Gittin 164

Chapter 164

א שר"א מתיר לכל אדם חוץ מאותו האיש וחכמים אוסרים
1 in which case R. Eliezer allowed her to marry anyone except that man and the Rabbis forbade her [to marry at all on the strength of that Get]. What is R. Eliezer's reason? — He puts the condition on the same footing as any other condition. And the Rabbis? — They say that any other condition does not involve an omission in the Get, but this one involves an omission in the Get.
ב מאי טעמא דר"א מידי דהוה אכל תנאי דעלמא ורבנן כל תנאי דעלמא לא שייר ליה בגט הכא שייר לה בגט
2 And in the Mishnah, where, as we have decided, he means 'except', what is the reason of R. Eliezer? — R. Jannai answered in the name of a certain elder: Because the text says. She shall depart from his house and go and be another man's wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 2. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג ומתני' דאוקימנא בחוץ מאי טעמא דר"א
3 which implies that if he permitted her to marry only one other man she is divorced. And the Rabbis? — The word 'man' here means any other man. R. Johanan, however, says that R. Eliezer derived his reason from this verse: Neither shall they [the priests] take a woman put away from her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXI, 7. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד א"ר ינאי משום זקן אחד אמר קרא (דברים כד, ב) ויצאה מביתו והלכה והיתה לאיש אחר אפילו לא התירה אלא לאיש אחר הרי זו מגורשת ורבנן (אמרי טעמא דר"א) האי איש לכל איש ואיש
4 This shows that even though she is only divorced from her husband [without being permitted to any other man], she is disqualified from the privileges of priesthood, which shows that the Get is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if he permits her to one man only, she is divorced. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה ורבי יוחנן אמר טעמא דר"א מהכא (ויקרא כא, ז) ואשה גרושה מאישה לא יקחו אפילו לא נתגרשה אלא מאישה נפסלה מן הכהונה אלמא הוי גיטא
5 And the Rabbis? — The prohibition of priestly privileges is on a different footing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being subject to numerous regulations, and therefore we cannot argue from it to a Get in general. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו ורבנן איסור כהונה שאני
6 R. Abba raised the question: What is the rule [if a man uses these words] in betrothing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'Be betrothed to me so as to be forbidden to any man except So-and-so.' ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז בעי רבי אבא בקידושין היאך תיבעי לר"א תיבעי לרבנן
7 The answer is not self-evident whether we adopt the view of R. Eliezer or that of the Rabbis. If we adopt R. Eliezer's view, are we to say that R. Eliezer ruled as he did here [in the case of divorce] only because this is indicated in the Scripture, but in the case of betrothal we require an effective acquisition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the phraseology of the Mishnah, a woman is 'acquired' by means of betrothal. Kid. ad. init. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח תיבעי לר"א עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר הכא אלא משום דכתיבי קראי אבל התם קנין מעליא בעינן או דלמא ויצאה והיתה
8 Or shall we say that R. Eliezer applies the principle of she shall depart and be [married]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 2. On the strength of this analogy, whatever applies to divorce applies also to betrothal. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט תיבעי לרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן הכא אלא דבעינן כריתות וליכא אבל התם קנין כל דהו או דלמא ויצאה והיתה
9 Again, if we adopt the view of the Rabbis, are we to say that the Rabbis ruled as they did here [in the case of divorce] only because we require a 'cutting off',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. l.c. and supra p. 83. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י לבתר דאיבעיא ליה הדר פשטה בין לרבי אליעזר בין לרבנן בעינן ויצאה והיתה
10 but in the other case any kind of acquisition is sufficient, or shall we say that they apply the analogy of 'she shall depart and be'? — After stating the problem he himself solved it, saying: Whether we adopt the view of R. Eliezer or that of the Rabbis, we require that the analogy of 'she shall depart and be' should hold good.
יא אמר אביי אם תמצא לומר איתא לדרבי אבא
11 Abaye said: If we can assume that the answer of R. Abba was sound, then if Reuben came and betrothed a woman with a reservation in favour of [his brother] Simeon, and then Simeon came and betrothed her with a reservation in favour of Reuben, and both of them died, she contracts a levirate marriage with Levi, [the third brother] and I do not call her 'the wife of two dead',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man makes the formal declaration to marry his deceased childless brother's wife, and dies before doing so, she is called 'the wife of two dead', and must not marry a second brother but must give him halizah. v. Yeb. 31b. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב בא ראובן וקידשה חוץ משמעון ובא שמעון וקידשה חוץ מראובן ומתו שניהם מתיבמת ללוי ואין אני קורא בה אשת שני מתים
12 the reason being that the betrothal of Reuben was effective but the betrothal of Simeon was not effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when he forbade her to all the world except Reuben, the condition was null, as she was already forbidden to all the world by her betrothal with Reuben. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג מאי טעמא קידושי דראובן אהנו קידושי דשמעון לא אהנו
13 And in what circumstances would she be the wife of two dead?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In similar circumstances. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד ואלא אשת שני מתים היכי משכחת לה כגון שבא ראובן וקידשה חוץ משמעון. ובא שמעון וקידשה סתם דקידושי ראובן אהנו למיסרא אעלמא וקידושי דשמעון אהנו למיסרא אראובן
14 — If, for instance, Reuben came and betrothed her with a reservation in favour of Simeon and then Simeon came and betrothed her without any reservation, in which case the betrothal of Reuben availed to make her forbidden to all other men and the betrothal of Simeon to make her forbidden to Reuben.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so whichever of them has died first, the other has promised to marry her. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו בעי אביי אמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מראובן ושמעון וחזר ואמר לה לראובן ושמעון מהו
15 Abaye raised the question: If he said to her, 'You are hereby permitted to any man except Reuben and Simeon', and then said 'to Reuben and Simeon' what is to be done? Do we say that [by these words] he permits what he had forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he means, You are permitted to Reuben and Simeon also. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טז מי אמרינן מאי דאסר שרא או דלמא מאי דאסר שרא ומאי דשרא אסר אם תמצא לומר
16 or are we to say that he both permits what he had forbidden and forbids what he had permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he means now, You are permitted only to Reuben and Simeon. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> And assuming the answer to be
Previous ChapterNext Chapter