Gittin 92

Chapter 92

א מאי קונם אמר רב הונא באומר יאסרו כל פירות שבעולם עלי אם איני מגרשך:

1 What konam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The effect of a konam is to declare something forbidden to him who utters it in the same way as sanctified stuff. (Konam is probably derived from Aramaic kenom 'self', 'person' and is thus the object of an elliptical sentence, 'I pledge (myself) my person with So-and-so (that I will, or will not, do this or that)'; v. Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions p. 34; and Ned. 2a.) ');">1

ב והתירו לו שיחזירנה: פשיטא מהו דתימא ליגזור משום דר' נתן דתניא ר' נתן אומר הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו הקריב עליה קרבן קמ"ל:

2 was there here? — R. Huna said: We suppose he said, Every species of produce shall be forbidden to me if I do not divorce you.

ג מפני תיקון העולם: מאי תיקון העולם איכא אמר רב ששת ארישא

3 AND THEY PERMITTED HIM TO REMARRY HER. This surely is self-evident? — You might think that we should prohibit him on account of the dictum of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: To make a vow is like building a high place2

ד רבינא אמר לעולם אסיפא והכי קתני אין בזו מפני תיקון העולם:

4 and to keep it3

ה <big>מתני׳</big> המוציא את אשתו משום אילונית רבי יהודה אומר לא יחזיר וחכמים אומרים יחזיר

5 is like bringing an offering thereon. Therefore we are told [that this is not so].

ו נישאת לאחר והיו לה בנים הימנו והיא תובעת כתובתה אמר רבי יהודה אומר לה שתיקותיך יפה מדיבוריך:

6 TO PREVENT ABUSES. What prevention of abuses is there here? — R. Shesheth said that the words refer to the earlier clauses [of the Mishnah]:4

ז <big>גמ׳</big> למימרא דרבי יהודה חייש לקלקולא ורבנן לא חיישי לקלקולא והא איפכא שמעינן להו

7 Rabina said that they refer indeed to the last clause, and the meaning is, There was no ground for forbidding this on the score of preventing abuses.

ח דתנן המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר ומשום נדר לא יחזיר רבי יהודה אומר כל נדר שידעו בו רבים לא יחזיר ושלא ידעו בו רבים יחזיר אלמא [רבנן חיישי לקלקולא] ורבי יהודה לא חייש לקלקולא

8 MISHNAH. IF A MAN DIVORCES HIS WIFE BECAUSE [HE FINDS HER] TO BE INCAPABLE OF BEARING,5

ט אמר שמואל איפוך

9 R. JUDAH SAYS HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear that she may marry another and bear him children and the first husband may then say that he only divorced her with the intention of remarrying her if she should become capable of bearing, and so throw suspicion on the validity of the Get. But if he knows from the outset that he cannot remarry her, he will not do this. ');">6

י והא מדקתני סיפא נישאת לאחר והיו לה בנים הימנו והיא תובעת כתובתה אמר ר' יהודה אומר לה שתיקותיך יפה מדיבוריך מכלל דרבי יהודה חייש לקלקולא הא נמי איפוך

10 BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE MAY REMARRY HER.7

יא אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך ור' יהודה בההיא סבר לה כר' מאיר וסבר לה כרבי אלעזר בצריך סבר לה כרבי אלעזר בשאינו צריך סבר לה כר' מאיר

11 IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND AND THEN DEMANDS HER KETHUBAH SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST,8

יב אמר רבא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא

12 R. JUDAH SAYS, HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER.9

יג אלא אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה לא קשיא כדשנינן דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא מאן חכמים ר' מאיר דאמר בעינן תנאי כפול והכא במאי עסקינן בדלא כפליה לתנאיה:

13 GEMARA. This would seem to show that R. Judah takes into account the possibility of mischief-making and the Rabbis do not take it into account. But we have found the opposite opinions ascribed to them, as we have learnt: If a man divorces his wife on account of ill fame or on account of a vow she has made, he must not remarry her. R. Judah says: If the vow was made publicly, he may not remarry her, but if it was not made publicly he may remarry her.10

יד <big>מתני׳</big> המוכר את עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים אין פודין אותו אבל פודין את הבנים לאחר מיתת אביהן:

14 This seems to show that the Rabbis take account of the possibility of mischief-making and R. Judah does not take account of it? — Samuel said: Reverse the names.11

טו <big>גמ׳</big> אמר רב אסי והוא שמכר ושנה ושילש

15 But since the Mishnah goes on to say, IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND, AND THEN DEMANDS HER KETHUBAH SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER, we can conclude that R. Judah does take into account the possibility of mischief making? — Reverse the names here also.12

טז הנהו בני בי מיכסי דיזפי זוזי מעובדי כוכבים ולא הוה להו למפרעינהו אתו וקא גרבי להו אתו לקמיה דרב הונא אמר להו מאי איעביד לכו דתנן המוכר את עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים אין פודין אותו

16 Abaye said. There is no need to reverse, since R. Judah in that13

יז אמר ליה רבי אבא לימדתני רבינו והוא שמכר ושנה ושילש אמר ליה הני מרגל רגילי דעבדי הכי

17 case concurs both with R. Meir and with R. Eleazar. In the case [of a vow] which requires [the investigation of a Sage] he concurs with R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a man does not like his wife to be brought before the Beth din. Hence in this case he cannot say, 'if I had known etc.' and there is no likelihood of his making trouble if she marries another. ');">14

יח ההוא גברא דזבין נפשיה ללודאי אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה

18 and in the case [of a vow] which does not require [investigation] he concurs with R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the husband will be fully cognisant of the kind of vow which he can annul, and so in this case also there is no likelihood of his making trouble. Where, however, there is a possibility of his making trouble, R. Judah will agree that we have to provide against it. ');">15 Raba said: Is there a contradiction between the statements of R. Judah and no contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis?16 — No, said Raba; Between the statements of R. Judah there is no contradiction, as has been explained. Between the statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction. For who are the Sages [here]? R. Meir, who said that we require the condition to be duplicated,17 and here we are dealing with a case where he did not duplicate his condition.18 MISHNAH. IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN, HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED. HIS CHILDREN, HOWEVER, ARE TO BE REDEEMED AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER. GEMARA. R. Assi said: This rule applies only if he sold himself a second and a third time. Certain [Jews of] Bemekse19 borrowed money from heathens, and when they were unable to pay the latter seized them for slaves. They appealed to R. Huna, who said: What can I do, seeing that we have learnt IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED? R. Abba thereupon said to him: You have taught us, Master, that this applies only if he has so sold himself a second and a third time. R. Huna replied: These men do this habitually. A certain man sold himself to the Lydians<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] A tribe of cannibals (Rashi). [Or 'ludarii' [ludi], people who arrange and hire men for gladiatorial contests to kill off with the finishing stroke the enraged beasts; v. Graetz, Geschichte, IV, p. 238, and Krauss, AT, I. p. 701.] ');">20 and then appealed to R. Ammi saying,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter