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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 13, 2023 | ื›ืดื• ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 89

This week’s learning is sponsored in honor of Gail Licht. “Wishing a mazel tov to Gail upon her completion of the Daf Yomi cycle with the conclusion of Masechet Gittin. With love from all of her children and grand-children.”

This week’s learning is sponsored by Vicky Harariย  in honor of Yael Harari on her birthday. “You are an amazing, daughter, wife, mother, and educator . ืขืœื™ ื•ื”ืฆืœื™ื—ื™”

Today’s daf is sponsored byย Fayeย Schwartz in loving memory ofย  ืื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžืฉื” ื‘ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ืงืœื•ื™ื ื™ืžื•ืก. “It is fitting to dedicate this ื“ืฃ on his yartzhit, as we complete masechet gitten, as he completed the cycle of daf yomi numerous times. His ืืžื•ื ื” and ื‘ื˜ื—ื•ืŸ was so deeply ingrained that he proclaimed to his brother ,as they stood at the gates of Bergen Belsen, that g-d would allow them to survive; despite many challenges that ื‘ื˜ื—ื•ืŸ permeated his every action; it is a legacy that has been embraced by his children and grandchildren.ื›ื™ ื‘ื• ื™ืฉืžื— ืœื‘ื ื• ื›ื™ ื‘ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ื˜ื—ื ื•”

ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื•ืœ ื•ืฉื•ื‘ืจื• ืขืžื•


she is considered to be divorced and may remarry. What is the reason for this? The rumor came with its receipt. The rumor that she is betrothed is canceled by the rumor that she is divorced.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ืฆื ืœื” ืฉื ืžื–ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืคืจื™ืฆื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื• ืœื”


ยง Rava said: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, we are not concerned that the rumor is true with regard to her eligibility to marry a priest. What is the reason for this? It is assumed that people saw her engage in merely licentious behavior, in a manner that does not disqualify her from marrying a priest.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื’ื™ืจื’ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื”ื ื™ืงื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืชืฆื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื™ืฉืื• ื•ื™ืชื ื• ื‘ื” ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื ื”


This statement is parallel to one side of a dispute among the tannaโ€™im: If a woman ate in the marketplace, walked with her neck stretched forward in an arrogant manner in the marketplace, or nursed in the marketplace, with regard to all of these cases Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband, since all of these behaviors are considered licentious behavior. Rabbi Akiva says that she must leave him only once the women who spin [mozerot] by the moonlight converse about her having engaged in promiscuous sexual intercourse, as this indicates that the matter is well known and accepted as fact.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื ื—ืช ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ืจื”ื ืื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืชื—ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื›ื™ ืžืฆื ื‘ื” ืขืจื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืœื”ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืขื“ื™ื ืื• ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืงื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจื•ืจ


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you have not allowed any daughter of Abraham our forefather to remain with her husband, i.e., all wives will be forced to leave their husbands, as it is common for women to slander their peers. And the Torah said: โ€œBecause he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severanceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it says over there: โ€œAt the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be establishedโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:15). Just as there, the word โ€œmatterโ€ is referring to a clear matter, as it is established through witnesses, so too here, the unseemly matter that is considered a cause for divorce is also referring to a clear matter that was not established merely through a rumor. Ravaโ€™s statement is in accordance with this opinion.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ื ืฉื•ืื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืืจื•ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉืœื ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื—ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”


The Sages taught: If a rumor circulated that a certain unmarried woman is a non-virgin, one is not concerned about it, and she may marry a High Priest. If a rumor circulated that she is a married woman, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is a betrothed woman, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is betrothed, but not to so-and-so, i.e., the man who betrothed her is not specified, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she was betrothed in another city, one is not concerned about it.


ืžืžื–ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉืคื—ื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”


If a rumor circulated that she is a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is a maidservant, one is not concerned about it.


ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ


Similarly, if a rumor circulated that so-and-so consecrated his property, or that so-and-so renounced ownership of his property, we are not concerned about these rumors, and his property cannot be taken away by the Temple treasury or another person.


ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื”ื™ื•ื


ยง Ulla says: The rumor mentioned in the mishna with regard to betrothal is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where there is circumstantial evidence, as there are candles lit and beds made in the womanโ€™s house, as was the custom for brides, and people entering and leaving and saying that so-and-so is becoming betrothed today.


ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืืงื“ืฉื” ืื™ืžื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื


The Gemara asks: If people merely are saying that she is becoming betrothed, what is the reason for concern? Perhaps she was not betrothed in the end. Rather, say that people are saying that so-and-so was betrothed today.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืฉื™ืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื ืฉื™ื ื˜ื•ื•ืช ืœืื•ืจ ื”ื ืจ ื•ืฉืžื—ื•ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื•ืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืืงื“ืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืื™ืžื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื


And similarly, Levi taught a baraita: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only hear an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where candles are lit and beds are made, and women are spinning by candlelight and rejoicing for her and saying that so-and-so is becoming betrothed today. The Gemara asks: If they are merely saying that she is becoming betrothed, what is the reason for concern? Perhaps she was not betrothed in the end. Rav Pappa said: Say that they are saying that so-and-so was betrothed today.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ืงื•ืœ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”ื• ืืžืชืœื


Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where there are candles lit and beds made and people entering and leaving. If they made an explicit statement that the woman was betrothed, this is a rumor that renders her betrothed. If they did not make such a statement, this is the explanation mentioned in the mishna.


ืœื ืืžืจื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืืžืจื• ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืืžืชืœื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื™ืžื™ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืืžืชืœื ื”ื ืืžืจื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืืžืชืœื


The Gemara asks: If they did not make such a statement, why is it considered an explanation? But they did not say anything that requires an explanation. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did not mean that the people did not say anything, but rather that they did not state unequivocally that the woman is betrothed, to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The explanation mentioned in the mishna negates the rumor even if it circulates at some point from now until ten days after the rumor begins to circulate. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan therefore teaches us that only if the people did not say unequivocally that she is betrothed is it considered an explanation that negates the rumor. But if they said so unequivocally, any later explanation is not considered an explanation that negates the rumor.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจื• ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืžื’ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ืจื•ืจ


Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where people say: From where did so-and-so hear that this woman is betrothed? From so-and-so, and so-and-so heard it from so-and-so. And as a result, the judges investigate the rumor continuously, tracing the hearsay until they reach a clear matter, i.e., eyewitnesses.


ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืขื“ื•ืช ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจื• ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืœื”ื ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara raises an objection: If the court reaches a clear matter it is proper testimony, not a rumor. Rather, when Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he taught that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where people say: From where did so-and-so hear this? From so-and-so, and so-and-so heard it from so-and-so, and they went overseas, so that the court cannot investigate further.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืื• ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืžืขื• ืžืคื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื


ยง Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do we suppress a rumor that was not substantiated by the court, or do we not suppress it? He said to him: Since Rav แธคisda says that a rumor is not treated stringently until the court hears it from valid witnesses, which indicates that rumors are generally treated leniently, learn from it that we suppress a rumor.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืคื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืงื•ืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื


Abaye said to him: On the contrary, since Rav Sheshet said that even if the court hears it from women it is considered a serious rumor, indicating that rumors are treated stringently, learn from it that we do not suppress a rumor.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืชืจื•ื•ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืกื•ืจื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื


Rav Yosef said to him: These opinions correspond to the local custom in two different places. In Sura they suppress a rumor, whereas in Nehardeโ€™a they do not suppress a rumor.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ืœื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืืชื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ืœืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ ื—ื•ื–ืื™ ื•ืื–ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ืงืœื ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžืชืœื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ืš ื“ืžื—ื–ืงืช ืืžืชืœื


The Gemara relates several incidents: A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed to a student of Torah. Rav แธคama summoned her father and said to him: Tell me exactly how the incident transpired. The father said to him: The student betrothed her conditionally, with the intention that he would not go to the city of Bei แธคozai, and he subsequently went there, thereby nullifying the betrothal. Rav แธคama said to him: Since at the time that the rumor existed this explanation did not exist, it is not in your power to create the presumption of an explanation. Therefore, the rumor must be treated stringently.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ืืฆื™ืคื ื“ืชื•ื—ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืฉื™ืคื™ ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื‘ื”ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื”ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed with a mat of dates [atzifa detoแธฅela] from the spring of Bei Shifei. Rav Idi bar Avin sent the case to be presented before Abaye, asking him: What is the halakha in a case like this? Should this rumor be suppressed? Abaye said to him: Even according to the one who said that we do not suppress a rumor, in this case we suppress the rumor. This is because if she marries someone else people will not slander her. Rather, they will say that the Sages investigated her betrothal, i.e., the value of the mat of dates with which she was betrothed, and concluded that it was not worth one peruta and therefore the betrothal was invalid.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื”


