Gittin 91

משום נדר אני מוציאך קסבר טעמא מאי משום קלקולא אי אמר לה הכי מצי מקלקל לה ואי לא לא מצי מקלקל לה

'I am divorcing you on account of your vow'. His view was that the reason [why he must not remarry her] was to prevent [him making] mischief subsequently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., attacking the validity of the second marriage, which the woman might contract, and the legitimacy of the ensuing offspring by saying that if he had known that the charge against her was false, or that the vow could have been annulled, he would not have divorced her. V. infra.] ');">¹</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן צריך שיאמר לה הוי יודעת שמשום שם רע אני מוציאך ומשום נדר אני מוציאך קסבר טעמא מאי כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות ובנדרים הלכך צריך למימר לה הכי

If he uses these words to her he can make mischief for her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying that he gave the Get under a misapprehension. But if he cannot remarry her, he has no motive to do so. ');">²</span>

תניא כלישנא קמא ותניא כלישנא בתרא

but if not, he cannot make mischief for her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore there is no reason why we should forbid him to remarry her. ');">³</span>

תניא כלישנא קמא א"ר מאיר מפני מה אמרו המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר ומשום נדר לא יחזיר שמא תלך ותנשא לאחר ונמצאו דברים בדאין ויאמר אילו הייתי יודע שכן הוא אפי' אם היו נותנים לי מאה מנה לא הייתי מגרשה ונמצא גט בטל ובניה ממזרין לפיכך אומרים לו הוי יודע שהמוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר ומשום נדר לא יחזיר

Some there are who report: R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: He has to say to her, 'Understand that I am divorcing you on account of your evil name'; 'I am divorcing you on account of your vowing'. His view was that the reason [why he must not remarry her] is to prevent the daughters of Israel from becoming dissolute or too prone to vows;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the possibility of their being divorced in this way will act as a deterrent. ');">⁴</span>

תניא כלישנא בתרא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי מפני מה אמרו המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר ומשום נדר לא יחזיר שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות ובנדרים לפיכך אומרים לו אמור לה הוי יודעת שמשום שם רע אני מוציאך ומשום נדר אני מוציאך:

hence he is required to address her thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But even if he does not, he still may not remarry her, this being her punishment. ');">⁵</span>

רבי יהודה אומר כל נדר שידעו בו רבים לא יחזיר ושלא ידעו בו רבים יחזיר: אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מ"ט דר' יהודה דכתיב (יהושע ט, יח) ולא הכום בני ישראל כי נשבעו להם נשיאי העדה

There is a teaching in support of the first version and a teaching in support of the second version. It has been taught in support of the first version: R. Meir says: Why has it been laid down that if a man divorces his wife on account of ill fame or on account of a vow he must not remarry her? For fear that she may go and marry another and then it may be discovered that the charge against her was unfounded and he will say, Had I known this was the case, I would not have divorced her even for a hundred <i>manehs</i>, and so the Get becomes retrospective]y void<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As having been given under a misunderstanding. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן התם מי חלה שבועה עילוייהו כלל כיון דאמרו להו מארץ רחוקה באנו ולא באו לא חיילה שבועה עילוייהו כלל והאי דלא קטלינהו משום קדושת השם

and her children [from the second husband] illegitimate. Therefore they say to him [when he comes to give the divorce], Know that a man who divorces his wife on account of ill fame must not remarry her, or [if he divorces her] on account of a vow he must not remarry her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if in spite of this he divorces her, he shows that he is not fond of her, and cannot subsequently say that the Get was given under a misapprehension. ');">⁷</span>

וכמה רבים רב נחמן אמר ג' ר' יצחק אמר עשרה

It has been taught in support of the second version: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose says: Why has it been laid down that if a man divorces his wife on account of a scandal he should not remarry her, or on account of a vow that he should not remarry her? In order that the daughters of Israel should not become dissolute or too prone to vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained p. 201, n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

רב נחמן אמר ג' ימים ב' רבים ג' רבי יצחק אמר עשרה דכתיב עדה:

Therefore they tell him: Say to her, Understand that I am divorcing you on account of your ill fame, I am divorcing you on account of a vow.

