Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi, and the reason that the Tana did not say 'Kesuvu' and not 'T'nu' or 'Imru', or stress that he speaks even if he said it to three people was (not to extrapolate from his words that then the Get would be valid, but) - because he meant to add that even where, over and above 'T'nu', he added 'Kesuvu', and even where he added 'Imru' and where he said it in front of three, the Get is nevertheless Batel.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa 'Kasav Sofer Lishmah, ve'Chasmu Eidim Lishmah Af-al-Pi she'Kasvuhu ve'Chasmuhu ve'Nasnuhu Lo ve'Nasnu Lah, Harei ha'Get Batel ad she'Yishme'u Kolo she'Yomar le'Sofer K'sov ... '. We infer from ...

1. ... 'ad she'Yishme'u' - that, according to Rebbi Yossi, the witnesses must hear the instructions directly from the husband, and that consequently, saying 'Imru' make no difference.
2. ... 'Kolo' - that he must be able to speak in order to give a Get to his wife (proving that the Rabbanan argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(a) The following have in common ...

1. ...' Zeh Gitech im Meisi'; 'Zeh Gitech me'Choli Zeh'; 'Zeh Gitech le'Achar Misah' - that the Get is invalid, because of the principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'.
2. ... 'me'Hayom Im Meisi'; 'me'Achshav Im Meisi' - that the Get is valid, since it takes effect immediately.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah adds that if the husband says 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah, Get ve'Eino Get' - because he is uncertain whether 'u'le'Achar Misah' is a condition or a retraction.

(c) Should he die leaving no children - his brother performs Chalitzah.

(d) In a case where the husband says 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh', and he subsequently got up from his sick-bed, walked in the street, became sick again and died - the Tana rules that we have to ascertain whether it was the first illness that caused his death (in which case the Get is valid, and his wife *does not* require Yibum), or not (in which case the Get is invalid).

(a) We just saw how in the Reisha of our Mishnah, 'Im Meisi' implies after death, whereas in the Seifa, it implies 'from now'. Abaye explains - that 'Im Meisi' has dual implications; 'S'tam', it implies 'after death', whereas when it follows 'me'Hayom', it implies 'from now'.

(b) According to Rav Huna, in the case of our Mishnah 'Zeh Gitech Im Meisi', the Tana holds 'Choletzes' - because he has a Safek whether it is a Get or not (as we shall now see).

(c) When the Tana he Tana conclude 'Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, *Lo Amar K'kum*' - he means, to allow her to get married, but in fact, she is forbidden to the Yavam as well.

(a) Rav Huna explains the fact that the Seifa of the Mishnah (in the case of 'me'Hayom u'Le'achar Misah') rules 'Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes', implying that the Reisha does not, goes like the Rabbanan (refuting our previous understanding of Rav Huna, including the previous answer) - whereas he holds like Rebbi Yossi.

(b)

1. The Rabbanan say in the Mishnah in Bava Basra - that someone who writes all his property to his son - must specifically write 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah' (because 'Im Meisi' alone would imply that he is giving him the gift after death, and a gift after death is not valid).
2. Rebbi Yossi says there - that it is not necessary to write 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', because 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav' (the date on the Sh'tar automatically implies that the gift is to take effect immediately).

(c) The problem with establishing Rav Huna like Rebbi Yossi is - that, according to Rebbi Yossi, even Chalitzah should be unnecessary (like we learned later in our Mishnah 'me'Hayom Im Meisi, Harei Zeh Get').

(d) We refute the suggestion that Rav Huna has a Safek whether to rule like Rebbi Yossi or not - because he accepted the specific ruling of Rabah bar Avuhah, that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi (as we shall now see).

(a) When Rav Huna and Rav Nachman went to visit Rabah bar Avuhah on his sickbed, the former ...

1. ... asked the latter to ask him - whether the Halachah was like Rebbi Yossi or not.
2. ... retorted (when the latter initially replied that, seeing as he did not understand Rebbi Yossi's reasoning, how could he possibly ask whether the Halachah was like him) - that meanwhile he should ask the Rebbe, and after receiving a reply, he (Rav Huna) would supply Rebbi Yossi's reason.

(b) Rabah bar Avuhah ruled like Rebbi Yossi - upon which Rav Huna explained that Rebi Yossi holds 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav' (like we said earlier).

(c) We suggest that Rav Huna's Safek is whether Rebbi Yossi's ruling extends even to where the T'nai was stated orally, and not inserted in the Sh'tar. That might be worse than if it was - because, unlike when the condition stands beside the date in the Sh'tar (where it looks as if the one complements the other), it conveys the impression that the condition comes to negate the date on the Sh'tar (since he did not add 'me'Hayom').

