(1) 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; (2) she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man; (3) 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. (4) 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.
MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say that in three cases women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband... They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified as follows: A priest’s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring proof for her words that she was raped...
ואי בעית אימא הני מתנייתא רבי היא דתניא רוכל יוצא ואשה חוגרת בסינר אמר רבי הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא רוק למעלה מן הכילה אמר רבי הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא מנעלים הפוכים תחת המטה אמר רבי הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא מנעלים הפוכים ליחזי דמאן נינהו אלא מקום מנעלים הפוכים (תחת המטה א"ר הואיל ומכוער הדבר תצא) והלכתא כוותיה דרב והלכתא כוותיה דרבי קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא לא קשיא הא בקלא דפסיק הא בקלא דלא פסיק קלא דלא פסיק וליכא עדים כרבי קלא דפסיק ואיכא עדים כרב
It is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where a husband saw a peddler leaving the house, and when he entered he found his wife retying her smock [sinar], i.e., putting her clothes back on, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter because it looks as though she committed adultery with the peddler, she must be divorced by her husband. Alternatively, if the husband entered after the peddler had left and found saliva above the netting of the bed, implying that someone had lain on the bed and spit upward, although no actual act was witnessed, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Since this is a distasteful matter, she must be divorced...The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, that they must divorce only if there were witnesses, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they must divorce if there is a matter that is distasteful.
The Gemara challenges this: One halakha is difficult, as it contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This one relates to a case where the rumor ceases and the woman is sent away only if there are witnesses, but that one relates to a case where the rumor does not cease, in which case he divorces her even if there are no witnesses. The Gemara elucidates the cases: In cases of a rumor that does not cease, even if there are no witnesses the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he divorces her. If the rumor ceases and there are witnesses, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and he divorces her because there are witnesses.
ההיא איתתא דכל יומא דתשמיש מיקדמה משיא ידיה לגברא יומא חד אתיא ליה מיא לממשא אמר לה הדא מילתא לא הות האידנא אמרה ליה א"כ חד מן נכרים אהלויי דהוו הכא האידנא אי אנת לא דילמא מנהון אמר רב נחמן עיניה נתנה באחר ולית בה מששא במלה ההיא איתתא דלא הוה בדיחא דעתה בהדי גברא אמר לה האידנא מאי שנא אמרה ליה מעולם לא צערתן בדרך ארץ כי האידנא אמר לה לא הוה הדא מילתא האידנא אמרה ליה א"כ הלין נכרים נפטויי דהוו הכא האידנא אי אנת לא דילמא חד מנהון אמר להו רב נחמן לא תשגיחון בה נותנת עיניה באחר הואי ההוא גברא דהוה מהרזיק בביתא הוא ואינתתא על אתא מריה דביתא פרטיה נואף להוצא וערק אמר רבא איתתא שריא אם איתא דעבד איסורא ארכוסי הוה מירכס ההוא נואף דעל לגבי דההיא אנתתא אתא גברא סליק נואף איתיב [בכלאי] בבא הוה מחתן תחלי תמן וטעמינון חויא בעא מרי דביתא למיכל מן הנהו תחלי בלא דעתא דאינתתא אמר ליה ההוא נואף לא תיכול מנהון דטעמינון חויא אמר רבא אינתתיה שריא אם איתיה דעבד איסורא ניחא ליה דליכול ולימות דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, לז) כי נאפו ודם בידיהן
§ It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husband’s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband. It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [naftoyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naḥman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable. The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open. The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taḥlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the woman’s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it. The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: “For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:45), indicating that adultery leads to murder.