The letter to Rav Dayan, The laws of conditions| Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz | May 26 2026

Uh today's shar is dedicated anonymously nishmat shimon and may the dora be leo nish mata. Uh so we're continuing our our regular topic and we are in the middle or towards the end actually of uh the Rambam's long letter uh to Rafin Sadayan. remember a Pinhas Sadian uh was a Dion in Alexandria but he had actually come from a very very different culture. He had come from France from Provence uh Nashkanazi culture coming to Mitraim and uh obviously he had some professional difficulties and simply getting used to the culture and at one point uh he was thinking of moving back and the Rambam said you're better off at least at this particular stage in history you're better off uh under Islam in Spain than under Catholicism in France. and he said it's just better to stay put here. And as we talked about already a number of times that it is a very fascinating mixture between personal and halic matters. So today and I began talking about this like a few weeks ago but today we're going to be almost totally technical kind of the personal dietries and exchanges we we've gone through already. uh but this deals with a very interesting branch of uh which is the area called conditions. I know when people hear tanim today they think of engagements but you know tanoim is a much much broader idea and that is the notion of conditions in all transactions that uh I sell you something it can be done on a condition. Damar gives a very famous example which could be no leisa where somebody in Bavl sold all of his property on the condition that he would successfully make aliyah and what happened therefore was when he was not able to make aliyah he wanted to void the sale of course he'd have to give back the money you know refund and get all of his property back right that's a condition many many things can be done on a condition uh property can obviously be bought and sold in various conditions. Uh interestingly enough even marriage and divorce can be done on conditions although we commonly do not do that today. Uh marriage on a condition uh the Mishna has many examples haratly on the condition that I'm a coain or I'm a ley or that I have a job or that I will get a raise. Now what that actually means is if the condition is not fulfilled, she does not need a get. Now as an aside, that's not really our topic. Uh this has occasionally been advanced as a potential solution for an auna situation, right? The problem of auna, uh an anchored woman. By the way, the the word auna comes from Agillas Rus where Naomi says to u her daughters-in-law will you anchor yourselves until I have a child etc. so many years. Uh so an auna basically I mean there are actually different types of aunat I mean sometimes there's a missing in action auna but the auna that I'm going to mention today is an auna where we know where the husband is but he simply refuses to give a get and uh as you know it's a problem and there's been different solutions that are proposed prenuptual agreements and the like but one of the oldest solutions that goes back to around 150 years ago was why don't we make marriages conditional and the way it would work is the following. Under the a person says you are my wife on the condition that if at any point in the marriage you demand a get, I will give you a get within 30 days of your demand. So how does that solve the abduna problem? If the marriage is valid only on the condition, even if it's 50 years later, that she gets a get within 30 days of demand. If the guy withholds the get and does not give a get within 30 days of demand, the condition to the marriage was never met. So, Limafra retroactively, she was never married. And that by the way is not going to that's not going to affect the kashroots of their children because that does mean that children are born out of wedlock. Yeah, that that does mean that. But being born out of wedlock is not mamzer. Moms is only born from adultery or incest. >> Yep. [laughter] >> Yeah. That that's 100% you you can you can pick anything as a condition. anything has a condition you know if he didn't uh you know clean the house or whatever whatever it would be so some have suggested although the re >> uh yes it would because uh a cuba is only required if there is a divorce or a death uh if there is an anulment essentially meaning the marriage is anulled retroactively there's actually no cuba And because of that uh the woman could marry a coane if she would be divorced if she would receive a get she would not be allowed to marry a coain. uh if on the other hand uh the because of the condition the marriage is retroactively enulled the is she can marry a coain because even though she's not a virgin but so what uh a coain can marry a non-virgin unless she had relations with a non-Jew but uh if she had relations with a Jew that does not poss Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm going to tell you. So, this sounds like a great solution. Uh, unfortunately, it does not work. Uh, because the sugos lays down a certain rule that once there has been consummation of the marriage, all conditions are waved. Now, let me explain this. In the time of the Gomorrah and earlier, there actually was a 12-month period between Kidu Shin and Nisuin uh which would mean Harad Mcdadesly, but for 12 months they were not together. She was still at her father's or whatever and uh only a year later would there be a consummation of the marriage. Uh so the first stage is called ausin. So again, do not confuse this with modern Hebrew. In modern Hebrew, aosin is simply an engagement. That is not the way kazal or even the Torah use the word aosin. Uh that is actually stage one of a marriage and uh she is anious but the marriage has not yet been consummated. So based on a suga in mascu, the notion of invalidating a marriage because of a tanai can only apply in the 12 months between Ausin and Nissuin once there is cohabitation. That is an absolute commitment and there are no conditions. The language of the clal is there are no conditions at the nuin stage. So in the time of the gammorra where you had a 12-month gap this was a relevant. Today really from the middle ages some dated to Rashi's time actually and some credit to Raji. We no longer separate ausin and nuin. We do them both the same time or the same night or or day whatever it is. The giving of the ring is the ceremony. The recitation of and symbolic togetherness is said to be the nuin ceremony. So if a condition would work, it would only work in the 10 minutes between uh the giving of the ring and and the so a rule that had a tremendous amount of utility when you had a 12-month gap is essentially a dead letter today. So uh this con idea of a condition was proposed by the ravenet of Paris uh in the uh late 19th century and the gdole of Lithuania, Russia, Poland uh wrote many many chuvos and someone compiled them into a book that's called a benuin that it is not considered valid to make conditions once a marriage has been consummated. Okay. So that's not our our topic per se, but this is why we cannot do those conditions today. Now, theoretically, conditions can apply to a get even today. This is a get on the condition, even blackmail, that you give me $50,000 or $100,000 or a million dollars within a certain amount of time. But I will tell you that a baitin would refuse to write a get on a condition. Uh because that's kind of a time bomb because a woman has a get and then the condition is not fulfilled. I mean what if she's already living with somebody etc. So although there is blackmail unfortunately to this day the blackmail must precede the get. It cannot be after the get. meaning it may very well be that even today a recalcitrant husband might say I'm not going to authorize again until I get the money but the base and you know we try not to give into that but sometimes we do but the basin is not going to put it as a condition to the validity of the get meaning it has to be taken care of before the get and one of the questions the husband is asked is do you declare that this get is given uncondition conditionally but that's to avoid problems but theoretically a get itself can be given on a condition in fact the Gmorra even discusses a very odd condition this is a mlo can you do this this is your get on the condition you don't marry this guy let's assume there's a guy you don't like [laughter] so even if a husband is willing to divorce his wife he's not going to divorce you to marry that guy so he can actually say this is your gets on the condition you don't marry marry Rubain. So if you marry Ruvane, it's no get and there's no marriage. So that's a mus. Some say you can't put conditions on remarage because that contradicts what a get is. A get has to allow remarage. So you can make a condition of money, you can make a condition of aliyah, you can make all sorts of conditions and again although again we do not do it today but we actually pasan you cannot make conditions that limits the right to choose a uh to choose a a spouse. Okay. So these are conditions. Uh now even though you might think that being able to make conditions on a transaction is a matter of common sense in point of fact it is scripturally derived meaning the laws of tanoyim are derived from the Torah itself. We have to have aic structure and specifically from the story of Ben god's ub ruving. This is going to be in a few weeks. We're going to read it at the end of Safar Midbar. After the Jewish people fought on the east side of the Jordan, east side of the Ardane, they fought Sikhon, the king of Emori, and Og, the king of the Bashan, and they conquered Trans Jordan as it's called. So, Ruvane and God basically said, "Hey, you know, we'd love this land because it is very fertile and we have a lot of uh cattle uh and and and the like. So, we will give up our rights to Erit Israel west of the yard in exchange for getting east of the yard." By the way, even though it wound up being Ruvane God and some of Manasha, uh the initial demand was ruining God. I'll talk about why half of Basha half of Banasha joined them later. Uh they were not the original. Now if you remember uh this is very relevant to the draft. Mosher Rabenu gave a very very strong musmoose uh kind of castigating them by saying your brethren are going to cross the yard and go to war against the seven Canaanite nations and you simply want to sit here and enjoy your flocks and enjoy your your your pastures. He says how can you do that? uh don't you have a sense of responsibility for ami Israel that will be fighting wars in which people will die again I think I mentioned the the last time that Likenstein uh would often often use this text as his argument for Hester and for participation of even yeshiva students uh in the army because this was Mosherenu's toka how can you sit in peace when your brethren are fighting again I'm not going to get into that I have enough controversies on my head. Uh but but this is going to be a ma this is obviously a major major issue and uh it is a major I would say it's indeed a cornerstone of the philosophy of Hester as Revelenstein enumerated it. So what did Neu do? He promised Moshe that we will indeed leave our flocks and our spouses behind and we will go and fight and we will not return to our land here unless and until the conquest of Eric Israel is completed. And indeed for seven years, seven years the Ben god of Neuvane fought alongside the rest of the Jewish people. The seven years now did they have leave? Did they ever visit their spouses? I don't know. I I could imagine that they probably I mean like every they were given some type of leave occasionally, but they did remain seven years in active combat. And at the end of the book of Yoshua, there actually is a discharge ceremony. It's kind of a formal ceremony where Yahosua gathers the whole nation and he formally acknowledges. It's a very ceremonial. He formally acknowledges that benetuben ruain fulfilled their responsibilities and they are now authorized to go. Now whether this was a spiritually good decision you know one can debate this okay they fulfilled their obligations but sof are separating uh from the rest of the nation and essentially they're creating almost another country in a sense right so kazal do debate whether this was a correct decision and some say this is why Mosher Rabenu directed Shvet Manasha to join them apparently u that part of manasha were great in Torah learning and the like and it was thought that katish manasha would be a good beneficial influence on benadu ruain and the fact that the other part of manasha remained in Eric Israel was a way of kind of giving the trans Jordan community via bin manasha a keshair to Erit Israel so again this is not was not an easy decision And evenly there's quite a lot of complications and that is is the area of that was given to ruin is it in Truma right we have mitzvah we have special mitzvot that only apply to the land of Israel whether it's shmita whether it's truma all of these different things so the interesting question is you know if you're in parts of Jordan or again you'd have to know the balaries but if you're in those parts that were the land of Beng Ruvane Aruv I mean there aren't there aren't that many Jews there but you know Aruay in Trumas and Maseras and Schmita and everything else and that's a very that's an act of controversy that is still no misa today in terms of imports I don't know how much how much imported produce we get from Jordan but that would be a shila you know about that type of produce and the like so Mosher Rabeno so after they agreed After they agreed that they would fight, Mosher Rabenu then said to them and he made a condition. He gave them the land and he said, "If you cross the Ardang to the west and you will fight with your brethren and you will fulfill your obligations, then this land is given to you." And then Mosher Rabenu stated the negative and this is going to be important. If you do not cross the Ardane and you do not fight with the brothers, this land will not be given to you and you will share with everybody else in the division of Eritel. So note note that Mosher Abenu stated both the positive side of what would validate the transaction and the negative side which would invalidate the transaction. This is actually there's a term for this. This is called tai kaful means a doubling of the condition. You have to double the condition. You have to state if this happens then the transaction is valid. But then you have to state if this does not happen the transaction is invalid. Which actually means according to this view I mean this is in the Gmorra but according to at least this view if you only stated the positive in other words when a condition is not validly stated and this is counterintuitive it's Ku it drops out and the transaction is valid even if the condition is not complied with meaning if Mosherenu would have said and this sounds very strange uh if you cross the Ardan you get the land but he wouldn't have said, "If you don't cross the Ardane, you don't get the land." They would get the land even if they didn't cross the Ardane because a condition that is not validly stated is an invalid condition. And if something is an invalid condition, what does that mean? Again, people sometimes get mixed up. If a condition is invalid, the transaction is valid even if the condition is not complied with. >> Okay. So, so the Gmorra I mean the Gmorrah says that we learn out all of the laws of conditions from the Tana of Ben God Ruin. is the source me meaning as Tossus explains the idea that you can condition transactions is not a self-evident proposition you have to have a source for it and the source that we have for it is bene god ruin so as a result there are so many formalities tonight kuffle is only one of them I'm going to mention a a number of other formalities that are derived from benad ruv so one condition is cafe lutz doubling Another condition condition the conditions for a condition uh the other condition is that must be now again I cannot give you the logic for this I'm just going to tell you kind of the sakas is that the condition let me just second here the condition must preede the transaction meaning note the way Moshe said it If you cross, you get the land. If he would have said you get the land if you cross, that too is an invalid condition. Again, I I I understand that it's hard one is hardressed to fully grasp the logic here, but these are the technicalities of Tanai. And this is called Tai Lamas. The condition must be articulated prior to the transaction that you're engaged in. So I mentioned two again we'll look at these as technicalities. I I understand that we don't fully grasp the underlying logic. There is number one to fail doubling of tonight. Number two, the tenai must preede the transaction. And number three, the affirmative must preede the negative. Meaning, you first have to say what will validate and then you say what will invalidate. You don't say if you don't cross, you don't get the land. If you do cross, you get the land. And this is called hayne the affirmative km must be stated prior to the invalidating negative. Now these are three formalities and again I I apologize for not having any great explanation but this is a very very technical area and the three conditions I'll mention a fourth one in a moment. Uh the three conditions are cafe a doubling uh tai km lamasa and h yeah the affirmative km lav to the negative. And these are three ways three technical requirements for the articulation of conditions. And once again remember the consequence. If a condition is not articulated in the precise way it falls out. It falls out. It is simply pencled out inked out and the transaction will be valid even without the condition. Now we're going to see that the Rambam in this letter Bafka specifically gives us a huge huge huge Mac truck exception in which these technicalities are not needed. a very very important point that the Rambam makes in this letter. Yeah. >> So what how does that work? >> Um yeah. So well ba basically if you look if you look at it uh it's it is written that way but but but by and large you know tano people don't pay attention to anyway you know Mosha Feinstein's tanoyam uh that has a short form and the short form literally just says um whatever the parties have agreed upon they've already done and that's it and they sign the break the plate meaning it's not it's not a a whole big deal anymore. Yeah. >> So this takes away any assumptions. You can't say well isn't it obvious that if you said this then if it doesn't happen then yeah that's that that's you know that is really conceptually the most difficult part of this analysis. I mean let's say Mosher Rabeno wouldn't have been Kofild the Tai. What if Moshe would have said I am giving you this land or on the condition that you cross the ard but he he didn't say if you don't cross now you don't get the land now so you're telling me they get the land no matter what but we know for sure what the intention of the grtor was we know for sure so why would it be the case that we would just ignore what is clearly in the mind of the person there's no doubt now I understand I understand. See, I do understand if you didn't make a condition at all and you simply said it was in your head. I mean, I get that. Meaning if if I give you property without any conditions and then I come back later and say, "Oh, it was understood that only if you do so and so." Okay, so I get that where a person can say, "Well, I didn't understand that." Okay, so so the need for articulation generally is a very defensible idea. But what is much more difficult, I'm just repeating your question. What is much more difficult to grasp is when there has been an explicit articulation but it fails to comply with some technicalities but we know what the guy's intention is or in this case Mosher Rabenu's intention uh why would we ignore that it's a very good question I mean I've been struggling with it for uh more than 50 years now >> the when the 10button were exiled >> how were they exiled they just took some for year and some from there like how did that work? >> I don't I don't follow your question. How were they exile >> when later got exiled? Yes. >> How did they gather them all together? Some are living >> on post and some maybe there. >> Oh well the the answer is conquered everything. Uh conquered east San by the way there were two stages in the exile of the 10 tribes. People don't don't