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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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).

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).

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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).

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?)

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).

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).

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.

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?)

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.