Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 28, 2016 | 讬状讞 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 46

Can a non Jew write a kosher sefer torah? 聽The Rabbis instituted a takana that if a man divorces his wife due to suspicions about her promiscuous behavior or because of a vow she made, he is unable to remarry her. 聽There are 2 different reasons given for the takana. 聽The tannaim also disagree as to which types of vows are referred to here. 聽There is also a tannaitic debate about a man who divorces his wife because she is infertile, can he remarry her. 聽The opinions of the tannaim here seem to contradict their opinions in the previous mishna and the emoraim聽tries to resolve these contradictions.

Study Guide Gittin 46


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 拽住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬 诪爪讬 诪拽诇拽诇 诇讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪拽诇拽诇 诇讛

or: I am removing you from the house due to a vow. The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an holds: What is the reason that he is prohibited from remarrying her? This is due to potential harm caused to her. If he would wish to remarry her after she had married someone else, he may cast aspersions on the validity of the bill of divorce by claiming that he gave it under a false impression. This may lead to her child from her second marriage to be considered a mamzer. Therefore, if he said to her at the time of the divorce that this is the reason he is divorcing her, then he will be able to cause this harm to her, but if he did not state this explicitly at the time of the divorce, he will not be able to cause this harm to her, as his claim will be disregarded.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注转 砖诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 拽住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讻讱 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬

There are those who say a different version of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi鈥檚 statement. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: He must say to her: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation, or: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to a vow. The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an holds: What is the reason that he is prohibited from remarrying her? So that Jewish women will not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations or lax with regard to vows. The Sages penalized these women who acted improperly by instituting that if they were divorced due to their actions, they cannot return to their husbands. Therefore he must say this to her: Be aware. It will therefore serve as a warning for other women.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讜转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi鈥檚 statement citing Rav Na岣an, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the latter version.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诪讗 转诇讱 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗讞专 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 讘讚讗讬谉 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讬 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讙专砖讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讟 讘讟诇 讜讘谞讬讛 诪诪讝专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:4) in accordance with the first version: Rabbi Meir said: For what reason did they say that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her? Perhaps she will go and marry another man, and later the matter will be found to have been fabricated, i.e., he will find that the rumor was false or that it was possible to dissolve the vow, and he will say: If I would have known that it is like this, then even if they would have given me one hundred times one hundred dinars to divorce her I would not have divorced her; and the bill of divorce will be found to be void, and her children from her second husband will be considered mamzerim. Therefore, one says to him from the outset: Be aware that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讗诪讜专 诇讛 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注转 砖诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:4) in accordance with the latter version: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: For what reason did they say that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her? So that Jewish women will not be licentious with regard to forbidden sexual relations or lax with regard to vows. Therefore, in order to publicize this matter, one says to him upon divorcing his wife: Say to her: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation, or: I am removing you from the house due to a vow.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讛讻讜诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞砖讘注讜 诇讛诐 谞砖讬讗讬 讛注讚讛

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorced her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorced her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? Based on what does he make the distinction of whether the public is aware of the vow or not? As it is written in the Torah portion describing the interaction of the Jews with the people of Gibeon: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel did not strike them, for the leaders of the congregation swore to them鈥 (Joshua 9:18). This teaches that a vow taken in the presence of the public cannot be dissolved. In this case as well, if she took an oath that is known by the public, it cannot be dissolved.

讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪讬 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 诪讗专抓 专讞讜拽讛 讘讗谞讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇诇 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐

And the Rabbis, who hold that such a vow can also be dissolved, respond to this claim in the following manner: There, did the oath take effect with regard to them at all? Since the people of Gibeon said to them: 鈥淲e came from a far country鈥 (Joshua 9:6), and they did not come from a far country, the oath did not take effect with regard to the Jewish people at all, as it was taken under false pretenses. And this, that the Jewish people did not kill the Gibeonites, like they did to the other nations who resided in the land of Canaan, despite the fact that the vow did not take effect, was due to the sanctity of God鈥檚 name. If they would have killed them, they would have desecrated God鈥檚 name by not fulfilling their word, although this vow did not take effect.