rec recognize this. uh Ruven and Guts were exiled first because San is coming from the east. So indeed Trans Jordan was exiled first and then he entered Eric Israel proper and of course Malus Yehuda was on the verge of being captured. After he exiled the 10 tribes he went south to Jerusalem. And as you know there was a great great miracle that sent's army 180,000 died at the gates of Jerusaleam. And according to our Messiah that was a miracle the first night of Pes. One of the later miracles that happened the first night of Pesak which the songs at the end of the refer to was in fact the deaths of SV's armies through the Malash. So yeah, I mean uh son of conquered all of those all of those territories. Okay. In fact, although he didn't conquer, the truth is he decimated. The truth is um there was a tremendous people don't realize this. People just look at the fact oh was saved. The truth is there was a tremendous amount of destruction around Jerusalem and we still had the B mikdash and we still had but Mal Shahuda was devastated for the next hundred or so years and it was just cobbling cobbling along uh there in the aftermath of Serv's uh conquests. Okay. So uh the question that you're raising is a very very excellent question and you know commentaries tried to discuss it. I don't think uh with all respect to the great people that have discussed it no one has really come up with a really really good answer but still as I say this is a technical technical area. Now there is a fourth condition the Gammorra says which is an interesting condition and this can actually be explained in some ways. You can only make conditions on transactions for which you have the power to make a shy. So let's say marriage, divorce, uh monetary transactions, I can make a shy, [snorts] right? If I if I'm not able to do it myself, I'm out of town, I can make a shy. Uh so there is a concept the ability to conditionalize if there's such a word a transaction is only for things for which you have the power of but transactions for which you do I'll give you an example in a moment transactions for which you do not have the power of you are not able to circumscribe with a condition. There's really only one example that I'm aware of and this is khalita. Uh you know you can marry on condition, you can give a get on condition because you can give a get to a shal. Now khalita let's say khalita is very much like a get in many ways. A man dies without children. So there's a mitzvah on his brother to either marry the widow which is called yum or if she doesn't want or he doesn't want there is a ceremony of release called khalita where she removes his shoe and she spits not in his face but in front of him. Banav does not mean which literally would mean in his face is translated by as in front of him. So it's not as bad as it sounds. And she declares [snorts] so shall be done to the man who refuses to rebuild uh his brother's home. Now Lisa, I do have a problem with this. I I don't have an answer either. That makes perfect sense. If it's the brother who doesn't want to do, but the is even if the brother wants to do yam but she doesn't want you do the same khalita ceremony. So why why is he being castigated so shall be done to the man who does not want to rebuild his brother's home? Unless she's saying if you really cared about your brother you would be a more attractive marriage prospect and I would want to marry if I don't want to marry you must okay I don't know who knows so I don't understand that and it's even more difficult to understand if you consider the rules that even today is the first choice and is the second choice which is what the way the Torah describes itum should be better than and that makes sense. That's the way the Torah is set up. And yet the Rama brings that the Ashkinazim is we do not do ye at all. Even if both wants, even if the brother of the Met is single and both of them, both the woman and the brother want to have yum and get married. We do not allow yam. We only we require khalitita. Again the question is why why should that be? So the logic there is connected what the Torah says but still for various reasons we don't allow and still we go through the same khalita ceremony where we you know he spits at him and says you don't care about your brother. So the khalita ceremony itself is difficult to understand but the reason I'm bringing this in is there happens to be a of khalita that khalitas cannot be done through a and that's makes it more difficult than get because there are cases remember a woman cannot get married until she has khalita even today she cannot get married and there there are cases there were cases there are cases where a brother might be trapped uh in the olden case in the Soviet Union where Jews couldn't get out or the like and uh if it if it would be a case of auna he could make a shy to give a get to his wife in the case of khalita khalita cannot be done again this is it's the garra has a dra that khalita cannot be done via shalik so because of that rule khalita cannot be done on condition a man cannot not give a woman khalita. This is you know well well she does it to him