משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אֲפִילוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה מִמֶּנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו וגו׳. MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said171Deut. 24:1.: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness172If the husband had proof of her infidelity, he would by law be obligated to divorce her (cf. Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14). In the absence of proof, the House of Shammai counsel him to divorce her. This probably is also the interpretation to be given to Matth. 19:9 and is the basis of the disapproval of marrying a divorcee expressed in Sifry Deut. 270..” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing173The Houses of Shammai and Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai read עֶרְוַת דָּבָר as if it were (in rabbinic Hebrew) דְּבַר עֶרְוָה “a matter of nakedness (immorality)”. The House of Hillel read the construct state עֶרְוַת as a modifier of דָּבָר “thing”: an undesirable thing; e.g., being a bad cook..” Rebbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes171,Deut. 24:1.174Even if she is beautiful in an objective way, but not beautiful in his eyes, he may divorce her. In his opinion (adopted in practice), a divorcee may be completely blameless., etc.”
הלכה: וְהָא תַנֵּי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה בִּלְבַד. מְנַיִין הַיּוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ צְדָדֶיהָ פְרוּמִים וּזְרוֹעוֹתֶיהָ חֲלוּצוֹת. תַּלמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. מַה מְקַייְמִין דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הַיּוֹצֵא מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה אָסוּר. מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר מוּתֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁילָא דִכְפַר תָּמַרְתָּא. קִרְייָא מַקְשֵׁי עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. לֹא יוּכַל בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְּחָהּ לְשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ. מַה אֲנָן מְקַייְמִין. אִם לְאוֹסְרָהּ עָלָיו כְּבָר הִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. לִיתֵּן עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. HALAKHAH: 180Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14. Was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” How can the House of Shammai confirm this181In the Mishnah, the House of Shammai admit only adultery as cause of divorce. In the baraita, they admit all kinds of lewd behavior.? Lest you say that one divorced because of immorality is forbidden, for anothercause she would be permitted182Could be remarried by her first husband after having had a second husband.. Rebbi Shila from Kefar-Tamarta said: The verse is difficult for the House of Shammai: “Her first husband, who had sent her away, cannot afterwards retake her.183Deut. 24:4.” Where do we hold? If to forbid her to him, is she not already forbidden to him184If she committed adultery, she is automatically forbidden to her husband, even if she does not remarry. The prohibition to remarry the first husband after a remarriage seems to be unnecessary for the House of Shammai.? But we must hold, to burden him with a prohibition185In remarrying her, the first husband would commit two sins in one act (cf. Tosaphot 90a, s.v. מה)..
כְּתִיב וְהַדָּוָה בְּנִידָּתָהּ וְהַזָּב אֶת זוֹבוֹ. זְקֵינִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים. תְּהֵא בְנִידָּתָהּ. לֹא תִכְחוֹל וְלֹא תִפְקוֹס עַד שֶׁתָּבוֹא בַמַּיִם. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. מִשָּׁם רְאַייָה. אִם אַתְּ אוֹמֵר כֵּן אוֹף הִיא עַצְמָהּ מֵבִיאָה לִידֵי כְעִירוּת וְהוּא נוֹתֵן אֶת עֵינָיו בָּהּ לְגָֽרְשָׁהּ. וְאַתְייָא דִּזְקֵנִים כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וּדְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה כְבֵית הִלֵּל. It is written186Lev. 15:33. The same argument in the Babli, Šabbat 64b, Sifra Meṣoraʻ Pereq 9(12).: “And the unwell in her menstruation and the sufferer from gonorrhea in his flow.” The earlier Elders used to say, “she shall be in her menstruation187Lev. 15:19.”, she shall not use kohl nor any make-up until she comes into water. Rebbi Aqiba said to them: Is that a reason? If you say so, she makes herself ugly and he starts thinking to divorce her. It turns out that the Elders follow the House of Shammai188Since she cannot be divorced, it does not matter how she looks. and Rebbi Aqiba the House of Hillel189In the Mishnah, R. Aqiba does not disagree with the House of Hillel; he simply takes their argument to its logical conclusion..