Opinion#1: Rashi explains that being that he (the husband) did not have to set a time limit and he specified the amount of time she would have to serve anyway, we assume that he is coming to say that even if he (the son/father) would die it would not be a Get.

Question#1: This does not appear correct according to the Ri. He must (clearly) specify the amount of days regarding the case of the father, and regarding the case of the son according to Rebbi Yehudah who says eighteen months (in order to say that it must be two years).

Question#2: Furthermore, Rashi additionally explains the Gemara's question that according to Rav Ashi, what is the difference between the first part of the Mishnah and the second part of the Mishnah. Rashi explains that being that the first part is like explicitly stating one day, it must be that when the Mishnah states a case where the father or son die, it is where he died and she did not nurse him at all.

Why is this considered a Get? The condition was not fulfilled at all!

It does not appear that everyone will agree that the case of where the son died is where she did not nurse him at all, as explained in the Mishnah.

Opinion#2: The Ri understands that when the Gemara asks, "It is understandable according to Rava etc...and the second part is where he makes an explicit statement," being that he explicitly stated two years he certainly wants to pain her for those two years. Even if he dies, the Get is invalid (as he did not get what he wanted).

However, according to Rav Ashi, being that the first part of the Mishnah is discussing a case where he explicitly states one day, he is also clearly intending to pain her as he stated an amount of time. Even if he dies, the Get should be invalid just like the second case of the Mishnah. (Note: In other words, if in both cases he intended to pain her and not just to receive needed benefit (someone to nurse/serve his son/father) the amount of time explicitly stated should be irrelevant as long as it wasn't fully served.)

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan asks that in Kidushin (61b), the Gemara asks from many Pesukim on Rebbi Chanina who holds that we do not require a double condition. Why don't we say that two of these Pesukim are telling us that only in these places must one use a double condition? (Note: If our Gemara uses this claim, why isn't it used there?)

Answer#1: The Gemara there holds like those who say that Rabban Shimon was addressing the Rabbanan (not Rebbi Meir).

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that if the Gemara would have asked him a question from all of these Pesukim at the same time, he indeed would have answered that these two Pesukim together teach us that we do not require a double condition.

Answer#3: Additionally, Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel has good answers (without using this answer) for why each of these Pesukim is said in this fashion.

Opinion: Rashi explains that they are not considered two Pesukim which teach the same lesson (from which we cannot learn), as all of them are needed, as pointed out by Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in Kidushin (ibid.). (Note: See Maharsha at length regarding why this does not contradict Tosfos' closing statement in the previous Tosfos.)

Question: This does not appear to be correct according to Rebbi Elchanan. The Gemara there does not show that these Pesukim are needed. Rather, it answers that they are not a source to teach that we should require a double condition. However, according to Rebbi Meir who learns from them that one must make a double condition, no added teaching is derived from them.

Opinion#2: It is possible to say that they must be said for some reason.

Explanation: The proof that is brought is because the Beraisa states, "And we do not suspect that the Get is "An old Get." This implies that if he was secluded with her during this time it is "an old Get." However, according to Rav Huna, if he was secluded with her the Get is totally invalid (more invalid than "an old Get").

Explanation: This is explained earlier (18b, DH "Shema").

Implied Question: One cannot prove from here that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yosi despite the fact that Rav rules like Rebbi Yosi. The reason one would say this is because Rebbi Yochanan here is the one who says that Rebbi Yehudah Nesia'h's friends did not agree with him (that the law is like Rebbi Yosi). We should therefore apply the rule that when there is an argument between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, the rule follows Rebbi Yochanan. (Note: Why don't we say this?)

Answer#1: The reason is because perhaps Rebbi Yochanan himself holds like Rebbi Yosi (and he was merely recording an earlier argument).

Answer#2: Alternatively, perhaps only here where the case was where it was a stated condition he does not agree with Rebbi Yosi. (Note: This argument is indeed Rava's uncertainty earlier (see top of 72b).)

Question: What are we worried will happen if we permit her to remarry right away? The condition will definitely be fulfilled! Being that he is dead, he is not going to return to his house.

Answer: It is possible to decree that we should wait due to a case where he did not die. This is because people do not necessarily know that he died, and they will think that the people who are permitting her to remarry are doing something strange. However, after twelve months, everyone knows that his condition has been upheld (and she is at least divorced if not already a widow).

Observation: According to Rebbi Yosi this is actually "a Get, but not a Get" (i.e. a doubtful Get) as stated earlier regarding the case "(from today and) after death" (see Rebbi Yosi's opinion in the Beraisa on 72b).