מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּךְ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְתִתֵּן.
MISHNA: If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, then she is divorced and must give two hundred dinars in order to fulfill the condition of the bill of divorce.
It seems that the most obvious interpretation of "הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, וְתִתֵּן" is that
- she is immediately divorced and
- has a debt of 200 dinars.
Gemorah does not entertain this interpretation, instead sticking closer to the literal understanding of the husband's words "עַל מְנָת": divorce takes effect only when she pays (retroactively or not, R'Huna vs R'Yehuda).
״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא״
MISHNA: If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father,
there is no discussion of the duration of the service, so, presumably, until father's death.
Questions:
- Why is my interpretation of Mishnah 74a wrong? (am I missing something obvious?)
- 200 dinars is the standard ketubah, so it's the annual subsistence - not a trivial amount. How does the woman survive while she comes up with the money? She is not supported by her husband anymore (even if she were, if she is divorced retroactively as per R'Huna, she has to return the support). The same question for Mishnah 75b: how does she survive while serving the father (for an open-ended term)? In other words, to put it bluntly: how is this condition not a trivial way to get out of paying ketubah?