讜讻诪讛 专讘讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute the public with regard to this halakha? Rav Na岣an says: Three people. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Ten people. The Gemara explains their opinions.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬诐 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注砖专讛 讚讻转讬讘 注讚讛

Rav Na岣an says: Three, and he derives this from a verse written with regard to a zava. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood for many days [yamim rabbim]鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). Rav Na岣an holds that 鈥渄ays鈥 are a minimum of two, so the addition of the word 鈥渕any鈥 indicates that it means three days. Here too, where the mishna uses the term many [rabbim], it is a minimum of three people. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: The halakha that a vow taken in the presence of the public cannot be dissolved is referring to a vow taken in the presence of at least ten people, as it is written in the Torah portion discussing the people of Gibeon, which is the source for this halakha: 鈥淔or the leaders of the congregation swore to them,鈥 and a congregation consists of at least ten people, as is derived from the episode concerning the spies.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖爪专讬讱 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Meir says: If he divorced her due to any vow that requires investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may not remarry her; however, if he divorced her due to a vow that does not require investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may remarry her. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: They prohibited him from remarrying her in the case where she stated a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority only due to a case where she stated a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Meir holds: A man desires, i.e., does not mind, that his wife should be disgraced in court. Even though her vow would necessitate dissolution by a halakhic authority, the husband may still claim that had he known that it could be dissolved, he would not have divorced her. However, with regard to a vow that did not require dissolution by a halakhic authority but could have been nullified by the husband, he would not be deemed credible to state that he was not aware that he had the ability to nullify it. In such a case, if he were to claim that the divorce was in error, his claim would be disregarded.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And Rabbi Elazar holds: A man does not desire that his wife should be disgraced in court. Therefore, if he were to claim that had he known that her vow could have been dissolved by a halakhic authority he would not have divorced her, his claim would have been disregarded. He is, however, deemed credible if he were to state that he did not know that he had the ability to nullify her vow. Therefore, in the case of a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority, the Sages instituted that he would not be permitted to remarry her, lest he bring the validity of the divorce into question, as explained earlier. Rabbi Elazar also holds that once the Sages instituted this ordinance with regard to vows that do not require dissolution by a halakhic authority, they applied this ordinance with regard to vows that do require dissolution by a halakhic authority as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident in Tzaidan involving one man who said to his wife: It is konam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, for the betterment of the world. What did the mishna teach that causes Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda to teach this incident? The mishna had just discussed a case where the woman took a vow, and it relates an incident where the man took a vow.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖谞讚专讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞讚专 讗讬讛讜 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讬讱 讜讙讬专砖讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In what case is this statement said? When she took a vow, since he may not remarry her in that case. However, if he took a vow, he may remarry her. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was also an incident in Tzaidan involving one man that said to his wife: It is konam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, for the betterment of the world.

诪讗讬 拽讜谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 讻诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讱

The Gemara discusses the formulation of the vow taken by the husband: What is meant by the expression: Konam, as stated by the husband? Generally this term is used when stating a vow of consecration; how does such a vow render her forbidden to him? Rav Huna said that the case is when he says: All the produce that is in the world will become forbidden to me if I do not divorce you.

讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna taught: And they permitted him to remarry her. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as why shouldn鈥檛 he be able to remarry her? The Gemara answers that lest you say: Let us institute a decree due to the statement of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan said: One who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar during the time the Temple stood, when it became prohibited to build a personal altar to God outside the Temple. And one who fulfills a vow, it is as if he sacrificed an offering on this personal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it would be possible to suggest that the husband is penalized and prohibited from remarrying her because he sinned by taking a vow and fulfilling it. Therefore, it teaches us that this is not the case.

诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗专讬砖讗

The end of the mishna stated that the reason for this halakha was for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: What betterment of the world is there in allowing him to remarry her? Rav Sheshet said: This statement refers back to the first clause of the mishna. The expression: For the betterment of the world, is not an explanation of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda鈥檚 statement, but rather, it is meant to explain why there is a penalty that one may not remarry a woman whom he divorced due to her bad reputation or due to a vow she had taken.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讝讜 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Ravina said: Actually, this expression applies to the latter clause of the mishna, and this is what it taught: This is not for the betterment of the world. In other words, when they instituted that he may not remarry her for the betterment of the world, it is only with regard to a case where the woman has taken a vow. However, when the husband takes a vow, there is no element of the betterment of the world and he is permitted to remarry her in that case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife because she is a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit], meaning that after their marriage it became clear that she was sexually underdeveloped, Rabbi Yehuda says: He may not remarry her, and the Rabbis say: He may remarry her.

谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 砖转讬拽讜转讬讱 讬驻讛 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讱

If, after he divorced her, this ailonit married another man and had children from him, meaning that she was not actually an ailonit, and she is demanding payment of her marriage contract from her first husband, claiming that he unlawfully divorced her without paying her marriage contract as he claimed that she was an ailonit and their marriage was a mistaken transaction, Rabbi Yehuda said that he may say to her: Your silence is preferable to your speech, meaning that it is preferable for her to withdraw her claim. If she persists, he may say that he divorced her only because he believed her to be an ailonit, casting aspersions on the validity of the divorce and the status of her children. Therefore, it would be wise of her to withdraw her claim.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the dispute in the mishna: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm, i.e., the harm that she may later incur if he casts aspersions on the validity of the divorce, and therefore rules that he may not remarry her, ensuring that he will divorce her only if he is absolutely certain that he wishes to do so, and the Rabbis are not concerned about potential harm? But didn鈥檛 we learn that they each said the opposite?

讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 [ 专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗] 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗

As we learned in the previous mishna (45b): A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her. And if one divorces his wife due to a vow that she stated, and he could not live with her under the conditions of the vow, he may not remarry her. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorced her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorced her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her. Apparently, the Rabbis are concerned about potential harm, and consequently, they do not make a distinction between one vow and another; and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential harm, and he makes a distinction between a vow that may lead to permissiveness and one that does not.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬驻讜讱

Shmuel said: Reverse the opinions in this mishna. Rather, say that it is Rabbi Yehuda who says that he may remarry her, and he is not concerned about potential harm, while the Rabbis say he may not remarry her, and they are concerned about potential harm.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 砖转讬拽讜转讬讱 讬驻讛 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that it teaches in the last clause of the mishna: If, after he divorced her, this ailonit married another man and had children from him, and she is demanding payment of her marriage contract from her first husband, Rabbi Yehuda said that he may say to her: Your silence is preferable to your speech, and one can learn by inference that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm. The Gemara answers: Here too, reverse the opinions, and it is the Rabbis who stated the last case of the mishna.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讛讬讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘爪专讬讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm. The distinction is that in that mishna, which discussed a woman who took a vow, he holds in one matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he holds in another matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. In the case of a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that there is no concern about potential harm in such a case, as a husband would not desire that his wife be disgraced before the court. In the case of a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that the husband would not be deemed credible if he were to state that he was unaware that he could nullify her vow.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Is it difficult to reconcile the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in this mishna with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the previous mishna, but it is not difficult to reconcile the statement of the Rabbis in this mishna with the statement of the Rabbis in the previous mishna? Abaye only addressed how to explain the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 转谞讗讬 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讗 讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛

Rather, Rava said: It is not difficult to reconcile the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in this mishna with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the previous mishna, as we answered. Additionally, it is not difficult to reconcile the statement of the Rabbis in this mishna with the statement of the Rabbis in the previous mishna, as who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Meir, who said: We require a compound condition stipulating both positive and negative outcomes. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a situation where he did not compound his condition, as he stated only that he is divorcing her because she is an ailonit, but did not state that he would not divorce her if she were not an ailonit. Therefore, his condition is disregarded, and he may remarry her.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

