Gittin 81

זכות הראויה לשני

The Gemara answers: It is not referring to the right of a second man that she already married, but rather to the right that is due to a suitor who wishes to become her second husband, meaning that the first husband cannot eliminate the right of a second man who wishes to marry her.

מתני׳ כתב לגרש את אשתו ונמלך בית שמאי אומרים פסלה מן הכהונה ובית הלל אומרים אף על פי שנתנו לה על תנאי ולא נעשה התנאי לא פסלה מן הכהונה

MISHNA: If one wrote a bill of divorce to divorce his wife, and reconsidered and did not give it to her, Beit Shammai say: Although merely writing the bill of divorce does not dissolve the marriage, by doing so he disqualified her from marrying into the priesthood. And Beit Hillel say: Even if he gave the bill of divorce to her conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, and therefore the bill of divorce did not take effect, he did not disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood. A woman is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood only if the divorce takes effect.

גמ׳ שלח ליה רב יוסף בריה דרב מנשה מדויל לשמואל ילמדנו רבינו יצא עליו קול איש פלוני כהן כתב גט לאשתו ויושבת תחתיו ומשמשתו מהו

GEMARA: Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashe from Devil, sent a query to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us. In the case of a priest about whom the following rumor circulated: So-and-so the priest wrote a bill of divorce to his wife, but she is still residing under his roof and attending to him; what is the halakha? Need one lend credence to this rumor?

שלח ליה תצא והדבר צריך בדיקה מאי היא אילימא דאי מבטלינן קלא או לא מבטלינן והא נהרדעא אתריה דשמואל היא ובנהרדעא לא מבטלי קלא אלא דאי קרו לנתינה כתיבה

Shmuel sent the following response to him: She must leave her husband; but the matter requires investigation before he is forced to divorce her. The Gemara asks: What is the investigation that is required? If we say that the investigation is whether we can abolish the rumor that circulated, or we cannot abolish it; that cannot be the question: But isn’t Neharde’a the place where Shmuel is the halakhic authority and the rulings there are in accordance with his opinion, and in Neharde’a they do not abolish a rumor? Rather, the required investigation is to determine whether people in that place refer to giving a bill of divorce as writing. If that is the case, the rumor would be that he gave her a bill of divorce.

וכי קרו לנתינה כתיבה לכתיבה גופה מי לא קרו לה כתיבה

The Gemara asks: And if they refer to giving as writing, it proves nothing, as don’t they refer to writing itself as writing? Therefore, the fact that they refer to giving as writing does not mean that he gave the woman the bill of divorce. The same term would be employed even if he only wrote the bill of divorce.

אין דאי מיגליא מילתא דקרו לנתינה כתיבה דלמא נתן קאמרי

The Gemara answers: Yes, as if it is discovered that they refer to giving as writing, then there is reason to suspect that perhaps they are saying in the rumor that he gave her the bill of divorce, and there is concern that she is actually divorced.

תצא והאמר רב אשי כל קלא דבתר נישואין לא חיישינן ליה

Apropos Shmuel’s statement that she must leave his home, the Gemara asks: She must leave? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: We are not concerned for any rumor that circulates after marriage. According to Rav Ashi, if a rumor circulates that a woman was betrothed to a man, there is concern about the rumor, and she is not allowed to marry someone else until she receives a bill of divorce from her rumored betrothed. But if such a rumor circulates after she has married someone else, there is no concern about such a rumor, and she is not obligated to leave her husband. Here too, in the case of this woman who is suspected of being divorced, she is currently living with her husband. Therefore, perhaps we should not be concerned about such a rumor.

מאי תצא נמי תצא משני

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of Shmuel’s directive: She must leave? This also means that she must leave the second husband. If her first husband dies, and she marries another priest, she must leave him due to the rumor that circulated that her first husband gave her a bill of divorce.

אם כן אתה מוציא לעז על בניו של ראשון כיון דמשני הוא דמפקינן לה ומראשון לא מפקינן לה אתי למימר סמוך למיתה גרשה

The Gemara challenges: If so, you cast aspersions on the children of the first husband. If the reason that she must leave the second husband is because she is assumed to be a divorcée, this means that she remained with her first husband while she was already divorced, and the children they had after the rumor circulated would be disqualified from the priesthood. The Gemara answers: Since we remove her only from the second husband, and we do not remove her from the first husband, they will come to explain the incident by saying as follows: The first husband divorced her proximate to his death, and the children from him are of unflawed lineage. Since he divorced her, she may not marry another priest. Because the assumption here is that the divorce took place proximate to the first husband’s death, there is no concern of aspersions being cast on the children from the first husband.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בר אילעי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations, as the earlier generations were more conscientious about maintaining an unflawed lineage.