רבי מאיר אומר כל נדר שצריך וכו': תניא רבי אלעזר אומר לא אסרו צריך אלא מפני שאינו צריך

R. JUDAH SAYS: IF HE DIVORCES HER FOR VOWS WHICH SHE MADE PUBLICLY, HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because such a vow cannot be annulled and the woman is punished for making it. ');">⁹</span>

במאי קמיפלגי ר"מ סבר אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בב"ד

BUT IF FOR A VOW WHICH SHE DID NOT MAKE PUBLICLY, HE MAY REMARRY HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah holds that the reason why he must not remarry her is to prevent the women becoming too prone to vows, and this reason does not apply if the vow in question is one that can be annulled. ');">¹⁰</span>

ור"א סבר אין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בב"ד:

R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the reason of R. Judah [for holding that a vow made publicly may not be annulled]? Because the Scripture says, And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. IX, 18. The reference is to the Gibeonites who were spared although belonging to the 'seven nations'. Had the oath not been given in public, a way could have been found to annul it, since it was given under a misapprehension. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוסי בר' יהודה מעשה בצידן וכו: מאי תנא דקתני מעשה

And what do the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that vows made publicly may be annulled. ');">¹²</span>

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בד"א כשנדרה היא אבל נדר איהו יחזיר ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מעשה נמי בצידן באחד שאמר לאשתו קונם אם איני מגרשיך וגירשה והתירו לו חכמים שיחזירנה מפני תיקון העולם

[make of this verse]? — [They reply:] Did the oath there become binding upon them at all? Since they [the Gibeonites] said, We are come from a far country,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. IX. 9. ');">¹³</span> whereas they had not come from one, the oath was never binding; and the reason why the Israelites did not slay them was because [this would have impaired] the sanctity of God's name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the princes had sworn to them by the Lord, ibid. ');">¹⁴</span> How many form a 'public'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'many'. ');">¹⁵</span> — R. Nahman says, three, R. Isaac says, ten. R. Nahman says three, [interpreting] 'days' [to mean] two and 'many' three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse, And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days (Lev. XV, 25), 'many' denoting there 'three', v. Nid. 73a. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Isaac says ten, because the Scripture calls ten a 'congregation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIV, 27: How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, where the reference is to ten of the twelve spies, v. Sanh. 2a. ');">¹⁷</span> R. MEIR SAYS, EVERY VOW THAT REQUIRES etc. It has been taught: 'R. Eleazar says: A vow requiring [investigation] was made a ground for prohibition only on account of a vow which does not require [investigation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra n. 6. ');">¹⁸</span> What is the point at issue [between R. Meir and R. Eleazar]? — R. Meir held that a man does not mind the indignity of his wife appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be questioned about her vow. R. Meir was of opinion that the reason of the prohibition was to prevent the husband from making mischief subsequently, and this he could do only if the vow was one which he could not annul but which a Sage could remit. ');">¹⁹</span> whereas R. Eleazar held that a man is averse to subjecting his wife to the indignity of appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore by rights we should not prohibit remarrying if the divorce was given on the ground of a vow of this kind, since the husband cannot afterwards make mischief. R. Eleazar, however, holds that if the vow is one which the husband could have annulled (though he did not know it at the time), he can make mischief, and we do prohibit the remarriage, and since we prohibit in this case we prohibit also in the other. ');">²⁰</span> R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID, A CASE HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. What has preceded that this should be given as an illustration?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hitherto the Mishnah has spoken of vows made by the wife, and R. Jose gives an instance of a vow made by a husband. ');">²¹</span> — There is a lacuna, and the Mishnah should run thus: 'These rules apply only in the case where the wife vowed, but if he vowed he may remarry, and R. Jose son of R. Judah adduced a case which happened in Sidon of a man who said to his wife, Konam if I shall not divorce you, and he did divorce her, and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, to prevent abuses.'