Gittin

R. Jose, who said that instructions are not transmitted to a messenger? Now if you should assume that R. Jose admits that the Get is valid where he said 'tell,'  then serious results may sometimes ensue, for it may happen that he says to two persons, 'Tell the scribe to write and So-and-so and So-and-so to sign', and they, in order not to offend the scribe, let him sign, and this is not what the husband said?  — The best view therefore is that the first clause follows R. Meir and the later one R. Jose. R. Ashi said: The whole follows R. Jose, and [the last clause] forms a climax: Not only where he omitted to say 'give' [is the Get invalid] but even where he said 'give', and not only where he did not tell three persons but even where he told three persons, and not only where he did not say 'tell' but even where he said 'tell' [the Get is invalid till he says to the scribe etc.]. It has been taught in accord with R. Ashi: 'In the case where the scribe wrote and the witnesses signed for her name, though they had written and signed it and given it to him and he had given it to her, the Get is void unless they had heard him saying with his own voice to the scribe, Write, and to the witnesses, Sign'. The word 'hear' excludes the opinion [mentioned above], that R. Jose admits that the Get is valid where the husband said 'tell'. 'His voice' excludes the statement made by R. Kahana in the name of Rab. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS] THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE, THIS IS YOUR GET [IF I DIE]  FROM THIS ILLNESS, THIS IS YOUR GET AFTER [MY] DEATH, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT.  [IF HE SAYS], FROM TODAY IF I DIE, FROM NOW IF I DIE, THE GET IS VALID.  [IF HE SAYS], FROM TODAY AND AFTER [MY] DEATH, IT IS BOTH A GET AND NO GET, AND IF HE DIES [WITHOUT ISSUE] SHE MUST GIVE HALIZAH  BUT SHE CANNOT MARRY THE HUSBAND'S BROTHER.  [IF HE SAID], THIS IS YOUR GET FROM TODAY IF I DIE FROM THIS ILLNESS, AND HE THEN GOT UP AND WENT ABOUT AND FELL SICK AND DIED, WE MUST ESTIMATE [THE PROBABLE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH]; IF HE DIED FROM THE FIRST ILLNESS, THE GET IS VALID, BUT OTHERWISE NOT. GEMARA. [IF HE SAID, THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE etc.] This would indicate that the formula 'IF I DIE' is equivalent to 'AFTER [MY] DEATH'; yet in the next clause we are told that [the Get is valid if he says] 'FROM TODAY IF I DIE, FROM NOW IF I DIE', which would indicate that it is not equivalent to 'AFTER DEATH'! — Abaye explained that the expression 'IF I DIE' can have two implications, viz., either 'as from now' or 'as from the time of my death'. If he [further] said to her 'from to-day', it is equivalent to saying to her 'as from now'; if he did not say to her 'from to-day', it is equivalent to saying to her 'from the time of my death'. IF HE SAID, THIS IS YOUR GET IF I DIE, HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT. R. Huna said: The wife none the less must give halizah. But it is taught 'HIS WORDS ARE OF NO EFFECT'? — His words are of no effect to the extent that she remains prohibited to all other men and also to the brother-in-law. But since in the later case  it says specifically that SHE GIVES HALIZAH, we understand that in the earlier case  [where it does not say so] she may also marry the brother-in-law? — The Mishnah follows the view of the Rabbis and R. Huna that of R. Jose, who said that the date of the document is sufficient indication.  If we follow the View of R. Jose, she should not require to give halizah either?  perhaps you will aver that R. Huna was uncertain whether the halachah follows R. Jose or not.  But can you indeed say so? For once when Rabbah b. Abbuha was ill, R. Huna and R. Nahman went to visit him, and R. Huna said to R. Nahman, Ask Rabbah b. Abbuha whether the halachah follows R. Jose or not,  and R. Nahman answered, I do not know R. Jose's reason, and how can I ask him the halachah, whereupon R. Huna said, You ask him the halachah and I will tell you the reason. He therefore asked him, and he replied: Thus said Rab: the halachah is according to R. Jose. When he came out he [R. Huna] said to him, The reason of R. Jose is this; he held that the date of the document is sufficient indication. [This then cannot be R. Huna's reason]! — We must suppose therefore that he was uncertain