Gittin 146

כאשת איש לכל דבריה רבי יוסי אומר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת:

SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN EVERY RESPECT; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS BOTH DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר ראוה שנתייחדה עמו באפילה או שישנה עמו תחת מרגלות המטה אין חוששין שמא נתעסקו בדבר אחר וחוששין משום זנות ואין חוששין משום קדושין רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אף חוששין משום קידושין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: If people have observed that she consorted with him in the dark or slept with him under the foot of the bed, they do not suspect them of having engaged in something else',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sexual intercourse. ');">¹</span>

מאי קאמר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה ה"ק ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום קידושין נתן לה כספים חוששין משום זנות דאמרי' באתננה נתן לה ואין חוששין משום קידושין רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אף בזו חוששין משום קידושין

but they do suspect them of loose conduct, and they do not suspect that he has betrothed her. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says, They also suspect him of having betrothed her. What is the meaning of this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how explain the apparent contradiction between the various clauses. ');">²</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אין צריכה הימנו גט שני כמאן

— R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, The meaning is this: If they saw him have intercourse with her, they suspect he has done so as a method of betrothing her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intercourse being one of three methods of betrothal, v. Kid. 2a, she will now require another Get. ');">³</span>

כדברי הכל

If he [afterwards] gave her money, they suspect that it was on account of fornication, as we say that he gave it her for her hire; but we do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says that in this case also we have to suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai, infra 81a. If a man has divorced his wife and she stays in the same inn with him, Beth Hillel require him to give her a second Get, but Beth Shammai do not. ');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה אביי מידי כספים קתני

arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'. On which view can this be justified? — On both views.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because both the first Tanna and R. Jose agree that where she was not seen to have intercourse a second Get is not required. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר אביי ה"ק ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום זנות ואין חוששין משום קידושין ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אף חוששין משום קידושין

Abaye strongly demurred to the explanation [given by R. Nahman]. Is the giving of money, [he said,] mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha quoted, and how could so essential a point have been omitted? ');">⁶</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אין צריכה הימנו גט שני כמאן

— No, said Abaye; the meaning is this. If they saw her have intercourse they suspect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'suspect' is used loosely here, and is equivalent to 'put it down to'. ');">⁷</span>

כר' יוסי בר' יהודה

her of fornication but do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, We also suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'? On which view can this be justified? On the view of R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to the first Tanna a second Get is not required even where they saw her. This therefore must also be the view of Beth Hillel, as the first Tanna is not likely to follow Beth Shammai in preference to Beth Hillel with whom the halachah generally rests. ');">⁸</span>

מתקיף לה רבא א"כ מאי אף

Raba strongly demurred to this, [saying,] If so, what is the point of 'also'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the observation of R. Jose. Since the assumption that this is a case of fornication saves her from the necessity of another Get, R. Jose should have merely said, 'They suspect him of having betrothed her'. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבא ה"ק רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר אף לא ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום קידושין

— No, said Raba; the meaning is this. R. Jose, son of R. Judah, says that even if they did not see her have Intercourse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only consort with him. ');">¹⁰</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אינה צריכה הימנו גט כמאן

we still suspect he may have betrothed her. On which of these views can we justify the statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get?' On whose view is this justified? — On neither.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first Tanna does not require a second Get even where she was seen, and R. Jose requires it even where she was not seen. ');">¹¹</span>

דלא כחד:

WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS? R. JUDAH SAYS THAT SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN ALL RESPECTS; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED. A Tanna taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the statement of R. Jose. ');">¹²</span>

מה היא באותן הימים רבי יהודה אומר כאשת איש לכל דבריה ר' יוסי אומר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת:

Provided he dies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he does not die, she remains a married woman, with certain consequences which are discussed presently. ');">¹³</span>

תנא ובלבד שימות ולכי מיית הוי גיטא והא קיימא לן דאין גט לאחר מיתה אמר רבה באומר מעת שאני בעולם:

And when he dies will it be a Get?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if it was not a Get at some time during his life, how can it become one upon his death? ');">¹⁴</span>

תנו רבנן ימים שבינתים בעלה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה ויורשה

Is it not an established maxim that there is no Get after death? — Rabbah replied: We presume that what he said to her was, [This will be a Get] from the time that I am still in the world.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which denoted the period immediately preceding his death. R. Judah being of the opinion that the Get comes into force only at the moment before his death, whereas according to R. Jose the Get is in doubtful operation all the time as every moment from the time of delivery may be deemed as the possible moment before his death. Tosaf. suggests a slight change in reading, according to which the rendering would be: '(When he says, " from="" to-day="" if="" i="" die",="" this="" is="" equivalent="" to="" saying)="" the="" time="" that="" am="" in="" next="" world'.'="" according="" rabbah="" dispute="" of="" r.="" judah="" and="" jose="" not="" concerned="" with="" opening="" case="" when="" he="" said="" 'from="" now="" die',="" where="" all="" would="" agree="" get="" becomes="" retrospectively="" valid="" at="" his="" death.="" ');"="">¹⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: In the days between,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The giving of the Get and his death. ');">¹⁶</span> her husband is entitled to her finds and the product of her labour, he can annul her vows, he inherits her,