Rabbinic Divorce Context

A man takes a wife and possesses her. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man; then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; or the man who married her last dies. Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again, since she has been defiled—for that would be abhorrent to the LORD. You must not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage.

(1) Thus said the LORD: Where is the bill of divorce Of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it To whom I sold you off? You were only sold off for your sins, And your mother dismissed for your crimes.

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what Rebel Israel did, going to every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and whoring there? I thought: After she has done all these things, she will come back to Me. But she did not come back; and her sister, Faithless Judah, saw it. I noted: Because Rebel Israel had committed adultery, I cast her off and handed her a bill of divorce; yet her sister, Faithless Judah, was not afraid—she too went and whored. Indeed, the land was defiled by her casual immorality, as she committed adultery with stone and with wood. And after all that, her sister, Faithless Judah, did not return to Me wholeheartedly, but insincerely—declares the LORD.

Rebuke your mother, rebuke her— For she is not My wife And I am not her husband— And let her put away her harlotry from her face And her adultery from between her breasts. Else will I strip her naked And leave her as on the day she was born: And I will make her like a wilderness, Render her like desert land, And let her die of thirst. I will also disown her children; For they are now a harlot’s brood, In that their mother has played the harlot, She that conceived them has acted shamelessly— Because she thought, “I will go after my lovers, Who supply my bread and my water, My wool and my linen, My oil and my drink.” Assuredly, I will hedge up her roads with thorns And raise walls against her, And she shall not find her paths. Pursue her lovers as she will, She shall not overtake them; And seek them as she may, She shall never find them. Then she will say, “I will go and return To my first husband, For then I fared better than now.”

Assuredly, I will speak coaxingly to her And lead her through the wilderness And speak to her tenderly. I will give her her vineyards from there, And the Valley of Achor as a plowland of hope. There she shall respond as in the days of her youth, When she came up from the land of Egypt. And in that day —declares the LORD— You will call [Me] Ishi, And no more will you call Me Baali. For I will remove the names of the Baalim from her mouth, And they shall nevermore be mentioned by name. In that day, I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; I will also banish bow, sword, and war from the land. Thus I will let them lie down in safety. And I will espouse you forever: I will espouse you with righteousness and justice, And with goodness and mercy, And I will espouse you with faithfulness; Then you shall be devoted to the LORD.

(Devarim 24:1) "and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, for he found in her a thing of nakedness, (then he shall write her a scroll of divorce.") Beth Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find in her a thing of nakedness (i.e., that she had fornicated). And Beth Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his meal, it being written "for he found in her a thing of nakedness." Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: But is it not written "a thing"? Beth Shammai: But is it not written "nakedness"? Beth Hillel: If it were written "nakedness," but not "a thing," I would say, because of nakedness she is divorced, but because of "a thing" she is not divorced. It is, therefore, written "a thing … (2) and she shall go out of his house." And if it were written "a thing," and it were not written "nakedness," I would say: If she is divorced because of "a thing," she is permitted to remarry, but if she is divorced because of nakedness, she is not permitted to remarry. And do not wonder at this, for if she is forbidden (by the divorce) from one who was permitted to her, should she not be forbidden to one (i.e., a new husband), who was forbidden to her? It must, therefore, be written "… nakedness … and she shall go out of his house and she may be to another man." R. Akiva says: (He may divorce her) even if he finds another more beautiful than she, it being written "if she does not find favor in his eyes." "then he shall write to her": in her name — whence they ruled. Any get not written in the name of that woman is invalid. How so? If one passed by in the marketplace and heard a scribe saying "This man divorces this woman from this place," and he said "That's my name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a get. More so — If he wrote (a get) to divorce his wife, and he changed his mind, and a man of his city found it and said "That's my name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a get. More so, if he had two wives with the same name, if he wrote it to divorce the tall one, he may not use it to divorce the short one. More so, if he told the scribe to write it, thinking "I will use it to divorce whichever I wish," it is invalid as a get. "then he shall write": This tells me only of ink. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) dye, rock-lichen, resin, and vitriol? From "then he shall write" — with anything. "a scroll": This tells me only of a scroll. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) reed, nut, olive, and carob stalks? From "and he shall place it into her hand" — in any event. If so, why is it written "a scroll"? Just as a scroll is characterized by (relative) permanence, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a get) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Just as a scroll is characterized by being unrooted to the ground, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a get) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized. "a scroll of 'krithuth'": something that cuts off completely — whence it is ruled: If one says to his wife: Here is your get on condition that you never again go to your father's house; on condition that you never again drink wine — this is not krithuth (in that there is no stage in which complete severance is effected.) (If he says:) on condition that you do not go to your father's house until thirty days from now; on condition that you do not drink wine, until thirty days from now — it is krithuth. If one divorces his wife and says "You are permitted to everyone except so-and-so" — R. Eliezer permits it and the sages forbid it. After the death of R. Eliezer, four elders entered to dispute his words: R. Tarfon, R. Yossi Haglili, R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva.