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed


ืœื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ืคืœื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื‘ื”ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื•ื•


to one of the sons of so-and-so, who had both adult and minor sons. The son to whom she was betrothed was not specified. Rava said: Even according to the one who says that we do not suppress a rumor, in this case we suppress the rumor. People will not slander her. Rather, they will say that the Sages investigated the betrothal and concluded that it was the betrothal of a minor.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ืœืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื ืจืื” ื›ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื“ื›ื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ืœืคืœื’ื•ืช ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœืคืœื’ื•ืช ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื—ืงืจื™ ืœื‘


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed to a minor boy who looked like an adult, as his body was developed like an adult. Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: There was a precedent in which the Sages said that there is no concern that people will think that the woman is betrothed, since the boy did not yet reach the divisions of Reuben, i.e., the competence of adulthood, as it is stated: โ€œAmong the divisions of Reuben there were major resolves of heartโ€ (Judges 5:16). Therefore, the betrothal is rendered entirely invalid, and there is no concern of slander.


ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืชืœื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืžืชืœื ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืืžืชืœื


ยง It is stated in the mishna that a rumor is treated seriously only provided there is no explanation. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The explanation mentioned in the mishna negates the rumor even if it circulates at some point from now, i.e., from the time the rumor circulated, until ten days afterward. Rav Zevid says: Where there is the reasonable possibility of an explanation, we are concerned about the possibility of an explanation even if it is not mentioned explicitly, and the rumor is therefore disregarded.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืžืชืœื ืงืืžืจ


Rav Pappa raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Zevid from the expression in the mishna: Provided there is no explanation, which indicates that the explanation must be mentioned for it to be regarded. Rav Zevid said to him: The mishna is saying that where there is the reasonable possibility of an explanation the rumor is disregarded, even if it was not mentioned.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืช ืœื ืชืกื‘ืจื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ


Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: And you, do you not hold Rav Zevidโ€™s statement to be true? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna that if a woman was betrothed after her husband was taken for dead, and then her husband came back, she is permitted to return to him (Yevamot 92a), which would not have been the case if she had been married and not merely betrothed? Isnโ€™t this because we say that the second man betrothed her conditionally, stipulating that if her husband is found to be alive the betrothal is null, even though this explanation did not circulate explicitly?


ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืงื ืžืขืจืขืจ


The Gemara answers: It is different there because the husband comes and contests the betrothal, which shows clearly that he never divorced her and that her betrothal was mistaken. Therefore, there is no need for an additional explanation.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ื™ืฉืืช ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืฉืืช ื“ืขื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: If so, in a case where she married the second man, it should also be permitted for her to return to her first husband. Why do the Sages render it prohibited for her to do so? The Gemara answers: In a case where she married him, since she performed a prohibited action, albeit unintentionally, by engaging in sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband while she was married, the Sages penalized her. By contrast, in a case where she was merely betrothed, since she did not perform a prohibited action, the Sages did not penalize her.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœืื• ืงืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”


ยง Rav Ashi said: Any rumor that was not confirmed in court is not regarded as a significant rumor. And Rav Ashi said: With regard to any rumor that was spread about a woman after her marriage, we are not concerned about it. She need not leave her husband, and he need not divorce her. The Gemara infers that if the rumor circulated after her betrothal we are concerned about it, and she must be divorced from her betrothed. Rav แธคaviva said: Even if it circulated after her betrothal, we are still not concerned about it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we are not concerned about it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื™ืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืœ ืžืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืฉืœื— ืœื”ื• ืชืฆื ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื ื™


Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that a group of students from the study hall of Rav sent the following question to Shmuel after Ravโ€™s death: Teach us, our master: If a rumor circulated about a woman that she is betrothed to a first man, and another man came and betrothed her in a manner of betrothal that is recognized by Torah law, as there is clear testimony of it, what is the halakha? He sent them an answer: She must leave the second man, and you clarify the matter to figure out exactly what happened and inform me.


ืžืื™ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืื™ ืžื’ืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื“ืงืžื ืœืื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื•ื”ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชืจื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื ืืœื ื“ืื™ ืžื™ื’ืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงืžื ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื ื™


The Gemara asks: What is meant by: And you clarify the matter? If we say that he said this so that if it is discovered that the betrothal of the first man was not a proper betrothal we should suppress the rumor, thereby permitting her to marry the second man, isnโ€™t Nehardeโ€™a Shmuelโ€™s locale? And as mentioned above, in Nehardeโ€™a they would not suppress a rumor. Rather, he must have instructed them in this manner because if it is discovered that the betrothal of the first man was a proper betrothal, she does not need a bill of divorce from the second man.


ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ืฉืคืฉื˜ื” ื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืื—ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช


And in ruling that she does not need a bill of divorce from the second man, Shmuel is in disagreement with Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: In the case of a married woman who extended her hand and received money or a document of betrothal from another man, it is considered uncertain whether or not the woman is betrothed to him, and she needs a bill of divorce from him.


ืžื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”


Rav Hunaโ€™s opinion is based on a principle stated by Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says that a woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible, due to the presumption that a wife is not so brazen to lie in this manner before her husband. Therefore, in the case brought before Shmuel, the fact that the woman received money or a document of betrothal from the second man should be considered sufficient basis for the rumor to be suppressed, since if she were already betrothed she certainly would not have accepted the betrothal from him.


ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžืขื™ื–ื” ื•ืžืขื™ื–ื”


The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Shmuel, who disagrees with Rav Huna, relate to this principle? The Gemara answers: He holds that Rav Hamnunaโ€™s principle was stated in reference to a case when the wife says in her husbandโ€™s presence that he divorced her, but when she is not in his presence she is certainly brazen enough to lie in this manner. Therefore, in the case brought before Shmuel, the woman may have accepted the betrothal of the other man because it was not in her husbandโ€™s presence.


ืœื ืžืฆืื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ืžื”ื•


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if they did not find a clear matter, i.e., they could not establish with certainty whether she was betrothed to the first man?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื’ืจืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ


Rav Huna says: The first man divorces her and the second man marries her. But for the second man to divorce her and the first man to marry her is not permitted. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that it is not permitted? It is prohibited lest people come to say that the first man is remarrying his divorcรฉe after her betrothal to another man, as they will mistakenly assume that the first man betrothed her and then divorced her, thereby enabling her to be betrothed to the second man. Therefore, if he marries her after she is divorced from the second man, people will conclude that he is in violation of the Torah prohibition of remarrying oneโ€™s divorcรฉe after she was married to another man.


ืจื‘ ืฉื™ื ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื˜ืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื”


Rav Shinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: For the second man to divorce her and the first man to marry her is also permitted. There is no concern that people will assume that the first man is remarrying his divorcรฉe, as they will say that the Sages investigated the second manโ€™s betrothal and found that it was a mistaken betrothal.


ื™ืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืœ ืžื–ื” ื•ืžื–ื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื’ืจืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœืฉื ื™ื”ื


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if a rumor circulated about her having been betrothed to this man and then another rumor was spread that she became betrothed to that man? Rav Pappa says: In this case too, the first man divorces her and the second man marries her, due to the previously mentioned concern that people will think that he is remarrying his divorcรฉe after she was betrothed to another man. Ameimar says: She is permitted to both the first and the second man. One of them must divorce her while the other may marry her.


  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 86-90 + siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week, as we finish the last chapter, we will learn what Gets (Gittin) are invalid and if they can...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 89: The Moonlight Spinners

When rumours about a woman's conduct abound - when would she need to be divorced? How do we investigate rumors?...

Gittin 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 89

ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงื•ืœ ื•ืฉื•ื‘ืจื• ืขืžื•


she is considered to be divorced and may remarry. What is the reason for this? The rumor came with its receipt. The rumor that she is betrothed is canceled by the rumor that she is divorced.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื™ืฆื ืœื” ืฉื ืžื–ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืคืจื™ืฆื•ืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื• ืœื”


ยง Rava said: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, we are not concerned that the rumor is true with regard to her eligibility to marry a priest. What is the reason for this? It is assumed that people saw her engage in merely licentious behavior, in a manner that does not disqualify her from marrying a priest.


