Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 24, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 73

There is a disagreement in a case where a man gives his wife a get conditional upon dying from a sickness and he is cured, is the get cancelled or not? 聽Rav Huna thinks the get is cancelled just like a gift of someone on his sick bed. 聽Rabba and Rava disagree because they are concerned others with think the get is only good after death and therefore will think there is a way to give a get after one dies. 聽The gemara asks how can they override the basic Torah law that will say this is a get. 聽In answer, they give the famous response that the rabbis have the power to annul marriages. 聽To what extent this answer can be applied in other cases is a subject of debate among the Rishonim and in modern times as well regarding resolving aguna cases.

What is the status of a woman whose husband says this is your get from now if I die? 聽She cannot be alone with her husband for fear that they may sleep together for the purposes of betrothal and he will be required to give her a new get. 聽If she sleeps with another man in this period (before he dies), there is a disagreement about whether she is considered 100% a married woman or is she a case where there is doubt whether or not she is married. 聽This would affect the punishment.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛诇讱 注诇 诪砖注谞转讜 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讜诪讚谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

And this teaches us that we require assessment only in a case where he walked with his staff. But in another case, where he did not arise from his illness and walk but immediately became ill again, we do not even require assessment, as it is clear that his death from the second illness was a result of the first illness.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖谞讬转拽 诪讞讜诇讬 诇讞讜诇讬 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖谞讬转拽 诪讞讜诇讬 诇讞讜诇讬 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: Can you conclude from it that in the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift, as he ultimately died as a result of the first illness? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: In the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift.

专讘讛 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讬砖 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara notes: Rabba and Rava do not hold in accordance with this halakha stated by Rav Huna, that if the husband was healed of his illness then the bill of divorce is nullified even if did not specify such a condition. They hold that there is a rabbinic decree in place lest people say that there can be a valid bill of divorce given after death. Since people will see that in this case the bill of divorce took effect only once the husband died, in the future they may mistakenly consider a bill of divorce to be valid even though the husband explicitly made a condition that it would take effect only after his death.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is there anything that by Torah law is not a valid bill of divorce, but due to a rabbinic decree we permit a married woman to marry anyone, even though by Torah law she remains married to her husband? Both Rabba and Rava agree that by Torah law the bill of divorce is nullified once the husband is healed from his illness, yet they treat the bill of divorce as valid. How can this be?

讗讬谉 讻诇 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, the Sages have the ability to nullify even a marriage that took effect by Torah law, because anyone who betroths a woman betroths her contingent upon the will of the Sages, and when one fails to conform to their will in matters of marriage and divorce the Sages expropriated his betrothal from him retroactively. Consequently, it is permitted for the woman to remarry.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well in a case where he betrothed his wife with money, as it is possible to say that the Sages expropriated the money used for the betrothal from the possession of its owner, resulting in a retroactive cancellation of the betrothal. But if he betrothed her by means of sexual intercourse then what is there to say? Rav Ashi said to him: The Sages declared his sexual intercourse to be licentious sexual intercourse, which does not create a bond of betrothal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讛讬讜诐 讗诐 诪转讬 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗注诪讜讚 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讘讬转 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:2): If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then it is not a valid bill of divorce. But if he said: This is your bill of divorce if I will not arise healthy from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then this is a valid bill of divorce.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause such that the bill of divorce is not valid and what is different in the latter clause that the bill of divorce is valid? In neither case did he die from the illness. The Gemara gives no answer to this question.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讗讬谉 诇谞讜

They sent a ruling to Babylonia from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If the husband said: This is your bill of divorce if I am not healed from this illness, and a lion ate him, then we do not need to be concerned about this bill of divorce, for it is certainly not valid.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 诇住讜祝 讗驻讬拽讜 讘讛 谞讛专讗

It is related: There was a certain man who sold land to another, and he accepted upon himself the responsibility for any unavoidable accident that may happen to the land. In such a case he would reimburse the buyer for the damage. In the end they diverted a river into it, meaning the government decided to make a new canal through the land that he sold.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖驻讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 拽讘讬诇转 注诇讱 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗

The buyer came before Ravina to lodge a claim. Ravina said to the seller: Go pacify him, i.e., reimburse him, as you accepted upon yourself responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might happen. Rav A岣 bar Ta岣lifa disagreed and said to Ravina: It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident, and the condition of the sale should not apply in such a case.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讗诐 诇讗 讗注诪讜讚 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讘讬转 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