but but he but he says I'm agreeing to this khalita on the condition that you give me $200 or whatever it would be because the gammorra correlates the ability to make conditions with the ability to make a shal that does have a certain logic on it. Uh the logic of that theronim say is how much control do you have over a transaction in order to make a condition it has to be a transaction over which you have a lot of control. So the ability to delegate and make a shalia is a signpost of control and shita over the transaction and therefore that will allow you to make a condition. So there is a bit of a of a logical reason. So bikur bikur these technical rules and again I I apologize for their technicality it's not my fault uh and that is these are called mishpetanim mishpetan means the rules of conditions and they are once again kaful they are kmas they Arhain kodav I hope you're following what these mean and the last one is milsa mils Aramaic something isa for which there is the capacity for shalia and these are the four conditions that are necessary for valid conditions yeah >> I was thinking of like when hashem like the the bris that hashem makes with mra in tishma the kind of >> No, that that's that's actually very correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's a very good point. And again, the commentaries do point out that when God gives us and clot in the to he actually follows uh the methodologies. It's an example of Hashem keeping the Torah, right? That's a well-known idea that Hashem himself has to keep uh the Torah. In fact, that's why it says, you know, Hashem says, it says, Hashem says uh when we think we're rejected, Hashem says, where is the get that I gave you? So say has the den of a cohane or a cohen. So if Hashem would give us a get, he wouldn't be allowed to remarry us. So, Hashem always makes the point, I've never given you a debt. So, therefore, we're still able to uh to remain married in that way. You know, we just had of course and the Ashkanazi custom down. >> Yes. Yes. He broke the loose, but but that uh that was before the mar that was before the marriage. In fact, that's that's what the Gammorra says. uh Boscher Rabenu wanted us to be single rather than be unfaithful in a married state. We were unfaithful in a an engagement state. So that's why we were allowed to um you know uh Ashkinazim read Shu morning uh before the dibbros we read a very beautiful complicated Aramaic poem called aamos an introduction famous line if all of the uh the seas were ink etc uh and all of the trees were pens they could not write down the greatness of Hashem and the like and no talks a lot about Olm Habah and the fact that although the Jews are mocked and persecuted among the nations and the nations call upon the Jews to become part of them they're not aware of the great reward again remember was written in the time of the crusades so uh it actually is referring it is actually referring to the persecutions that Jews were undergoing during that time of Mayor Bravitzk a great great python done in Germany and Germany and France were the the sites of the massacres of the of the crusades. So uh Ashkanaz read Aktomot but octoot is not read by or at least a dutra and instead many kihilot have a different thing that they read and it's actually a kuba it's a marriage contract in which b is are the kala and hashem is the kat and they look at matan tora as a marriage ceremony and it's written just like it's tuba the same language you know in the first and the sixth day of Sivon etc. and it it tracks the language of the kuba and uh it reminds us that indeed matan tora is a marriage in fact to put it the other way many of the minhagim at a are supposed to imitate matan tora the idea of walking down with torches with candles because matantora had the fire etc. So it goes both ways that matan tora was a wedding but a wedding is also a mini matan matan tora in that way is the ceremony the conditional thing where it says if you do it then whatever if you don't do it >> yeah yeah so it's it's an interesting question exactly what would have been had we not accepted the Torah would that have abregated In other words, as they say, even when Hashem punishes us, that does not abregate the marriage. That's important idea. But the question is maybe that's only after matan Torah. Meaning once we accepted the Torah, then even when we're unfaithful to Hashem and there'll be punishments and there'll be gullas and there'll be but Hashem's love for Ami Israel is eternal. The question is is that would that have been true before Matan Torah? You know, you're right. Perhaps not. or or I don't know or perhaps you see Mitzim know created that that bond. So those are good questions about what would have happened if um okay so now okay this is a a very long introduction in terms of being aware of some of the technicalities that you need to know before you even go into the subtle point that the Rambam is going to discuss and that is I have to introduce a new dichotomy in conditions some conditions Well, I'll say the words then I'll I'll explain it. Some conditions are retroactive in nature and some conditions