ื›ืชื ืื™ ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื’ื™ืจื’ืจื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื”ื ื™ืงื” ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืชืฆื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื™ืฉืื• ื•ื™ืชื ื• ื‘ื” ืžื•ื–ืจื•ืช ื‘ืœื‘ื ื”


This statement is parallel to one side of a dispute among the tannaโ€™im: If a woman ate in the marketplace, walked with her neck stretched forward in an arrogant manner in the marketplace, or nursed in the marketplace, with regard to all of these cases Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband, since all of these behaviors are considered licentious behavior. Rabbi Akiva says that she must leave him only once the women who spin [mozerot] by the moonlight converse about her having engaged in promiscuous sexual intercourse, as this indicates that the matter is well known and accepted as fact.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื ื—ืช ื‘ืช ืœืื‘ืจื”ื ืื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื™ื•ืฉื‘ืช ืชื—ืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืืžืจื” ื›ื™ ืžืฆื ื‘ื” ืขืจื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืœื”ืœืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืขื“ื™ื ืื• ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื“ื™ื ื™ืงื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจื•ืจ


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you have not allowed any daughter of Abraham our forefather to remain with her husband, i.e., all wives will be forced to leave their husbands, as it is common for women to slander their peers. And the Torah said: โ€œBecause he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severanceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it says over there: โ€œAt the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be establishedโ€ (Deuteronomy 19:15). Just as there, the word โ€œmatterโ€ is referring to a clear matter, as it is established through witnesses, so too here, the unseemly matter that is considered a cause for divorce is also referring to a clear matter that was not established merely through a rumor. Ravaโ€™s statement is in accordance with this opinion.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ื ืฉื•ืื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืืจื•ืกื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉืœื ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ื‘ืขื™ืจ ืื—ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”


The Sages taught: If a rumor circulated that a certain unmarried woman is a non-virgin, one is not concerned about it, and she may marry a High Priest. If a rumor circulated that she is a married woman, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is a betrothed woman, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is betrothed, but not to so-and-so, i.e., the man who betrothed her is not specified, one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she was betrothed in another city, one is not concerned about it.


ืžืžื–ืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื” ืฉืคื—ื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”


If a rumor circulated that she is a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], one is not concerned about it. If a rumor circulated that she is a maidservant, one is not concerned about it.


ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื”ืคืงื™ืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ


Similarly, if a rumor circulated that so-and-so consecrated his property, or that so-and-so renounced ownership of his property, we are not concerned about these rumors, and his property cannot be taken away by the Temple treasury or another person.


ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื”ื™ื•ื


ยง Ulla says: The rumor mentioned in the mishna with regard to betrothal is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where there is circumstantial evidence, as there are candles lit and beds made in the womanโ€™s house, as was the custom for brides, and people entering and leaving and saying that so-and-so is becoming betrothed today.


ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืืงื“ืฉื” ืื™ืžื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื


The Gemara asks: If people merely are saying that she is becoming betrothed, what is the reason for concern? Perhaps she was not betrothed in the end. Rather, say that people are saying that so-and-so was betrothed today.


ื•ื›ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ืœื ืฉื™ืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื ืฉื™ื ื˜ื•ื•ืช ืœืื•ืจ ื”ื ืจ ื•ืฉืžื—ื•ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื•ืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื”ื™ื•ื ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืืงื“ืฉื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืื™ืžื ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื”ื™ื•ื


And similarly, Levi taught a baraita: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only hear an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where candles are lit and beds are made, and women are spinning by candlelight and rejoicing for her and saying that so-and-so is becoming betrothed today. The Gemara asks: If they are merely saying that she is becoming betrothed, what is the reason for concern? Perhaps she was not betrothed in the end. Rav Pappa said: Say that they are saying that so-and-so was betrothed today.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ื ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื•ืžื˜ื•ืช ืžื•ืฆืขื•ืช ื•ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ืงื•ืœ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”ื• ืืžืชืœื


Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where there are candles lit and beds made and people entering and leaving. If they made an explicit statement that the woman was betrothed, this is a rumor that renders her betrothed. If they did not make such a statement, this is the explanation mentioned in the mishna.


ืœื ืืžืจื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืืžืจื• ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืืžืชืœื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื™ืžื™ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœื ืืžืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืืžืชืœื ื”ื ืืžืจื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืืžืชืœื


The Gemara asks: If they did not make such a statement, why is it considered an explanation? But they did not say anything that requires an explanation. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan did not mean that the people did not say anything, but rather that they did not state unequivocally that the woman is betrothed, to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The explanation mentioned in the mishna negates the rumor even if it circulates at some point from now until ten days after the rumor begins to circulate. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan therefore teaches us that only if the people did not say unequivocally that she is betrothed is it considered an explanation that negates the rumor. But if they said so unequivocally, any later explanation is not considered an explanation that negates the rumor.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจื• ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื•ื“ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืžื’ื™ืขื™ืŸ ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ืจื•ืจ


Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where people say: From where did so-and-so hear that this woman is betrothed? From so-and-so, and so-and-so heard it from so-and-so. And as a result, the judges investigate the rumor continuously, tracing the hearsay until they reach a clear matter, i.e., eyewitnesses.


ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ืจื•ืจ ืขื“ื•ืช ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืงื•ืœ ื”ื‘ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืืžืจื• ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ืฉืžืข ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ืœื”ื ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara raises an objection: If the court reaches a clear matter it is proper testimony, not a rumor. Rather, when Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael he taught that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The mishna is not referring to a case where people only heard an echo. Rather, it is referring to a case where people say: From where did so-and-so hear this? From so-and-so, and so-and-so heard it from so-and-so, and they went overseas, so that the court cannot investigate further.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืื• ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืฉืžืขื• ืžืคื™ ื”ื›ืฉืจื™ื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื


ยง Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do we suppress a rumor that was not substantiated by the court, or do we not suppress it? He said to him: Since Rav แธคisda says that a rumor is not treated stringently until the court hears it from valid witnesses, which indicates that rumors are generally treated leniently, learn from it that we suppress a rumor.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืคื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืงื•ืœ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื


Abaye said to him: On the contrary, since Rav Sheshet said that even if the court hears it from women it is considered a serious rumor, indicating that rumors are treated stringently, learn from it that we do not suppress a rumor.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืชืจื•ื•ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื‘ืกื•ืจื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื


Rav Yosef said to him: These opinions correspond to the local custom in two different places. In Sura they suppress a rumor, whereas in Nehardeโ€™a they do not suppress a rumor.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ืœื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืืชื™ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ืœืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืœื ืื–ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ ื—ื•ื–ืื™ ื•ืื–ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื“ื ื ื“ื”ื•ืื™ ืงืœื ืœื ื”ื•ืื™ ืืžืชืœื ืœืื• ื›ืœ ื›ืžื™ื ืš ื“ืžื—ื–ืงืช ืืžืชืœื


The Gemara relates several incidents: A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed to a student of Torah. Rav แธคama summoned her father and said to him: Tell me exactly how the incident transpired. The father said to him: The student betrothed her conditionally, with the intention that he would not go to the city of Bei แธคozai, and he subsequently went there, thereby nullifying the betrothal. Rav แธคama said to him: Since at the time that the rumor existed this explanation did not exist, it is not in your power to create the presumption of an explanation. Therefore, the rumor must be treated stringently.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ืืฆื™ืคื ื“ืชื•ื—ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืฉื™ืคื™ ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื‘ื”ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ื” ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื”ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื”


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed with a mat of dates [atzifa detoแธฅela] from the spring of Bei Shifei. Rav Idi bar Avin sent the case to be presented before Abaye, asking him: What is the halakha in a case like this? Should this rumor be suppressed? Abaye said to him: Even according to the one who said that we do not suppress a rumor, in this case we suppress the rumor. This is because if she marries someone else people will not slander her. Rather, they will say that the Sages investigated her betrothal, i.e., the value of the mat of dates with which she was betrothed, and concluded that it was not worth one peruta and therefore the betrothal was invalid.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื”


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed


ืœื—ื“ ืžื‘ื ื™ ืคืœื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื‘ื”ื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื•ื•


to one of the sons of so-and-so, who had both adult and minor sons. The son to whom she was betrothed was not specified. Rava said: Even according to the one who says that we do not suppress a rumor, in this case we suppress the rumor. People will not slander her. Rather, they will say that the Sages investigated the betrothal and concluded that it was the betrothal of a minor.


ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ื ืคืง ืขืœื” ืงืœื ื“ืื™ืงื“ืฉื” ืœืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื ืจืื” ื›ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืžืจื“ื›ื™ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ืœืคืœื’ื•ืช ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœืคืœื’ื•ืช ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื—ืงืจื™ ืœื‘


A rumor circulated that a certain woman was betrothed to a minor boy who looked like an adult, as his body was developed like an adult. Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: There was a precedent in which the Sages said that there is no concern that people will think that the woman is betrothed, since the boy did not yet reach the divisions of Reuben, i.e., the competence of adulthood, as it is stated: โ€œAmong the divisions of Reuben there were major resolves of heartโ€ (Judges 5:16). Therefore, the betrothal is rendered entirely invalid, and there is no concern of slander.


ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืชืœื ืฉืืžืจื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืขืฉืจื” ื™ืžื™ื ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืžืชืœื ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืืžืชืœื


ยง It is stated in the mishna that a rumor is treated seriously only provided there is no explanation. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The explanation mentioned in the mishna negates the rumor even if it circulates at some point from now, i.e., from the time the rumor circulated, until ten days afterward. Rav Zevid says: Where there is the reasonable possibility of an explanation, we are concerned about the possibility of an explanation even if it is not mentioned explicitly, and the rumor is therefore disregarded.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืฉื ืืžืชืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืžืชืœื ืงืืžืจ


Rav Pappa raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Zevid from the expression in the mishna: Provided there is no explanation, which indicates that the explanation must be mentioned for it to be regarded. Rav Zevid said to him: The mishna is saying that where there is the reasonable possibility of an explanation the rumor is disregarded, even if it was not mentioned.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืืช ืœื ืชืกื‘ืจื ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืขืœ ืชื ืื™ ืงื“ื™ืฉ


Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: And you, do you not hold Rav Zevidโ€™s statement to be true? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna that if a woman was betrothed after her husband was taken for dead, and then her husband came back, she is permitted to return to him (Yevamot 92a), which would not have been the case if she had been married and not merely betrothed? Isnโ€™t this because we say that the second man betrothed her conditionally, stipulating that if her husband is found to be alive the betrothal is null, even though this explanation did not circulate explicitly?


ืฉืื ื™ ื”ืชื ื“ืืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืงื ืžืขืจืขืจ


The Gemara answers: It is different there because the husband comes and contests the betrothal, which shows clearly that he never divorced her and that her betrothal was mistaken. Therefore, there is no need for an additional explanation.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ื™ืฉืืช ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืฉืืช ื“ืขื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืชืงื“ืฉื” ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ืงื ืกื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: If so, in a case where she married the second man, it should also be permitted for her to return to her first husband. Why do the Sages render it prohibited for her to do so? The Gemara answers: In a case where she married him, since she performed a prohibited action, albeit unintentionally, by engaging in sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband while she was married, the Sages penalized her. By contrast, in a case where she was merely betrothed, since she did not perform a prohibited action, the Sages did not penalize her.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ืง ื‘ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœืื• ืงืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืœ ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื‘ืชืจ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื”


ยง Rav Ashi said: Any rumor that was not confirmed in court is not regarded as a significant rumor. And Rav Ashi said: With regard to any rumor that was spread about a woman after her marriage, we are not concerned about it. She need not leave her husband, and he need not divorce her. The Gemara infers that if the rumor circulated after her betrothal we are concerned about it, and she must be divorced from her betrothed. Rav แธคaviva said: Even if it circulated after her betrothal, we are still not concerned about it. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we are not concerned about it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื™ืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืœ ืžืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืงื“ืฉื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืžื”ื• ืฉืœื— ืœื”ื• ืชืฆื ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื ื™


Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that a group of students from the study hall of Rav sent the following question to Shmuel after Ravโ€™s death: Teach us, our master: If a rumor circulated about a woman that she is betrothed to a first man, and another man came and betrothed her in a manner of betrothal that is recognized by Torah law, as there is clear testimony of it, what is the halakha? He sent them an answer: She must leave the second man, and you clarify the matter to figure out exactly what happened and inform me.


ืžืื™ ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืื™ ืžื’ืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื“ืงืžื ืœืื• ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืงืœื ื•ื”ื ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืืชืจื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืžื‘ื˜ืœื™ ืงืœื ืืœื ื“ืื™ ืžื™ื’ืœื™ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืงืžื ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ืžืขืœื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ื’ื˜ ืžืฉื ื™


The Gemara asks: What is meant by: And you clarify the matter? If we say that he said this so that if it is discovered that the betrothal of the first man was not a proper betrothal we should suppress the rumor, thereby permitting her to marry the second man, isnโ€™t Nehardeโ€™a Shmuelโ€™s locale? And as mentioned above, in Nehardeโ€™a they would not suppress a rumor. Rather, he must have instructed them in this manner because if it is discovered that the betrothal of the first man was a proper betrothal, she does not need a bill of divorce from the second man.


ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ืฉืคืฉื˜ื” ื™ื“ื” ื•ืงื™ื‘ืœื” ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืื—ืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉืช


And in ruling that she does not need a bill of divorce from the second man, Shmuel is in disagreement with Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: In the case of a married woman who extended her hand and received money or a document of betrothal from another man, it is considered uncertain whether or not the woman is betrothed to him, and she needs a bill of divorce from him.


ืžื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื” ื’ื™ืจืฉืชื ื™ ื ืืžื ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืขื™ื–ื” ืคื ื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื”


Rav Hunaโ€™s opinion is based on a principle stated by Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says that a woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible, due to the presumption that a wife is not so brazen to lie in this manner before her husband. Therefore, in the case brought before Shmuel, the fact that the woman received money or a document of betrothal from the second man should be considered sufficient basis for the rumor to be suppressed, since if she were already betrothed she certainly would not have accepted the betrothal from him.


ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžืขื™ื–ื” ื•ืžืขื™ื–ื”


The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, Shmuel, who disagrees with Rav Huna, relate to this principle? The Gemara answers: He holds that Rav Hamnunaโ€™s principle was stated in reference to a case when the wife says in her husbandโ€™s presence that he divorced her, but when she is not in his presence she is certainly brazen enough to lie in this manner. Therefore, in the case brought before Shmuel, the woman may have accepted the betrothal of the other man because it was not in her husbandโ€™s presence.


ืœื ืžืฆืื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ื•ืจื™ื• ืžื”ื•


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if they did not find a clear matter, i.e., they could not establish with certainty whether she was betrothed to the first man?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžื’ืจืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืชื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื—ื–ื™ืจ ื’ืจื•ืฉืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ


Rav Huna says: The first man divorces her and the second man marries her. But for the second man to divorce her and the first man to marry her is not permitted. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that it is not permitted? It is prohibited lest people come to say that the first man is remarrying his divorcรฉe after her betrothal to another man, as they will mistakenly assume that the first man betrothed her and then divorced her, thereby enabling her to be betrothed to the second man. Therefore, if he marries her after she is divorced from the second man, people will conclude that he is in violation of the Torah prohibition of remarrying oneโ€™s divorcรฉe after she was married to another man.


ืจื‘ ืฉื™ื ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืฉื ื™ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ืขื™ื™ื ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื˜ืขื•ืช ื”ื•ื”


Rav Shinnana, son of Rav Idi, says: For the second man to divorce her and the first man to marry her is also permitted. There is no concern that people will assume that the first man is remarrying his divorcรฉe, as they will say that the Sages investigated the second manโ€™s betrothal and found that it was a mistaken betrothal.


ื™ืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืœ ืžื–ื” ื•ืžื–ื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืฃ ื–ื• ืžื’ืจืฉ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืฉื ืฉื ื™ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœืฉื ื™ื”ื


The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if a rumor circulated about her having been betrothed to this man and then another rumor was spread that she became betrothed to that man? Rav Pappa says: In this case too, the first man divorces her and the second man marries her, due to the previously mentioned concern that people will think that he is remarrying his divorcรฉe after she was betrothed to another man. Ameimar says: She is permitted to both the first and the second man. One of them must divorce her while the other may marry her.


Scroll To Top