Tosfos DH "v'Ha"

תוס' ד"ה "והא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's statement.)

פי' בשלמא כדקס"ד דהלך ממש ואם עמד אינו חוזר ניחא דנקט הלך לרבותא אע"ג דהלך ממש צריך אומדנא כיון דעמד אינו חוזר


Explanation: It is understandable as we thought that "Halach" literally means he walks, and if he stands up he cannot retract. It stated "Halach" to teach that even though he literally walked, we require an evaluation (whether or not he died from his first sickness) being that if he got better he cannot retract.

אבל למאי דקאמר דהלך לאו ממש אלא על משענתו אם כן פשיטא דצריך אומדנא ולהכי קאמר קמ"ל דהלך על משענתו כו'.


However, if we say that "Halach" doesn't mean he walked on his own power but rather he walked with a walking stick (to support him), if so it is obvious that we would require an evaluation. This is why the Gemara says that only in a case where he walked on his walking stick would an evaluation be required.


Tosfos DH "Mai Shena"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי שנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that our Gemara argues with the Yerushalmi regarding the difference between these two cases.)

בירושלמי מפרש טעמא רבה איכא דברישא הרי לא מת מחולי זה אבל בסיפא אם לא יעמוד קאמר והרי לא עמד דלא עמד משמע בין ע"י החולי בין ע"י דבר אחר


Opinion#1: The Yerushalmi explains that there is a good reason why the law is different in each case. In the first case, he did not die from this sickness. In the second case he said, "If he will not get up (from the sickness)," and he indeed never got up. Not getting up implies that he will not get up for any reason, whether it is because of the sickness or because something else prevented him from getting up.

אבל גמרא שלנו אינו סובר חילוק זה אלא בכולם משמע ליה שימות מתוך חולי זה.


Opinion#2: However, our Gemara does not hold of this difference. Rather, in both cases it understands that the implication is that he must die from this sickness (in order for the condition to be valid).


Tosfos DH "Eisivei"

תוס' ד"ה "איתיביה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question of Ravina and the answer of Rava.)

תימה מאי פריך ליה רבינא לרבא מגט הא אית ליה לרבא בפרק קמא דכתובות (דף ב:) ללישנא קמא שהוא עיקר כדמוכח בהשולח (לעיל דף לד.) דאין טענת אונס בגיטין


Question#1: This is difficult. What is Ravina asking Rava from the case of Get? Rava holds in Kesuvos (2b) according to the first version of this Beraisa, which is the main version as is apparent in Gitin (34a), that there can be no claim of forced circumstances regarding the giving of Gitin.

כדמפרש התם משום צנועות ומשום פרוצות


This is as explained there (Kesuvos ibid.) because of the women who are modest (and careful) and those who are loose (not careful). (Note: If forced circumstances were acceptable, the ones who are careful will suspect that the circumstances were not forced, and will not get remarried. Similarly, the ones who are not careful will believe their husband was a victim of forced circumstances when he really wasn't, and get remarried when they should not.)

ומאי מהדר ליה רבא נמי ואימא מרישא דאינו גט והא סבר רבא התם דאין טענת אונס בגיטין


Question#2: Additionally, what is Rava's answer that it is possible to see from the first case that it is not a Get? Rava holds that there is no claim of forced circumstance regarding Gitin!

ואפי' באונסא דלא שכיחא איירי התם דשכיח אמרינן התם דלכ"ע אין אונס דמייתי מהא דפסקיה מברא ודחי אונס דשכיח שאני דהוה ליה לאסוקי אדעתיה


The Gemara there is even discussing uncommon forced circumstances. Everyone agrees regarding common forced circumstances that it is not considered to invalidate the condition. This is apparent from the Gemara's establishing the case to be when the river flooded, and its answer that forced circumstances that are common are different, as he should have thought it could happen and included it in his condition.

ואור"י דאיכא שלשה גווני אונס דאונס דשכיח לגמרי לכ"ע אין אונס ואונס דלא שכיח כלל כגון דשמעתין אפילו לרבא יש אונס אפילו בגיטין


Answer#1: The Ri answers that there are three types of forced circumstances. A completely common forced circumstance is clearly not considered a forced circumstance (regarding conditions in a Get). A completely uncommon forced circumstance, like the forced circumstance in our Gemara, is considered to be a forced circumstance even according to Rava when it comes to Gitin.

דליכא למיגזר משום צנועות דסברא דאניס כיון דלא שכיח כלל ומשום פרוצות נמי לא גזור רבנן כיון דלא שכיח כלל


This is because there is no reason to make a decree due to the modest women, as they will also realize that these were forced circumstances as they extremely uncommon. There is also no reason to make a decree due to the loose women, being that this is extremely uncommon.

ופלוגתא דאין טענת אונס היינו בשכיח ולא שכיח


The argument is regarding a forced circumstance that is somewhat common and somewhat uncommon.

ועוד אור"י דאפילו הוי הכא אונס שכיח כי ההוא דכתובות פריך שפיר רבינא


Answer#2: Additionally, the Ri explains that even if our Gemara was discussing a common forced circumstance like that in Kesuvos, the question of Ravina is still valid.

דדוקא גבי אם לא באתי מכאן עד י"ב חדש אמרינן אין טענת אונס בגיטין משום צנועות ומשום פרוצות


Only regarding a case where he says, "If I do not come from now until twelve months from now," do we say that there is no forced circumstances regarding Gitin due to the modest and loose women (as explained above).

אע"ג דלא אסיק אדעתיה אונס דלא שכיח מ"מ הוי בכלל משמעות לשונו דאם לא באתי משמע בכל ענין שלא יבא


Even though he does not think that he will encounter an uncommon forced circumstance, it is included in the implication of his statement, as "If I do not come," implies in any event that I do not come (even due to forced circumstances).

אבל אם מת מחולי זה או לא יעמוד מחולי זה משמע שרוצה לומר שאם ימות ע"י החולי יהא גט אבל אם ימות מחמת דבר אחר לא יהא גט


However, "if he dies from this sickness" or "If he will not get up from this sickness," implies that if he will die due to this sickness the Get will be valid. However, if he will die due to something else, it will not be a Get.

ולהכי פריך רבינא דאם איתא דלא אסיק אדעתיה אונס דלא שכיח משום צנועות ופרוצות אין לנו לומר שיהא גט דדמי לחוכא ואיטלולא דכיון דבכלל משמעות לשונו נמי לא הוי נפילת בית או נשיכת נחש


This is why Ravina asks that if the person does not think about uncommon forced circumstances, we should not say the Get is valid due to the modest and loose women. This is because it is somewhat laughable to declare this a Get, being that in his terminology there is no indication that he is including a house falling down or him being bitten by a snake.

אלא ודאי כל אונס מסיק אדעתיה וכיון דאסיק אדעתיה דעתו לפוטרה בכל ענין שימות ומתוך חולי זה הוא קאמר ולא מחמת חולי זה


Rather, he certainly thinks about any forced circumstance. Being that he thought about it, his intent is to exempt her in any situation that he will die. He means, "from this (time of) sickness" and not "from this sickness."

ורבא מהדר ליה דמשובשת היא דהא קשיא רישא לסיפא ולא משום סייעתא דנפשיה קאמר.


Rava answers him that this is mixed up, as otherwise the first and second part of the Beraisa should be contradictory (as the situations implied are not included in his phraseology in both cases, yet their laws are different). Rava is not mentioning that the first part of the Beraisa is a proof to his opinion.


Tosfos DH "Lo Tisyached"

תוס' ד"ה "לא תתייחד"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara's suspicion is that there will be a new Kidushin, and not that the Get will be deemed "an old Get.")