MISHNA: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed, but the children are redeemed after their father鈥檚 death, as there is no reason to penalize them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讜讗 砖诪讻专 讜砖谞讛 讜砖讬诇砖

GEMARA: Rav Asi says: And this halakha, that he is not redeemed, applies only when he sold himself for a first time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a second time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a third time. Since he sold himself repeatedly, the Sages penalized him by instituting that he may not be redeemed.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讘讬 诪讬讻住讬 讚讬讝驻讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 诇诪驻专注讬谞讛讜 讗转讜 讜拽讗 讙专讘讬 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讻讜 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara relates: There were those residents of Bei Mikhsi who borrowed money from gentiles, and they did not have sufficient funds to repay them. As a result, the gentiles came and seized them as slaves. They came before Rav Huna and requested that he instruct the Jews to redeem them. Rav Huna said to them: What can I do for you, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讬诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬谞讜 讜讛讜讗 砖诪讻专 讜砖谞讛 讜砖讬诇砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪专讙诇 专讙讬诇讬 讚注讘讚讬 讛讻讬

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Our master taught me: And this halakha applies only when he sold himself, and repeated a second time, and repeated a third time, which was not the case in this incident. Rav Huna said to him: These people do this habitually, and it is as though they sold themselves for a second and third time.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诇讜讚讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: A certain man sold himself to gladiators [luda鈥檈i]. He came before Rabbi Ami and said to him:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 46

诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 拽住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬 诪爪讬 诪拽诇拽诇 诇讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪拽诇拽诇 诇讛

or: I am removing you from the house due to a vow. The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an holds: What is the reason that he is prohibited from remarrying her? This is due to potential harm caused to her. If he would wish to remarry her after she had married someone else, he may cast aspersions on the validity of the bill of divorce by claiming that he gave it under a false impression. This may lead to her child from her second marriage to be considered a mamzer. Therefore, if he said to her at the time of the divorce that this is the reason he is divorcing her, then he will be able to cause this harm to her, but if he did not state this explicitly at the time of the divorce, he will not be able to cause this harm to her, as his claim will be disregarded.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 诇讛 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注转 砖诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 拽住讘专 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 讛诇讻讱 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬

There are those who say a different version of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi鈥檚 statement. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Na岣an said: He must say to her: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation, or: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to a vow. The Gemara explains that Rav Na岣an holds: What is the reason that he is prohibited from remarrying her? So that Jewish women will not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations or lax with regard to vows. The Sages penalized these women who acted improperly by instituting that if they were divorced due to their actions, they cannot return to their husbands. Therefore he must say this to her: Be aware. It will therefore serve as a warning for other women.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讜转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the first version of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi鈥檚 statement citing Rav Na岣an, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the latter version.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诪讗 转诇讱 讜转谞砖讗 诇讗讞专 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 讘讚讗讬谉 讜讬讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讻谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讬 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 诪讙专砖讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讟 讘讟诇 讜讘谞讬讛 诪诪讝专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:4) in accordance with the first version: Rabbi Meir said: For what reason did they say that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her? Perhaps she will go and marry another man, and later the matter will be found to have been fabricated, i.e., he will find that the rumor was false or that it was possible to dissolve the vow, and he will say: If I would have known that it is like this, then even if they would have given me one hundred times one hundred dinars to divorce her I would not have divorced her; and the bill of divorce will be found to be void, and her children from her second husband will be considered mamzerim. Therefore, one says to him from the outset: Be aware that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her.

转谞讬讗 讻诇讬砖谞讗 讘转专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 驻专讜爪讜转 讘注专讬讜转 讜讘谞讚专讬诐 诇驻讬讻讱 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讗诪讜专 诇讛 讛讜讬 讬讜讚注转 砖诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:4) in accordance with the latter version: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: For what reason did they say that a man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her, and one who divorces his wife due to a vow may not remarry her? So that Jewish women will not be licentious with regard to forbidden sexual relations or lax with regard to vows. Therefore, in order to publicize this matter, one says to him upon divorcing his wife: Say to her: Be aware that I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation, or: I am removing you from the house due to a vow.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讛讻讜诐 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬 谞砖讘注讜 诇讛诐 谞砖讬讗讬 讛注讚讛

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorced her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorced her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda? Based on what does he make the distinction of whether the public is aware of the vow or not? As it is written in the Torah portion describing the interaction of the Jews with the people of Gibeon: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel did not strike them, for the leaders of the congregation swore to them鈥 (Joshua 9:18). This teaches that a vow taken in the presence of the public cannot be dissolved. In this case as well, if she took an oath that is known by the public, it cannot be dissolved.

讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪讬 讞诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 诪讗专抓 专讞讜拽讛 讘讗谞讜 讜诇讗 讘讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讛 砖讘讜注讛 注讬诇讜讬讬讛讜 讻诇诇 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐

And the Rabbis, who hold that such a vow can also be dissolved, respond to this claim in the following manner: There, did the oath take effect with regard to them at all? Since the people of Gibeon said to them: 鈥淲e came from a far country鈥 (Joshua 9:6), and they did not come from a far country, the oath did not take effect with regard to the Jewish people at all, as it was taken under false pretenses. And this, that the Jewish people did not kill the Gibeonites, like they did to the other nations who resided in the land of Canaan, despite the fact that the vow did not take effect, was due to the sanctity of God鈥檚 name. If they would have killed them, they would have desecrated God鈥檚 name by not fulfilling their word, although this vow did not take effect.

讜讻诪讛 专讘讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute the public with regard to this halakha? Rav Na岣an says: Three people. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Ten people. The Gemara explains their opinions.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬诐 砖诇砖讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 注砖专讛 讚讻转讬讘 注讚讛

Rav Na岣an says: Three, and he derives this from a verse written with regard to a zava. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a woman has an issue of her blood for many days [yamim rabbim]鈥 (Leviticus 15:25). Rav Na岣an holds that 鈥渄ays鈥 are a minimum of two, so the addition of the word 鈥渕any鈥 indicates that it means three days. Here too, where the mishna uses the term many [rabbim], it is a minimum of three people. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: The halakha that a vow taken in the presence of the public cannot be dissolved is referring to a vow taken in the presence of at least ten people, as it is written in the Torah portion discussing the people of Gibeon, which is the source for this halakha: 鈥淔or the leaders of the congregation swore to them,鈥 and a congregation consists of at least ten people, as is derived from the episode concerning the spies.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖爪专讬讱 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗住专讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

搂 The mishna taught that Rabbi Meir says: If he divorced her due to any vow that requires investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may not remarry her; however, if he divorced her due to a vow that does not require investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may remarry her. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar says: They prohibited him from remarrying her in the case where she stated a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority only due to a case where she stated a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Meir holds: A man desires, i.e., does not mind, that his wife should be disgraced in court. Even though her vow would necessitate dissolution by a halakhic authority, the husband may still claim that had he known that it could be dissolved, he would not have divorced her. However, with regard to a vow that did not require dissolution by a halakhic authority but could have been nullified by the husband, he would not be deemed credible to state that he was not aware that he had the ability to nullify it. In such a case, if he were to claim that the divorce was in error, his claim would be disregarded.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖转转讘讝讛 讗砖转讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And Rabbi Elazar holds: A man does not desire that his wife should be disgraced in court. Therefore, if he were to claim that had he known that her vow could have been dissolved by a halakhic authority he would not have divorced her, his claim would have been disregarded. He is, however, deemed credible if he were to state that he did not know that he had the ability to nullify her vow. Therefore, in the case of a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority, the Sages instituted that he would not be permitted to remarry her, lest he bring the validity of the divorce into question, as explained earlier. Rabbi Elazar also holds that once the Sages instituted this ordinance with regard to vows that do not require dissolution by a halakhic authority, they applied this ordinance with regard to vows that do require dissolution by a halakhic authority as well.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 转谞讗 讚拽转谞讬 诪注砖讛

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident in Tzaidan involving one man who said to his wife: It is konam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, for the betterment of the world. What did the mishna teach that causes Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda to teach this incident? The mishna had just discussed a case where the woman took a vow, and it relates an incident where the man took a vow.

