Mishnayos Gittin Perek 7 Mishnah 3
Change text layout:
גיטין פרק ז׳ משנה ג׳
If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce if I die from this illness, or: This is your bill of divorce after my death, then it is as if he said nothing, since a bill of divorce is valid only if it takes effect before the husband’s death. But if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die, then this is a valid bill of divorce, because once he dies, the bill of divorce retroactively applies from when he made this statement. If the husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, then it is uncertain whether his primary intention was for the bill of divorce to take effect that day, in which case it is a valid bill of divorce, or if his primary intention was that it should take effect after his death and is therefore not valid. The halakha is that there is uncertainty whether it is a valid bill of divorce or not a valid bill of divorce. And if he dies without children his wife must perform ḥalitza, since perhaps the bill of divorce is not valid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing ḥalitza. But she may not enter into levirate marriage, since perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is prohibited for a divorcée to marry her brother-in-law. If he 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, as his conditional statement was fulfilled, but if not, i.e., if he was cured from the first illness and died from another illness, then it is not a valid bill of divorce.
זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי, זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי מֵחֹלִי זֶה, זֶה גִטֵּךְ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי, מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם מַתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה, גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵט. אִם מֵת, חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. זֶה גִטֵּךְ מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי מֵחֹלִי זֶה, וְעָמַד וְהִלֵךְ בַּשּׁוּק וְחָלָה וּמֵת, אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ, אִם מֵחֲמַת חֹלִי הָרִאשׁוֹן מֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ גֵט:
Bartenura
זה גטך אם מתי. לא אמר כלום. דמשמע לכשאמות, ואין גט לאחר מיתה:
מחולי זה. משמע מחולי זה ואילך, וכיון שמת מתוך החולי נמצא שאין הגט חל אלא לאחר מיתה:
מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט. מספקא לן אי תנאה הוי מהיום אם אמות, וכיון שמת נתקיים התנאי ונמצא שהוא גט משעת נתינתו. אי חזרה הוי שחזר בו ממאי דאמר מהיום, ואמר לאחר מיתה יהא גט, ואינו כלום כיון דלא אמר מהיום אם מתי:
חולצת. שמא אינו גט:
ולא מתיבמת. שמא גט הוא והויא לה גרושת אחיו וקיימא עליה באסור כרת:
זה גטך אם מתי, לא אמר כלום – that implies, when I will die, but there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death.
מחולי זה – implying – from this illness and onwards, for since he died in the midst of this illness, the Jewish bill of divorce would not take effect until after death.
מהיום ולאחר מילה גט ואינו גט – we doubt if he had made a condition to her, “from today if I die,” for when he died, the condition was fulfilled, and it follows that it was a Jewish bill of Divorce from the time he gave it [to her]; and if he retracted, it is that retracted from what he said “from today,” for he said, “after death it will be a Jewish bill of divorce,” and that is meaningless, since he did not say, “from today if I die.”
חולצת – lest it is not a Jewish bill of divorce
ולא מתיבמת – lest it was a Jewish divorce, and she would thereby the divorcee of his brother, we establish that she is subject to a prohibition which would involve extirpation [for it being violated].