Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּהָלַךְ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ – הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן אוּמְדָּנָא, אִידַּךְ – אוּמְדָּנָא נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵינַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁנִּיתַּק מֵחוֹלִי לְחוֹלִי – מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה? אִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁנִּיתַּק מֵחוֹלִי לְחוֹלִי – מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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 he 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.
רַבָּה וְרָבָא לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ יֵשׁ גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא הָוֵי גִּיטָּא, וּמִשּׁוּם גְּזֵירָה שָׁרֵינַן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא?!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אִין, כֹּל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאַפְקְעִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקִדּוּשִׁין מִינֵּיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תִּינַח דְּקַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא, קַדֵּישׁ בְּבִיאָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ מֵהַיּוֹם, אִם מַתִּי מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, וְנָפַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו אוֹ הִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט. ״אִם לֹא אֶעֱמוֹד מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, וְנָפַל עָלָיו בַּיִת אוֹ הִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: אֲכָלוֹ אֲרִי – אֵין לָנוּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבֵּין אַרְעָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ, קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ כֹּל אוּנְסָא דְּמִתְיְלִיד. לְסוֹף אַפִּיקוּ בַּהּ נַהֲרָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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 Aḥa bar Taḥalifa disagreed and said to Ravina: It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident, and the condition of the sale should not apply in such a case.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁפִי לֵיהּ, דְּהָא קַבֵּילְתְּ עֲלָךְ כׇּל אוּנְסָא דְּמִתְיְלִיד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא לְרָבִינָא: אוּנְסָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ הוּא!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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’t 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.
אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, וּמְטָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אוּנְסָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ הוּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: ״אִם לֹא אֶעֱמוֹד מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, וְנָפַל עָלָיו בַּיִת אוֹ הִכִּישׁוֹ נָחָשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט!