Gittin 144
אי א"ר יוסי בעל פה אי לא אמר
whether R. Jose meant his ruling to apply to a verbal declaration<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the words 'THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE' if used at all were not inserted in the document, but spoken by word of mouth. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ומי מספקא ליה והתנן ה"ז גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן ועד י"ב חדש ומת בתוך י"ב חדש אינו גט ותני עלה רבותינו התירוה להינשא
or not. But was he uncertain? Have we not learnt, 'If a man said, This is your Get if I do not return within twelve months from now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is equivalent to saying 'if I die'. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אלא מספקא ליה אי הלכה כר' יוסי בעל פה או אין הלכה
and in this connection it was taught: 'Our Rabbis allowed her to marry', and we stated [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>], Who are 'our Rabbis'? and Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, The <i>Beth din</i> which permitted oil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah Nesi'a, (the Prince), the grandson of Rabbi, permitted the oil of heathens to be used. A.Z. 37a. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ומי מספקא ליה והאמר רבא ה"ז גיטיך אם מתי ושאני מת ה"ז גט כשאמות ולאחר מיתה אין זה גט
and they took the same view as R. Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that according to R. Jose the formula 'if I die' spoken by word of mouth makes the Get valid, and R. Huna could not have been uncertain on this point. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
היכי דמי אילימא דאמר לה מהיום ורבנן צריכא למימר והתנן מהיום אם מתי ה"ז גט ואלא לאו דלא אמר לה מהיום ור' יוסי ש"מ הלכה כר' יוסי
— We must therefore say that R. Huna's uncertainty was as to whether the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose where the declaration was made by word of mouth or not. But can he have been in doubt about this, seeing that Raba has said, If a man says, 'This is thy Get if I die', or 'supposing I die', the Get is valid, but if he said, 'When I die,' or 'After [my] death,' the Get is not valid. Now, how are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he [also] said 'from to-day', and [that Raba adopted the view of] the Rabbis? Surely there is no need to tell us this, seeing that we have learnt, IF HE SAID, FROM TO-DAY IF I DIE, THE GET IS VALID. We must therefore suppose that he does not say to her 'from to-day', and that Raba adopted the view of R. Jose; which shows that the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when the declaration was made by word of mouth. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
לרבא פשיטא ליה לרב הונא מספקא ליה
[does it not]? — Raba was quite sure on the point, R. Huna was uncertain. Alternatively I may suppose [Raba to have meant that] the man does say 'from to-day', and that he was giving the view of the Rabbis, and that his purpose was to explain in regard to these various expressions that 'supposing I die' is equivalent to 'if I die', and 'when I die' to 'after [my] death'.
ואב"א לעולם דאמר לה מהיום ורבנן והני לישני איצטריכי ליה שאני מת כאם מתי דמי כשאמות כלאחר מיתה דמי
Some connect [R. Huna's remark] with the latter clause [of the Mishnah], thus: IF A MAN SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET AFTER [MY] DEATH, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT: R. Huna said, If we accept the view of R. Jose, she must give <i>halizah</i>. Surely this is obvious: since in the later case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he said, 'from to-day and after death'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא זה גיטך לאחר מיתה לא אמר כלום אמר רב הונא ולדברי ר' יוסי חולצת
the ruling of the Rabbis [requires her to] give <i>halizah</i>, in the earlier case also the ruling of R. Jose [must require her to] give <i>halizah</i>? — You might think that in this case R. Jose concurs with Rabbi who said that it is an unexceptionable Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
פשיטא מדסיפא לרבנן חולצת רישא נמי לר' יוסי חולצת
and that she would not require to give <i>halizah</i> either, R. Huna therefore tells us that neither did Rabbi concur with R. Jose nor R. Jose with Rabbi. Rabbi did not concur with R. Jose because he stated expressly 'a Get like this is valid', to exclude one allowed by R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מהו דתימא רבי יוסי בהא כרבי ס"ל דאמר גיטא מעליא הוי וחליצה נמי לא תיבעי קמ"ל דלא רבי סבר לה כר' יוסי ולא ר' יוסי סבר לה כרבי
R. Jose did not concur with Rabbi, because he stated expressly, 'a Get like this is valid', to exclude one allowed by Rabbi. In what connection did Rabbi use these words? — As it has been taught: [If a man says,] From to-day and after my death, this is a Get and no Get. So the Rabbis; but Rabbi says, A Get like this is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude where he said merely 'after death', which, according to R. Jose is sufficient. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
רבי לא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דקתני כזה גט למעוטי דרבי יוסי ור' יוסי לא סבר לה כרבי דקתני כזה גט למעוטי דרבי
In what connection did R. Jose use these words? — As we have learnt: [If a man says,] Write and give a Get to my wife if I do not come within twelve months from now, if then they wrote it within the twelve months and gave it after the twelve, it is no Get. R. Jose, however, said: A Get like this is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 76b. But not where he said 'from to-day and after death', since the words 'after death' may be interpreted as retracting the words 'from to-day'. Although in the matter of transference of property R. Jose will hold the gift valid, because the declaration there can be explained as intended to reserve the usufruct for the donor during his lifetime. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
רבי מאי היא דתניא מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט דברי חכמים רבי אומר כזה גט
IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TO-DAY IF I DIE AND HE GETS UP AND GOES ABOUT etc. R. Huna said: His<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to a sick person on the point of death. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
רבי יוסי מאי היא דתנן כתבו ותנו גט לאשתי אם לא באתי מיכן ועד י"ב חדש כתבוהו בתוך י"ב חדש ונתנו לאחר י"ב חדש אינו גט ר' יוסי אומר כזה גט:
Get is on the same footing as his gift; just as if he gets up he can withdraw his gift, so if he gets up he can withdraw his Get. And just as his Get, even though he does not express his intention precisely, is valid once he says 'write', even though he does not add 'give', so his gift is valid as soon as he says 'give' even though no token gift is made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 66a and notes. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
זה גיטיך מהיום אם מתי מחולי זה ועמד והלך בשוק כו':
We have learnt: IF HE SAYS, THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TO DAY IF I DIE FROM THIS ILLNESS, AND HE THEN GOT UP AND WENT ABOUT AND FELL SICK AND DIED, WE MUST ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH: IF HE DIED FROM THE FIRST ILLNESS, THE GET IS VALID, BUT OTHERWISE NOT. Now if you say that if he gets up he can retract, why do I require an estimate? We see that he has got up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Get is ipso facto annulled. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אמר רב הונא גיטו כמתנתו מה מתנתו אם עמד חוזר אף גיטו אם עמד חוזר
— Mar the son of R. Joseph said in the name of Raba: We suppose he has passed from one illness into another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since in the Mishnah it was specifically made conditional on his dying, (v. Tosaf.). Trani is of the opinion that in every case the Get is rendered void, any deposition made by a dying man being understood to be conditional. The same holds good of a gift.] ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ומה גיטו אע"ג דלא פריש כיון דאמר כתובו אע"ג דלא אמר תנו אף מתנתו כיון דאמר תנו אע"ג דלא קנו מיניה
But it says that 'HE GETS UP'? — He gets up from one illness and falls into another. But it says 'HE GOES ABOUT'? — It means that he goes with a crutch;