The matter was circulated, as this ruling was never finalized, and it came before Rava. He said to them: It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident, and the seller should not have to pay. Ravina raised an objection to Rava: Isn鈥檛 it taught that if the husband said: This is your bill of divorce if I am not healed from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him then it is a valid bill of divorce? These cases are both uncommon, unavoidable accidents, yet the bill of divorce is valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诪专讬砖讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

Rava said to him: But you can say an opposite inference from the first clause: If a husband says: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then it is not a valid bill of divorce. Apparently, an uncommon, unavoidable accident is not included within his condition. If so, the inference from first clause of the baraita contradicts the inference from latter clause and it cannot be used to prove either opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And because there is a difficulty presented by the contradiction between the first clause of the baraita and the latter clause, can we no longer raise an objection from it? Seemingly, the challenge raised by Ravina from the latter clause of the baraita is still valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 住讘专讗

Ravina said to him: Yes, Rava was correct. Since there is a difficulty presented by the contradiction between the first clause of the baraita and the latter clause, this baraita was never stated in the study hall and it is corrupted. As it is not possible to rely on this baraita one must follow reason, and the most reasonable interpretation is that his condition would not include an uncommon and unavoidable accident.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讝讘谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗讙讬讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 讗讙讜专 诪诇讞讬 诇注讘讜专讬谞讛讜 拽讘讬诇讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 诇住讜祝 讗讬住转讻专 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗

It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, purchased sesame on the bank of the Malka River. They hired sailors to cross them to the other side of the river, and the sailors accepted upon themselves responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might occur. In the end the Malka River was dammed so that the merchandise could not be transported by river.

讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 讗讙讜专讜 讞诪专讬 讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜 注诇讬讬讻讜 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪讬转诇讬讚

The two Sages said to them: Hire donkeys and release them to us in order to transport the sesame, as you accepted upon yourself responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might arise.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬 诪砖诇讞讬 讙诇讬诪讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗

The two Sages came to court before Rava and he said to them: You white geese [kakei 岣varei], referring to their long, white beards, who strip men of their cloaks. You are acting unfairly with the sailors. It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident for the Malka River to be dammed, and the sailors did not accept responsibility for this case.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: If a woman鈥檚 ill husband gave her a bill of divorce, and made a condition that it should take effect from today if he dies from his illness, then she may be secluded with him only in the presence of two witnesses, lest they end up engaging in sexual intercourse.

讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 砖驻讞讛 讞讜抓 诪砖驻讞转讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讛 讙住 讘讛 讘砖驻讞转讛

This applies to being secluded in the presence of not only valid witnesses; it is permitted for her to be secluded with him even in the presence of a slave or even in the presence of a maidservant, except for the wife鈥檚 personal maidservant. And it is prohibited for the wife to be secluded in the presence of the latter because she is accustomed to her maidservant, and there is concern that she will engage in sexual intercourse with her husband even though the maidservant is present.

诪讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讜转谉 讛讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

What is the halakhic status of the wife during these days between when the bill of divorce was given but before the condition has been fulfilled with the death of the husband? Rabbi Yehuda says: She is

讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

like a married woman with regard to all of her matters, and she remains forbidden to other men. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗讜讛 砖谞转讬讬讞讚讛 注诪讜 讘讗驻讬诇讛 讗讜 砖讬砖谞讛 注诪讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转注住拽讜 讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): If, after the giving of this bill of divorce witnesses saw that she secluded herself with her husband in the dark, or that she slept with him under the foot of the bed, one is not concerned that perhaps they were engaged in another matter, i.e., sexual intercourse. And one is concerned due to their action of licentiousness but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞转谉 诇讛 讻住驻讬诐 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讗转谞谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, then there one is concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal and perhaps through this act he intended to remarry her. If he gave her money immediately following the sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, wherein we say: He gave this money as hire for a prostitute, but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even in this case one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal, i.e., one is concerned that he gave her the money as betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讻诪讗谉

Based on this explanation of the baraita, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel (81a) is relevant only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, but if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him? In the case of a divorced woman who was secluded with her husband after the divorce, Beit Shammai are of the opinion that she does not require a second bill of divorce, while Beit Hillel are of the opinion that she does. In accordance with whose opinion mentioned in the baraita is this?

讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara explains: It is in accordance with everyone. It is in accordance with the opinion of both the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that when they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that they are betrothed, and she does not need a second bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讻住驻讬诐 拽转谞讬

Abaye objects to this understanding of the baraita, according to which the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree about a case where he gave her money after they engaged in sexual intercourse: Is anything with regard to money taught in the baraita?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, but one is not concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讻诪讗谉

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as he holds in accordance with Beit Hillel, that if they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned that she may be betrothed to him and she requires a second bill of divorce. By contrast, according to the first tanna, even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that she may be betrothed.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗祝

Rava objects to this: If so, what is the meaning of the expression used by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: There is also concern that due to their actions they performed a betrothal? If there is concern about betrothal there should be no concern with regard to licentiousness.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻诪讗谉

And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in intercourse with him, then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

讚诇讗 讻讞讚

This is not in accordance with any one of the tanna鈥檌m, for according to Rava the first tanna is not concerned about betrothal even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is concerned even when they did not witness that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

诪讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讜转谉 讛讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

搂 The mishna teaches: What is her status during these days? Rabbi Yehuda says: She is like a married woman with regard to all of her matters. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

转谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬诪讜转 讜诇讻讬 诪讬讬转 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讜诪专 诪注转 砖讗谞讬 讘注讜诇诐

The Sages taught in reference to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita: Their dispute with regard to her status in the interim is stated provided that he dies. The Gemara clarifies: And when he dies, is this a valid bill of divorce? Do they hold that the bill of divorce takes effect after the husband鈥檚 death? But don鈥檛 we maintain that there is no bill of divorce after death? Rabba says that this is referring to a case where the husband says: This should be a valid bill of divorce from the last moment that I am in the world, meaning that it should take effect a moment before he dies.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谞转讬诐 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讛

The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:4): In a case where the husband said: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die from this illness, during the days between, before he dies, her husband is entitled to anything that she finds, i.e., any lost item that cannot be returned to its owner, in accordance with the rabbinic principle that any lost item found by a wife belongs to her husband. And he is entitled to the profits from her earnings, and he is entitled to annul her vows (see Numbers 30:7鈥9), and he inherits from her if she predeceases him,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 73

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讛诇讱 注诇 诪砖注谞转讜 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗讜诪讚谞讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讜诪讚谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉

And this teaches us that we require assessment only in a case where he walked with his staff. But in another case, where he did not arise from his illness and walk but immediately became ill again, we do not even require assessment, as it is clear that his death from the second illness was a result of the first illness.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖谞讬转拽 诪讞讜诇讬 诇讞讜诇讬 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖谞讬转拽 诪讞讜诇讬 诇讞讜诇讬 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: Can you conclude from it that in the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift, as he ultimately died as a result of the first illness? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: In the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift.

专讘讛 讜专讘讗 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 讬砖 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara notes: Rabba and Rava do not hold in accordance with this halakha stated by Rav Huna, that if the husband was healed of his illness then the bill of divorce is nullified even if did not specify such a condition. They hold that there is a rabbinic decree in place lest people say that there can be a valid bill of divorce given after death. Since people will see that in this case the bill of divorce took effect only once the husband died, in the future they may mistakenly consider a bill of divorce to be valid even though the husband explicitly made a condition that it would take effect only after his death.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: And is there anything that by Torah law is not a valid bill of divorce, but due to a rabbinic decree we permit a married woman to marry anyone, even though by Torah law she remains married to her husband? Both Rabba and Rava agree that by Torah law the bill of divorce is nullified once the husband is healed from his illness, yet they treat the bill of divorce as valid. How can this be?

讗讬谉 讻诇 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, the Sages have the ability to nullify even a marriage that took effect by Torah law, because anyone who betroths a woman betroths her contingent upon the will of the Sages, and when one fails to conform to their will in matters of marriage and divorce the Sages expropriated his betrothal from him retroactively. Consequently, it is permitted for the woman to remarry.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讚拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This works out well in a case where he betrothed his wife with money, as it is possible to say that the Sages expropriated the money used for the betrothal from the possession of its owner, resulting in a retroactive cancellation of the betrothal. But if he betrothed her by means of sexual intercourse then what is there to say? Rav Ashi said to him: The Sages declared his sexual intercourse to be licentious sexual intercourse, which does not create a bond of betrothal.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讛讬讜诐 讗诐 诪转讬 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗注诪讜讚 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讘讬转 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:2): If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then it is not a valid bill of divorce. But if he said: This is your bill of divorce if I will not arise healthy from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then this is a valid bill of divorce.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause such that the bill of divorce is not valid and what is different in the latter clause that the bill of divorce is valid? In neither case did he die from the illness. The Gemara gives no answer to this question.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讗讻诇讜 讗专讬 讗讬谉 诇谞讜

They sent a ruling to Babylonia from there, from Eretz Yisrael: If the husband said: This is your bill of divorce if I am not healed from this illness, and a lion ate him, then we do not need to be concerned about this bill of divorce, for it is certainly not valid.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 诇住讜祝 讗驻讬拽讜 讘讛 谞讛专讗

It is related: There was a certain man who sold land to another, and he accepted upon himself the responsibility for any unavoidable accident that may happen to the land. In such a case he would reimburse the buyer for the damage. In the end they diverted a river into it, meaning the government decided to make a new canal through the land that he sold.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖驻讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 拽讘讬诇转 注诇讱 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗

The buyer came before Ravina to lodge a claim. Ravina said to the seller: Go pacify him, i.e., reimburse him, as you accepted upon yourself responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might happen. Rav A岣 bar Ta岣lifa disagreed and said to Ravina: It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident, and the condition of the sale should not apply in such a case.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讗诐 诇讗 讗注诪讜讚 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讘讬转 讗讜 讛讻讬砖讜 谞讞砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

The matter was circulated, as this ruling was never finalized, and it came before Rava. He said to them: It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident, and the seller should not have to pay. Ravina raised an objection to Rava: Isn鈥檛 it taught that if the husband said: This is your bill of divorce if I am not healed from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him then it is a valid bill of divorce? These cases are both uncommon, unavoidable accidents, yet the bill of divorce is valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诪专讬砖讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讟

Rava said to him: But you can say an opposite inference from the first clause: If a husband says: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, then it is not a valid bill of divorce. Apparently, an uncommon, unavoidable accident is not included within his condition. If so, the inference from first clause of the baraita contradicts the inference from latter clause and it cannot be used to prove either opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 诪讜转讘讬谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And because there is a difficulty presented by the contradiction between the first clause of the baraita and the latter clause, can we no longer raise an objection from it? Seemingly, the challenge raised by Ravina from the latter clause of the baraita is still valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜诪砖讘砖转讗 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 住讘专讗

Ravina said to him: Yes, Rava was correct. Since there is a difficulty presented by the contradiction between the first clause of the baraita and the latter clause, this baraita was never stated in the study hall and it is corrupted. As it is not possible to rely on this baraita one must follow reason, and the most reasonable interpretation is that his condition would not include an uncommon and unavoidable accident.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讝讘谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗讙讬讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 讗讙讜专 诪诇讞讬 诇注讘讜专讬谞讛讜 拽讘讬诇讜 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪转讬诇讬讚 诇住讜祝 讗讬住转讻专 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗

It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, purchased sesame on the bank of the Malka River. They hired sailors to cross them to the other side of the river, and the sailors accepted upon themselves responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might occur. In the end the Malka River was dammed so that the merchandise could not be transported by river.

讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 讗讙讜专讜 讞诪专讬 讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讛讗 拽讘讬诇转讜 注诇讬讬讻讜 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚诪讬转诇讬讚

The two Sages said to them: Hire donkeys and release them to us in order to transport the sesame, as you accepted upon yourself responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might arise.

讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讗拽讬 讞讬讜专讬 诪砖诇讞讬 讙诇讬诪讬 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讜谞住讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞 讛讜讗

The two Sages came to court before Rava and he said to them: You white geese [kakei 岣varei], referring to their long, white beards, who strip men of their cloaks. You are acting unfairly with the sailors. It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident for the Malka River to be dammed, and the sailors did not accept responsibility for this case.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 转转讬讬讞讚 注诪讜 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: If a woman鈥檚 ill husband gave her a bill of divorce, and made a condition that it should take effect from today if he dies from his illness, then she may be secluded with him only in the presence of two witnesses, lest they end up engaging in sexual intercourse.

讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻讬 砖驻讞讛 讞讜抓 诪砖驻讞转讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讘讛 讙住 讘讛 讘砖驻讞转讛

This applies to being secluded in the presence of not only valid witnesses; it is permitted for her to be secluded with him even in the presence of a slave or even in the presence of a maidservant, except for the wife鈥檚 personal maidservant. And it is prohibited for the wife to be secluded in the presence of the latter because she is accustomed to her maidservant, and there is concern that she will engage in sexual intercourse with her husband even though the maidservant is present.

诪讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讜转谉 讛讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

What is the halakhic status of the wife during these days between when the bill of divorce was given but before the condition has been fulfilled with the death of the husband? Rabbi Yehuda says: She is

讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

like a married woman with regard to all of her matters, and she remains forbidden to other men. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讗讜讛 砖谞转讬讬讞讚讛 注诪讜 讘讗驻讬诇讛 讗讜 砖讬砖谞讛 注诪讜 转讞转 诪专讙诇讜转 讛诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 谞转注住拽讜 讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): If, after the giving of this bill of divorce witnesses saw that she secluded herself with her husband in the dark, or that she slept with him under the foot of the bed, one is not concerned that perhaps they were engaged in another matter, i.e., sexual intercourse. And one is concerned due to their action of licentiousness but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 谞转谉 诇讛 讻住驻讬诐 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讗转谞谞讛 谞转谉 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝讜 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, then there one is concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal and perhaps through this act he intended to remarry her. If he gave her money immediately following the sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, wherein we say: He gave this money as hire for a prostitute, but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even in this case one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal, i.e., one is concerned that he gave her the money as betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讻诪讗谉

Based on this explanation of the baraita, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel (81a) is relevant only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, but if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him? In the case of a divorced woman who was secluded with her husband after the divorce, Beit Shammai are of the opinion that she does not require a second bill of divorce, while Beit Hillel are of the opinion that she does. In accordance with whose opinion mentioned in the baraita is this?

讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

The Gemara explains: It is in accordance with everyone. It is in accordance with the opinion of both the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that when they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that they are betrothed, and she does not need a second bill of divorce.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讻住驻讬诐 拽转谞讬

Abaye objects to this understanding of the baraita, according to which the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree about a case where he gave her money after they engaged in sexual intercourse: Is anything with regard to money taught in the baraita?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讝谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, but one is not concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 砖谞讬 讻诪讗谉

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as he holds in accordance with Beit Hillel, that if they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned that she may be betrothed to him and she requires a second bill of divorce. By contrast, according to the first tanna, even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that she may be betrothed.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 讗祝

Rava objects to this: If so, what is the meaning of the expression used by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: There is also concern that due to their actions they performed a betrothal? If there is concern about betrothal there should be no concern with regard to licentiousness.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉

Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 专讗讜讛 砖谞讘注诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讻诪讗谉

And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in intercourse with him, then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

讚诇讗 讻讞讚

This is not in accordance with any one of the tanna鈥檌m, for according to Rava the first tanna is not concerned about betrothal even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is concerned even when they did not witness that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

诪讛 讛讬讗 讘讗讜转谉 讛讬诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讙讜专砖转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

搂 The mishna teaches: What is her status during these days? Rabbi Yehuda says: She is like a married woman with regard to all of her matters. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

转谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬诪讜转 讜诇讻讬 诪讬讬转 讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘讗讜诪专 诪注转 砖讗谞讬 讘注讜诇诐

The Sages taught in reference to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita: Their dispute with regard to her status in the interim is stated provided that he dies. The Gemara clarifies: And when he dies, is this a valid bill of divorce? Do they hold that the bill of divorce takes effect after the husband鈥檚 death? But don鈥檛 we maintain that there is no bill of divorce after death? Rabba says that this is referring to a case where the husband says: This should be a valid bill of divorce from the last moment that I am in the world, meaning that it should take effect a moment before he dies.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诪讬诐 砖讘讬谞转讬诐 讘注诇讛 讝讻讗讬 讘诪爪讬讗转讛 讜讘诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讛 讜讘讛驻专转 谞讚专讬讛 讜讬讜专砖讛

The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:4): In a case where the husband said: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die from this illness, during the days between, before he dies, her husband is entitled to anything that she finds, i.e., any lost item that cannot be returned to its owner, in accordance with the rabbinic principle that any lost item found by a wife belongs to her husband. And he is entitled to the profits from her earnings, and he is entitled to annul her vows (see Numbers 30:7鈥9), and he inherits from her if she predeceases him,

Scroll To Top