Gittin 179

Chapter 179

א והלכתא מותרת לשניהם:
1 and the law is that she is allowed to marry either.
ב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה דבר ערוה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות דבר
2 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE UNLESS HE HAS FOUND HER GUILTY OF SOME UNSEEMLY CONDUCT, AS IT SAYS, BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'unseemliness of a thing'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג ובית הלל אומרים אפילו הקדיחה תבשילו שנאמר כי מצא בה ערות דבר
3 IN HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. [The emphasis is on 'unseemliness', (cf. Mishnah ed. Lowe), 'as it says " unseemliness"'),="" and="" [h]="" is="" taken="" to="" mean,="" 'a="" thing="" of="" unseemliness'].="" ');"=""><sup>2</sup></span>
ד ר' עקיבא אומר אפי' מצא אחרת נאה הימנה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו:
4 BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY [THAT HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF SHE HAS MERELY SPOILT HIS FOOD,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['Bad cooking is a more serious ground for divorce than some modern ones' (Moore, Judaism II, 124, 4, 1.) It has been suggested that the expression is merely figurative pointing to some indecent conduct]. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמרו בית הלל לבית שמאי והלא כבר נאמר דבר אמרו להם ב"ש והלא כבר נאמר ערות
5 SINCE IT SAYS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The emphasis is on 'thing'. (cf. loc. cit. 'as it says " thing"'),="" and="" the="" phrase="" is="" taken="" literally,="" 'the="" unseemliness="" of="" a="" thing'.]="" ');"=""><sup>4</sup></span>
ו אמרו להם ב"ה אם נאמר ערות ולא נאמר דבר הייתי אומר משום ערוה תצא משום דבר לא תצא לכך נאמר דבר ואילו נאמר דבר ולא נאמר ערות הייתי אומר משום דבר תנשא לאחר ומשום ערוה לא תנשא לאחר לכך נאמר ערות
6 BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING IN HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the discussion in the Gemara infra. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז וב"ש האי דבר מאי עבדי ליה נאמר כאן דבר ונאמר להלן דבר (דברים יט, טו) על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה להלן בשני עדים אף כאן בשני עדים
7 R. AKIBA SAYS, [HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF HE FINDS ANOTHER WOMAN MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN SHE IS, AS IT SAYS, IT COMETH TO PASS, IF SHE FIND NO FAVOUR IN HIS EYES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח וב"ה מי כתיב ערוה בדבר וב"ש מי כתיב או ערוה או דבר
8 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Does not the text distinctly say 'thing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies that he may divorce her for any cause. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט וב"ה להכי כתיב ערות דבר דמשמע הכי ומשמע הכי:
9 Beth Shammai rejoined: And does it not distinctly say 'unseemliness'? Beth Hillel replied: Had it said only 'unseemliness' without 'thing', I should have concluded that she should be sent away on account of unseemliness, but not of any [lesser] 'thing'. Therefore 'thing' is specified. Again, had it said only 'thing' without 'unseemliness', I should have concluded that [if divorced] on account of a 'thing' she should be permitted to marry again, but if on account of 'unseemliness', she should not be permitted to remarry. Therefore 'unseemliness' is also specified. And what do Beth Shammai make of this word 'thing'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which on their view is apparently superfluous. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י ר"ע אומר אפי' מצא אחרת: במאי קא מיפלגי בדר"ל דאמר ריש לקיש כי משמש בד' לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא
10 — [They use it for the following lesson.] It says here 'thing', and it says in another place 'thing', viz. in the text, 'By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses a thing shall be established':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא ב"ש סברי [והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו] כי מצא בה ערות דבר דהא מצא בה ערות דבר ור"ע סבר כי מצא בה ערות דבר אי נמי מצא בה ערות דבר
11 just as there two witnesses are required, so here two witnesses are required. And Beth Hillel? — [They can retort:] Is it written 'unseemliness in a thing'? And Beth Shammai? — Is it written, 'either unseemliness or a thing'? And Beth Hillel? — For this reason it is written 'unseemliness of a thing', which can be taken either way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To imply both that a 'thing' is sufficient warrant for divorcing, and that he cannot be compelled to divorce unless there is sufficient evidence of misconduct. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא לא מצא בה לא ערוה ולא דבר מהו
12 R. AKIBA SAYS, EVEN IF HE FOUND ANOTHER. What is the ground of the difference here [between the various rulings]? — It is indicated in the dictum of Resh Lakish, who said that ki<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Translated here 'if' (he find), 'because' (he hath found etc.). ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג א"ל מדגלי רחמנא גבי אונס (דברים כב, יט) לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר קאי התם הוא דגלי רחמנא אבל הכא מאי דעבד עבד
13 has four meanings — 'if', 'perhaps', 'but', 'because'. Beth Shammai held that we translate here: 'It cometh to pass that she find no favour In his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her,' while R. Akiba held that we translate, 'Or if again he hath found some unseemly thing in her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being an alternative reason to her not finding favour in his eyes. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד א"ל רב משרשיא לרבא אם לבו לגרשה והיא יושבת תחתיו ומשמשתו מהו קרי עליה (משלי ג, כט) אל תחרש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך
14 R. Papa asked Raba: If he has found in her neither unseemliness nor any [lesser] thing, [and still divorces her], what are we to do [according to Beth Hillel]? — He replied: Since in the case of a man who has committed a rape the All-Merciful has specifically laid down that 'he may not put her away all his days',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 19. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כשם שהדעות במאכל כך דעות בנשים יש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ואינו שותהו וזו היא מדת פפוס בן יהודה שהיה נועל בפני אשתו ויוצא
15 which implies that [if he does so] all his days he is under obligation to take her back, in that case only has the All-Merciful made this the rule, but here, what is done is done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is not forced to take her back. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ושותהו וזו היא מדת כל אדם שמדברת עם אחיה וקרוביה ומניחה
16 R. Mesharsheya said to Raba: If a man has made up his mind to divorce his wife, but she still lives with him and waits on him, what are we to do with him? — [He replied:] We apply to him the verse, Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. III, 29. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יז ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך תמחוי מוצצו ואוכלו זו היא מדת אדם רע שרואה את אשתו יוצאה וראשה פרוע וטווה בשוק
17 It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: As men differ in their treatment of their food, so they differ in their treatment of their wives. Some men, if a fly falls into their cup, will put it aside and not drink it. This corresponds to the way of Papus b. Judah who used, when he went out, to lock his wife indoors. Another man, if a fly falls into his cup, will throw away the fly and then drink the cup. This corresponds to the way of most men who do not mind their wives talking with their brothers and relatives. Another man, again, if a fly falls into his soup, will squash it and eat it. This corresponds to the way of a bad man who sees his wife go out with her hair unfastened and spin cloth in the street