are prospective in nature. By that I mean the following. Some conditions mean the transaction is not effective until the condition is complied with. In other conditions, if the condition is complied with, the transaction is valid retroactively. So, it all depends on how it's said. You might say, for example, this is your get from now on the condition that you give me $200 by the end of the week. Which means if she gives me $200, she's divorced from today. We'll call that a retroactive condition because if the condition is complied with the transaction is valid from now. But you can also articulate the condition another way that basically says this get will be effective when you give me $200. Meaning until you give me $200, the get is not effective at all. So we'll call that a prospective condition. There's retroactive conditions. There's prospective conditions. A retroactive condition means the transaction will be validated retroactively if and when the condition is fulfilled. A prospective condition says the transaction is not valid until the condition. Now this makes a this makes tremendous differences. I mean let's take a marriage for example. Um if a woman is married on a on a retroactive condition and she then accepts marriage from somebody else. If the condition is fulfilled she's already married. So the marriage to the other guy is going to be invalid. If it's a prospective condition then until that happens she's free to go elsewhere. So how do you know if a condition is prospective or retrospective? So it depends on the language. Is it a when this get is valid when or is it this get is valid now if now because of this kazal gave us certain buzzwords which will tell you automatically the nature of the condition and they differentiate between alminas and the word im with an alf. So zoo I'm just picking example at random. This is your getus. This is your get on the condition that you give me 200 within 30 days. Let's say so is it is as if you're saying as long as you give me the money within 30 days you are divorced from now you are divorced from today. So if she committed adultery in middle so to state that she came up with money she didn't commit adultery. If on the other hand >> I didn't hear you say again >> is the child that >> so it actually depends on what happens before the end of the 30 days. If she comes up with the money before the end of the 30 days the child is not a mom. That's correct. If on the other hand she does not come up with the money within 30 days the get was not valid. The child is a moner. So that actually means that for third well I mean you'll know it by the time the kid is born but that means for that period of time well that's why I would clearly advise her not to be with another person I mean uh because because she she might be creating a mom >> okay whatever it would be so all I would say is for the entire period of the she would be in a state of doubt if instead of the word she uses uses the word not she but whoever the husband uses the word that's very simple she is not divorced until she gives the money within 30 days and even if she gives the money within 30 days if she was misan within the 30 days the kid's going to be a mom okay so um right so so Again the two principles to remember is but the word im is only when she gives the money. Okay. So we've combined two pieces of kind of heavy tomudic knowledge. one is Mishaim and the other is the distinction between almanas and so based on all of this the Rambam now says the following which is extremely important. He says the gazer that you have to have only applies to prospective conditions. It does not apply to retroactive conditions. Which means what Visher Rabenu was saying to Veneu Ruain actually is although I wouldn't understand the narrative this way when you finish fighting then you get the then you own the land you don't own the land until you finish the battle. It's an im and indeed in the language of the Torah. So for an im condition you have to have cafe you have to have you have to have but in the case of an almanas condition which is retroactive in such a circumstance as long as the condition was articulated even if it didn't follow those forms we go back to the argument that this is the das of the one performing the transaction and the conditions are not are not necessary and the Rambam explains this is why all of the past conditions Harat on the condition that I'm a now you'll notice that the very formulation of those conditions is not following you're not supposed to say you're supposed to say um if I'm a coen you're married to me right and what about the and it doesn't say I'm you know if I'm not a coen not so the rambom's answer is whenever the condition is retroactive you don't need mish and that's why the mishman never uses them again this is a very very technical point but uh the raam basically is very critical take it back to the personal stage apparently I had mentioned uh there was a get and the Rambam was involved and was involved in trying to get a get from a recalcitrant husband and the recalcitrant husband finally agreed by but he made all sorts of conditions in the