Responsa for Bava Batra 268:15
בתרי גופי פלגינן בחד גופא לא פלגינן
of the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the husband states 'I divorced my wife', whether he specifies, 'now', or not, he is believed, since he can divorce her there and then; and the woman is regarded as divorced from that day onwards. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> The question was raised: [Is a husband who] testified retrospectively<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring that the divorce took place prior to the date of his statement. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> believed as regards the future?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the woman regarded as divorced from that day onwards. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Do we divide [his] statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though he is not believed as regards the time that had passed, is his word nevertheless relied upon as regards the future? (V. previous note). ');"><sup>31</sup></span> or do we not divide it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since part of the statement (that relating to the past), is not relied upon, is the entire statement disregarded? ');"><sup>32</sup></span> — R. Mari and R. Zebid [are in dispute on the matter]. One said, 'we do divide', and the other said, 'we do not divide [it]'. Wherein [is this] different from [the law] of Raba? For Raba said: [If a husband testifies,] 'X had intimate intercourse with my wife', he and [one] other [witness] may combine to procure his death;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to kill him'. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> his death, but not her death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because a husband is not qualified to act as witness against his wife. Thus it follows that the evidence is divided; the part relating to the wife being disqualified, that relating to her seducer being accepted as valid. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — In [the case of] two individuals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba's case dealing with [1] the wife and [2] her seducer. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> we [may] divide [a statement]; in [the case of] one individual<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Retrospectively and prospectively in the case of one woman. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> [it is possible that we may] not divide.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. No, A is to be believed that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, and his unintentional act is not valid.
R. Meir adds: I wrote you my opinion but I do not want you to rely on it to free Leah without a divorce until you have inquired of the Rabbis of the surrounding territory and of the Rabbis of France. If they agree with me you may accept the above decision; but if they do not agree with me, their opinion is to take precedence over mine.
SOURCES: Pr. 586, 1015; Mord. Kidd. 522, 548; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 3.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. No, A is to be believed that he did not intend to betroth Leah as his wife, and his unintentional act is not valid.
R. Meir adds: I wrote you my opinion but I do not want you to rely on it to free Leah without a divorce until you have inquired of the Rabbis of the surrounding territory and of the Rabbis of France. If they agree with me you may accept the above decision; but if they do not agree with me, their opinion is to take precedence over mine.
SOURCES: Pr. 586, 1015; Mord. Kidd. 522, 548; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 3.