An Unrecognizable Jewish Future: A Queer Talmudic Take An ELI Talk by Rabbi Benay Lappe

Rava said: And with regard to divorce it is not so. thus Rava holds [that] “force” is not a claim in regard to divorce. From where does Rava get this [rule]? If we say, from what we have learned: “Behold this is your get if I do not come back from now until twelve months,” and he died within twelve months, there is no divorce. [And we would conclude from this that only if] he died there is no divorce, but if he became ill there is a divorce. But perhaps I could say to you [that] if he became ill there would also be no divorce. And it teaches us that there is no divorce after death. [That] there is no divorce after death, it taught us earlier: “Behold, this is your get if I die,” [or] “Behold, this is your get [if I die] from this illness,” [or] “Behold, this is your get after [my] death,” he has not said anything. [But] perhaps [that mishnah] excludes from the opinion of our rabbis, for it has been taught: Our rabbis allowed her to marry again. And we said: Who are ‘our rabbis? Rav Judah said [that] Shmuel said: The court that allowed the oil [of gentiles]. They hold like R. Yose who said, “The date of the document attests to [when it is effective]. Rather [he derives it from the] later clause: This is your get] from now if I do not come [back] from now [and] until twelve months,” and he died within the twelve months, it is a divorce. [And we may deduce] “if he died,” and the same rule applies if he became ill. [But] perhaps [the divorce is effective] only when he died, because he did not want her to be liable to [marry] the levir (yavam). But [rather deduce] from here: here was a certain [man] who said to them: “If I do not come [back] from now until thirty days it shall be a divorce.” He came [back] at the end of thirty days but the ferry prevented him [from crossing]. He said to them, “Look, I have come [back]; look, I have come [back]!” Shmuel said: This is not regarded as having come back. But perhaps a case of “force” which is frequent is different, for since he ought to have stipulated it and he did not stipulate it, he caused himself a loss. Rather [we must say] Rava stated his own opinion: On account of modest women and on account of loose women. On account of modest women, because if you will say that it should not be a divorce.

sometimes [it may happen] that he was not held back by an accident, and she would think that he was held back by an accident and she would be an agunah, and sit waitng for him. And on account of loose women, because if you will say [that] it should not be a divorce, sometimes [it may happen] that he was held back by force and she would say that he was not held back by force and she would go and get married, and the result would be [that] the divorce was invalid and her children [from the second marriage] would be mamzerim. And is it possible that biblically the Gett is null and because of modest and promiscuous women we will permit a married woman? Yes! He who betrothes does so according to the will of the Rabbis, and the Rabbis have nullified his marriage.