The Gemara on Amud Aleph presents an intriguing dispute between Abaye and Rava concerning the validity of a condition in a get (bill of divorce). If the husband stipulates a condition that is impossible, the Get is valid even when the condition cannot be met. What about a condition that is technically possible but unthinkable,.such as "on the condition that you eat pig meat"? Abaye argues that the get is still valid because the condition is void, being forbidden by Torah law. However, Rava contends that if the wife were to eat the prohibited meat, she could fulfill the condition and be punished for it. Thus, the condition is considered valid.

This dispute may be understood from different perspectives. One approach considers whether a person subjectively views committing a sin as a possibility or an impossibility. Is the thought of sinning seen as impossible, or is the possibility of committing a sin itself considered impossible? The example given in the Gemara is a sin that is both very possible and impossible at the same time.

Another way to interpret the disagreement is to relate it to their well-known dispute regarding inadvertent unaware loss (יאוש שלא מדעת) discussed in Bava Metzia (21b). Abaye requires specific intention and not presumed intention, while Rava considers presumed intention as actual intention. This may explain their differing views in our Gemara as well. Abaye views the condition of eating non-kosher as impossible because the person would not actually commit the sin, while Rava treats potentiality as reality, making the condition binding.

Furthermore, this dispute could be connected to another famous disagreement between Abaye and Rava when they were young children (Berachos 48a). When asked by Rabba to whom one recites blessings, Abaye and Rava pointed to different locations to represent where the All-Merciful resides. Abaye went outside and pointed to the heavens, while Rava pointed to the ceiling. Abaye needed to step outside and point to the sky, suggesting that potentiality is not the same as actuality. In contrast, Rava was content to point to the ceiling, considering potential as already a form of actuality.

Rabba's reaction, likening the recognition of potential in individuals to identifying a ripe cucumber in its early stages of development, also supports the idea that potentiality is actuality.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)