Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 3

Mishnayos Kiddushin Perek 3 Mishnah 4

קידושין פרק ג׳ משנה ד׳

4
Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: “And Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession” (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: “But if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 32:30). Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: One cannot derive the requirements of conditions in general from that particular case, as with regard to the nullification of the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, if the verse had not specified both sides of the condition, it might have been thought it meant that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan. One might have thought that if the tribes of Gad and Reuben would not fulfill the condition, they would forfeit their right to inherit anywhere. It was therefore necessary to specify that they would not lose their portion in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it is possible that with regard to a standard condition, where no such misunderstanding is likely to take place, it is not necessary to mention both sides.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן, אֵינוֹ תְנַאי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לב), וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֲלֵהֶם אִם יַעַבְרוּ בְנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן, וּכְתִיב, וְאִם לֹא יַעַבְרוּ חֲלוּצִים. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, צָרִיךְ הָיָה הַדָּבָר לְאָמְרוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא כֵן, יֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמַע שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לֹא יִנְחָלוּ:
ד׳

כל תנאי – which is not a double [stipulation] (stating both alternatives) is not a [valid] condition, for even if the condition was not fulfilled, the words/matters were fulfilled.

אם יעברו ואם לא יעברו – and if he did not double the words, his condition would be fulfilled and they (i.e., Reuben, Gad, and one-half of the tribe of Manasseh would inherit the land of Gilead, even though they would not cross [the Jordan River to fight the battles in Canaan with their brethren]. And even though he (i.e., Moses) said, “If every shock-fighter among the Gadites and Reubenites crosses the Jordan with you…” we don’t have that it follows from the affirmation, we derive the negative by implication. And we learn from it also, that we require the condition before the action, for since he did not say, “give it to them if they will cross [the Jordan]” implies that if he had said such, its condition would not come and void the action of the gift that preceded it, and we also learn from it that we require the affirmative prior to the negative, for he (i.e., Moses) did not say, “if you will not cross, don’t give them, but if they do cross, give them.”

ר' חנינא כו' – He disputes the double condition, that there is no need to double, for it follows from the affirmation that we derive the negative by implication, and this is what Moses doubled, there was a need for that matter. And regarding the Halakhic decision, if he said, “on condition,” there is no need for the double stipulation, and neither the affirmation prior to the negative, nor the condition prior to the ac, but the condition stands. But, if he did not say, “on the condition,” he would need all of these things that we mentioned, “and if not,” the condition is void and the action is valid, and it doesn’t make a difference whether the condition was made in monetary matters or in [the realms] of Jewish divorce and betrothal – everything is equivalent in this matter.

כל תנאי. שאינו כפול וכו׳ אינו תנאי. ואע״פ שלא נתקיים התנאי נתקיימו הדברים:

אם יעברו ואם לא יעברו. ואי לא כפל הדברים היתה מתנתו קיימת והיו נוחלים את ארץ הגלעד אע״פ שלא היו עוברים. ואע״ג דאמר אם יעברו אתכם, לית לן מכלל הן אתה שומע לאו. ושמעינן מיניה נמי, דבעינן תנאי קודם למעשה, מדלא אמר תנו להם אם יעברו משמע דאי הוה אמר הכי, לא אתי תנאה ומבטל מעשה דמתנה דקדמיה. וש״מ נמי דבעינן הן קודם ללאו, דלא אמר תחלה אם לא יעברו אל תתנו ואם יעברו ונתתם:

ר׳ חנינא כו׳ אתנאי כפול פליג, דאין צריך לכפול, דמכלל הן נשמע לאו. וזה שכפלו משה, צורך היה הדבר. ולענין פסק הלכה, אם אמר ע״מ, אין צריך תנאי כפול ולא הן קודם ללאו ולא תנאי קודם למעשה, אלא התנאי קיים. ואם לא אמר ע״מ, צריך כל הני דאמרינן. ואם לאו, התנאי בטל והמעשה קיים. ולא שנא בתנאי שבדיני ממונות, ולא שנא בתנאי שבגיטין וקדושין הכל שוה לדבר זה: