If a divorce was conditional, then if the condition was fulfilled, she is divorced, and if the condition is not fulfilled, she is not divorced. [If the condition was not fulfilled] she remains permitted to her husband even if he is a priest (who is forbidden to marry a divorcee). The rules of conditions are discussed in chapter 38.
One who divorces his wife with a condition when she fulfills the condition, she will be divorced at the time the condition is fulfilled, and not at the time the get is given to her hand. Therefore, the husband can nullify the get or add an additional condition or he can make another condition the entire time that the original condition was not met, even though it arrived at her hand. And if her husband dies or the get is lost or burnt before the new condition is fulfilled, she is not divorced. And if she married, she needs to exit [the new marriage]. And if he says to her, you are divorced from now or from today on the condition of x and y, or you are divorced on the condition of x' and y' (see later 144: 4 and there are those who say that "on the condition" is not similar from "now"). When the condition is fulfilled, they were divorced from the time get was given to her hand. If it was lost or burnt (even if the husband died) but before he fulfilled the condition, then this fulfills the condition after his death, so they were already divorced from the time he gave her the get to her hand. Initially, she should not marry before the condition is met, but if she marries, he should separate from her, until the condition is met. However, with a condition that she can control and passively fulfill, we do not suspect that she will violate it. Therefore, she is allowed to marry immediately, on the condition or "from now". There are those who say even if he did not say "from now," and not "from today," and not "on condition," the law is as one who said "from today," because the time [written in] the get proves [his intention]. (There are those who say that even in the condition "from now", he is able to nullify, but there are those who are strict.) (Itor and that is what is implied in the Ros"h).
He said to her "[I give you a get] on condition that you give to me two-hundred zuz from now until thirty days" and he dies in the middle of the thirty days before she gave to him [the two-hundred zuz] she is unable to fulfill the condition, because if she gives to his inheritors, it is considered null. Thus, because the 30 days have passed and she did not give him [the money], the divorce is nullified and she must undergo chalitza or yibum. If he said to her " [I give you a get] on condition that you give me two-hundred zuz and he does set a time [for the transaction to take place] and he dies before she gives him [the two-hundred zuz] even if the get was lost or ripped before he died, she should not marry another until chalitza is preformed.
He says to her "[I give you a get] on condition that you give me 200 zuz, from now until thirty days [from now]," and she gives it to him within thirty days against his will, and he does not want to accept it, this is an invalid get, until she gives it to him with his consent.
He says to her, "[I give you a get] on condition that you give me 200 zuz within 30 days" and he came back within the 30 days and said, "they have pardoned you [from paying]" then she is not divorced because the condition did not come into effect. Some say that this is true only when he tells her "they say only your loan is forgiven" but if he says to her "get a get" without any conditions, then she is divorced and they need not take from her.
[If the husband] said to her: "[I will divorce you] on condition that you give me this utensil," or "this article of clothing," and that utensil or clothing is lost or stolen, the bill of divorce is not valid even if she gives him 1000 zuz as restitution. It is only valid if she gives him the utensil or clothing or he says to her: "Here is the bill of divorce without any condition." Some say that the bill of divorce is valid if he accepts the restitution.
אמר לה ע"מ שתתני לי ר' זוז מכאן עד ל' יום אפי' לא נתנה לו עד יום שלשים בסופו מגורשת ואם אמר לה בתחלת יום ראשון לחודש ונתנה לו בסוף ליל ראשון לחדש השני ה"ז ספק מגורשת:
If he makes a condition on her "that you do this thing," it is to be assumed that he meant that she "do it some day." After all, he did not specify when she should do it, or for how long. How so? He says to her, "This is your Get , if you do work with me." "On the condition that you serve my father." "On the condition that you nurse my children" - if she does work with him, or serves his father, or nurses his children for one day, within the span of time that children nurse, which is 24 months, then it is a Get and she is divorced. Rem"a: And there are those who say that she needs to serve his father all the days of his life, nurse the baby until the end of the 24 months (Tur in the name of the Rosh). And if he dies even one day after she has begun to fulfill the condition, it is a Get (Tur). If the son or the father die before she nurses or serves them [respectively], it is not a Get . If he says, "...on condition that you nurse my son or serve my father for two years" she must complete the time that he specified. If the son or the father die in the time that he specified or the father says, "I do not want he to serve me" it is not a Get because she has not fulfilled the condition, and so too [any case] like this. And there are those who say that any [case] where the prevention [of fulfilling the condition] is not from her, it is a Get and it seems to me that in all these [cases], we rule stringently.
There are those who say that when we say that if she nurse or serves for one day it is a Get (see previous Seif) this is not specifically one day because even one hour is enough. And there are those who say that one day is specifically [referring to] Shabbat night and day.
One who gives a Get to his wife on condition that she give him 200 Zuz and [later] rethinks it and makes [another] condition on her in front of witnesses that she serve his father for two (typo in hebrew) years, his last words don't annul his first words, rather it is as if he said to her that she should do one of the conditions. If she wants, she can serve [his father], if she wants, she can give [the money] and the first and last [conditions] don't combine. But if he made a condition on her that she give him 200 Zuz and [later] he made a condition in front of two witnesses that she give him 300 Zuz , the condition of the 200 Zuz has already been annulled and she needs to give him 300 Zuz and so too anything like this. Rem"a: And there are those who say that all this is only when he sent her the Get without either condition, rather [only] after [making] the two conditions did he send her the Get in front of the first and second witnesses [of the conditions]. But if he sent her the Get at the time of the first condition or the second condition, it is specifically that condition [which is binding]. (Ran Perek Mi ShAchzu)
"This is your get, and the paper is mine" - [with this formulation] she is not divorced, since it is not complete. "On the condition that you give me the paper [in the future]" - she is divorced if she gives it.
If he makes a condition that is impossible to fulfill, such as "on conditional that you go up to the heavens" or "that you go down to the primordial deep" or "if you swallow a reed four by four hand-breadths wide" - this is not a condition, and the get is a get. But, if made a condition which is possible to fulfill, even if it would involve prohibitions, such as "on condition than you eat pig meat" - this is a [valid] condition, since it is possible for her to eat it and be whipped. This does not fall under the category of "making a condition against what is written in the Torah" since he did not make a condition that she eat pig meat in any case, since, if she does not eat it, she is [merely] not divorced. This is the case only if the prohibition depends on her [alone] to do it. But if it's dependent on others, [such as] if he says to her "on the condition that you have sex with my father," this is not a condition, since his father will not listen to her to do a forbidden thing.
He said to her "[I give you a get] On condition that you do not have sex with my father and she has sex with him, there is no Get. But any time there are no witnesses to verify that she had sex with him, there is no concern that maybe she did have sex with him (and she is permitted to be married) and there is no concern that perhaps (she will have sex with him) (Tur):
אמר לה ע"מ שלא תנשא לאבא ונשאת לו הוי גט שאין לו בה נשואין:
אמר לה ע"מ שתנשאי לפלוני אם נשאת לו הרי זו מגורשת אבל אמרו חכמים לא תנשא לו שלא יאמרו נשותיהם נותנים במתנה זה לזה: הגה ואפי' לא התנה עמה בפירוש שתנשא לפלוני אלא שניכר שגירשה משום זה כיון שאותו פלוני נתן לו ממון כדי לגרשה והוא מעלה לה מזונות כדי שיקחנה וכל כיוצא בזה (הגהות מרדכי בקידושין) ואם נשאת לא תצא ואם נשאת לו תחילה וגירשה מותרת לכל שהרי נתקיים התנאי נשאת לאחר קודם שתנשא לאותו פלוני תצא ממנו ולא יחזיר עולמית וצריכה ממנו גט והולד ממנו ממזר: הגה נשאת אח"כ לאותו פלוני שהתנה עמה הבעל הוי גט למפרע ואין הבנים ממזרים (טור אבל לא יחזירה עולמית משום דהוי כמחזיר גרושתו (טור בשם הרמ"ה) נתקדשה לאחר תצא ולא תחזיר לו אלא אחר מיתת הבעל או שיתן לה גט אחר בלא תנאי (ג"ז שם)
אמר לה ע"מ שלא תנשאי לפלוני עד זמן פלוני הרי זה גט ויש מי שאומר שלא תנשא עד שימות אותו פלוני ויש מי שאומר שמותרת לינשא מיד כיון שבידה לקיימו שא"א לינשא לו אלא מדעתה. ואין תקנה להתירה (לאותו פלוני) אא"כ יקדשנה המגרש ויחזור ויגרשנה סתם (או שמת הבעל קודם שנשאת לשום אדם) (בב"י בשם הרשב"ץ) ואם נשאת לאחר וגירשה אותו האחר סתם עדיין לא הותרה לאותו פלוני ואם נשאת לו נתבטל הגט ובניה אף מהשני ממזרים:
זינתה עם אותו פלוני הולד כשר והגט כשר שלא התנה אלא על נשואין:
[If] he said to her [his wife], "[I give you this get] on the condition that you have relations with so-and-so": the condition is fulfilled whether by licentious relations or by marital relations, it is a proper get. Ideally, she should not have relations with him, for she is not [considered] divorced until she has relations with him, so the beginning of the relations become performed while forbidden.
"[I give you a get] on the condition that you do not have sex with so-and-so (unspecified male), there is a get. And she can not marry until this same so-and-so dies for fear that maybe she was raped by him.
He must not require of her any conditions which apply for her entire lifetime such as: "on condition that you do not eat meat or drink wine", or "that you never drink wine", or "for all the days of your life" as if he forced her to to accept these conditions this is not a dissolution of the marriage. However, if he told her, [that the condition applied]: "all the days of my life", or "all the days of ploni's [a hypothetical third person's] life", or "for fifty years", behold - this is a [valid] divorce. There are those who hold that even if he expands [the duration of the conditions] beyond the length of a persons life, because the time is [explicitly enumerated and] decided this is a [valid] divorce.
[If] He said to her -[I will give you a divorce] "on condition that you do not go to your father's house until a certain time" - eve though the divorce is Kosher [valid] and the condition in full force - a person should not endeavor to facilitate a divorce given with this condition, this is because it is impossible to stand over her [to observe her at all times, to prevent her] to prevent her from going to her father's house. The divorce will then be nullified, her children will become mamzeirim [those conceived through illicit relationships]. If the divorcer [husband] is one of those whom we force to give a bill of divorce, and if the divorce only agreed to give the divorce with this condition, he is forced to give the divorce without this condition.
If he says to her "[This is your writ of divorce] on condition that you don't marry so-and-so," and he didn't specify a time [that this was binding], then this is not a [valid] get, because this is not [total] "separation." It is the equivalent to saying "on condition that you never drink wine again," or "[on condition that you] smile all of my days." And there are those who say that since the stipulation lasts only the days of his life, it is as if he said "on condition that you never drink wine all the days of the life of so-and-so," and she is divorced. And we rule like both of these positions, depending on whichever one is more stringent.
[If] he says to her: "On condition that you do not drink this wine ever" or "[on condition] that you do not ascend this tree" or "[on condition that you do not ascend] this wall ever," and the wine was spilled, the tree was cut down, or the wall fell, this is not considered separation [necessary to allow for divorce], since she never becomes permitted in what she was prohibited. And some say that since the condition only extends as long as the wine exists or the tree or wall exist, this is separation [necessary to allow for divorce] and we follow the words of both [opinions] towards stringency.