"into her hand": This tells me only of "her hand." Whence do I derive (the same for) her garden, her courtyard, and her enclosure? From "and he shall place" — anywhere. If so, why is it written "her hand"? Just as her hand is distinct in being her domain, so all that is thus characterized (is valid for the placing of the get). "and he shall send her away from his house": He must tell her "This is your get." From here they ruled: If one threw a get to his wife and said "Pick up this writ," or if she found it behind him and read it and found it to be her get, it is not a (valid) get until he says to her "This is your get."

[With regard to] One who divorces his wife and says to her, "You are permitted to marry anyone, except for So-and-so," Rabbi Eliezer permits, but the Sages prohibit it. How must he act? He must take it from her, and give it back to her, and he must say to her, "You are permitted to anyone." But if he wrote [the exception] in [the bill of divorce], even if went back and erased it, it is invalid. [If the husband said,] "You are permitted to anyone, except to my father or to your father, to my brother or to your brother, to a slave or to a non-Jew," or to any other person with whom betrothal is invalid, it is valid. [If he said,] "You are permitted to anyone, except as a widow to a Kohen Gadol [high priest], or as a divorced woman or one released by Chalitzah [the ceremony performed to release a widow of a childless man from the obligation of levirate marriage] to an ordinary Kohen, as a mamzeret [the female offspring of an adulterous or incestuous relationship who is prohibited from marrying much of the Jewish population] or Gibeonite to an Israelite, or as a female Israelite to a mamzer or Gibeonite," or to anyone with whom the betrothal is valid, despite being prohibited, it is invalid. The [essential] body of the bill of divorce is: "You are permitted to [marry] anyone." Rabbi Yehudah says, "And this that will be yours from me a scroll of divorce and a letter of separation and a document of release, so that you may marry any man that you wish." The [essential] body of a document for the release of a slave is, "You are a free woman, you are on your own."

[With regard to] a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses [signed] in Greek, or was written in Greek and its witnesses [signed] in Hebrew, or one witness in Hebrew and one witness in Greek, or the scribe [also signed it with] one witness, it is valid. [If the witness signed] "So-and-so, a witness" it is valid. I[If he signed] "So-and-so, son of So-and-so, but he did not write, "a witness," it is valid. And thus was it customary for the pure, pious ones of Jerusalem to do. If he wrote his nickname or her nickname, it is valid. A bill of divorce given under compulsion, if [forced by]Jewish [court], it is valid; if by non-Jews, it is invalid. Among the non-Jewish [court] they may beat him and say, "Do what the Jewish [court] is telling you," and that is valid. If her name is [the subject of rumor] that goes round the town, saying, "She is betrothed," she is [considered to be] betrothed; "She is divorced," she is [considered to be] divorced. This is as long as there is no reasonable explanation [to dispute the rumor]. What is a reasonable explanation? [For example,] So-and-so divorced his wife on condition, or he threw her [the money of] betrothal and it was unclear whether it [landed] closer to her or closer to him, these are reasonable explanations. Beit Shammai say, "No man shall divorce his wife, unless he found in her unchaste behaviour, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24:1], 'Because he found in her 'ervat davar' [unchaste behavior].'" Beit Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his food, because it is said, ervat davar". Rabbi Akivah says, "Even if he found another [woman] prettier than her, as it is stated [ibid.] 'If it happen that she does not find favor in his eyes.'"

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t the word “matter” already stated in the verse, indicating that any disadvantageous matter is a legitimate reason for divorce? Beit Shammai said to them: But isn’t the word “unseemly [ervat]” already stated? Beit Hillel said to them: If the word “unseemly” had been stated and the word “matter” had not been stated, I would have said that a wife should leave her husband due to forbidden sexual intercourse, but she should not have to leave him due to any other matter. Therefore, the word “matter” is stated. And if the word “matter” had been stated and the word “unseemly” had not been stated, I would have said that if he divorced her merely due to a disadvantageous matter she may marry another man, as the Torah continues: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). But if she was divorced due to her engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, she may not marry another man, as she is prohibited from remarrying. Therefore, the word “unseemly” is stated, indicating that even a wife who is divorced due to adultery is permitted to remarry. The Gemara asks: And what do Beit Shammai do with this word “matter”? How do they interpret it? It seems superfluous, as in their opinion the verse refers specifically to a wife who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse. The Gemara answers: The word “matter” is stated here, with regard to divorce, and the word “matter” is stated there, with regard to testimony: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Just as there, it is stated that a matter is established only through two witnesses, so too here, a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse justifies divorce only if it is established through two witnesses. And Beit Hillel would respond to this analogy in the following manner: Is it written: Because he has found something unseemly in a matter [erva bedavar], indicating that it was established through the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adultery? And Beit Shammai would respond to Beit Hillel’s interpretation as follows: Is it written: Because he has found either something unseemly or another matter [o erva o davar], in accordance with Beit Hillel’s understanding? And Beit Hillel would respond that for this reason the expression “some unseemly matter [ervat davar]” is written, as it indicates that interpretation, i.e., that a husband is not obligated to divorce his wife unless there are two witnesses to her having engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, and it also indicates this interpretation, i.e., that he may divorce her due to any deficiency, be it adultery or any other shortcoming. § It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her. With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the application of Reish Lakish’s statement, as Reish Lakish said that the term ki actually has at least four distinct meanings: If, perhaps, rather, and because. Beit Shammai hold that the verse “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because [ki] he has found some unseemly matter in her” means that she did not find favor in his eyes due to the fact that he has found some unseemly matter in her. And Rabbi Akiva holds that the phrase “because [ki] he has found some unseemly matter in her” means: Or if he has found some unseemly matter in her. § Rav Pappa said to Rava: According to Beit Hillel, if the husband found about her neither forbidden sexual intercourse nor any other matter, but divorced her anyway, what is the halakha? Is the divorce valid? Rava said to him that the answer can be derived from what the Merciful One reveals in the Torah with regard to a rapist: “He may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that even if he divorces the woman whom he raped and was subsequently commanded to marry, all his days he stands commanded to arise and remarry her as his wife. Evidently, specifically there the husband is obligated to remarry his divorcée, as the Merciful One reveals as much. But here, what he did, he did. Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: If he intends to divorce her and she is living with him and serving him, what is the halakha? Rava read the following verse about such a person: “Devise not evil against your neighbor, seeing he dwells securely by you” (Proverbs 3:29). § It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 5:9) that Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are different attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are different attitudes with regard to women. With regard to food, you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the wine with the fly and does not drink it. And this is comparable to the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda with regard to his wife, as he would lock the door before his wife and leave so that she would not see any other man. And you have a person who, when a fly falls into his cup, he throws out the fly and drinks the wine. And this is comparable to the demeanor of any common man, whose wife speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her do so. And you have a man who, when a fly falls into his serving bowl, he sucks the fly and eats the food. This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out into the street with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace immodestly, and with her garment open from both sides, and bathing with men, and ignores it. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a wife who bathes with men? Even a man of the lowest moral character would not allow his wife to act in this manner. Rather, the baraita means that she bathes in a place where men often bathe. The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house. If the second man merits, he will send her out, as it is stated in the following verse: “And the latter husband hates her…and he sends her out of his house” (Deuteronomy 24:3). And if not, she will bury him, as it is stated in the same verse: “Or if the latter husband dies.” It is appropriate for him to receive the punishment of death, as that first man evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second husband introduced a wicked woman into his house. § The prophet Malachi states in rebuke of those who divorce their wives: “For I hate sending away, says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse means that if you hate your wife, send her away. Do not continue living with a woman whom you hate. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse means that one who sends his wife away is hated by God. And the Gemara explains that they do not disagree. This statement is with regard to a first marriage, i.e., one should tolerate his first wife and not divorce her, and that statement is with regard to a second marriage, in which case the husband should divorce his wife if he hates her. As Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears over him, as it is stated: “And this further you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He does not regard the offering anymore, nor does He receive it with goodwill from your hand. Yet you say: What for? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:13–14). Clearly one should not divorce the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife, as one who does so is hated by God for divorcing the woman to whom he was bound in companionship and covenant.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Your sons, the Jewish people, have sinned. Hosea should have said to God in response: But they are Your sons; they are the sons of Your beloved ones, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Extend Your mercy over them. Not only did he fail to say that, but instead he said before Him: Master of the Universe, the entire world is Yours; since Israel has sinned, exchange them for another nation. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: What shall I do to this Elder who does not know how to defend Israel? I will say to him: Go and take a prostitute and bear for yourself children of prostitution. And after that I will say to him: Send her away from before you. If he is able to send her away, I will also send away the Jewish people. This deliberation provides the background of the opening prophecy in Hosea, as it is stated: “The Lord said to Hosea: Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution” (Hosea 1:2). And then it is written: “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim” (Hosea 1:3), and the Sages interpreted her name homiletically. “Gomer”; Rav said she was so called because everyone would finish [gomerim] having relations with her and satisfy their desires with her. “The daughter of Diblaim”; the name Diblaim can be taken as the dual form of the word dibba, ill repute. It suggests that she was a woman of ill repute, daughter of a woman of ill repute. And Shmuel said: The name Diblaim is the plural of the word deveila, a cake of pressed figs, indicating that she was as sweet as a cake of pressed figs, and therefore everyone used her services. Rabbi Yoḥanan, based on a similar derivation, said the name signifies that everyone would tread [dashin] upon her, a euphemism for sexual relations, like a cake of pressed figs. Alternatively, with regard to the name Gomer, Rav Yehuda said: The name can be understood as deriving from the root gamar, to finish. It alludes to the fact that the gentiles sought to finish the money of the Jewish people in her days. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not just seek to do so, but were successful. They plundered and finished it, as it is stated: “For the king of Aram destroyed them and made them like the dust in threshing” (II Kings 13:7). The passage in Hosea continues: “And she conceived, and bore him a son. And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel; for soon I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will obliterate the kingdom of the house of Israel…And she conceived again, and bore a daughter. And He said to him: Call her name Lo-ruhamah, for I will no more have compassion upon the house of Israel that I should bear them…And she conceived, and bore a son. And He said: Call his name Lo-ammi; for you are not My people, and I will not be yours” (Hosea 1:3–9). After two sons and one daughter had been born to him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Hosea: Shouldn’t you have learned from the example of your master Moses, who, once I spoke with him, separated from his wife? You too, separate yourself from your wife. He said to him: Master of the Universe, I have sons from her and I am unable to dismiss her or to divorce her. In response to Hosea’s show of loyalty to his family, the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked him and said to him: Just as you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children from her are children of prostitution, and you do not even know if they are yours or if they are children of other men, despite this, you are still attached to them and will not forsake them, so too, I am still attached to the Jewish people, who are My sons, the sons of My faithful who withstood ordeals, the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are so special that they are one of the four acquisitions that I acquired in My world. The Gemara proceeds to enumerate all four: Torah is one acquisition, as it is written: “The Lord acquired me as the beginning of His way” (Proverbs 8:22). Heaven and earth are one acquisition [kinyan], as it is written: “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator [koneh] of heaven and earth” (Genesis 14:19). The Holy Temple is one acquisition, as it is written: “And He brought them to His sacred border, to this mountain, which His right hand had acquired” (Psalms 78:54). The Jewish people are one acquisition, as it is written: “The nation that You have acquired” (Exodus 15:16). And you, Hosea, said that I should replace them with another nation? Once Hosea realized that he had sinned, he got up to request that God have compassion upon him for having spoken ill of the Jewish people. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Before you request compassion upon yourself, first request compassion upon the Jewish people, since I have already decreed upon them three harsh decrees on your account, in response to your condemnation of them. There is an allusion to these three decrees in the names of the children born of the prostitute. Jezreel is an allusion to a decree for Jehu’s actions in the Jezreel Valley (see II Kings 9–10). Lo-ruhamah, one that had not received compassion, suggests that God will no longer have compassion for the Jewish people. Lo-ammi, not My people, indicates that the Jewish people will no longer be considered God’s people. Hosea stood and requested compassion upon the Jewish people and nullified the decree. God responded and began to bless them, as it is stated: “Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it will be that instead of that which was said to them: You are not My people, it shall be said to them: You are the children of the living God. And the children of Judea and the children of Israel shall be gathered together” (Hosea 2:1). And I will sow her to Me in the land; and I will have compassion upon her that had not received compassion; and I will say to them that were not My people: You are My people” (Hosea 2:25).