation: This implies that specifically a condition of "besides," which means that there is no effective "Kerisus," makes the Get invalid if he goes back and erases it. However, a Get is still valid if it has other erasures. However, before the end of the Get they should uphold the erasure (in the Get itself).

Opinion: However, people have a custom to be stringent (and not allow any erasures in a Get).

Explanation: This means that the husband said this after the main body of the Get was written. However, if the husband said this before the main body of the Get was written, even if he said it and it was not written down by the scribe (one might think) the Get is invalid. This is because the scribe wrote it based on this condition which means there is no "Kerisus."

The Gemara therefore teaches us that even so the Get is valid. This is because the scribe only wrote the Get based on what the husband would conclude. Being that the husband retracted these words (at the end), the Get is valid.

Even though the Mishnah is discussing a case where this happened before the main body of the Get was written, if this was written after the main body of the Get was written it is also invalid, as we say later.

Alternatively, it is possible that the Mishnah's case is after the main body of the Get was written, and is according to everyone. Rebbi Zeira holds like Rav Safra here. (Note: The Maharshal explains that this is referring to Rebbi Zeira's alternative answer that the case could be both before and after the main body of the Get was written. This is like Rav Safra who holds the same way (see Maharsha). This is as opposed to other explanations that say that after the main body it is valid, or that beforehand is an argument.)

Explanation: This is regarding all other conditions, as explained in Rashi. Rava is basing himself on his position that there is a decree before the main body of the Get is written that "on condition" is problematic, lest one might come to make a condition of "besides" according to the Rabbanan who argue on Rebbi.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that this is referring to conditions written in the Get, and even if they were kept.

Question#1: This does not appear to be correct to Rebbi Yitzchak. How can we decree, "On condition that you will give me two hundred Zuz" and similar conditions because of the condition of "besides?" Nothing is being left out with an "on condition" as it is in a case of "besides." It does not seem that it is relative to decree that other conditions should be invalid because of "besides" unless it is, "on condition that you do not marry Ploni," as this is essentially leaving something out of the Get.

Question#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak has another difficulty. If so, even oral conditions should be decreed to make the Get invalid because a person might come to make a condition of "besides." Any Get that has a condition should be invalid, even if it is an oral condition and even if the condition is kept.

Later, Rebbi Zeira says that "on condition" after the main body of the Get is written is valid. This is even according to Rebbi, and even if it is written in the body of the Get.

Question#3: Additionally, being that the Rabbanan answer (Rebbi) that anything that does not make a Get invalid when stated orally will not make it invalid if written in the Get, this implies that Rebbi admits that an oral condition does not make a Get invalid.

Opinion#2: The Ri understands that all conditions that are fulfilled, even if they were written in the Get, are valid just like oral conditions. This is because it is not logical do decree that "on condition" should make a Get invalid due to "besides," as we explained above (in (b).

In our Gemara, Rebbi says that if the condition was not kept the Get is invalid if the condition was written and then erased from the Get. This is because the erasing does not help, just as it does not help if "besides" was erased. In other words, we decree that erasing "on condition" is invalid because one might mix it up with the erasing of "besides."

The Chachamim say, "besides" that makes a Get invalid orally" meaning that when the Get is given, if "besides" was written and even erased from a Get the Get is invalid as it was not written for Kerisus. "On condition that does not make a Get invalid orally" means that being that "on condition" is still considered "Kerisus," it does not make a Get invalid when written in the Get. Even though the Get was written with the condition in mind, the fact that he went back and erased it does not make thee Get invalid. This is despite the fact that he did not fulfill the condition.

Implied Question: This is unlike "on condition that you will give me two hundred Zuz," and he afterwards told her, "They are waived to you (as if he had received it)," that we say earlier (74b) that she is not divorced. (Note: What is the difference between our case and that case?)

Answer: This is only if the condition was made when the Get was given. However, if he wrote a condition in the Get before it was given, and he then retracted the condition and erased it, it is valid. He only must uphold what he stipulates when he is giving the Get, as this is when the divorce takes effect.

Opinion: Rebbi Yehudah understands that the Get is valid even if the husband said the condition before the main body of the Get was written (but it was written afterwards).

This is because "besides" is also only something that makes a Get invalid according to Torah law when it is written before the main body of the Get. However, if it was written after the main body of the Get, even if the husband said the condition beforehand, the Get is still considered to have been written for "Kerisus."

This is because the scribe does not have in mind a condition of "besides for Ploni" when he writes the main body of the Get, as they have not yet written it in the Get. Being that "besides" does not make the Get invalid according to Torah law, "on condition" is valid, as we do not make a decree lest one might transgress a decree (only lest one might transgress a Torah law).

Proof: This is evident from the position of Rav Safra who was quoted earlier, and who holds like Rebbi Zeira here, as saying that an oral condition does not make a Get invalid even if the husband said it before the main body of the Get was written, as long as it was not written at all. Similarly, when it is was written after the main body of the Get was written it does not become invalid according to Torah law, because he first said it orally.

Observation: However, according to Rava if the husband said a condition before the writing of the main body of the Get, everyone agrees the Get is invalid, even if it was written in the Get afterwards. This is because according to Rava even "on condition" and even an oral condition that is not written at all, not in the beginning nor in the end of the Get, causes the Get to be invalid if the condition is not kept.