Gittin 72b — the Talmud in English

Rather

it must be said that

it is uncertain to him

to Rav Huna!

If

what

Rabbi Yosei said

that every document takes effect from the date written in it also applies when he added a condition [that the get take effect if he dies]

orally

at the time of delivery.

If he did not say

in this manner, and only when the condition is alongside the date in the document may one say that the date proves that from that day he intended it to take effect, but when he said the condition orally at the time of delivery, one may say that when he delivered the document to her he retracted the date in the document and delivered it on the condition that it take effect after death, since he did not say, “from today.”

And therefore, concerning a get that he wrote in accordance with its law, and when he delivered it to her he said, “This is your get if I die,” and he did not say “from today,” it is uncertain whether also in this case Rabbi Yosei said that the date in the get proves when it will take effect or not. And concerning this case Rav Huna said that she performs chalitza, because of the uncertainty.

And we raise an objection:

Is it uncertain to him

to Rav Huna whether, even when the condition was stated orally, Rabbi Yosei holds that the date of the document proves when it must take effect?

But did we not learn:

One who says to a woman:

“This is your get if I do not return from now until twelve months,” and he dies within twelve months

it is not a get.

Since according to the condition, the get takes effect only after twelve months, and a get does not take effect after death, and if he died without sons she is obligated in levirate marriage.

And it was taught concerning it [and we taught concerning this Mishna]:

and we learned concerning this Mishna]:

Our Rabbis

disagree, and they

permitted her to marry

as a divorced woman, and she does not require levirate marriage.

And we say: Who are [who are]

who are]

our Rabbis?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

They are

the court that permitted the oil [the court of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that permitted the oil] of gentiles for consumption, in tractate Avoda Zara [page 37].

the court of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that permitted the oil of gentiles for consumption], in tractate Avoda Zara [page 37].

And they

hold in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Yosei, who said: The date of a document proves its meaning!

It is explained that according to Rabbi Yosei, the date of the document proves its meaning even when he states the condition orally at the time of delivery , and it is impossible to say that Rav Huna is uncertain about this.

Rather

it must be said that

it is uncertain to him

to Rav Huna

whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

that the date of the document proves when it will take effect even when he stated the condition

orally

at the time of delivery,

or the halakha is not

in accordance with him in this case.

And we raise an objection:

Is it uncertain to him

to Rav Huna in this matter?

But Rava said:

One who says to his wife:

“This is your get if I die” [I die]

if I die],

and

likewise one who says to his wife, “This is your get”

“when I am dying”—

it is a get.

But if he says to her, “This is your get”

“when I die, and”

likewise if he says to her, “This is your get”

“after death”—

it is not a get

since the meaning of his words is that the get will take effect after death, and a get does not take effect after death.

And we inquire about it:

What are the circumstances [how is it speaking] in the first clause, that if he said “when I die” it is a get?

how is the first clause to be understood, that if he says “if I die,” it is a bill of divorce]?

If you say [if it is said] that it is speaking in a case

if it is said] that it is speaking of a case

where he said to her

explicitly

“from today”

if I die ,

and

it is speaking according to the view of

the Rabbis,

who hold that the get takes effect from today only when he explicitly says “from today.”

If so, it is difficult: Is

it necessary

for Rava

to say

this law?

But did we not learn

in an explicit Mishna: If he said

“from today if I die”—

it is a get!

Rather, is it not

necessarily that Rava is speaking in a case

where he did not say to her “from today”

but said to her only, “If I die, it will be a get,”

and

the reason that the get takes effect is that the halakha is in accordance with

Rabbi Yosei,

that the date written in the document proves that the get takes effect from today.

Learn from it

from Rava’s words that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei

that the date of the document proves that it took effect from today even when he stated the condition orally at the time of delivering the document.

And we reject this: Indeed,

for Rava it is obvious

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei even when he delivered the condition orally, but

for Rav Huna it is uncertain

whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei even in this case or not. And therefore Rav Huna holds that she performs chalitza, because of the uncertainty.

