Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 73a

and this is to show us that it is when he goes on a crutch that an estimate must be made, but that in the other case we do not even require to estimate.¹  Are we to understand from this that the gift of a sick person who passes from one illness to another [and dies] is valid? — Yes, since R. Eleazar has said in the name of Rab, The gift of a sick person who passes from one illness into another is valid.

Rabbah and Raba did not concur in this opinion of R. Huna,²  as they were afraid it might lead people to think that a Get could be given after death.³  But is it possible that where a Get is invalid according to the Torah⁴  we should, for fear [of misleading people], declare it effective for making a married woman marriageable? — Yes; whoever betroths a woman does so on the conditions laid down by the Rabbis, and the Rabbis have nullified the betrothal of such a one.⁵  Said Rabina to R. Ashi: This can well be where he betrothed by means of a money gift, but if he betrothed by means of intercourse what can we say? — He replied: The Rabbis declared his intercourse to be fornication.⁶

Our Rabbis taught: If he says, This is thy Get from to-day if I die from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, it is no Get. If he said, If I do not get up from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, it is a Get. Why is the rule different in the first case and in the second?⁷  — They sent from there⁸  to say [in answer to an inquiry], If a lion consumed him, we cannot consider [it a Get].⁹

A certain man sold a field to his neighbour, guaranteeing him against any accident that might happen to it. Eventually they [the Government] turned a river through it. He consulted Rabina, who said to him, You must go and clear it for him, since you have guaranteed him against any accident which may happen to it. Thereupon R. Aha b. Tahalifa remarked to Rabina: It is an exceptional kind of accident. Various opinions were taken¹⁰  and the matter was at last laid before Raba, who said, it is an exceptional kind of accident. Rabina raised [the following] objection against Raba: '[Where he said] If I do not get up from this illness, and the house fell on him or a serpent bit him, this is a Get'? — Raba replied: Why do you not quote the earlier clause, where it says, 'It is no Get'? — Said R. Aha from Difti to Rabina: Because the first clause conflicts with the second, may we not raise an objection from the latter? — He replied: That is so; since the first clause conflicts with the second, the latter was not discussed in the Beth Hamidrash, and it is not authentic. [You must therefore] follow your own reason.¹¹

R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua bought some sesame on the bank of Nehar Malka,¹²  and they hired some boatmen to bring it across¹³  with a guarantee against any accident that might happen to it. After a time the Nehar Malka canal was stopped up. They said to them: Hire asses and deliver the stuff to us, since you have guaranteed us against any accident. They appealed to Raba, who said to them: White ducks¹⁴  who want to strip men of their clothes, it is an exceptional kind of accident.¹⁵

MISHNAH. SHE¹⁶  SHOULD NOT CONSORT WITH HIM¹⁷  SAVE IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES, THOUGH A SLAVE OR A BONDWOMAN IS SUFFICIENT — NOT, HOWEVER, HER OWN BONDWOMAN, SINCE SHE CAN TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER OWN HANDMAID.¹⁸  WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS?¹⁹  R. JUDAH SAYS THAT

1. And even if he passes from one illness to another, we presume that he died from the first illness.
2. That a sick man on getting up can withdraw his Get, even if he had not used the formula 'if I die'. But v. Tosaf. 72b s.v. [H].
3. When they see a Get which would become void if he recovered taking effect after his death if he does not recover.
4. Because the condition that he should die is not fulfilled.
5. By means of this Get.
6. V. supra, 33a.
7. [The answer to the questions left unanswered here is supplied by the Jerusalem Talmud. In the first case he did not die from that illness. Whereas in the second, where the emphasis was on his 'getting up', the Get is valid since he did not after all 'get up'. Our Talmud however, did not evidently accept this distinction, seeing that in both cases the words 'from this illness' form part of the condition, and thus rejects the Baraitha. Tosaf.]
8. Palestine.
9. Because this is an exceptional accident which he cannot have had in his mind when he said 'if I die'.
10. Lit., 'the matter was circulated'.
11. Which would tell you that he did not have such an exceptional accident in his mind.
12. [Alfasi reads Nehar Malka Saba, the Grand Canal connecting the Euphrates with the Tigris, (Obermeyer op. cit. p. 171). V. also B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 609, n. 5.]
13. To Naresh (v. supra p. 330, n. 1.) the home of R. Papa. The boats had for this purpose to sail up the Euphrates and thence pass into the canal Nars (loc. cit. p. 171).
14. I.e., greybeards (Rashi). Cf. Keth. 85a. [Obermeyer loc. cit. Pelican, a bird which owing to its large pouch on its lower jaw for the storage of fish is a symbol among orientals for greediness.]
15. And therefore they are not responsible.
16. A woman to whom her husband has given a Get with the words 'from now if I die'.
17. Because if she is still his wife and he has intercourse with her she will require a second Get, and if she is not his wife he commits an offence by consorting privately with an unmarried woman.
18. Lit., 'her heart in her is proud towards her handmaid', i.e., she feels no shame in her presence.
19. Between the delivery of the Get and his death.

SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN EVERY RESPECT; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS BOTH DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If people have observed that she consorted with him in the dark or slept with him under the foot of the bed, they do not suspect them of having engaged in something else',¹  but they do suspect them of loose conduct, and they do not suspect that he has betrothed her. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says, They also suspect him of having betrothed her. What is the meaning of this?²  — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, The meaning is this: If they saw him have intercourse with her, they suspect he has done so as a method of betrothing her.³  If he [afterwards] gave her money, they suspect that it was on account of fornication, as we say that he gave it her for her hire; but we do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says that in this case also we have to suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference⁴  arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'. On which view can this be justified? — On both views.⁵

Abaye strongly demurred to the explanation [given by R. Nahman]. Is the giving of money, [he said,] mentioned?⁶  — No, said Abaye; the meaning is this. If they saw her have intercourse they suspect⁷  her of fornication but do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, We also suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'? On which view can this be justified? On the view of R. Jose.⁸  Raba strongly demurred to this, [saying,] If so, what is the point of 'also'?⁹  — No, said Raba; the meaning is this. R. Jose, son of R. Judah, says that even if they did not see her have Intercourse,¹⁰  we still suspect he may have betrothed her. On which of these views can we justify the statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get?' On whose view is this justified? — On neither.¹¹

WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS? R. JUDAH SAYS THAT SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN ALL RESPECTS; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED. A Tanna taught:¹²  Provided he dies.¹³  And when he dies will it be a Get?¹⁴  Is it not an established maxim that there is no Get after death? — Rabbah replied: We presume that what he said to her was, [This will be a Get] from the time that I am still in the world.¹⁵

Our Rabbis taught: In the days between,¹⁶  her husband is entitled to her finds and the product of her labour, he can annul her vows, he inherits her,

1. I.e., sexual intercourse.
2. I.e., how explain the apparent contradiction between the various clauses.
3. Intercourse being one of three methods of betrothal, v. Kid. 2a, she will now require another Get.
4. Between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, infra 81a. If a man has divorced his wife and she stays in the same inn with him, Beth Hillel require him to give her a second Get, but Beth Shammai do not.
5. Because both the first Tanna and R. Jose agree that where she was not seen to have intercourse a second Get is not required.
6. In the Baraitha quoted, and how could so essential a point have been omitted?
7. The word 'suspect' is used loosely here, and is equivalent to 'put it down to'.
8. For according to the first Tanna a second Get is not required even where they saw her. This therefore must also be the view of Beth Hillel, as the first Tanna is not likely to follow Beth Shammai in preference to Beth Hillel with whom the halachah generally rests.
9. In the observation of R. Jose. Since the assumption that this is a case of fornication saves her from the necessity of another Get, R. Jose should have merely said, 'They suspect him of having betrothed her'.
10. But only consort with him.
11. Since the first Tanna does not require a second Get even where she was seen, and R. Jose requires it even where she was not seen.
12. In connection with the statement of R. Jose.
13. If he does not die, she remains a married woman, with certain consequences which are discussed presently.
14. I.e., if it was not a Get at some time during his life, how can it become one upon his death?
15. Which denoted the period immediately preceding his death. R. Judah being of the opinion that the Get comes into force only at the moment before his death, whereas according to R. Jose the Get is in doubtful operation all the time as every moment from the time of delivery may be deemed as the possible moment before his death. Tosaf. suggests a slight change in reading, according to which the rendering would be: '(When he says, "from to-day if I die", this is equivalent to saying) from the time that I am in the next world'.' According to Rabbah the dispute of R. Judah and R. Jose is not concerned with the opening case when he said 'from now if I die', where all would agree that the Get becomes retrospectively valid at the time of his death.
16. The giving of the Get and his death.