Gittin - Daf 73
- When a house collapses on one who said, “This is your get from today if I die from this illness”
It was taught in a Baraisa: זה גיטיך מהיום אם מתי מחולי זה – If one says, “This is your get from today if I die from this illness,” ונפל הבית עליו או הכישו נחש – and the house collapsed onto him, or a snake bit and killed him, אינו גט – it is not a get, because the husband did not consider this rare accident in his stipulation. אם לא אעמוד מחולי זה – If he said, “This is your get if I do not recover from this illness,” and was similarly killed, הרי זה גט – it is a get. The Gemara asks that this Baraisa is self-contradictory, since the cases are identical. The Gemara concludes: אכלו ארי אין לנו – Just as if he said, “Here is your get if I do not recover from this illness” but then a lion ate him, we have no ruling to validate the get since being eaten by a lion is a rare accident that he did not contemplate, and such a get is invalid, we will rule similarly in the Baraisa’s second case that the get is invalid. Our version of the Baraisa’s second ruling, therefore, is inaccurate. The Gemara relates that someone once sold land to his friend and committed to compensate the buyer for any accident. Later, the king commanded for a river to be diverted through his field. Although Ravina required the seller to compensate the loss, Rav Acha bar Tachalifa and Rava both ruled: אונסא דלא שכיח הוא – it is a rare accident, and he is not responsible.
- Concern for relations or kiddushin with a wife whose divorce is pending
The next Mishnah teaches, regarding one who said his get should take effect retroactively when he dies: לא תתייחד עמו – [His wife] may not be alone with him (lest he come to have relations with her), אלא בפני עדים – unless they are before witnesses. Even a slave’s presence is sufficient, except her own slavewoman, with whom she is comfortable. A Baraisa teaches that if she was alone with him, אין חוששין שמא נתעסקו בדבר אחר – we are not concerned that they engaged in “another matter” (i.e., relations). It continues: וחוששין משום זנות ואין חוששין משום קדושין – We suspect they had illegitimate relations, but do not suspect they had relations to effect kiddushin. Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah says: אף חוששין משום קידושין – We even suspect they had relations to effect kiddushin. The Tanna Kamma seems to contradict himself, and Abaye ultimately explains: ראוה שנבעלה – If witnesses saw her having relations with her husband, we assume they were promiscuous relations only, and are not concerned they were for kiddushin. Rava later interprets Rebbe Yose’s statement: אף לא ראוה שנבעלה – Even if they did not see her having relations, חוששין משום קידושין - we are concerned for relations, and even the possibility of kiddushin.
- Machlokes of the status of the woman whose divorce is pending
The Mishnah had taught: מה היא באותן הימים – What is her marital status during those days (from receiving the get until her husband dies)? Rebbe Yehudah says: כאשת איש לכל דבריה – She is like a married woman in all respects (and adultery would incur a חטאת). Rebbe Yose says: מגורשת ואינה מגורשת – She is “divorced and not divorced” (i.e., her status is in doubt, and adultery would incur an אשם תלוי). A Baraisa clarifies Rebbe Yose’s view: ובלבד שימות – Her divorce is a matter of doubt, provided [the husband] dies, fulfilling the condition. If he does not, the get is void. The Gemara asks, since all agree the get does not take effect retroactively (and they are presumed to be discussing a stipulation of “From today if I die”), how can it take effect once he dies, since divorce cannot be effected after death!? Rabbah answers: באומר מעת שאני בעולם – It is a case where he said, “The get takes effect from when I am in the world,” i.e., my final moment alive. The get is surely valid, because it takes effect while he is alive. The machlokes concerns relying on bereirah to retroactively determine that each previous moment was definitely not his last. A Baraisa on the next Daf records two more Tannaim’s opinions.