And if you wish, say [and if you wish, say] another answer:

and if you wish, say another answer]:

Actually

Rava, who said that the get takes effect, is speaking in a case

where he said to her

explicitly

“from today”

if I die

and

in accordance with the view of

the Rabbis.

And although this law has already been explained in the Mishna, nevertheless,

these expressions were necessary for him [because of these expressions Rava needed]

to explain the law.

For Rava innovated that the expression

“when I am dying,”

which is not mentioned in the Mishna,

is like

the expression

“if I die,”

and likewise the expression

“when I die”

is

like

the expression

“after death.”

And there are those who teach it [and there are those who teach] Rav Huna’s statement

and there are those who teach Rav Huna’s statement]

with regard to the latter clause,

concerning what we learned: One who says

“This is your get after death”—

he has said nothing.

Rav Huna said: And according to the words of Rabbi Yosei, she performs chalitza.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

for

from the latter clause

from the fact that we learned in the latter clause of the Mishna that if he said “from today and after death,”

according to

the view of

the Rabbis she performs chalitza,

if so

the first clause also,

when he says “after death,” it is obvious that

according to Rabbi Yosei she performs chalitza.

For according to Rabbi Yosei, this case is like the case where he said “from today and after death,” since the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei disagreed only concerning this matter: According to Rabbi Yosei, when he did not say “from today,” it is as though he said “from today”; whereas according to the Rabbis, there is a difference between when he said “from today” and when he did not say it.

And in the case where he said “from today and after death,” it has already been explained in the latter clause that it is uncertain whether he intended that the get take effect from today on condition that he die, or whether he intended to retract what he said, “from today,” and intended that the get take effect after death; and because of this, the law is that she performs chalitza because of the uncertainty.

If so, what did Rav Huna innovate by saying that according to Rabbi Yosei she performs chalitza in a case where he said, “This is your get after death” ?

And we answer: It is not obvious that in the first clause, when he says “This is your get after death,” Rabbi Yosei holds that she performs chalitza.

For

it might have entered your mind that Rabbi Yosei, concerning this [in this matter]

in this case]

holds like Rabbi.

For

Rabbi says below,

“It is a fully valid get, and chalitza is also not required,”

that the get is a complete get when he says “from today and after death,” and there is no concern that by saying “after death” he intended to retract what he said, “from today.”

And since we find that Rabbi disagrees with the Rabbis in the latter clause concerning “from today and after death,” it could be said that Rabbi Yosei also disagrees with the Rabbis in this matter, for we learned that he is lenient concerning a condition; therefore, perhaps he is lenient like Rabbi.

For this

Rav Huna teaches us

that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi, and holds like the Rabbis, that in the case of “from today and after death” she performs chalitza, since it is uncertain whether by saying “after death” he intended to retract what he said, “today,” or whether he intended it as a condition.

Rabbi does not hold like Rabbi Yosei

concerning “the date of a document proves its meaning.”

And Rabbi Yosei does not hold like Rabbi

concerning one who says “from today and after death.”

And the Gemara explains: The fact that

Rabbi does not hold like Rabbi Yosei

concerning “the date of a document proves its meaning” is inferred from what

he teaches

in Rabbi’s statement, the expression:

“Such a

get,”

which implies that only in this case, when he said “from today and after death,” does he validate the get,

to exclude

the ruling

of Rabbi Yosei,

who said that even when he did not say “from today,” the date of the document proves that he intended it to take effect from today.

And

the fact that

Rabbi Yosei does not hold like Rabbi

concerning one who says “from today and after death” is inferred from what

he teaches

in Rabbi Yosei’s statement below [76b], the expression:

“Such a get,”

and necessarily it was written to exclude something, and we find nothing to exclude other than

to exclude

the ruling

of Rabbi,

who holds that when he says “from today and after death,” he certainly intended it as a condition and not as a retraction.