לפי' הקונט' ניחא דפירש מה היא באותן הימים מילתא באפי נפשה היא


Explanation: According to Rashi this is understandable, as he explained that the question, "What is her status during this time?" as a separate discussion.

אבל בזה גיטיך מהיום אם מתי דרישא לכ"ע הוי גט משעת נתינה לפיכך אתי שפיר דתלי בגמרא טעמא דמתניתין דלא תתייחד משום חשש קדושין ולא משום גט ישן שהרי כבר היה גט משעת נתינה


However, in the case where he says to her, "This is your Get from today if I die" in the first part of the Mishnah, according to everyone the Get is valid from the time it was given. It is therefore understandable why the Gemara explained that the reason of the Mishnah that they should not be alone together is because we suspect that he will make another Kidushin. The suspicion is not that the Get will be invalid because it will be deemed "an old Get," as the Get was already valid from the time it was given.

אבל לפי' ר"ת ור"ח דמפ' דמה היא באותן הימים קאי ארישא אמהיום אם מתי ואפילו הכי לרבי יהודה הרי היא כאשת איש לכל דבריה ואינה מגורשת עד שעה אחת סמוך למיתה


However, according to the explanation of Rabeinu Tam and Rabeinu Chananel the question, "What is her status during this time?" refers to the case, "From today if I die." Even so, Rebbi Yehudah considers her married for all intents and purposes, and she is not divorced until a small amount of time before he dies.

וקשה לר"י דא"כ אמאי תלי טעמא בגמרא משום חששא דקידושין כיון דעדיין אינה מגורשת


Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. If so, why does the Gemara say the reason is because we suspect a new Kidushin, being that she is still not divorced?

ואור"י דודאי לרבי יהודה הוי טעמא משום גט ישן אבל לרבי יוסי דאמר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת ולרבי מאיר דאמר בגמרא דבעילתה תלויה איכא למיחש לקדושין.


Answer: The Ri answers that certainly Rebbi Yehudah holds the reason is because we suspect the Get will become invalid as it will be "an old Get." However, according to Rebbi Yosi who says that she is "divorced but not divorced," and according to Rebbi Meir who says that her relations are "suspended," it is still possible to suspect a new Kidushin.



TOSFOS DH "Ra'uhah"

תוס' ד"ה "ראוה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains that our case is similar to the case of the Mishnah later.)

בהזורק (לקמן דף פא.) תנן המגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדקי ובסמוך מייתי לה ה"ה נתייחדה עמו באפילה כדמשמע הכא.


Observation: In the chapter of ha'Zorek (81a) later, the Mishnah states a case of someone who divorces his wife and then sleeps with her in an inn. This (teaching of Rebbi Yochanan regarding the Mishnah later) is quoted in our Gemara. The same law as applies there applies to our Gemara, as is implied here.


Tosfos DH "Nasan"

תוס' ד"ה "נתן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the term "suspect" is applicable.)

פי' אפילו ראוה שנבעלה כיון שנתן לה כספים


Explanation: This means that even if we say that she had relations with him, being that he gave her money we suspect that these relations were promiscuous.

פרש"י דבזנות אין שייך לשון חוששין דלכהונה כבר נפסלה שהרי היא גרושה ולתרומה לא מיפסלא בת כהן אלא בביאת עבירה שנבעלה לכותי חלל נתין ממזר


Rashi explains that it is not possible to state regarding these promiscuous relations (that do not change her Halachic status if they are indeed forbidden relations) that we "suspect." (Note: What do we "suspect" changed due to this promiscuity?) She already became unfit to marry a Kohen, as she is divorced. A daughter of a Kohen only becomes unfit to eat Terumah if she had certain forbidden relations, such as having relations with a Nochri, Chalal, Nasin, or Mamzer.

ואגב קידושין נקט חוששין


However, because the term we "suspect" applies to Kidushin, we also use it regarding promiscuity.