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖谞讚专讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞讚专 讗讬讛讜 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 谞诪讬 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讬讱 讜讙讬专砖讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: In what case is this statement said? When she took a vow, since he may not remarry her in that case. However, if he took a vow, he may remarry her. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was also an incident in Tzaidan involving one man that said to his wife: It is konam if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, for the betterment of the world.

诪讗讬 拽讜谞诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 讻诇 驻讬专讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讱

The Gemara discusses the formulation of the vow taken by the husband: What is meant by the expression: Konam, as stated by the husband? Generally this term is used when stating a vow of consecration; how does such a vow render her forbidden to him? Rav Huna said that the case is when he says: All the produce that is in the world will become forbidden to me if I do not divorce you.

讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讙讝讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜讚专 讻讗讬诇讜 讘谞讛 讘诪讛 讜讛诪拽讬讬诪讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛拽专讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna taught: And they permitted him to remarry her. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as why shouldn鈥檛 he be able to remarry her? The Gemara answers that lest you say: Let us institute a decree due to the statement of Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan said: One who vows, it is as if he built a personal altar during the time the Temple stood, when it became prohibited to build a personal altar to God outside the Temple. And one who fulfills a vow, it is as if he sacrificed an offering on this personal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it would be possible to suggest that the husband is penalized and prohibited from remarrying her because he sinned by taking a vow and fulfilling it. Therefore, it teaches us that this is not the case.

诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗专讬砖讗

The end of the mishna stated that the reason for this halakha was for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: What betterment of the world is there in allowing him to remarry her? Rav Sheshet said: This statement refers back to the first clause of the mishna. The expression: For the betterment of the world, is not an explanation of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda鈥檚 statement, but rather, it is meant to explain why there is a penalty that one may not remarry a woman whom he divorced due to her bad reputation or due to a vow she had taken.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讝讜 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Ravina said: Actually, this expression applies to the latter clause of the mishna, and this is what it taught: This is not for the betterment of the world. In other words, when they instituted that he may not remarry her for the betterment of the world, it is only with regard to a case where the woman has taken a vow. However, when the husband takes a vow, there is no element of the betterment of the world and he is permitted to remarry her in that case.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 讗讬诇讜谞讬转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife because she is a sexually underdeveloped woman who is incapable of bearing children [ailonit], meaning that after their marriage it became clear that she was sexually underdeveloped, Rabbi Yehuda says: He may not remarry her, and the Rabbis say: He may remarry her.

谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 砖转讬拽讜转讬讱 讬驻讛 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讱

If, after he divorced her, this ailonit married another man and had children from him, meaning that she was not actually an ailonit, and she is demanding payment of her marriage contract from her first husband, claiming that he unlawfully divorced her without paying her marriage contract as he claimed that she was an ailonit and their marriage was a mistaken transaction, Rabbi Yehuda said that he may say to her: Your silence is preferable to your speech, meaning that it is preferable for her to withdraw her claim. If she persists, he may say that he divorced her only because he believed her to be an ailonit, casting aspersions on the validity of the divorce and the status of her children. Therefore, it would be wise of her to withdraw her claim.

讙诪壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies the dispute in the mishna: Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm, i.e., the harm that she may later incur if he casts aspersions on the validity of the divorce, and therefore rules that he may not remarry her, ensuring that he will divorce her only if he is absolutely certain that he wishes to do so, and the Rabbis are not concerned about potential harm? But didn鈥檛 we learn that they each said the opposite?

讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 [ 专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗] 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗

As we learned in the previous mishna (45b): A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation may not remarry her. And if one divorces his wife due to a vow that she stated, and he could not live with her under the conditions of the vow, he may not remarry her. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorced her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorced her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her. Apparently, the Rabbis are concerned about potential harm, and consequently, they do not make a distinction between one vow and another; and Rabbi Yehuda is not concerned about potential harm, and he makes a distinction between a vow that may lead to permissiveness and one that does not.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬驻讜讱

Shmuel said: Reverse the opinions in this mishna. Rather, say that it is Rabbi Yehuda who says that he may remarry her, and he is not concerned about potential harm, while the Rabbis say he may not remarry her, and they are concerned about potential harm.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 诇讛 讘谞讬诐 讛讬诪谞讜 讜讛讬讗 转讜讘注转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛 砖转讬拽讜转讬讱 讬驻讛 诪讚讬讘讜专讬讱 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇拽诇拽讜诇讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that it teaches in the last clause of the mishna: If, after he divorced her, this ailonit married another man and had children from him, and she is demanding payment of her marriage contract from her first husband, Rabbi Yehuda said that he may say to her: Your silence is preferable to your speech, and one can learn by inference that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm. The Gemara answers: Here too, reverse the opinions, and it is the Rabbis who stated the last case of the mishna.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛讛讬讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘爪专讬讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about potential harm. The distinction is that in that mishna, which discussed a woman who took a vow, he holds in one matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and he holds in another matter in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. In the case of a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that there is no concern about potential harm in such a case, as a husband would not desire that his wife be disgraced before the court. In the case of a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that the husband would not be deemed credible if he were to state that he was unaware that he could nullify her vow.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Is it difficult to reconcile the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in this mishna with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the previous mishna, but it is not difficult to reconcile the statement of the Rabbis in this mishna with the statement of the Rabbis in the previous mishna? Abaye only addressed how to explain the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪讗谉 讞讻诪讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 转谞讗讬 讻驻讜诇 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚诇讗 讻驻诇讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛

Rather, Rava said: It is not difficult to reconcile the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in this mishna with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the previous mishna, as we answered. Additionally, it is not difficult to reconcile the statement of the Rabbis in this mishna with the statement of the Rabbis in the previous mishna, as who are the Rabbis in this mishna? It is Rabbi Meir, who said: We require a compound condition stipulating both positive and negative outcomes. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a situation where he did not compound his condition, as he stated only that he is divorcing her because she is an ailonit, but did not state that he would not divorce her if she were not an ailonit. Therefore, his condition is disregarded, and he may remarry her.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗讘诇 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛讘谞讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

MISHNA: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed, but the children are redeemed after their father鈥檚 death, as there is no reason to penalize them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讜讗 砖诪讻专 讜砖谞讛 讜砖讬诇砖

GEMARA: Rav Asi says: And this halakha, that he is not redeemed, applies only when he sold himself for a first time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a second time and was redeemed, and repeated his action by selling himself a third time. Since he sold himself repeatedly, the Sages penalized him by instituting that he may not be redeemed.

讛谞讛讜 讘谞讬 讘讬 诪讬讻住讬 讚讬讝驻讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 诇诪驻专注讬谞讛讜 讗转讜 讜拽讗 讙专讘讬 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讻讜 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转讜

The Gemara relates: There were those residents of Bei Mikhsi who borrowed money from gentiles, and they did not have sufficient funds to repay them. As a result, the gentiles came and seized them as slaves. They came before Rav Huna and requested that he instruct the Jews to redeem them. Rav Huna said to them: What can I do for you, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who sells himself and his children as slaves to gentiles, he is not redeemed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讬诪讚转谞讬 专讘讬谞讜 讜讛讜讗 砖诪讻专 讜砖谞讛 讜砖讬诇砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪专讙诇 专讙讬诇讬 讚注讘讚讬 讛讻讬

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Our master taught me: And this halakha applies only when he sold himself, and repeated a second time, and repeated a third time, which was not the case in this incident. Rav Huna said to him: These people do this habitually, and it is as though they sold themselves for a second and third time.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘讬谉 谞驻砖讬讛 诇诇讜讚讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: A certain man sold himself to gladiators [luda鈥檈i]. He came before Rabbi Ami and said to him:

Scroll To Top