1)

(a)Rav Ashi establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Yosi, and the reason that the Tana says 'Kesuvu' and not 'Tenu' or 'Imru', or stress that he speaks even if he said it to three people is (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 'Tenu', 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 Beraisa rules 'Kasav Sofer Lishmah, v'Chasmu Edim Lishmah Af-Al-Pi she'Kasvuhu v'Chasmuhu v'Nasnuhu Lo v'Nasnu Lah, Harei ha'Get Batel ad she'Yishme'u Kolo she'Yomar l'Sofer K'sov ... '. We infer from ...

1. ... 'ad she'Yishme'u' that, according to Rebbi Yosi, 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 Rabanan argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

2)

(a)What the cases listed in our Mishnah ...

1. ...' Zeh Gitech im Meisi'; 'Zeh Gitech me'Choli Zeh'; 'Zeh Gitech l'Achar Misah' have in common is that the Get is invalid, because of the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah'.

2. ... 'me'Hayom Im Meisi'; 'me'Achshav Im Meisi' have in common is that the Get is valid, since it takes effect immediately.

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

(c)In the event that he dies leaving no children his brother is obligated to perform 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 need 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).

3)

(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 connotations; 'Stam', 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 concludes 'Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, Lo Amar Klum' he means, to allow her to get married, but as far as the Yavam is concerned, she is forbidden.

4)

(a)Rav Huna explains the fact that the Seifa of the Mishnah (in the case of 'me'Hayom u'l'Achar Misah') rules 'Choletzes v'Lo Misyabemes', implying that the Reisha holds 'Misyabemes', goes like the Rabanan (refuting our previous understanding of Rav Huna, including the previous answer) whereas he holds like Rebbi Yosi.

(b)In the Mishnah in Bava Basra ...

1. ... the Rabanan rule 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), whereas according to ...

2. ... Rebbi Yosi it is not necessary to write 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', because 'Z'mano shel Shtar Mochi'ach Alav' (the date on the Shtar automatically implies that the gift is to take effect immediately).

(c)The problem with establishing Rav Huna like Rebbi Yosi is that, according to Rebbi Yosi, even Chalitzah would not be necessary (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 Yosi or not because he accepted the specific ruling of Rabah bar Avuhah, that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yosi (as we shall now see).

5)

(a)When Rav Huna and Rav Nachman went to visit Rabah bar Avuha on his sickbed ...

1. ... the former asked the latter to ask him whether the Halachah was like Rebbi Yosi or not.

2. ... the latter retorted that seeing as he did not understand Rebbi Yosi's reasoning, how could he possibly ask whether the Halachah was like him or not.

(b)To which Rav Huna responded that if he (Rav Nachman) would ask Rabah bar Avuha with regard to the Halachah, he would supply Rebbi Yosi's reason.

(c)Rabah bar Avuha ruled like Rebbi Yosi upon which Rav Huna explained that Rebbi Yosi holds 'Z'mano shel Shtar Mochi'ach Alav' (like we said earlier).

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

(e)We refute this suggestion however on the grounds that Rebbi Yosi 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'Kan v'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 Yosi, who says 'Zemano shel Shtar Mochi'ach Alav, and it is as if he specifically said 'me'Achshav' refuting the suggestion that this might be Rav Huna's Safek).

7)

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

1. ... Harei Zeh Gitech Im Meisi, v'she'Ani Mes the Get is valid.

2. ... k'she'Amus, u'le'Achar Misah' it is invalid.

(b)We initially decline to establish Rava's first statement when he said 'me'Hayom', and Rava holds like the Rabanan 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 Yosi (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 Yosi 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).

8)

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

(b)This resolves our Kashya on Rav Huna because now, his opinion does not clash with that of Rava.

9)

(a)Others, learn Rav Huna's statement (Choletzes) on the Seifa 'Zeh Gitech l'Achar Misah, Lo Amar Klum'. We ask on this 'Peshita!' because whatever the Rabanan hold in a case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', Rebbi Yosi will hold even when he omits 'me'Hayom', and in the Seifa, in the case of me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', the Rabanan rule Choletzes.

(b)We answer that Rav Huna needs to inform us that Rebbi Yosi 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 Yosi 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 Yosi 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.

10)

(a)Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Yosi with regard to 'Zemano Shel Shtar 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 Yosi's Din).

11)

(a)When Rav Huna said 'Gito k'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 gave.

(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 k'Gito', he meant that if the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tenu', 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 'Tenu'.

(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, v'Amad v'Halach ba'Shuk, v'Chalah u'Mes, Omdin Oso ... ' where the Shechiv-Mera recovered, yet it requires an Umd'na (an assessment) as to what caused his death.

12)

(a)Mar Brei d'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 went from one illness, but not that he recovered.

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).