ומיהו לרבי אלעזר דאמר פנוי הבא על הפנויה שלא לשם אישות עשאה זונה נקט נמי שפיר חוששין בזנות


According to Rebbi Elazar who says that if a single man has relations with a single girl not for the purpose of marriage he has made her into a (Halachic) Zonah, the term "suspect" is understandable.

ומיהו סתמא דתלמודא ביבמות (דף סא:) לא אשכח משנה או ברייתא כרבי אלעזר.


However, regarding the general opinion of the Gemara in Yevamos (61b) on this topic, we do not find a single Mishnah or Beraisa that shares the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. (Note: It therefore seems that our Beraisa is unlike Rebbi Elazar, and used the term regarding promiscuity due to its use of the term anyway regarding Kidushin.)


Tosfos DH "Im Kein"

תוס' ד"ה "אם כן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question.)

דהני תרי מילי סתרן אהדדי דאי חוששין לזנות אין חוששין לקדושין.


Explanation: These two things contradict each other, as if we suspect promiscuity we are not suspecting Kidushin. (Note: Therefore, it is nonsensical to say we suspect promiscuity and even Kidushin.)


Tosfos DH "Tana"

תוס' ד"ה "תנא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos challenges Rashi's understanding of Rebbi Yossi.)

פי' בקונטרס הא דקאמר רבי יוסי מגורשת ואינה מגורשת היינו אם מת לבסוף ובשעת מיתה הויא מגורשת גמורה כדאמרינן ולכי מיית הוי גיטא אבל אם לא מת איגלאי מילתא דלאו גיטא הוא וחייב חטאת


Opinion: Rashi explains that Rebbi Yosi's statement that she is, "divorced and not divorced" is if he dies at the end. When he dies, she is totally divorced. This is as we stated that when he dies the Get is valid. However, if he does not die, it is revealed retroactively that the Get is invalid and he is liable to bring a Korban Chatas.

וטעמא דרבי יוסי מפרש הקונטרס בסמוך משום דאין ברירה ולא אמרינן לכשמת הוברר הדבר שמתחלה היו אותן שעות רחוקות מן המיתה והיתה אשת איש בודאי אלא אין ברירה ונחשבה משעת נתינה ועד שעת מיתה ספק גרושה


Rebbi Yosi's reason is explained by Rashi later as being that one cannot establish a status retroactively. We therefore do not say that when he dies it becomes clear that originally he was far from death and she was certainly a married woman. Rather, we do not establish a status retroactively, and she is therefore considered from the time of the giving of the Get until the time of death a doubtful divorcee.

ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק דאי סבר אין ברירה א"כ כי היכי דעד שעת מיתה הויא ספק מגורשת אע"ג שהוברר הדבר לבסוף שאותן שעות היו רחוקות מן המיתה משעת מיתה ואילך נמי לא תהא מגורשת ודאי אע"פ שהוברר הדבר לבסוף שאותה שעה היתה סמוכה למיתה כיון דבשעה שהיה לגט לחול לא היה מבורר


Question#1: This does not appear correct to Rabeinu Yitzchak. If Rebbi Yosi holds that we do not establish a status retroactively, then just as until he died she was a doubtful divorcee, even it was determined later that those hours were far from his death, from the time of his death and on she also should not be considered to certainly be divorced, even though it is clear that during this hour he was close to death, being that at the time the Get should have taken effect her status was unclear.

ולעיל בריש פרק כל הגט (דף כה:) דייקינן בהדיא דיש ברירה כיון דכי מיית הוי גט ואפילו לא מת מאותו חולי יהיה לנו לומר שתהא מגורשת מספק כל אותם הימים ולא נאמר הוברר הדבר שלא חלו כלל הגירושין


Earlier (25b), we deduce explicitly that we do establish a status retroactively, being that we say when he dies that the Get is valid. Even if he does not die from that sickness we should say she is a doubtful divorcee during this time. We cannot say that it is now clear that the divorce did not take effect at all. (Note: Accordingly, how can Rashi say Rebbi Yosi holds that we do not establish a status retroactively?)