דורות הראשונים בית שמאי דורות האחרונים רבי דוסא דתניא שבוייה אוכלת בתרומה דברי רבי דוסא

The Gemara explains: The earlier generations is referring to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai were so careful about the sanctity of the priesthood that they said, as stated in the mishna, that the writing of a bill of divorce alone renders a priest’s wife forbidden to him. The later generations is referring to Rabbi Dosa, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 3:6): A priest’s wife who was taken captive may partake of teruma, and there is no concern that perhaps she was raped while in captivity and thereby became forbidden to her husband and disqualified from partaking of teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Dosa.

אמר רבי דוסא וכי מה עשה לה ערבי זה מפני שמיעך לה בין דדיה פסלה מן הכהונה

In explanation of this statement, Rabbi Dosa says: And what did this Arab do to her when he took her captive? Because he fondled her breasts he disqualified her from the priesthood? As long as it is not determined that her captors actually raped her, she is not prohibited from partaking of teruma. It is apparent from here that the later generations are more lenient than the early generations with regard to the sanctity of the priesthood.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בר אילעי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבן במעשר דורות האחרונים מכניסין פירותיהן דרך גגות ודרך קרפיפות כדי לפוטרן מן המעשר

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations. The earlier generations would bring in their produce from the field by way of the main entranceway [teraksemon], in order to obligate the produce in tithes. By contrast, the later generations would bring in their produce by way of roofs and by way of enclosures, in order to exempt the produce from tithes.

דאמר רבי ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית שנאמר בערתי הקדש מן הבית

The Gemara explains: As Rabbi Yannai says: Untithed produce does not become obligated in tithes until it sees the entrance of the house, through which people enter and exit, as it is stated in the declaration of the tithes: “I have put away the hallowed things out of my house” (Deuteronomy 26:13). As long as untithed produce is not taken into the house through the primary entrance of the house, it is permitted to eat it casually without tithing it. Consequently, they would take the produce in through another entrance in order to exempt it from tithes.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו חצר קובעת שנאמר ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to this issue: Even entry into the courtyard establishes an obligation to tithe, as it is stated: “That they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that once the produce is brought into the courtyard, it is obligated in tithes.

מתני׳ המגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדקי בית שמאי אומרים אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני ובית הלל אומרים צריכה הימנו גט שני

MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife, and afterward she spent the night with him at an inn [befundaki], Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him, since they may have engaged in sexual intercourse at the inn and thereby betrothed her once again.

אימתי בזמן שנתגרשה מן הנשואין ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני מפני שאין לבו גס בה

When did they say this halakha? When she was divorced following the state of marriage. Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Therefore, there is no concern that they engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at the inn.

גמ׳ אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת בשראוה שנבעלה

GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically in a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse,

דבית שמאי סברי אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות

as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.

ובית הלל סברי אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני

And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.

תנן ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני שאין לבו גס בה ואי בשראוה שנבעלה מה לי מן האירוסין ומה לי מן הנשואין

The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the mishna is referring to a case in which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what is the difference to me if it was following the state of betrothal and what is the difference to me if it was following the state of marriage? In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

אלא מתניתין בשלא ראוה שנבעלה ורבי יוחנן דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שלא ראוה שנבעלה שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני

Rather it can be explained that the mishna is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not disagree about a case where they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Everyone agrees that in such a scenario, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him.

על מה נחלקו על שראוה שנבעלה שבית שמאי אומרים אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות ובית הלל אומרים אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות

With regard to what case did they disagree? They disagreed about a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the mishna.

ומתניתין דאוקימנא בלא ראוה שנבעלה במאי פליגי דאיכא עדי יחוד וליכא עדי ביאה

The Gemara asks: And as for the mishna, which we established as discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in which there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to an act of sexual intercourse.