(d) We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Yossi clearly declines to differentiate between a written condition and an oral one, as we shall now see.

6)

(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah later rules that if a man said to his wife 'Harei Zeh Gitech Im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'Ad Sh'teim-Esrei Chodesh' and dies within twelve months 'Eino Get' (and she remains obligated to perform Yibum). 'Raboseinu' who permit her to marry, says Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - are the same Beis-Din that rescinded the decree of oil manufactured by Nochrim.

(b) They hold like Rebbi Yossi, who says 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav, and it is as if he specifically said 'me'Achshav' refuting the suggestion that this might be Rav Huna's Safek).

(a) Rava say that if a man said to his wife ...

1. ... Harei Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, ve'she'Ani Meis - the Get is valid.
2. ... ke'she'Amus, u'le'Achar Misah' - the Get is invalid.

(b) We initially decline to establish Rava's first statement when he said 'me'Hayom', and Rava holds like the Rabbanan - because that would be no Chidush, seeing as we already learned in our Mishnah 'me'Hayom Im Meisi, Harei Zeh Get'.

(c) Then we will establish Rava - when he did not say 'me'Hayom', and Rava holds like Rebbi Yossi (even though the husband made the condition orally).

(d) In spite of this, we conclude that Rav Huna's Safek is whether we rule like Rebbi Yossi when the condition was made orally or not - because Rav Huna (who has a Safek) is not obligated to agree with Rava (who does not).

(a) Alternatively, Rava speaks when the husband said 'me'Hayom' and he holds like the Rabbanan. And Rava is coming to teach us that 'she'Ani Meis' is the equivalent of 'Im Meisi' and 'ke'she'Amus', like 'le'Achar Misah'.

(b) This resolves our Kashya on Rav Huna - because now, he does not clash with Rava (or more accurately, Rava does not clash with him).

(a) Others, learn Rav Huna's statement (Choletzes) on the Seifa 'Zeh Gitech le'Achar Misah, Lo Amar K'lum'. We ask on this 'P'shita!' - because whatever the Rabbanan holds in a case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', Rebbi Yossi will hold even when he omits 'me'Hayom', and the Rabbanan say in the Seifa in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', Choletzes.

(b) We answer that Rav Huna needs to inform us that Rebbi Yossi does not hold like Rebbi - who says in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah, ka'Zeh Get' (because, in his opinion, 'le'Achar Misah' is definitely a condition).

(c) Rav Huna extrapolates that Rebbi Yossi disagrees with Rebbi because of the Lashon 'ka'Zeh Get', implying that there is a case where the Get is not valid, and that case can only be 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah'. Rebbi Yossi needs to inform us that such a Get is invalid - because we might otherwise have compared it to the equivalent case by a gift, where the gift is valid, inasmuch as the recipient receives the field immediately, though he may only eat the fruit after the donor's death.

(a) Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Yossi - with regard to 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav'.

(b) We know that he argues with him - from the fact that he too, uses the Lashon 'ka'Zeh Get' (to preclude Rebbi Yossi's Din).

(a) When Rav Huna said 'Gito ke'Matanaso' - he meant that a Shechiv-Mera who gives a Get and recovers may retract from the Get (because it is clear that he only gave it in order to release his wife from the obligation of Yibum), in the same way as he may retract from a gift that he made.

(b) Nor does it make any difference whether the husband said 'Im Meisi' when he gave the Get (where it is obvious that he can retract) or not.

(c) And when he said 'Matanaso ke'Gito', he meant - that if the Shechiv-Mera said 'T'nu', the gift takes effect even though no Kinyan accompanied the gift, just like by Get, which takes effect when the Shechiv-Mera said 'K'suvu', even though he did not add 'T'nu'.

(d) We ask on the first of Rav Huna's two Dinim, from our Mishnah, from the case of 'Zeh Gitech me'Hayom Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh, ve'Amad ve'Halach ba'Shuk, ve'Chalah u'Meis, Omdin Oso ... ' - where the Shechiv-Mera recovered, yet it requires an Umd'na (an assessment) as to what caused his death?

(a) Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef answers that the Mishnah speaks when he went from one illness to another without actually recovering in between. He interprets the Tana's use of ...

1. ... the word 'Amad' - to mean that he recovered from one illness, but not that he got better.
2. ... the phrase 've'Halach ba'Shuk' - to mean 've'Halach Al Mish'anto' (that he walked with the aid of a stick without recovering fully).

(b) We can now extrapolate from the Mishnah the Chidush of Rebbi Elazar Amar Rav - who says that the gift of a Shechiv-Mera who went from one illness to another without recovering sufficiently to get up and go outside without his stick, is valid (even without an assessment).