get but said ah the conditions are not valid because they were not articulated in accordance with the mishpetim and the Rambam is a little angry and the Rambam says Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between retroactive conditions and prospective conditions? And these were retroactive conditions that don't need mishanay and as a result they remain valid conditions even if the technicalities are not complied with. So again I apologize uh for the technicalities here but the Rambam addresses this issue and this is actually a very very significant point that in many many types of conditions you do not have to comply with the formalities of mishpet mishpano okay so that's kind of the u first technical point now there's a second point I'll just begin it's not going to be as technical so don't worry about it won't as as bad uh that the Rambam addresses and that is the following uh many of you might be familiar with the first Mishna in Masa's kaducian that there are three ways actually a woman can be married three different ways although today we only do one of those ways a woman can be married by giving her something of monetary value or shvf and today that would be the ring. But you know it doesn't have to be a ring. Uh I mean the mug is a ring of course but it can be a coin. It can be a piece of bubble gum. It could be a candy. In fact uh this is an actual problem in modern orthodox co-ed high schools or you know day schools when the kids were mitzvah or basitzvah because kids get fascinated by this. You know they learn a Mishna that says oh a woman can be betrod a woman can be married by giving her something of value and it only has to be worth a pa okay whatever a pa is a nickel penny it's a very very small amount okay whatever whatever a pa is exactly a shekel is certainly a pa a dime is certainly a pa so kids are fascinated with this and as a joke they'll go over to a girl at recess and and say to their two friends because you have to have witnesses for marriage. Hey, you guys be my witnesses. They they shove the the nickel or the piece of gum into the girl's hands and the whole question is does the woman need to get does she have to cover her hair? You know, uh all of these different things. Uh right. So, all right. So, the the usual answer Bitsur is that if it's very very clear that it is a joke and nobody understands it to be serious. So even if they went through the ceremony, it's like a play, right? Imagine imagine you have a okay co-ed play. Okay, I know that's a [laughter] we we we usually don't do that stuff here, but you know, and they have a co-ed play and they're simulating a marriage. Okay, so they have uh you know, the boy give to the girl a ring and says in front of kosher witnesses, right? So, are we saying that you're married because uh you did a marriage ceremony? The answer is once again it depends on understanding. If people understand that it's a play or people understand it's a joke. So, it doesn't make it marriage. Okay. So, that's the first way of marrying is KZF and that's the way we we do today. But there's another way of marriage and that's through a document and that's not the cuba. That's a document that says he writes on a piece of paper. You are married to me with this document and not it's not the cula and when he gives you that document she's married and now I've never heard of anybody doing this. Of course uh it has its advantages. You can save on the price of the ring. Uh aar is is much cheaper. Uh maybe that's why we don't do it today. The woman might resent it. Uh but that's uh the second way of marriage kvtar and there's a third way of marriage interestingly enough and that is through physical sexual intercourse meaning instead of consummating after we're married one could effect the marriage itself by beia. Ah you'll ask me but don't you need witnesses for marriage? The entries you have witnesses but not the actual bia but the witnesses are outside of the room and they go in and consummate not through not through beia. Now with this you can understand why the gammorra says that even though this is a valid way of marriage but rav proclaimed that anyone that is madesh a woman through beia will get lashes will get malas. It's absolutely prohibited to do this. uh number one you're starting off with a single woman. I mean uh a man is with a woman that he's not married to as he starts this off. So that itself is a bad thing. And number two, the fact that you're designated wi you're designating witnesses outside of the room in which there's sexual intercourse and they know that they're there to kind of be witnesses for intercourse is a tremendously egregious breach of sneot. So it is absolutely forbidden to make kaducian through bia butly in point of fact uh it is a valid it is valid and in the case of yam by the way that that's the way the marriage of yam is done but it could even be done for regular marriage right so the ram will then discuss though which of these methods are doisa surprisingly enough and which of these methods might not be the there's going to be some very interesting problems s uh in the Rambam that he will address.