בית שמאי סברי לא אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד והן הן עדי ביאה ובית הלל סברי אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד והן הן עדי ביאה

With regard to such a case, Beit Shammai hold: We do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him.

ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני דכיון דאין לבו גס בה לא אמרינן הן הן עדי ביאה

And Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, even if they were alone together. For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion; these are the witnesses of intercourse.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ואוקימנא למתניתין בשלא ראוה שנבעלה אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that Beit Hillel require a second bill of divorce only when witnesses saw that they engaged in sexual intercourse? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha in all cases is like an unattributed mishna. And we established the mishna to be discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse. How then does Rabbi Yoḥanan rule contrary to the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Some of them hold that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not always rule in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

מתני׳ כנסה בגט קרח תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה

MISHNA: If a woman was married by her second husband on the basis of receiving a bare bill of divorce, i.e., a folded and tied bill of divorce that is missing signatures, she must leave both this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those previously mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier mishna (79b) apply to her in this case as well.

גט קרח הכל משלימין עליו דברי בן ננס רבי עקיבא אומר אין משלימין עליו אלא קרובים הראויין להעיד במקום אחר

With regard to a bare bill of divorce; anyone, even those who are disqualified from bearing witness, can complete it, i.e., sign it in addition to the primary witnesses, so that it will not remain bare. This is the statement of ben Nannas. Rabbi Akiva says: Not all who are disqualified from bearing witness can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. Rabbi Akiva permits only the inclusion of witnesses who would ordinarily be valid witnesses, but who are invalid here because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

ואיזהו גט קרח כל שקשריו מרובין מעדיו

And what is a bare bill of divorce? It is any bill of divorce where the number of its folds is more than the number of its witnesses. In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the bill of divorce is folded and the folds are then tied. Instead of having two witnesses sign at the bottom of the document, witnesses would sign on each tied fold. A bare bill of divorce has more folds than signatures, i.e., some folds lack signatures.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דגט קרח גזירה משום כולכם

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a bare bill of divorce is not valid, considering that there are more than two witnesses signed on it? The Gemara answers: It is a rabbinic decree that was issued due to one who says: All of you should sign. Since it can be assumed that one who writes a folded and tied bill of divorce wants to have each tied fold signed, there is concern that he may have instructed that all of them sign. If they do not sign, the condition is not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce is not valid.

גט קרח הכל משלימין עליו

§ It was stated in the mishna that ben Nannas holds, with regard to a bare bill of divorce, that anyone can complete it. Rabbi Akiva, however, permits disqualified witnesses to sign only if they are invalid because they are relatives of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

ורבי עקיבא עבד מאי טעמא לא דאתו למימר כשר לעדות קרוב נמי אתו למימר כשר לעדות

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the reason that a slave cannot sign? The Gemara answers: The Sages were concerned that people will mistakenly come to say that since the slave served as a witness in this case, the slave is fit to bear witness in all cases. They will use a slave as a witness in situations that demand testimony accepted only from qualified witnesses. The Gemara challenges this: If so, with regard to a relative, too, they will come to say that a relative is fit to bear witness in all cases.

אלא עבד היינו טעמא דדלמא אתו לאסוקיה ליוחסין

Rather, one could explain that with regard to a slave, this is the reason why he is disqualified: There is concern that perhaps they will come to elevate his status with regard to lineage. If a slave signs the bill of divorce, they might say that if he signed a bill of divorce, he must be an Israelite.

גזלן דבר יוחסין הוא ליתכשר אלמה תנן רבי עקיבא אומר אין משלימין עליו אלא קרובים הראויין להעיד במקום אחר קרוב אין גזלן לא

The Gemara asks: If this is the reason why a slave cannot sign, then a robber, who is of unflawed lineage, should be fit to complete the signatures of a folded and tied bill of divorce, according to Rabbi Akiva. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: Not all can complete it. Rather, only relatives who are fit to testify in another case. The Gemara deduces from this: A relative, yes; but a robber, no.

