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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rav Aḥa 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.

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.

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.

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.

The two Sages came to court before Rava and he said to them: You white geese [kakei ḥivarei], 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.

MISHNA: If a woman’s 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.

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’s 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.

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