## Gittin Daf 72b

###### Gittin 72b:1
[Gittin 72b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:1)

אִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּעַל פֶּה, אִי לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**if Rabbi Yosei says** that the date on which a document is written proves when it takes effect even when the husband stated **a verbal** condition as he handed it over, or **if** Rabbi Yosei **does not say** his principle in such a case.


###### Gittin 72b:2
[Gittin 72b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:2)

וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּהָ לְהִינָּשֵׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** Rav Huna **uncertain** with regard to this matter? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (76b): If one says to his wife: **This is hereby your bill of divorce if I have not come** back here **from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months, and he died within twelve months,** then **it is not** a valid **bill of divorce** because the bill of divorce does not take effect until the end of twelve months, which is after the husband’s death? As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children. **And it is taught with regard to** that mishna: **Our Rabbis** disagree, and **they** rendered it **permitted** for **her to marry,** because they are of the opinion that there is no levirate bond in this case.


###### Gittin 72b:3
[Gittin 72b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:3)

וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בֵּי דִינָא דִּשְׁרוֹ מִישְׁחָא; וְסָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we say: Who** represents the opinion cited as **our Rabbis? Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** It is **the court that permitted** the consumption of **oil** manufactured by gentiles, **and they hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who says: The date** written **in a document proves** when **it** takes effect. Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei this principle applies even when the husband made a verbal condition with regard to the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 72b:4
[Gittin 72b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:4)

אֶלָּא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּעַל פֶּה, אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is necessary to say as follows: Rav Huna **is uncertain if** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei** when the husband adds **a verbal** condition when giving the document, **or** if the ***halakha*** is **not** in accordance with Rabbi Yosei’s opinion in such a case.


###### Gittin 72b:5
[Gittin 72b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:5)

וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ אִם מַתִּי״ וְ״שֶׁאֲנִי מֵת״ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. ״כְּשֶׁאָמוּת״ וּ״לְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – אֵין זֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is** Rav Huna **uncertain** with regard to this matter? **But didn’t Rava say:** If one says to his wife: **This is hereby your bill of divorce if I die, or:** “This is your bill of divorce **when I am dead,** then **this is** a valid **bill of divorce?** If he said to her: **When I die,** or: **After** my **death,** then **this is not** a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 72b:6
[Gittin 72b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:6)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר לַהּ ״מֵהַיּוֹם״, וְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?! וְהָתְנַן: ״מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט! וְאֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אָמַר לַהּ ״מֵהַיּוֹם״, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances? If we say that he said to her:** This is your bill of divorce **from today** if I die, **and** Rava’s statement is in accordance with opinion of **the Rabbis,** which is the unattributed opinion of the mishna, is it **necessary** that this *halakha* **be said by Rava,** an *amora*? **But didn’t we learn** explicitly in the mishna that if he said: This is your bill of divorce **from today if I die,** then **it is** a valid **bill of divorce? But rather, is it not** speaking about a case **where he did not say** the term: **From today,** when he gave the bill of divorce, **and** Rava’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei? Conclude from it** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.**


###### Gittin 72b:7
[Gittin 72b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:7)

לְרָבָא פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, לְרַב הוּנָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is obvious to Rava** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei even when the husband added a verbal condition. **But** according **to Rav Huna,** it **is uncertain** whether or not this is the *halakha*.


###### Gittin 72b:8
[Gittin 72b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:8)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מֵהַיּוֹם״ – וְרַבָּנַן, וְהָנֵי לִישָּׁנֵי אִיצְטְרִיכִי לֵיהּ: ״שֶׁאֲנִי מֵת״ – כְּ״אִם מַתִּי״ דָּמֵי; ״כְּשֶׁאָמוּת״ – כִּ״לְאַחַר מִיתָה״ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** Rava’s statement is referring to a case **where he said to her:** This is your bill of divorce **from today, and** it is in accordance with opinion of **the Rabbis. And it was necessary for** Rava to state his ruling to teach the *halakha* of **these expressions** not stated in the mishna: First, the husband saying: **When I am dead,** is **considered** to be **like** the expression: **If I die.** Second, the husband saying: **When I die,** is **considered** to be **like** the expression: **After** my **death.**


###### Gittin 72b:9
[Gittin 72b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:9)

וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: ״זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ לְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וּלְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, חוֹלֶצֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **And there are those who teach** this statement of Rav Huna **with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna, which states that if the husband said: **This is your bill of divorce after** my **death,** then the bill of divorce is invalid and it is as though **he said nothing. Rav Huna says: But** according **to the statement of Rabbi Yosei she must** nevertheless **perform *ḥalitza*,** as it is uncertain if the bill of divorce takes effect from the day the bill of divorce was given when the date is supplied verbally.


###### Gittin 72b:10
[Gittin 72b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא, מִדְּסֵיפָא – לְרַבָּנַן חוֹלֶצֶת, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי – לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי חוֹלֶצֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this version of Rav Huna’s statement: This **is obvious. Since** it was taught **in the latter clause** of the mishna, in a case where he explicitly stated: From today, that **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis she must perform *ḥalitza*** due to the uncertainty as to when the bill of divorce takes effect, in **the first clause as well,** when he did not add: From today, it is obvious that **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei she must perform *ḥalitza*** due to the uncertainty. The dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis concerns only whether the husband needs to add the term: From today.


###### Gittin 72b:11
[Gittin 72b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:11)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּהָא כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר: גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי, וַחֲלִיצָה נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְעֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא רַבִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְלָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: His statement is necessary, **lest you say** that **with regard to this, Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says: It is a proper bill of divorce, and she is not even required to perform *ḥalitza*.** Therefore, Rav Huna **teaches us that Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yosei does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Each has a unique, albeit similar, opinion.


###### Gittin 72b:12
[Gittin 72b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:12)

רַבִּי לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי: ״כָּזֶה – גֵּט״, לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי – דְּקָתָנֵי: ״כָּזֶה – גֵּט״, לְמַעוֹטֵי דְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, as it teaches** in a *baraita*: If the husband said: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A case **like this** is a valid **bill of divorce** and there is no need for the wife to perform *ḥalitza*. By emphasizing the term: Like this, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi intends **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei,** who is uncertain with regard to the matter. **And** similarly, **Rabbi Yosei did not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **as it teaches** in a mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: A case **like this** is a valid **bill of divorce, to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Gittin 72b:13
[Gittin 72b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:13)

רַבִּי מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵּט, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים; רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה – גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the *baraita* and mishna that demonstrate the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei. **What is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce **from today and after** my **death,** then there is uncertainty whether **it is a bill of divorce or** whether **it is not a bill of divorce,** and the wife must perform *ḥalitza*. This is **the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and **says:** A case **like this** is a valid **bill of divorce** without any uncertainty, and there is no need for the wife to perform *ḥalitza*.


###### Gittin 72b:14
[Gittin 72b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:14)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי, אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִיכָּן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, כְּתָבוּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה – גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei? As we learned** in a mishna (76b): If one says: **Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I have not come from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months,** and the court **wrote** the bill of divorce **within twelve months and gave** it to the wife **after twelve months, it is not** a valid **bill of divorce. Rabbi Yosei** disagrees and **says: A case like this** is a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 72b:15
[Gittin 72b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:15)

״זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ מֵהַיּוֹם, אִם מַתִּי מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, וְעָמַד וְהָלַךְ בַּשּׁוּק כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness,** and he recovered, **and he arose and walked in the market** and became ill again and died, then it must be assessed whether he died from the first illness and it is therefore a valid bill of divorce. But if he did not die from this illness then it is not a valid bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 72b:16
[Gittin 72b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:16)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גִּיטּוֹ כְּמַתְּנָתוֹ; מָה מַתְּנָתוֹ, אִם עָמַד – חוֹזֵר; אַף גִּיטּוֹ, אִם עָמַד – חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** With regard to a person on his deathbed, the *halakhot* of **his bill of divorce** are the same **as** the *halakhot* of **his gift.** The Sages instituted that when a person on his deathbed gives a gift, no formal act of acquisition is required. **Just as** with regard to **his gift, if he arose** and was cured from his illness the gift he granted while on his deathbed is **retracted,** as he gave it only based on the assumption that he was about to die, **so too,** with regard to **his bill of divorce, if he arose** and was cured from his illness, the bill of divorce is **retracted** and nullified, as he gave his wife her bill of divorce only because he thought he was about to die and he wanted to exempt her from a levirate bond.


###### Gittin 72b:17
[Gittin 72b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:17)

וּמָה גִּיטּוֹ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא פָּרֵישׁ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״כְּתוֹבוּ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״; אַף מַתְּנָתוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna continues: **And just as** in the case of **his bill of divorce,** where, **even though he did not explicitly say** his full intention, **once he said: Write** the bill of divorce, his statement is interpreted to mean that the court should give the bill of divorce to his wife **even though he did not say: Give** the bill of divorce to my wife, which a healthy man would need to state, **so too,** this is the *halakha* with regard to **his gift. Once he said: Give** the gift, then **even though** the recipients **did not acquire** it **from him,** which finalizes a gift from a healthy person, because he is dying the *halakha* takes into account his intention without all the necessary legal requirements.


###### Gittin 72b:18
[Gittin 72b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:18)

תְּנַן: ״זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ מֵהַיּוֹם, אִם מַתִּי מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, וְעָמַד וְהָלַךְ בַּשּׁוּק, וְחָלָה וָמֵת; אוֹמְדִים אוֹתוֹ – אִם מֵחֲמַת חוֹלִי הָרִאשׁוֹן מֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט; אִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״אִם עָמַד – חוֹזֵר״, לְמָה לִי אוּמְדָּנָא? הֲרֵי עָמַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **We learned** in the mishna: If a man said: **This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness,** and he recovered, **and he arose and walked in the market, but** then **became ill** again **and died,** the court **assesses him. If he died because of the first illness** then **this is** a valid **bill of divorce,** but **if not** then it is **not** a valid **bill of divorce. And if you say** that **if he arose** and was cured of his illness the bill of divorce is **retracted,** then **why do I** need **assessment** at all? **He arose** from his sickbed, so the bill of divorce should automatically be nullified.


###### Gittin 72b:19
[Gittin 72b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:19)

אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: שֶׁנִּיתַּק מֵחוֹלִי לְחוֹלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says in the name of Rava:** This is referring to a case **where,** instead of recovering completely, **he proceeded from** one **illness** immediately **to** another **illness,** and the assessment is to ascertain whether he died from the first illness or from the second one.


###### Gittin 72b:20
[Gittin 72b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/72b:20)

וְהָא ״עָמַד״ קָתָנֵי! עָמַד מֵחוֹלִי זֶה, וְנָפַל לְחוֹלִי אַחֵר. וְהָא ״הָלַךְ בַּשּׁוּק״ קָתָנֵי! הָלַךְ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **He arose** from his illness, which indicates that he was completely cured? The Gemara answers: No, it means that he **arose from this illness but fell into another illness.** The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t it** also **taught** in the mishna: **He walked in the market?** The Gemara answers: This means that **he walked with his staff** for support, meaning that he was not fully recovered from his illness but was able to walk only with assistance.