אלא עבד היינו טעמא דאתו למימר שחרורי שחרריה גזלן נמי אתו למימר תשובה עבד קרוב מאי איכא למימר קרוב כולי עלמא ידעי דקרוב הוא

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is the reason why a slave is disqualified: They will come to say that his master emancipated him and he signed because he is now like any other Israelite. Similarly, with regard to a robber, they will also come to say that he repented and will allow him to testify in other cases, as well. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva declared him to be unfit as well. With regard to a relative, what can be said to disallow him to sign this bill of divorce? With regard to a relative, everyone knows that he is a relative, and there is no concern that they will allow him to testify in other cases involving his relatives.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רבה בר שאילתא אמר רב המנונא סבא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה גט קרח קשריו שבעה ועדיו ששה ששה ועדיו חמשה חמשה ועדיו ארבעה ארבעה ועדיו שלשה עד כאן מחלוקת בן ננס ורבי עקיבא אבל קשריו שלשה ועדיו שנים דברי הכל אין משלימין עליו אלא קרוב

§ Rabbi Zeira says that Rabba bar She’eilta says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three. But if its ties total three and its witnesses total two, everyone, even ben Nannas, agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, only a relative can complete it.

אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבה בר שאילתא מכדי כל שלשה במקושר כשנים בפשוט דמי מה התם קרוב לא אף הכא נמי קרוב לא

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba bar She’eilta: After all, all three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce are like the two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce, since the Sages said that a folded and tied bill of divorce requires at least three witnesses. Therefore, just as there, in the case of an ordinary bill of divorce, a relative cannot serve as one of the two witnesses, so too here, a relative should not serve as one of the primary witnesses.

אמר ליה אף לדידי קשיא לי ושאילתיה לרב המנונא ורב המנונא לרב אדא בר אהבה ואמר ליה הנח לשלשה במקושר דלאו דאורייתא

Rabba bar She’eilta said to him: To me as well this was difficult, and I asked that question to Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Hamnuna asked it to Rav Adda bar Ahava, who had transmitted this statement, and he said to him: Leave the case of three witnesses in a folded and tied bill of divorce, as the requirement is not by Torah law. While the requirement to have a minimum of two witnesses in an ordinary bill of divorce is by Torah law, the requirement to have a minimum of three witnesses for a folded and tied bill of divorce is by rabbinic law. Consequently, it is of no concern if the third witness is not fit to bear witness.

תניא נמי הכי גט קרח קשריו שבעה ועדיו ששה ששה ועדיו חמשה חמשה ועדיו ארבעה ארבעה ועדיו שלשה עד כאן מחלוקת בן ננס ורבי עקיבא

The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:9): The dispute between ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a bare bill of divorce that has more tied folds than witnesses is only in a case where its ties total seven and its witnesses total six, or its ties total six and its witnesses total five, or its ties total five and its witnesses total four, or its ties total four and its witnesses total three.

השלים עליו עבד בן ננס אומר הולד כשר ורבי עקיבא אומר הולד ממזר אבל קשריו שלשה ועדיו שנים דברי הכל אין משלימין עליו אלא קרוב

The baraita continues: If a slave completed it with his signature, and the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, ben Nannas says: The offspring of a subsequent marriage is unflawed. And Rabbi Akiva says: The offspring is a mamzer. But if its ties total three, and its witnesses total two, everyone agrees that not all disqualified witnesses can complete it. Rather, it can be completed only by a relative of either the husband and wife or the other witnesses.

רב יוסף מתני כשר והתניא קרוב אמר רב פפא תני כשר

Rav Yosef taught: Only a valid witness can complete it. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: A relative? Rav Pappa said: Correct the language of the baraita, and teach: Valid.

אמר רבי יוחנן לא הוכשרו בו אלא עד אחד קרוב בלבד אבל תרי לא דלמא אתי לקיומי בתרי קרובים וחד כשר

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a folded and tied bill of divorce, the Sages validated only the use of one witness who is a relative, to complete the number of signatures as per the number of knotted folds. But two such witnesses, no, they did not validate them. The reason for this is that perhaps they will come to ratify a bill of divorce with two witnesses who are relatives and one witness who is valid. If the bill of divorce will be challenged, it will be necessary to ratify the document. While this bill of divorce has more than three witnesses signed to it, the court needs to authenticate the signature of only three of the witnesses to ratify the bill of divorce, provided that two of them are not relatives. If there are more than two relatives signed on the bill of divorce, a court may unintentionally authenticate the signatures of two relatives and only one valid witness.

אמר רב אשי מתניתא נמי דיקא

Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, in accordance with this opinion,