daf bit: Gittin 13

[cellio]

The mishna teaches: if a man says "give this get (bill of divorce) to my wife and give this bill of emancipation to my slave" but dies before they are given, then they are not given after his death. In the g'mara the rabbis debate whether the declaration was made when the man was healthy or when death was imminent. The instruction of a man on his deathbed has the force of a formal document, which must be heeded, so this mishna, the rabbis say, must apply to a healthy man. (13a)

(I understand why it would be beneficial for the get to not take effect in this case; it is, so far as I know, always advantageous for a woman to be a widow rather than divorced (support, remarriage options). I don't understand the case of the slave, though, unless it's not about the slave but is to ensure that his sons inherit him?)

Comments

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

I would imagine it's simpler than analyzing who would benefit. In general, shelichut does not survive the death of the meshulach. Since gittin are not effective when written, they are effective when delivered, if the man dies before the shtar is delivered, its delivery cannot serve any purpose.

Now I'd imagine the Gemara continues with the question of what happens if he dies at about the same time as the shtar is delivered, and we're not sure which happened first. :-)

[cellio]

Since gittin are not effective when written, they are effective when delivered, if the man dies before the shtar is delivered, its delivery cannot serve any purpose.

Except that the gemara here does say that the rules are different if he's on his deathbed, which is odd given what you said.

Now I'd imagine the Gemara continues with the question of what happens if he dies at about the same time as the shtar is delivered, and we're not sure which happened first. :-)

I would expect that too, and maybe it comes along a little later. On this daf, the mishna included a third case I didn't mention here (transfer of money), and the gemara for the next couple dafim is all over that. I haven't read ahead farther than that to see if we get to timing issues.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Yes, deathbed rules are different in that shelichut is not involved. As I recall the rules:

Case 1: Reuven is healthy, appoints Yiddle as his shaliach. Until Yiddle delivers the get, it hasn't taken effect. Reuven dies before Yiddle completes his shelichut, the get is voided.

Case 2: Shimon is on his deathbed, has the get written, it is effective immediately, he asks Yiddle to deliver it. The delivery of this get can happen after Shimon dies because it's already in effect.

Case 3: Levi is healthy, appoints Yiddle as his shaliach, and changes his mind before the get is delivered. He can retract the delivery of the get and he's still married. (I forget what happens if the get is delivered after Levi has changed his mind, but I think the get is valid in that case.)

Case 4: Yehudah is on his deathbed, has the get written, it is effective immediately, Yiddle toddles off to deliver it, Yehudah makes a miraculous recovery and wants to revoke the get. He can't.

[cellio]

Thanks!

[sethg]

When Jen and I had our wills drawn up, the lawyer included a clause saying that if we or any of our heirs (I forget the exact scope) died within 30 days of each other, then for the purposes of the will the deaths would be considered simultaneous. Of course this made me wonder what the probate court would do if it was unclear whether someone died within 30 days or 31 days.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

Simultaneous? Not "each shall be considered to have predeceased the other?"

The point, of course, is to prevent the estates from going through double probate if, God forbid, there's an accident and it's unclear who died first, or one person lingers in hospital for a week or two.

[sethg]

I don't remember the exact wording, but yeah, I assumed the lawyer put it in so that if we and half of our heirs were killed in the same car crash, the estate would just go to the other half.

[cellio]

Dani and I need to do wills and we, too, want some sort of "if we're in the same accident, for heaven's sake don't bicker over ordering so you can manipulate the estates!" clause. I guess this is standard boilerplate that the lawyer will have on tap?

But yeah, it does invite the "what precisely is a day?" question in the merginal case...

[sethg]

You're looking at this from a good-public-policy perspective; I would suggest looking at it from, umm, a law-as-state-machine perspective.

ISTM that the chiddush [new information about the law that we would not otherwise know] here is that the slave is not actually emancipated until a formal document is delivered to him. So if the owner declares an intent to emancipate the slave but dies before the document is actually delivered, then the slave was still enslaved at the time of death and therefore ownership of the slave passes into the dead man's estate.

[cellio]

Thank you for that insight.

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

Could it also be a matter of intent?

A man who is on his deathbed who says, "Take care of these affairs for me" is planning for his death. If it comes sooner rather than later, that should not be used to deny his intent.

A man in good health who makes such statements is planning for his life rather than his death. If he dies before they are carried out, then it cannot be said that they are being carried out in accordance with his intent. Thus, they are null and void.

[cellio]

That's a good point.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

A childless man who likes his wife may wish to divorce her to prevent her falling in yibum (levirate marriage, which likely doesn't mean much to those who didn't understand the Hebrew).

[cellio]

I hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

(A couple weeks ago in torah study we actually looked up "levir", as it's one of those "translations" that doesn't really help (like "phylacteries"). "Levir" turns out to be from Latin.)