Gittin 73bגיטין ע״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 73b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
73bע״ג ב

כאשת איש לכל דבריה רבי יוסי אומר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת:

like a married woman with regard to all of her matters, and she remains forbidden to other men. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

גמ׳ ת"ר ראוה שנתייחדה עמו באפילה או שישנה עמו תחת מרגלות המטה אין חוששין שמא נתעסקו בדבר אחר וחוששין משום זנות ואין חוששין משום קדושין רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אף חוששין משום קידושין

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): If, after the giving of this bill of divorce witnesses saw that she secluded herself with her husband in the dark, or that she slept with him under the foot of the bed, one is not concerned that perhaps they were engaged in another matter, i.e., sexual intercourse. And one is concerned due to their action of licentiousness but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

מאי קאמר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה ה"ק ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום קידושין נתן לה כספים חוששין משום זנות דאמרי' באתננה נתן לה ואין חוששין משום קידושין רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אף בזו חוששין משום קידושין

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, then there one is concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal and perhaps through this act he intended to remarry her. If he gave her money immediately following the sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, wherein we say: He gave this money as hire for a prostitute, but one is not concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even in this case one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal, i.e., one is concerned that he gave her the money as betrothal.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אין צריכה הימנו גט שני כמאן

Based on this explanation of the baraita, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel (81a) is relevant only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband, but if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him? In the case of a divorced woman who was secluded with her husband after the divorce, Beit Shammai are of the opinion that she does not require a second bill of divorce, while Beit Hillel are of the opinion that she does. In accordance with whose opinion mentioned in the baraita is this?

כדברי הכל

The Gemara explains: It is in accordance with everyone. It is in accordance with the opinion of both the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who hold that when they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that they are betrothed, and she does not need a second bill of divorce.

מתקיף לה אביי מידי כספים קתני

Abaye objects to this understanding of the baraita, according to which the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree about a case where he gave her money after they engaged in sexual intercourse: Is anything with regard to money taught in the baraita?

אלא אמר אביי ה"ק ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום זנות ואין חוששין משום קידושין ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר אף חוששין משום קידושין

Rather, Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned due to licentiousness, but one is not concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is also concerned that due to their actions there was a betrothal.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אין צריכה הימנו גט שני כמאן

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

כר' יוסי בר' יהודה

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as he holds in accordance with Beit Hillel, that if they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is concerned that she may be betrothed to him and she requires a second bill of divorce. By contrast, according to the first tanna, even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse one is not concerned that she may be betrothed.

מתקיף לה רבא א"כ מאי אף

Rava objects to this: If so, what is the meaning of the expression used by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: There is also concern that due to their actions they performed a betrothal? If there is concern about betrothal there should be no concern with regard to licentiousness.

אלא אמר רבא ה"ק רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר אף לא ראוה שנבעלה חוששין משום קידושין

Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, one is concerned that due to their actions they performed a betrothal.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת כשראוה שנבעלה אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אינה צריכה הימנו גט כמאן

And if so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies only where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse with him. But if they did not see that she engaged in intercourse with him, then everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement?

דלא כחד:

This is not in accordance with any one of the tanna’im, for according to Rava the first tanna is not concerned about betrothal even when they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is concerned even when they did not witness that she engaged in sexual intercourse.

מה היא באותן הימים רבי יהודה אומר כאשת איש לכל דבריה ר' יוסי אומר מגורשת ואינה מגורשת:

§ The mishna teaches: What is her status during these days? Rabbi Yehuda says: She is like a married woman with regard to all of her matters. Rabbi Yosei says: It is uncertain whether she is divorced or whether she is not divorced.

תנא ובלבד שימות ולכי מיית הוי גיטא והא קיימא לן דאין גט לאחר מיתה אמר רבה באומר מעת שאני בעולם:

The Sages taught in reference to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei stated in the baraita: Their dispute with regard to her status in the interim is stated provided that he dies. The Gemara clarifies: And when he dies, is this a valid bill of divorce? Do they hold that the bill of divorce takes effect after the husband’s death? But don’t we maintain that there is no bill of divorce after death? Rabba says that this is referring to a case where the husband says: This should be a valid bill of divorce from the last moment that I am in the world, meaning that it should take effect a moment before he dies.

תנו רבנן ימים שבינתים בעלה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה ויורשה

The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:4): In a case where the husband said: This is your bill of divorce from now if I die from this illness, during the days between, before he dies, her husband is entitled to anything that she finds, i.e., any lost item that cannot be returned to its owner, in accordance with the rabbinic principle that any lost item found by a wife belongs to her husband. And he is entitled to the profits from her earnings, and he is entitled to annul her vows (see Numbers 30:7–9), and he inherits from her if she predeceases him,