Gittin 73A

והא קא משמע לן, דהלך על משענתו ⁠– הוא דבעינן אומדנא, אידך ⁠– אומדנא נמי לא בעינן.

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.

שמעת מינה, שכיב מרע שניתק מחולי לחולי ⁠– מתנתו מתנה? אין, דאמר רבי אלעזר משמיה דרב: שכיב מרע שניתק מחולי לחולי ⁠– מתנתו מתנה.

The Talmud 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 Talmud answers: Yes, as R' 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.

רבה ורבא לא סבירא להו הא דרב הונא, גזירה שמא יאמרו יש גט לאחר מיתה.

The Talmud 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.