And Rabbi Yosei innovates that although concerning a gift, when he says this expression, “from today and after death,” the gift certainly takes effect, it may not be compared to a get, because concerning a gift it can be explained that he intended that the principal be acquired from today, whereas the produce would belong to him only after death; but this is not so concerning a get, since it is not an expression of a condition, and it is therefore uncertain whether it is a condition or a retraction.

And we inquire about it: The view of

Rabbi—what is it,

where was it stated?

As it was taught:

One who says: “This is your get”

“from today and after death”—

it is

a get and not a get, the words of the Sages.

Rabbi says: Such a get

is certainly valid, and if the husband dies without sons, she does not require chalitza because of the uncertainty.

And

Rabbi Yosei—what is it,

where was the expression “such a get” taught in his words?

As we learned:

One who says:

“Write and give a get to my wife if I do not return from here [from here, from now]

from here, from now]

until twelve months.”

If

they wrote it within twelve months and gave

it

after twelve months—

it is not a get.

Rabbi Yosei says: Such a get.

Since he should have said: “If I do not return, write and give,” whereas he said: “Write and give if I do not return.”

Therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that his intention was as follows: Write it now, and give it if I do not return; and therefore it is a get.

We learned in the Mishna: One who says to a woman:

“This is your get from today if I die from this illness, and he rose”

from his illness

“and walked in the marketplace”

and afterward became ill again and died, we assess him: If he died because of the first illness, it is a get, and if not, it is not a get.

Rav Huna said: The get

of a dangerously ill person has the same law

as his gift.

What

concerning

his gift

was said in Bava Batra [151b]?

If he rose

from his illness and recovered, he

retracts

his gift, for he gave it only because he thought that he would die.

So too

concerning

his get, if he rose

from his illness and recovered, he

retracts

his get, even if he did not stipulate concerning the get that it should take effect only if he died, but gave her the get without explaining . Since there is an assessment of the mind that he gave it only because he thought he would die and wanted to exempt her from levirate marriage.

And

likewise, the gift of a dangerously ill person has the same law as his get:

What

concerning

his get,

it was explained above [page 65]

even though he did not explain

his intention in full, we interpret his words.

As is explained above concerning a dangerously ill person who is going to die: Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says, even “the dangerously ill person,”

since he said, ‘Write it,’

we interpret that he said “write it” with the intention that they give it, and they give the get to the woman

even though he did not say, ‘Give it,’

for we say that because of his fear he was distracted and forgot to explain.

So too concerning

в отношении

his gift

the law is so:

since he said, ‘Give it’—

even though they did not acquire it from him [from him],

the gift for the recipient, it is acquired by the recipient.

And we raise an objection to Rav Huna:

We learned

in our Mishna: He said to her:

“This is your get from today if I die from this illness, and he rose and walked in the marketplace, and”

afterward

“he became ill and died. We assess him: If he died because of the first illness”—

“it is a get. If not”—

“it is not a get.”

And if you say [and if you say] that

and if you maintain] that

if he rose

from his illness, he

retracts

his get, as is the case concerning his gift,

if so,

why do I need an assessment

whether he died because of the first illness?

For

in the meantime he

rose

from his illness, and the get was nullified by itself.

And we answer:

Mar, son of Rav Yosef, said in the name of Rava:

Our Mishna is speaking in a case

where he passed from one illness to another,

that is, he did not recover completely, but emerged from one illness and passed into another illness; and this is not rising unless he reached a state of recovery for one hour.

And we raise an objection: How can it be explained in the Mishna that he remained ill the entire time, but passed from one illness to another,

but it teaches: “and he rose”!

This implies that he recovered in the meantime.

And we answer:

“He rose”

that is stated in the Mishna means that he rose

from this illness and fell into another illness.

And we raise an objection: How can it be explained in the Mishna that he rose from this illness and fell into another illness, and did not recover in the meantime,

but it teaches: “and walked in the marketplace”!

This implies that he was healthy in the meantime.

And we answer: “Walked” that is stated in the Mishna means:

he walked with his support,

but he was still ill.