This chapter explains conditional : how conditions affect when a divorce takes effect, which restrictions invalidate a , and how conditions may be fulfilled, changed, or removed.
פרק ח24 halachosTuesday, September 29, 2026י״ח בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 120–155 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 24 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
If a man divorces his wife subject to a condition:
,
if the condition is fulfilled,
;
she is divorced;
,
and if the condition is not fulfilled,
.
she is not divorced.
A conditional takes effect according to the terms attached to it.
The laws governing conditions have already been explained in Chapter 6 of ,
.
where all the rules of conditional stipulations are set out.
A valid condition follows specific rules: it is stated in both positive and negative form, the positive side is stated first, the condition is stated before completion of the act being made conditional, and the condition must be something that can actually be fulfilled.
,
It was also explained there
-
that when a man gives a conditionally—
,
when the condition is eventually fulfilled,
,
she becomes divorced at the moment the condition is fulfilled,
.
not at the earlier moment when the was placed in her hand.
This is the first major type of conditional divorce in this chapter: the has already been delivered, but the divorce itself does not take effect until the condition is actually completed.
,
Therefore, the husband may still nullify the ,
,
add to his condition,
-
or impose an additional condition—
,
as long as the original condition has not yet been fulfilled,
.
even though the has already reached her hand.
Since the divorce has not yet taken effect, the husband still retains control over the pending divorce.
,
If the husband dies,
,
or the is lost,
,
or burned,
-
before the condition is fulfilled—
.
she is not divorced.
Because the divorce takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled, the husband must still be alive at that time and the itself must still exist. If either is missing before the condition is completed, there is no divorce.
,
From the outset, she should not remarry
.
until the condition is fulfilled.
Before then, the divorce has not yet been completed and may still fail.
-
If she nevertheless remarried—
;
she need not leave her second husband;
According to the , the divorce process begins when the is delivered, although it is not completed until the condition is fulfilled.
,
unless it has become impossible for her to fulfill the condition,
.
for then the is nullified.
If the condition can no longer possibly be fulfilled, there is no remaining possibility for the divorce to take effect.
It was further explained there
that if he tells her,
״״
“You are divorced from now,”
״,״,
or, “From today, on the following condition,”
or if he tells her,
״״-
“You are divorced on condition that such-and-such occurs”—
,
when the condition is fulfilled,
.
the divorce takes effect retroactively from the time the was first placed in her hand.
This is the second major type of condition. Here, fulfillment of the condition later confirms that the divorce had already taken effect from the moment of delivery.
Therefore, once the reaches her, the husband can no longer nullify it
,
or add to his condition,
.
from the time the reaches her hand.
Because later fulfillment will relate the divorce back to the moment of delivery, the husband no longer retains the same power to alter the arrangement after she receives the .
,
If the is lost or burned,
,
or even if the husband dies,
-
before the condition is fulfilled—
,
she may still fulfill the condition after his death,
.
and she is considered to have been divorced from the time the was originally placed in her hand.
The later fulfillment does not create a new divorce after his death. It confirms that the divorce had already taken effect while he was alive.
,
She may even remarry from the outset
.
even though the condition has not yet been fulfilled.
,
We do not suspect that the condition will fail to be fulfilled,
״
because the condition was phrased with “from now”
״.
or “on condition that.”
According to the , we rely on her to ensure that the condition is fulfilled because failing to do so could undermine the validity of her subsequent marriage.
Synopsis
A conditional divorce can work in two fundamentally different ways. In one, the divorce takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled; in the other, fulfillment later confirms a divorce that took effect retroactively from the moment the was given.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
gives a and says, “If you give me $200 next week, you will be divorced.” She is holding the , but she is not divorced yet. If dies before she fulfills the condition, the divorce can no longer take effect.
If instead he had said, “You are divorced from now, on condition that you give me $200 next week,” then when she later fulfills the condition, the divorce is treated as having taken effect from the moment he originally gave her the .
Left: the divorce takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled. Right: fulfillment later establishes that it took effect from the original delivery. The parchment is illustrative, not an actual .
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Divorce Depends on a Condition
When a Divorce Depends on a Condition
The does not generally follow the ’s permission for the woman to remarry before the condition has actually been fulfilled.
There is also a dispute over the phrase “on condition that.” The Rambam treats it like “from now,” so that fulfillment later relates the divorce back to the original delivery. Other authorities do not always equate the two expressions.
Privacy While a Conditional Divorce Is Still Pending
-
Whenever a man divorces his wife conditionally—
״״,
whether he said, “from now,”
״״-
or stated the condition in a full “if this occurs / if it does not occur” form—
he should not be alone in seclusion with his wife
,
for as long as the condition remains unfulfilled,
,
unless another person is present as a witness to prevent private seclusion,
even a servant
,
or a maidservant,
except for her own personal maidservant
,
or her young son,
.
because she would not be embarrassed to have marital relations in their presence.
The presence of another person prevents the couple from being in true private seclusion while the status of the divorce is still unresolved.
,
It is well established
that if he was secluded alone with her
,
after two saw them enter that seclusion together,
-
even after the condition was subsequently fulfilled—
,
her divorce is of doubtful validity,
because perhaps they had marital relations
,
and the was nullified,
.
as will be explained later in these laws.
Because witnessed seclusion creates concern that marital relations took place and that the husband thereby reconsecrated her, her status becomes doubtful even if the original condition is later fulfilled.
Synopsis
While a conditional divorce remains unresolved, the couple should not enter private seclusion together. If witnessed seclusion occurs, the possibility of renewed through marital relations can leave the woman’s status doubtful.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband gives his wife a conditional , but the condition has not yet been fulfilled. That evening, the two of them go alone into a closed room while two people see them enter.
Even if the condition is later fulfilled, her status is now doubtful. Because saw them enter private seclusion, there is concern that marital relations took place and that he thereby created a new marital bond.
or, “Write and give her a subject to a condition,”
and certainly he should not
have it written inside the
״״.
“So-and-so divorced so-and-so on this condition.”
The itself should be written as a complete, unconditional document of divorce. The condition should not be built into the writing of the .
?
Rather, what should he do?
He tells the scribe to write the
,
and the to sign it,
and they prepare a valid
.
with no condition written into it at all.
The document itself must first be completed as an ordinary valid .
Only afterward does he give her the
and say to her,
״״
“This is your ,”
״,״,
or, “You are divorced with this, on condition that such-and-such occurs,”
or he may tell the or his agent,
״״.
“Give her this on condition that such-and-such occurs.”
The condition is attached to the act of delivery, not to the writing of the itself.
Synopsis
A conditional divorce should use a completely ordinary, valid . The condition is added only when the is delivered, not written into the document or made part of the instruction to write it.
🔎Dig DeeperHow to Make a Conditional Properly
How to Make a Conditional Properly
The notes that in a pressing situation where the husband cannot remain until the is written, more lenient opinions allow the to be written normally and permit him, before the writing is completed, to instruct the agent to deliver it conditionally.
The ’s preferred procedure, however, is to keep the writing itself unconditional and introduce the condition only at the time of delivery.
When the Condition Is Mentioned Before the Essential Text Is Written
If the husband had the condition written into the
-
after the essential portion of the had already been completed—
.
the is valid.
The is the essential portion of the containing the identifying and operative elements of the divorce. Once that core has been written properly, adding the condition afterward does not undermine the writing itself.
,
This is true whether the condition was written before the signed
.
or after they signed.
The decisive point is not whether the have already signed, but whether the essential text of the was complete before the condition was introduced.
-
But if the condition was written before the essential portion of the —
-
even if it was phrased, “on condition that such-and-such occurs”—
,
the divorce is doubtful,
.
because the husband has retained a right within the very substance of the .
By introducing the condition before the essential divorce text is completed, the itself is being written while the husband still retains a continuing claim within the divorce. That raises doubt whether the document was written as a complete act of severance.
Similarly, if he stated the condition orally
,
before the essential portion of the was written,
.
the divorce is doubtful.
Even though the condition is not physically written into the , stating it before the essential text is written can create the same concern that the was composed under an unresolved qualification.
Synopsis
A condition introduced only after the essential text of the is complete does not invalidate it. If the condition is introduced before that core text is written, the treats the divorce as doubtful.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Condition Is Mentioned Before the Essential Text Is Written
When the Condition Is Mentioned Before the Essential Text Is Written
The explains the ’s doubtful ruling through the principle of : when the condition is later fulfilled, can we say retroactively that the had been written as a complete severance from the beginning? Because is unresolved in matters of law, the Rambam treats the divorce as doubtful.
Other authorities distinguish between different cases. Some are more lenient when the condition was stated orally before the essential text and was later fulfilled. When the condition itself was written into the ,,, and maintain that the can still be valid on the level, while regards it as disqualified by Rabbinic decree.
The , 147:2, records the Rambam’s ruling that the divorce is doubtful, while later authorities allow greater room for leniency in a case of hardship.
Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 8:4; Tosafot, Ramban, Raavad, and Rabbenu Nissim on ; , 147:2.
If a man divorces his wife and places a restriction upon her,
,
whether the restriction is written after the essential portion of the
,
or stated orally after the essential portion has been written,
and he tells her,
״״
“You are permitted to every man except for a particular man,”
״״,
or, “except that particular man,”
:
and gives her the with that restriction:
the validity of the now depends on whether excluding that particular person leaves any real marital bond between the husband and wife.
if that man was a non-Jew
,
or a servant,
or someone forbidden to her as an ,
such as her father or brother,
-
or the husband’s father or brother—
.
the is valid.
These are people with whom could not take effect in any event. Excluding them therefore does not preserve any meaningful marital right for the husband; the divorce still fully severs the marriage.
But if that man is someone
-
with whom could take effect—
,
even if marriage to him is prohibited by a negative commandment,
-
and even if he is presently a minor—
;
it is not a valid ;
,
because the husband left something of the marriage bond unsevered through the ,
.
and this is not a complete severance.
The requires a to create , a true cutting-off of the marital bond. If the husband leaves the woman still bound to him in relation to someone she could otherwise marry, the separation is incomplete.
A minor is included because he will eventually reach adulthood and become capable of . The husband’s restriction therefore has future legal significance.
,
If the excluded man is her sister’s husband,
,
although he is presently forbidden to her as an ,
if her sister dies,
-
he would then become permitted to her—
.
her divorce is doubtful.
At the moment of the divorce, she cannot marry him, which resembles the valid cases above. But that prohibition could disappear in the future, which makes it unclear whether excluding him leaves enough of a continuing marital bond to invalidate the .
Synopsis
A must fully sever the marital bond. Excluding someone the woman could potentially marry leaves part of that bond intact and invalidates the ; excluding someone she could never marry does not.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband gives his wife a but says, “You may marry anyone except your brother.” That restriction changes nothing, because could never take effect between her and her brother anyway. The can still be valid.
But if he says, “You may marry anyone except ,” and is a man she could legally marry, the is invalid. The husband has left one part of the marriage unsevered by continuing to control whether she may marry .
🔎Dig DeeperA That Leaves One Man Outside the Divorce
A That Leaves One Man Outside the Divorce
and other authorities are more lenient than the when the excluded person is someone with whom could technically take effect. They understand such a as valid on the level but disqualified by Rabbinic decree rather than completely void.
There is also a dispute concerning a minor. treats that case as a doubtful divorce rather than certainly invalid, based on differing versions of the relevant Talmudic passage.
Sources: Rabbenu Nissim and Rabbenu Chanan’el on .
or, “except with regard to your promiscuous relations,”
:
meaning:
,
you may marry any man,
but with regard to promiscuous relations,
,
you remain under the prohibition of a married woman,
the husband has attempted to end the marriage for one purpose while retaining part of the married status for another.
״,
or, “You are permitted to anyone who has relations with you in the usual manner,
but with regard to relations in the unusual manner,
״
you remain under your previous prohibition,”
Here too, the husband attempts to preserve one part of her former married status rather than ending it completely.
״
or, “You are permitted to every man
״,
except one who consecrates you through a written document,”
:
meaning:
,
she may become through money or marital relations,
but through a written document,
,
you remain under the prohibition of a married woman,
The husband is trying to allow some valid methods of while withholding another. That retained restriction may mean the former marriage was not fully severed.
״
or, “You are permitted to every man
״,
except with regard to the annulment of your vows,”
:
meaning:
I retain no marital authority over you
,
except the authority to annul your vows,
,
so that for the purpose of annulling vows, you remain my wife,
,
or for the purpose of eating ,
This refers, for example, to a whose Israelite wife was permitted to eat because of their marriage. By trying to preserve that privilege after the divorce, he is attempting to leave one aspect of the marital relationship intact.
or for the purpose of inheritance,
-
so that if she dies, he will inherit from her—
in each of these cases,
.
her divorce is doubtful.
Each case leaves some aspect of the former marriage in place. The uncertainty is whether that retained connection is substantial enough to prevent the complete severance required for divorce.
Synopsis
If the husband tries to end the marriage while retaining a limited marital prohibition, right, or status, the divorce is doubtful because the separation may not be complete.
because the men whom he had excluded through his condition
.
he has now permitted to her.
This correction is accomplished through a new delivery: the husband takes the back from her and gives it to her again while removing the original exclusions. The later statement is therefore part of a new, unrestricted act of giving the .
Synopsis
If the husband originally excluded and , he can correct the defect by taking the back and delivering it again while permitting her to both of them.
🔎Dig DeeperRemoving the Men Originally Excluded
Removing the Men Originally Excluded
The is more cautious about the ’s wording. He maintains that the later statement, “You are permitted to and ,” might mean only that those two men are now permitted while everyone else becomes forbidden. On that reading, the divorce would still not create complete severance and its status would be doubtful.
because he has not removed his restriction concerning .
Removing only one of the two exclusions does not solve the original problem. As long as remains excluded, the marriage has still not been completely severed.
If he tells her,
״״,
“You are permitted to ,”
or if he tells her,
״״-
“You are permitted even to ”—
;
the divorce is doubtful;
,
because perhaps he permitted her only to ,
,
while remains forbidden to her,
If that is what he meant, the original defect remains because one man is still excluded.
״״,
and his statement, “even to ,” may mean:
:,
“to every man, including ,”
or perhaps he permitted her to everyone,
״״-
and by saying, “even to ,”
,
he meant that the same applies to ,
.
since had been mentioned immediately after in his original condition.
The doubt is what his later words were intended to undo. They may remove only ’s exclusion, leaving forbidden, or they may indicate that the entire original restriction—including —has now been removed.
Synopsis
Removing only ’s exclusion leaves the invalid because is still excluded. A later statement permitting can be ambiguous, creating a doubtful divorce.
even though he severed the bond between them for today.
A must create a lasting severance. Here, the husband expressly builds the return of the marriage into the divorce itself. The bond may be interrupted for one day, but it is not truly cut off.
:
Therefore, a contains the words:
.
“from this day and forever.”
Those words express that the divorce is not merely temporary; the marital bond is severed permanently.
Synopsis
A must create an enduring severance. If the husband says she is not his wife today but will again be his wife tomorrow, the rules that there is no divorce.
🔎Dig DeeperA Divorce That Lasts Only for Today
A Divorce That Lasts Only for Today
and the disagree with the and maintain that the divorce can take effect even though the husband says that she will again be his wife tomorrow.
takes an intermediate position and treats the divorce as doubtful. The , 137:5, follows that doubtful ruling.
Sources: Rabbenu Asher, Rashba, and Rabbenu Nissim on ; , 137:5.
The condition follows her for her entire lifetime. There is never a point during her life when she is completely free of the restriction imposed by the husband.
״״
If instead he says, “for all the days of my life,”
״״-
or, “for all the days of so-and-so’s life”—
,
the is valid,
,
because he has severed the bond between himself and her,
and he will retain no authority over her
.
once that person dies.
A condition can last for many years and still allow complete severance if it is not imposed for the woman’s entire lifetime. When it is tied to the husband’s life or another person’s life, that person’s death ends the restriction completely.
Synopsis
A restriction lasting for the woman’s entire life prevents complete severance. A condition tied to the husband’s life or another person’s life is valid because that restriction can end completely.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband tells his wife, “This is your on condition that you never drink wine for the rest of your life.” The is invalid because his condition follows her forever.
If instead he says, “Do not drink wine for the rest of my life,” the can be valid. When he dies, the restriction automatically ends, so his condition does not remain attached to her for her entire life.
on condition that you do not go to your father’s house
״-
for thirty days”—
.
the is valid.
A restriction limited to a defined period does not prevent the divorce from being a complete severance. Once that period ends, the condition no longer binds her.
״״-
But if he says, “You may never go to your father’s house”—
,
the is not valid,
.
because this is not a complete severance.
A lifelong restriction remains attached to her permanently. The divorce therefore does not entirely separate her from the husband’s continuing authority.
Accordingly, if a man tells a woman,
״
“This is your
״,
on condition that you never eat this meat,”
״״-
or, “on condition that you never drink this wine”—
,
the is not valid,
.
because this is not a complete severance.
The particular subject of the restriction does not change the principle. If the condition binds her for life, the divorce is not considered a complete separation.
״״,
But if he says, “for thirty days,”
.
the is valid.
Synopsis
A condition limited to a specified period is compatible with a valid . A condition that binds the woman forever prevents the divorce from being a complete severance and therefore invalidates the .
✦Live ItLeave room for a real ending
Leave room for a real ending
A temporary restriction can accompany a valid , but a condition that binds the woman forever prevents the complete severance the requires. Something from the old relationship would still remain attached indefinitely.
There are situations in life that also need a genuine ending. After making a decision, changing roles, or closing a difficult chapter, we sometimes keep reopening it mentally—replaying the conversation, checking whether we were right, or carrying an old frustration into what comes next. Not everything should be forgotten, but sometimes moving forward requires allowing something to actually be finished.
Try today
Identify one finished matter that you can stop reopening unnecessarily.
on condition that you never marry a particular man”—
.
the is not valid.
A condition permanently forbidding her to marry one particular man is treated like any other lifelong restriction. It prevents the divorce from being a complete severance.
?
To what is this comparable?
To a man who says to her,
״״,
“on condition that you never drink this wine,”
״״
or, “that you never go to your father’s house,”
״״.
or, “for all the days of your life.”
Each of these conditions remains in force throughout her life. Because the husband’s condition continues indefinitely, the divorce does not constitute complete severance.
But if he tells her,
״
“on condition that you do not marry that man
״-
for fifty years”—
,
the is valid,
but she may not marry him
;
for the entire period he specified.
Even if fifty years may effectively extend through the rest of her life, the condition has a defined endpoint. Since he did not impose the prohibition forever, it is treated as a temporary condition rather than a permanent restriction.
,
If she marries him during that period,
.
the is nullified retroactively.
By violating the condition, she causes the to be treated as though it never took effect.
-
If, instead, she has relations with that man outside of marriage—
a child born from that relationship is legitimate,
,
and the remains valid,
because he imposed a condition only concerning
.
marriage.
The condition is interpreted according to its precise wording. He prohibited marriage to that man, not every form of intimacy with him.
Synopsis
A lifelong prohibition against marrying a particular man prevents complete severance and invalidates the . A prohibition limited to a specified number of years allows the to take effect, but marrying that man during the specified period nullifies the retroactively.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband tells his wife, “This is your on condition that you do not marry for fifty years.” The can take effect because the condition has a defined endpoint.
If she marries during those fifty years, however, the condition is violated and the is nullified retroactively. But if she has relations with without marrying him, the condition itself was not violated, because the husband specifically conditioned the only on marriage.
🔎Dig DeeperA Permanent Ban on Marrying One Particular Man
A Permanent Ban on Marrying One Particular Man
The disagrees with the ’s ruling that a permanent prohibition against marrying a particular man invalidates the . Since that man might die, the restriction could eventually cease to have practical effect. The Rashba therefore compares it to a condition limited to another person’s lifetime rather than to a truly eternal prohibition.
The defends the Rambam by explaining that, as long as the man is alive, there is no time when she will be permitted to marry him. With respect to that marriage, the restriction is therefore treated as permanent.
The Kessef Mishneh also cites the Rashbatz to explain why a fixed period, such as fifty years, is different. Even if the period is likely to last for the woman’s entire life, the husband expressly defined a term rather than imposing the prohibition forever.
According to the Rambam’s approach, it appears that she may marry another man immediately, since the condition assumes that she will not marry the prohibited man. Other authorities are more stringent and require her to wait until that man dies. The records both views.
Sources: Rashba on ; Kessef Mishneh on 8:12; Rashbatz; , 143.
When the Husband Requires Her to Marry a Particular Man
״
If he says, “This is your
״-
on condition that you marry a particular man”—
,
if she marries that man,
.
the is valid, as with any other condition.
Under the basic law, marrying that man fulfills the condition and allows the to take effect.
:
However, the Sages said:
she should not marry
either that particular man
.
or anyone else.
The two prohibitions are based on different concerns.
,
She should not marry the specified man,
:
lest people say,
;
“They give their wives to one another as gifts.”
The Sages were concerned that this arrangement would make it appear that husbands could transfer their wives to one another.
,
And she should not marry another man,
because the does not take effect
.
until the condition is fulfilled.
She may not marry someone else first, because the divorce remains dependent on her marrying the specified man. If she marries another man before fulfilling the condition, the original is nullified retroactively, and she is considered to have remained married to her first husband.
,
If she disregarded the Rabbinic prohibition and married the specified man,
.
she need not leave him.
Although the Sages prohibited entering this marriage initially, she has fulfilled the condition on which the divorce depended.
But if she married someone else
-
before marrying the specified man—
,
the is nullified,
and she must leave the second man,
,
and a child born from that union is a ,
.
and she requires a from the second man.
Because the condition was never fulfilled, the original divorce is void retroactively, and she is considered to have remained married to her first husband. Nevertheless, the second man must give her a by Rabbinic decree, so that she does not appear to leave a marriage without a .
Synopsis
When a is conditional on the woman’s marrying a particular man, marrying him fulfills the condition, although the Sages initially prohibited that marriage. If she marries someone else first, the condition fails, the original is nullified retroactively, and she must leave the second man.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Requires Her to Marry a Particular Man
When the Husband Requires Her to Marry a Particular Man
explains that the Sages prohibited her from marrying the specified man because the arrangement could make it appear that men were exchanging or transferring their wives.
The explains that if she marries another man and the original is nullified, the second man’s obligation to give her a is Rabbinic. Under law, his did not take effect because she was still married to her first husband.
The husband must transfer the to her as her property. If he retains ownership of the paper at the time of delivery, the document has not been completely transferred, and the divorce does not take effect.
״״,
But if he says, “on condition that you give me the paper back,”
the is valid,
.
and she must return it.
Here, she first acquires the paper when the is delivered. Her obligation to return it arises only afterward, as fulfillment of the condition. The husband therefore did not retain ownership during the act of delivery.
Synopsis
If the husband retains ownership of the paper when he delivers the , the divorce is invalid. If he transfers ownership to her and merely requires her to return it afterward, the is valid once she fulfills that condition.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A husband hands his wife a written on an expensive sheet of parchment and says, “This is your , but the parchment still belongs to me.” The divorce does not take effect, because he never fully gave her the document.
If instead he says, “This is your , on condition that you give the parchment back to me afterward,” the result is different. She first receives ownership of the paper together with the , and only afterward must return it.
Retaining ownership prevents a complete gift. Requiring the parchment to be returned afterward allows her to own it first. The parchment is illustrative, not an actual .
🔎Dig DeeperKeeping Ownership of the Paper
Keeping Ownership of the Paper
explains that an item given as a gift on condition that it later be returned is considered a genuine gift. The woman acquires the paper when she receives the , and returning it afterward does not undo the transfer that made the divorce effective.
The same object can serve both functions: the writing engraved on the plate effects the divorce, while the value of the gold can satisfy the husband’s monetary obligation under the .
,
and she is considered to have received payment of her ,
if the plate contains
;
enough value to cover the amount of her ;
,
but if it does not,
.
he must pay her the remaining balance.
If the plate is worth less than the amount of the , the shortfall affects only the unpaid monetary obligation. It does not affect the validity of the .
Synopsis
A gold plate may serve simultaneously as the and as payment of the . If its value does not cover the full amount owed, the divorce remains valid and the husband must pay the difference.
Whenever a man gives a divorce subject to a condition that invalidates the ,
such as when he stipulated
that she may never drink wine for the rest of her life,
,
or that she may marry anyone except a particular man,
or he made other conditions
:
before the essential portion of the was written:
these are examples in which the condition creates a defect in the divorce itself—either because it prevents complete severance or because it was introduced before the essential text of the was written.
,
if the condition was written into the ,
and he later erased it
-
and gave the to her—
;
her divorce is doubtful;
Erasing the condition does not necessarily repair the document, because the itself was originally written in a defective form. There remains a -level doubt whether it was written as a complete act of severance.
-
But if the condition had been stated orally—
,
the husband takes the back from her,
and gives it to her again
,
with a valid condition,
.
or with no condition at all.
This corrective redelivery applies when the invalid oral condition was introduced only after the essential portion of the had already been written. In that case, the writing itself remains sound, and the problem lies in the conditions attached to the delivery.
If the invalid condition had already been stated before the was written, the defect may affect the writing of the itself, and simply taking it back and redelivering it does not repair that problem.
Synopsis
If an invalid condition was written into the , erasing it leaves the divorce doubtful. If an invalid oral condition was introduced only after the essential text was written, it can be corrected by taking the back and delivering it again properly.
🔎Dig DeeperCorrecting an Invalid Condition
Correcting an Invalid Condition
The explains that the distinction between a written and oral condition depends on whether the writing of the itself was compromised. An oral condition stated only after the was completed can be repaired through a new delivery; a condition introduced before the raises a deeper problem concerning the ’s original writing.
There is also a question about the ’s wording in the case of a written condition that was later erased. In his , and in the Maggid Mishneh’s discussion, such a is described as . Here, however, the Rambam says that the divorce is doubtful. suggests that the wording here reflects the -level uncertainty over whether the was originally written as a true act of complete severance.
Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 8:16; Rambam’s ,; Kapach’s commentary to 8:16.
This restriction prevents the from creating the complete severance required for divorce.
If he takes the back from her
and gives it to her again
and tells her,
״״
“Through this , you are permitted to every man,”
״״-
or, “This is your ”—
.
she is divorced.
It is not enough for the husband simply to withdraw the restriction while she continues holding the . Because the first delivery already had legal effect, the Sages required him to take the back and perform a new, unrestricted act of delivery.
The new delivery replaces the defective first delivery and gives the to her without the restriction that prevented complete severance.
.
The same principle applies in other comparable cases.
Synopsis
An invalid verbal restriction is corrected by taking the back and performing a new valid delivery without the restriction. Merely withdrawing the condition while she still holds the is not sufficient.
and afterward he imposes another condition upon her
in the presence of ,
-
that she serve his father for two years—
,
his later words do not cancel the earlier condition,
rather, it is as though he told her,
״״,
“Fulfill either one of these two conditions.”
If she wishes, she may serve his father,
,
and if she wishes, she may give the money,
This ruling applies to the type of conditional divorce in which the divorce remains pending until the condition is fulfilled. Since the divorce has not yet taken effect, the husband still has authority to alter the terms.
Because the second condition requires an entirely different act, it is treated as an additional alternative rather than as a replacement of the first.
and one witness from the first condition
and one witness from the later condition
.
do not combine.
Each condition is treated as a separate matter. One witness who heard the first condition cannot combine with one witness who heard the second, because there would still not be two establishing the same condition.
But if he first stipulated
,
that she give him two hundred ,
and afterward stipulated before two
-
that she give him three hundred —
,
the condition requiring two hundred has been cancelled,
.
and she must give three hundred .
Here the second condition does not introduce a different obligation; it changes the amount of the same monetary condition. The later statement therefore replaces the earlier one.
.
The same principle applies in comparable cases.
This ability to change the condition does not apply in the same way to a given with wording such as “on condition that” when the divorce is understood to take effect retroactively from the original delivery. In that type of divorce, once the has been given, the husband no longer has the same authority to alter the condition.
Synopsis
When the divorce remains pending until fulfillment of the condition, the husband can still alter its terms. A completely different later condition becomes an alternative, while a later revision of the same obligation replaces the earlier version.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A husband says, “This will take effect if you give me 200 .” Later he says, “Or you can serve my father for two years.” She now has two different ways to fulfill the condition: either give the money or perform the service.
But if he first says, “Give me 200 ,” and later changes it to, “Give me 300 ,” the second statement replaces the first. She must now give 300.
A different later condition becomes an alternative; a later change to the amount replaces the earlier amount.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Changes the Conditions
When the Husband Changes the Conditions
interprets the underlying Talmudic passage differently from the .
The , 143:10, follows the Rambam’s understanding of the case, while the records Rashi’s interpretation.
The distinguishes between changing an existing condition and adding a completely different one. Small differences in wording can change whether the second statement replaces the first or simply gives another option.
A of unnecessary tension comes from assuming people know what we mean. “I thought you were taking care of it,” “I meant later,” or “I thought that replaced the old plan” can create problems that clear words would have prevented. Being precise does not have to mean being formal; sometimes one extra sentence saves everyone from guessing.
Try today
Clarify one expectation that you have been assuming someone else already understands.
that she perform a particular act without specifying how long—
,
it is treated as though he had specified one day,
since he did not state
.
how long she must perform it.
When the condition requires an ongoing activity but gives no duration, the treats one day as sufficient.
?
For example:
if he tells her,
״
“This is your
״,
on condition that you perform work for me,”
״״,
or, “on condition that you serve my father,”
״״-
or, “on condition that you nurse my son”—
,
if she works for him for one day,
,
or serves his father for one day,
or nurses his son for one day
during the period when a child normally nurses,
-
which is within the first twenty-four months—
.
the is valid.
In each case, one day is sufficient because the husband did not specify a longer period.
If the son or the father dies
-
before she nurses the son or serves the father—
.
the is not valid.
The condition was never fulfilled. The fact that fulfilling it later became impossible does not count as performance of what the husband required.
Synopsis
When a condition requires an ongoing act but gives no duration, the treats one day as sufficient. If fulfillment becomes impossible before she performs even that amount, the does not take effect.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband says, “This is your on condition that you help my father,” but gives no time period. According to the , serving him for one day is enough.
If he instead says, “Serve my father for two years,” one day is no longer enough. She must complete the full two years. If his father dies halfway through the period, the condition was not fulfilled according to the , even though completing it became impossible through no fault of hers.
🔎Dig DeeperAn Unspecified Period Means One Day
An Unspecified Period Means One Day
The attributes this approach to Ashi. Although questions are raised against his position and left unresolved, the understands that those unanswered questions do not overturn Rav Ashi’s ruling and therefore follows his view.
The disagrees and maintains that the woman must serve the father for the duration of his life or nurse the son throughout the relevant nursing period. The , 143:8, follows the Rambam’s one-day interpretation, while the cites the Tur’s stricter view.
When the husband says she must perform an activity but gives no duration, the must determine what that undefined condition means. When he specifies a period, however, the requirement becomes clear: that entire period must be completed.
Vague goals often create the same problem. “I should learn more,” “I need to exercise,” or “I want to spend more time with the kids” sounds meaningful but leaves no clear point of action. A modest definition—ten minutes, one page, one evening—can turn a good intention into something you can actually carry out and evaluate.
Try today
Turn one vague intention into a small, specific commitment.
Unlike the previous , here the husband has stated a definite duration. Once he specifies a period such as two years, the full period becomes part of the condition and one day is no longer sufficient.
If the son or the father dies
,
during that period,
or if the father says,
״״-
“I do not want you to serve me”—
,
the is not valid,
.
because the condition was not fulfilled.
According to the , the issue is whether the condition was actually completed, not why it failed. Even if the failure was entirely beyond her control, the required period was not fulfilled.
.
The same principle applies in comparable cases.
Synopsis
When the husband specifies a duration, the entire stated period must be completed. If fulfillment becomes impossible before then, the rules that the condition was not fulfilled and the does not take effect.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Specifies a Full Period
When the Husband Specifies a Full Period
The disagrees when fulfillment becomes impossible through no fault of the woman. He maintains that if the father dies or refuses her service, the can still take effect because she herself did not prevent fulfillment of the condition.
The , 143:8, follows the and does not accept that reasoning. The nevertheless rules that the stricter view should also be taken into account.
if she gives it to him within the thirty days with his consent—
;
she is divorced;
The condition required that the money actually be given to the husband within the specified time.
-
if she gives it after thirty days—
.
she is not divorced.
Once the deadline has passed, the condition can no longer be fulfilled as stated.
,
If she gives it to him against his will,
-
and he does not want to accept it—
,
the is disqualified,
.
until she gives it with his consent.
The condition was that she give him the money. Forcing the money upon him while he refuses to accept it does not fully satisfy that requirement. The defect remains until he willingly accepts the payment.
If, during the thirty days, he later tells her,
״״-
“The money is waived for you”—
,
she is not divorced,
.
because the condition was not fulfilled.
Forgiving the money is not the same as her actually performing the condition. If the husband wishes, he can cancel the condition itself. That is fundamentally different from leaving the condition in place but forgiving the money she was supposed to give.
,
If he dies within the thirty days,
since the thirty days eventually pass
-
without her having given him the money—
.
she is not divorced.
The condition specifically required payment to him within the allotted period. Once he has died, she can no longer make that payment to him, and the condition remains unfulfilled.
Synopsis
When the depends on payment within thirty days, she must actually give the husband the money within that period in the required manner. Waiving the money is not the same as fulfilling the condition.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A husband says, “This is your on condition that you give me 200 within thirty days.” On day twenty, she tries to hand him the money, but he refuses to accept it.
She has not yet fulfilled the condition simply by trying to force the money on him. If he later says, “Forget it—I forgive the 200 ,” that still does not count as fulfillment either. The condition required actual payment unless he cancels the condition itself.
An attempted payment that is refused, or merely forgiving the money, does not itself fulfill the payment condition.
🔎Dig DeeperPaying the Money Within the Required Time
Paying the Money Within the Required Time
The distinguishes between waiving the money and cancelling the condition. Saying, “I forgive the money,” does not cause the required payment to have occurred; it merely leaves the original condition unsatisfied.
If the husband instead cancels the condition itself, the requirement is removed rather than treated as though it had been fulfilled.
If the husband conditioned the on receiving two hundred , simply saying, “I forgive the money” does not mean the condition was fulfilled. The required act and the result he wanted are not automatically interchangeable.
We often do something similar with our own commitments. We set a concrete goal—learn for twenty minutes, make the phone call, finish the task—and then quietly substitute something easier because it feels close enough. Sometimes circumstances really do require changing the plan. But it helps to notice the difference between changing the commitment and telling ourselves we already fulfilled it.
Try today
Pick one commitment and ask: “Did I actually do what I said I would do?”
The identity of the recipient is part of the condition. Payment to the husband’s heirs is not the same act as payment to the husband himself.
,
Nevertheless, the is not nullified,
.
because he had not fixed a deadline.
This differs from the previous , where the husband expressly established a thirty-day period. There, the passing of the deadline determines that the condition failed. Here, no such deadline was ever set.
,
Therefore,
even if the was lost
or torn
-
before the husband died—
,
she is divorced,
but she may not marry an unrelated man
.
until she performs .
Because no deadline was set, the husband’s death does not cause the to be treated as having failed in the same way as the thirty-day condition in the previous . Nevertheless, where his death creates a possible obligation of , she may not marry an unrelated man until she has performed .
Synopsis
If no deadline was set for a monetary condition, the husband’s death does not cause the to fail in the same manner as a missed fixed deadline. She cannot substitute payment to his heirs for payment to him, and where applies she must perform before marrying someone else.
The Rebbe ExplainsA condition does more than reveal the past
A condition does more than reveal the past
The rules that when no deadline was set and the husband dies before receiving the money, the woman cannot pay his heirs. Yet the is not treated as certainly void: she must perform and may not enter . The explains that the husband’s death makes fulfillment impossible, but the condition has not been nullified through an actual missed deadline. Because no deadline was set, there is no moment at which that formal failure occurs.
The Rebbe draws a deeper conclusion about the words ‘on condition that.’ One might think the condition is only a test that later reveals whether the had taken effect from the beginning. On that model, once fulfillment becomes impossible, it should already be clear that there was never a divorce.
The ’s ruling indicates a different structure. The initially has legal force, while an actual failure of the condition later acts as a new cause that cancels it retroactively—like a second legal force undoing the original act. Impossibility alone is not yet that cancelling event. The therefore cannot be treated as certainly void, so is not permitted; but because her status also cannot be resolved through fulfillment, she requires before marrying someone else.
on condition that you give me a particular utensil,”
״״,
or, “a particular garment,”
and that utensil is lost
-
or stolen—
even if she gives him
-
one thousand in its place—
,
the is not valid,
until she gives him that very utensil
.
or until he nullifies the condition.
The condition specified the actual object, not its monetary value. Even an amount worth far more than the missing item does not fulfill what he required.
If the husband chooses to cancel the condition entirely, he does not need to take the back and deliver it again. He may remove the condition while the remains in her possession.
Synopsis
When the condition requires a particular object, money is not a substitute for that object. The specified item itself must be given unless the husband cancels the condition, which he may do without taking back the .
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A husband says, “This is your on condition that you give me my silver watch.” Before she can return it, the watch is stolen.
She offers him money worth far more than the watch, but according to the that does not fulfill the condition. He required that specific object. Either she must return the actual watch, or he must cancel the condition.
When the condition specifies a particular object, even money worth far more does not substitute for that object.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Condition Requires a Particular Object
When the Condition Requires a Particular Object
The disagrees and maintains that the husband may choose to accept money in place of the specified object.
The , 143:6, records both views, while giving greater weight to the ’s position that the object itself is required unless the condition is cancelled.
If the condition requires one particular object, even something worth far more does not automatically substitute for it. The condition is defined by what was actually said, not by what someone later decides is “basically equivalent.”
That is a useful discipline in everyday commitments too. If you promised to call someone, sending an unrelated text may not accomplish the same thing. If someone asked you for a specific kind of help, giving a different favor may still leave the original need unanswered. Good intentions matter, but so does listening carefully enough to understand what was actually requested.
Try today
Before completing one obligation, check the exact thing you originally agreed to do.
the status of the second depends on what ultimately happens with the first divorce.
-
if the condition is ultimately fulfilled—
;
she is to the second man;
This applies where fulfillment of the condition causes the divorce to relate back to the time the was originally given. Once the condition is fulfilled, it becomes established that she had already been divorced when the second man performed , so his took effect.
,
But if the condition is not fulfilled,
-
and the is nullified—
,
she does not require a from the second man,
.
because cannot take effect with her.
Once the first fails, she is considered to have remained married to her original husband at the time of the second . from another man cannot take effect with a woman who is already married.
,
But if she actually married the second man,
and the condition was not fulfilled
-
and the first was nullified—
,
she nevertheless requires a from the second man,
.
as we explained previously.
Although his did not take effect on the level once the first divorce failed, an actual second marriage creates the additional Rabbinic concern explained earlier. She therefore requires a from the second man before leaving him.
Synopsis
If another man performs while a retroactive conditional divorce is unresolved, fulfillment of the condition establishes that his took effect. If the condition fails, she remained married to the first husband and the second did not take effect; an actual second marriage nevertheless requires a by Rabbinic decree.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A woman receives a “on condition that” she later performs a certain act. Before she fulfills it, another man gives her .
If she later fulfills the condition, the divorce is established retroactively from the original delivery of the . That means she was already divorced when the second man gave her , so his took effect.
If she never fulfills the condition and the first fails, she was still married to her first husband at that time, so the second man’s could not take effect.
Later fulfillment establishes the divorce retroactively from the original delivery, before the second man’s . The parchment is illustrative, not an actual .
🔎Dig Deeper Before the Conditional Divorce Is Resolved
Before the Conditional Divorce Is Resolved
The explains that the first part of this concerns a given with wording such as “on condition that,” where later fulfillment establishes retroactively that the divorce took effect from the original delivery. That is why the second man’s can ultimately be established even though the condition had not yet been fulfilled when he performed them.
The disagrees with the when the condition ultimately fails. Since it had been possible for the woman to fulfill the condition, he remains concerned that perhaps she did in fact fulfill it and therefore treats her status more stringently. The follows the Rambam.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 8 at a glance
Chapter review
Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.
A conditional divorce can work in two fundamentally different ways. In one, the divorce takes effect only when the condition is fulfilled; in the other, fulfillment later confirms a divorce that took effect retroactively from the moment the was given.
A condition introduced only after the essential text of the is complete does not invalidate it. If the condition is introduced before that core text is written, the treats the divorce as doubtful.
A must fully sever the marital bond. Excluding someone the woman could potentially marry leaves part of that bond intact and invalidates the ; excluding someone she could never marry does not.
A must create an enduring severance. If the husband says she is not his wife today but will again be his wife tomorrow, the rules that there is no divorce.
A lifelong prohibition against marrying a particular man prevents complete severance and invalidates the . A prohibition limited to a specified number of years allows the to take effect, but marrying that man during the specified period nullifies the retroactively.
If an invalid condition was written into the , erasing it leaves the divorce doubtful. If an invalid oral condition was introduced only after the essential text was written, it can be corrected by taking the back and delivering it again properly.
When a condition requires an ongoing act but gives no duration, the treats one day as sufficient. If fulfillment becomes impossible before she performs even that amount, the does not take effect.
If another man performs while a retroactive conditional divorce is unresolved, fulfillment of the condition establishes that his took effect. If the condition fails, she remained married to the first husband and the second did not take effect; an actual second marriage nevertheless requires a by Rabbinic decree.
פרק ח
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-four halachos.
