(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.
מתני׳ המגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדקי ב"ש אומרים אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני ובה"א צריכה הימנו גט שני אימתי בזמן שנתגרשה מן הנשואין ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני מפני שאין לבו גס בה:
גמ׳ אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בשראוה שנבעלה דב"ש סברי אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות וב"ה סברי אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות אבל לא ראוה שנבעלה דברי הכל אינה צריכה הימנו גט שני תנן ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני שאין לבו גס בה ואי בשראוה שנבעלה מה לי מן האירוסין ומה לי מן הנשואין אלא מתני' בשלא ראוה שנבעלה ור' יוחנן דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא א"ר שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על שלא ראוה שנבעלה שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני על מה נחלקו על שראוה שנבעלה שבש"א אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות ובה"א אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות ומתני' דאוקימנא בלא ראוה שנבעלה במאי פליגי דאיכא עדי יחוד וליכא עדי ביאה ב"ש סברי לא אמרי' הן הן עדי יחוד והן הן עדי ביאה וב"ה סברי אמרינן הן הן עדי יחוד והן הן עדי ביאה ומודים בנתגרשה מן האירוסין שאינה צריכה הימנו גט שני דכיון דאין לבו גס בה לא אמרינן הן הן עדי ביאה ומי אמר ר' יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ואוקימנא למתניתין בשלא ראוה שנבעלה אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן:
MISHNA: With regard to one who divorces his wife, and afterward she spent the night with him at an inn, Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him. When did they say this halakha? When she was divorced following the state of full marriage. Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to the fact that he is not accustomed to her. Therefore, there is no concern that they engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at the inn.
GEMARA: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically in a case where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Although they were seen engaging in sexual intercourse, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sexual intercourse. Consequently, he is not required to give her a second bill of divorce.
And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sexual intercourse. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, as there is no concern that perhaps they engaged in sexual intercourse.
The Gemara challenges this understanding of the mishna: We learned in the mishna that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the mishna is referring to a case in which they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse, what is the difference to me if it was following the state of betrothal and what is the difference to me if it was following the state of marriage? In either case, they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse. Rather it can be explained that the mishna is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse.
...The Gemara asks: And as for the mishna, which we established as discussing a case in which they did not see that she engaged in sexual intercourse, with regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree about a case in which there are witnesses to their seclusion, but there are no witnesses to an act of sexual intercourse. With regard to such a case, Beit Shammai hold: We do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in sexual intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of sexual intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in sexual intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, even if they were alone together. For since he is not accustomed to her, we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion; these are the witnesses of intercourse...
דין המגרש את אשתו ואח"כ בא עליה או נתייחד עמה ובו ז סעיפים:
המגרש את אשתו וחזר ובעלה בפני עדים (או שגלוי לכל שבא עליה כגון שנשאה) (הר"ן פרק כל הגט) קודם שתנשא לאחר בין שגירשה מן הנשואין בין מן האירוסין הואיל ואשתו היתה ה"ז בחזקת שהחזירה ולשם קידושין בעל ולא לשם זנות ואפי' ראו שנתן לה מעות שחזקה הוא שאין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות והרי בידו לעשותה בעילת מצוה לפיכך ה"ז מקודשת קידושי ודאי וצריכה ממנו גט שני:
If one divorces his wife, and then engages in sexual relations with her before witnesses --(or it is evident to everyone that he engaged in sexual relations with her) before she married another, whether he divorced her from betrothal or marriage, since she was his wife, we assume that he took her back [as his wife] and for the sake of marriage he engaged in relations [with her]. And even if they saw that he gave her money, for there is an assumption that a person doesn't engage in sexual relations for prostitution, and it's in his capability to make these sexual relations for a commandment [that is, for marriage purposes]. Therefore, this [woman] is definitely married, and requires a second get (that is, divorce document).
They only stated this presumption that a man does not intend sexual intercourse for licentious purposes regarding his wife whom he divorced..., for she is his wife and regarding his wife it is presumed that he is not having licentious intercourse unless he states explicitly that it is licentious intercourse or he states explicitly that he is having sex on condition. But all other women it is presumed that he has sex with them licentiously until he states explicitly that he had sex with them for the sake of betrothal.