In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid. The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head.
If people said to the husband: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he said to them: Write the document, and those people told the scribe to write it, and he wrote it and instructed the witnesses to sign it, and they signed it; even if they wrote it, and signed it, and gave it to him, and he then gave it to his wife, the bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document.
If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce if I die from this illness, or: This is your bill of divorce after my death, then it is as if he said nothing, since a bill of divorce is valid only if it takes effect before the husband’s death. But if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die, then this is a valid bill of divorce, because once he dies, the bill of divorce retroactively applies from when he made this statement. If the husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, then it is uncertain whether his primary intention was for the bill of divorce to take effect that day, in which case it is a valid bill of divorce, or if his primary intention was that it should take effect after his death and is therefore not valid. The halakha is that there is uncertainty whether it is a valid bill of divorce or not a valid bill of divorce. And if he dies without children his wife must perform ḥalitza, since perhaps the bill of divorce is not valid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing ḥalitza. But she may not enter into levirate marriage, since perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is prohibited for a divorcée to marry her brother-in-law. If he said: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and he recovered, and he arose and walked in the market, but then became ill again and died, the court assesses him. If he died because of the first illness then this is a valid bill of divorce, as his conditional statement was fulfilled, but if not, i.e., if he was cured from the first illness and died from another illness, then it is not a valid bill of divorce.
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 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.
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, then she is divorced and must give two hundred dinars in order to fulfill the condition of the bill of divorce. If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me money from now until the conclusion of thirty days, if she gives the money to him within thirty days she is divorced. And if not she is not divorced.Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There was an incident in the city of Tzaidan involving one who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me my coat [itztaliti], and she lost his coat, so that she could not give it to him. And the Rabbis said that she must give him the value of the coat, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is divorced.
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father, or: On the condition that you will nurse, i.e., breastfeed, my son, without specifying a time period, how long is she required to nurse him in order to fulfill the condition? She is required to nurse the baby for two years from his birth, which is the length of time generally designated for nursing. Rabbi Yehuda says: The time for nursing is only eighteen months. If the baby son died or the husband’s father died, this is a valid bill of divorce, even though the condition was not fulfilled. But if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or: On the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, and the son died before she nursed him for two years, or the father said: I do not want you to serve me, then even if the father did not say this in anger and she did everything she was expected to do, it is not a valid bill of divorce because the condition was not fulfilled. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a case like this it is a valid bill of divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a principle: If there is any hindrance to the fulfillment of the condition that does not result from her, then it is a valid bill of divorce.
If a resident of the region of Judea intending to embark on a journey to the Galilee said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and when he was going from Judea to the Galilee he reached Antipatris and he returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to the Galilee for longer than thirty days. The reason for this is because he reached the Galilee and returned to Judea within the time he had allotted. Similarly, if a resident of the region of the Galilee intending to embark on a journey to Judea said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going from the Galilee to Judea, and he reached Kefar Otnai and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to Judea for longer than thirty days. Similarly, if a resident of Eretz Yisrael intending to embark on a journey to a country overseas said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going to a country overseas, and he reached Akko and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently travels to a country overseas for longer than thirty days. If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days, this is a valid bill of divorce.
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce cannot take effect after the husband’s death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children. By contrast, if he said to her: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce takes effect retroactively. Since he did not return within the year the condition was fulfilled.
If a husband said to others: If I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they wrote a bill of divorce during the twelve months and gave it to her after twelve months had elapsed, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed. Similarly, if he said to others: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and they wrote it during the twelve months but gave it to her after the twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed, when it was clear that he did not come back. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: In a case like this, it is a valid bill of divorce, as he did not tell them when to write the bill of divorce. Rather, he stipulated only the time of giving. If they wrote the bill of divorce after twelve months had elapsed, and gave it after twelve months had elapsed, but in the interim the husband died, if the giving of the bill of divorce occurred before the husband’s death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband’s death occurred before the giving of the bill of divorce it is not a valid bill of divorce. And if it is not known which occurred first, this is a case where the Sages said there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.