ועוד דבפרק בכל מערבין (עירובין לז:) אמר דלמ"ד אין ברירה לא חייל עירוב כלל ואם כן הכא נמי לא היה להם לגירושין לחול כלל אע"ג דהוברר הדבר לבסוף


Question#2: Additionally, in Eiruvin (37b) he says that according to the opinion that we do not establish a status retroactively, the Eiruv does not take effect at all. If so, here too the divorce should not be able to take effect at all, even though it was made clear in the end (that technically the condition indicates the Get should take effect).

על כן נראה לרבינו יצחק דטעמא דרבי יוסי דאמר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת משום דמספקא לן אם חלין הגירושין משעת נתינה כר' מאיר או חלין שעה אחת קודם מיתה כר' יהודה וכן פירש ריב"ם


Opinion#2: It therefore seems to Rabeinu Yitzchak that Rebbi Yosi's reason for saying that she is "divorced and not divorced" is because we have a doubt whether or not the divorce should take effect from the time it was given, as is the opinion of Rebbi Meir, or whether it takes effect an instant before death, as is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. This is also the Rivam's explanation (of Rebbi Yosi's opinion).


Tosfos DH "Amar Rabah"

תוס' ד"ה "אמר רבה"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue regarding whether or not this statement is referring to the case, "This is your Get from today if I die.")

פי' בקונטרס שאמר בפירוש הרי זה גיטך מעת שאני בעולם ומילתא באפי נפשיה היא ולא קאי ארישא אהרי זה גיטך מהיום אם מתי דהתם לכולי עלמא מגורשת משעת נתינה


Opinion#1: Rashi says that he explicitly says, "This is your Get from when I am still in this world." This is a separate statement that is not relative to the first case of, "This is your Get from today if I die." This is because everyone agrees in that case that she is divorced from the time he gave her the Get.

ואין נראה לר"ת דלישנא דמה היא באותן הימים משמע דקאי אמאי דאיירי לעיל


Question#1: This does not appear correct to Rabeinu Tam. The question, "What is she in those days?" implies that it is referring to the previous discussion. (Note: "Those" implies the aforementioned topic.)

ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דבתוספתא בהדיא משמע דקאי אמהיום אם מתי דקתני הרי זה גיטך מהיום אם מתי מחולי זה הימים שבינתים בעלה זכאי במציאתה כו' ומייתי פלוגתא דהנך תנאי דבסמוך


Question#2: Additionally, Rabeinu Yitzchak says that the Tosefta explicitly implies that it is referring to the case, "From today if I die." This is as it states, "(If someone says) This is your Get from today if I die from this sickness," during the interim days her husband acquires any lost object she finds etc. The Tosefta then quotes the argument of these Tannaim quoted later in our Gemara.

ונראה לר"ת כמו שכתב בפי' רבינו חננאל נעשה כאומר בכ"ף מעת שאני בעולם כלומר מהיום דקאמר היינו מחיים שדעתו לאחר הגט כל מה שיוכל רק שיחול מחיים שעה אחת סמוך למיתתו


Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam understands that the explanation (and text) is as stated by Rabeinu Chananel. It is made "as if he said" with a Kaf (unlike Rashi's text of "b'Omer" with a Beis), "from the time that I am in the world." This is as if to say, when he says, "from today" he means when I am alive. His mindset is to delay the Get from taking effect as much as possible. It should only take effect when he is alive, one instant before his death.

ואע"ג דקאי ארישא אמהיום אם מתי פריך שפיר והא אין גט לאחר מיתה


Even though it is referring to the first case, "From today if I die," the question that there is no Get after death is understandable.

כיון דקתני הרי היא כאשת איש לכל דבריה א"כ אין גט חל משעת נתינה אלא לאחר מיתה אע"ג דאמר מהיום


Being that it says, "She is like a married woman for everything," it must be that the Get does not take effect from the time it is given, rather it takes effect after death even though he says, "From today."

וכן ר' יוסי דאמר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת אינה מגורשת ודאי אלא משעת מיתה ואילך והא אין גט לאחר מיתה


Similarly, when Rebbi Yosi says, "She is divorced and not divorced," he means she is not certainly divorced (but rather doubtfully divorced). It must be he means that she is divorced after he dies. This is why the Gemara asks that this is impossible, as there is no giving a Get after one has died.

וא"ת והא דאמר כל היוצא למלחמת בית דוד גט כריתות כותב לאשתו ופירש בקונטרס שהיה כותב גט על תנאי אם ימות במלחמה והא אמרי' הכא הרי היא כאשת איש לכל דבריה לפי' ר"ת דקאי אמהיום אם מתי


Question: The Gemara says that whoever used to go out to war for the House of David would write a Get for his wife. Rashi explains that he would write a Get on the condition that if he died in war it should take effect (retroactively). However, we say here that such a woman is considered married in the interim, at least according to Rabeinu Tam who says that the statement of our Gemara is referring to the case, "From today if I die."

ומיהו (לפי' הקונטרס) י"ל שהיו מפרשין בהדיא (שמהיום) תהיה מגורשת


Answer: However, one can answer according to Rashi that they would explicitly state that she should be divorced from today (if he dies in war later).

אבל קשה דאפילו לפירוש הקונט' דהכא דבמהיום אם מתי הויא מגורשת לאלתר משעת נתינה מ"מ קשה דהא אילו לא נהרג אוריה היתה בת שבע אשת איש


Question#1: However, this is difficult. Even according to Rashi here who says that in the case, "From today if I die" she would be considered divorced immediately from the time the Get was given, there is the apparent difficulty that if Uryah was not killed, Bas Sheva would have been considered a married woman. (Note: How could David have been with her during this time?)

ועוד קשה דאם לא היה נותן גט אלא על תנאי אם ימות א"כ מאי כל היוצא הלא לא היה צריך תנאי זה אלא למי שאין לו בנים ויש לו אח


Question#2: There is another difficulty. If he would have only given a Get on condition that he dies, why does it say that "anyone" who went out to war would do this? This condition was only necessary for someone who does not have children and he has a brother (and his wife wants to avoid Yibum).

ומיהו זה י"ל דלאו דווקא נקט אם ימות אלא כלומר אם לא יבא בסוף המלחמה ומשום עיגונא


Answer: However, regarding this we can answer that it does not specifically mean that if he dies the Get is valid. Rather, it means if he does not come home from the war, in order that his wife should not be an Agunah (unable to remarry being that she is unsure of whether her husband is dead or alive).

ונראה לר"ת שהיו כותבין גט גמור בלא שום תנאי בצינעא וכשהיה חוזר מן המלחמה היה כונסה והיתה בת שבע פנויה


Opinion: Rabeinu Tam understands that they would write a real Get without conditions in secret. When he would return from the war, he would remarry her. Bas Sheva therefore was single during the war.

והא דאמרי' בהזהב (ב"מ דף נט.) מוטב שיבעול אדם ספק אשת איש ולא ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנא לן מדוד קרי לה ספק אשת איש אע"ג שהיתה פנויה גמורה


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (59a) says that a person should rather have relations with a possibly married woman instead of embarrassing his friend in public. What is the source for this? It is from David. The Gemara calls Bas Sheva in this case a possibly married woman, even though she was totally single. (Note: Why does the Gemara call her possibly married according to Rabeinu Tam?)

לפי שגרשה בצינעא ולא היה ידוע לעולם אם היא מגורשת אם לאו.


Answer: Being that he divorced her secretly, and it was not known in general whether she in fact was divorced, she is called possibly married.