מִי שֶׁאֲחָזוֹ קֻרְדְּיָקוֹס, וְאָמַר, כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר, כִּתְבוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי, וַאֲחָזוֹ קֻרְדְּיָקוֹס, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר, אַל תִּכְתֹּבוּ, אֵין דְּבָרָיו הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּלוּם. נִשְׁתַּתֵּק, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתֶּךָ, וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים, אִם אָמַר עַל לָאו לָאו וְעַל הֵן הֵן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתֵּנוּ:
In the case of one who was afflicted with temporary insanity [kordeyakos] and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, he said nothing, because he was not lucid at the time. If he said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, when he was lucid, and was then afflicted with temporary insanity and he retracted his previous statement and said: Do not write it, his latter statement is considered to be nothing, i.e., it is not halakhically valid. The mishna continues: In a case where the husband became mute, and two people said to him: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife, and he nodded his head indicating his agreement, they examine him with various questions three times. If he responded to questions that have a negative answer: No, and responded to questions that have a positive answer: Yes, indicating his competence, they shall write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife based on the nod of his head.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ, נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתֶּךָ, וְאָמַר לָהֶם כְּתֹבוּ, אָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב, וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ וַחֲתָמוּהוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לוֹ וְחָזַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ, הֲרֵי הַגֵּט בָּטֵל, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתֹמוּ:
If people said to the husband: Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he said to them: Write the document, and those people told the scribe to write it, and he wrote it and instructed the witnesses to sign it, and they signed it; even if they wrote it, and signed it, and gave it to him, and he then gave it to his wife, the bill of divorce is void unless he himself says to the scribe: Write the document, and he himself says to the witnesses: Sign the document.
זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי, זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי מֵחֹלִי זֶה, זֶה גִטֵּךְ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי, מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם מַתִּי, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה, גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵט. אִם מֵת, חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. זֶה גִטֵּךְ מֵהַיּוֹם אִם מַתִּי מֵחֹלִי זֶה, וְעָמַד וְהִלֵךְ בַּשּׁוּק וְחָלָה וּמֵת, אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ, אִם מֵחֲמַת חֹלִי הָרִאשׁוֹן מֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ גֵט:
If one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce if I die from this illness, or: This is your bill of divorce after my death, then it is as if he said nothing, since a bill of divorce is valid only if it takes effect before the husband’s death. But if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die, then this is a valid bill of divorce, because once he dies, the bill of divorce retroactively applies from when he made this statement. If the husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, then it is uncertain whether his primary intention was for the bill of divorce to take effect that day, in which case it is a valid bill of divorce, or if his primary intention was that it should take effect after his death and is therefore not valid. The halakha is that there is uncertainty whether it is a valid bill of divorce or not a valid bill of divorce. And if he dies without children his wife must perform ḥalitza, since perhaps the bill of divorce is not valid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing ḥalitza. But she may not enter into levirate marriage, since perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is prohibited for a divorcée to marry her brother-in-law. If he said: This is your bill of divorce from today if I die from this illness, and he recovered, and he arose and walked in the market, but then became ill again and died, the court assesses him. If he died because of the first illness then this is a valid bill of divorce, as his conditional statement was fulfilled, but if not, i.e., if he was cured from the first illness and died from another illness, then it is not a valid bill of divorce.
לֹא תִתְיַחֵד עִמּוֹ אֶלָּא בִפְנֵי עֵדִים, אֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, חוּץ מִשִּׁפְחָתָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָתָהּ. מַה הִיא בְאוֹתָן הַיָּמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְכָל דְּבָרֶיהָ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגֹרָשֶׁת:
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 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.
הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, וְתִתֵּן. עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, אִם נָתְנָה לוֹ בְתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו, אֵינָה מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַעֲשֶׂה בְצַיְדָּן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי אִצְטְלִיתִי, וְאָבְדָה אִצְטְלִיתוֹ, וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, תִּתֵּן לוֹ אֶת דָּמֶיהָ:
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, then she is divorced and must give two hundred dinars in order to fulfill the condition of the bill of divorce. If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me money from now until the conclusion of thirty days, if she gives the money to him within thirty days she is divorced. And if not she is not divorced. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: There was an incident in the city of Tzaidan involving one who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me my coat [itztaliti], and she lost his coat, so that she could not give it to him. And the Rabbis said that she must give him the value of the coat, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is divorced.
הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי, כַּמָּה הִיא מֵנִיקָתוֹ, שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. מֵת הַבֵּן אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשִׁי אֶת אַבָּא שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּנִיקִי אֶת בְּנִי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, מֵת הַבֵּן אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הָאָב אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּשַׁמְּשֵׁנִי, שֶׁלֹּא בְהַקְפָּדָה, אֵינוֹ גֵט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, כָּזֶה גֵט. כְּלָל אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, כָּל עַכָּבָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הֵימֶנָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט:
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father, or: On the condition that you will nurse, i.e., breastfeed, my son, without specifying a time period, how long is she required to nurse him in order to fulfill the condition? She is required to nurse the baby for two years from his birth, which is the length of time generally designated for nursing. Rabbi Yehuda says: The time for nursing is only eighteen months. If the baby son died or the husband’s father died, this is a valid bill of divorce, even though the condition was not fulfilled. But if the husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will serve my father for two years, or: On the condition that you will nurse my son for two years, and the son died before she nursed him for two years, or the father said: I do not want you to serve me, then even if the father did not say this in anger and she did everything she was expected to do, it is not a valid bill of divorce because the condition was not fulfilled. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In a case like this it is a valid bill of divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a principle: If there is any hindrance to the fulfillment of the condition that does not result from her, then it is a valid bill of divorce.
הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִיהוּדָה לַגָּלִיל, הִגִּיעַ לְאַנְטִיפַּטְרֶס וְחָזַר, בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ מִגָּלִיל לִיהוּדָה, וְהִגִּיעַ לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי וְחָזַר, בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְהִגִּיעַ לְעַכּוֹ וְחָזַר, בָּטֵל תְּנָאוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֶעֱבֹר מִכְּנֶגֶד פָּנַיִךְ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹלֵךְ וּבָא, הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט:
If a resident of the region of Judea intending to embark on a journey to the Galilee said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and when he was going from Judea to the Galilee he reached Antipatris and he returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to the Galilee for longer than thirty days. The reason for this is because he reached the Galilee and returned to Judea within the time he had allotted. Similarly, if a resident of the region of the Galilee intending to embark on a journey to Judea said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going from the Galilee to Judea, and he reached Kefar Otnai and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently returns to Judea for longer than thirty days. Similarly, if a resident of Eretz Yisrael intending to embark on a journey to a country overseas said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of thirty days, and he was going to a country overseas, and he reached Akko and returned immediately, his condition is void and his wife is not divorced, even if he subsequently travels to a country overseas for longer than thirty days. If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if at any time I will depart from your presence for thirty consecutive days, then even if he was continually going and coming, going and coming, since he was not secluded with her during these thirty days, this is a valid bill of divorce.
הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אֵינוֹ גֵט. הֲרֵי זֶה גִטֵּךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט:
If a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce cannot take effect after the husband’s death. As a result, she is bound by a levirate bond if her husband has no children. By contrast, if he said to her: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within twelve months, this is a valid bill of divorce. This is because the bill of divorce takes effect retroactively. Since he did not return within the year the condition was fulfilled.
אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי, כָּתְבוּ גֵט בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אֵינוֹ גֵט. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵט לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם לֹא בָאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כָּתְבוּ בְתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אֵינוֹ גֵט. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כָּזֶה גֵּט. כָּתְבוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְנָתְנוּ לְאַחַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וּמֵת, אִם הַגֵּט קָדַם לַמִּיתָה, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. וְאִם מִיתָה קָדְמָה לַגֵּט, אֵינוֹ גֵט. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ, זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ, מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגֹרָשֶׁת:
If a husband said to others: If I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they wrote a bill of divorce during the twelve months and gave it to her after twelve months had elapsed, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed. Similarly, if he said to others: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife if I do not come back from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and they wrote it during the twelve months but gave it to her after the twelve months, it is not a valid bill of divorce because he instructed them to write the bill of divorce only after twelve months had elapsed, when it was clear that he did not come back. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: In a case like this, it is a valid bill of divorce, as he did not tell them when to write the bill of divorce. Rather, he stipulated only the time of giving. If they wrote the bill of divorce after twelve months had elapsed, and gave it after twelve months had elapsed, but in the interim the husband died, if the giving of the bill of divorce occurred before the husband’s death this is a valid bill of divorce. But if the husband’s death occurred before the giving of the bill of divorce it is not a valid bill of divorce. And if it is not known which occurred first, this is a case where the Sages said there is uncertainty whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.