Talmud for Gittin 4:7

הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רָע, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. מִשּׁוּם נֶדֶר, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ בוֹ רַבִּים, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְשֶׁלֹּא יָדְעוּ בוֹ רַבִּים, יַחֲזִיר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל נֶדֶר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם, לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם, יַחֲזִיר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בְצַיְדָּן בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, קוֹנָם אִם אֵינִי מְגָרְשֵׁךְ, וְגֵרְשָׁהּ. וְהִתִּירוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיַּחֲזִירֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

If one divorced his wife because of an evil report [rumors of infidelity], he may not take her back; because of a vow [that she made, and he said: "I do not want a vowing woman"], he may not take her back. [Even if the report were found to be false or she were absolved of the vow by a sage. (He may not take her back) lest she go and marry another and the report of infidelity be found false or she be absolved of the vow by a sage, so that she not be a "wanton vower," and the husband say: "Had I known this, even if they had given me a hundred manah, I would not have divorced her," thereby voiding the get and rendering her children mamzerim. Therefore, he is told: "Be apprised that if one divorces his wife because of an evil report or because of a vow, he may never take her back," hearing which, he divorces her categorically, and he can no longer compromise her.] R. Yehudah says: With every vow known to many, he may not take her back; not known to many, he may take her back. [R. Yehudah holds that the rabbis said: "If one divorced his wife because of an evil report or because of a vow, he may not take her back," so that the daughters of Israel not be promiscuous with arayoth (illicit connections) or with vows, for which reason he says that with every vow known to many (ten or more Israelites), there is relatively greater promiscuity, and she was penalized not to be taken back. And with what is not known to many, there is relatively less promiscuity, and she was, accordingly, not penalized.] R. Meir says: With every vow that requires the deliberation of a sage, he may not take her back. (With every vow) that does not require the probing of a sage, he may take her back. [R. Meir holds the rationale (for forbidding him to take her back) is the possibility of undermining (the get). Therefore, with a vow that he himself cannot annul, but which only a sage can absolve her of, he can undermine the get after she remarries by saying: "Had I known that a sage could have absolved you of it, I would not have divorced you." But with a get that does not require the probing of a sage, but which can be annulled by the husband himself, the sages did not need to forbid him to take her back. For he cannot compromise her by saying: "Had I known, etc.", for it was an "open" vow, which he could have annulled, and he did not.] R. Eliezer said: They forbade the one [i.e., taking her back in the instance of a vow which requires the probing of a sage] only because of the other [which does not require it. For with one that does require it, we need not fear undermining, for he cannot say: "Had I known that a sage could have absolved her of it, I would not have divorced her." For "we are witnesses" that even had he known it, he would have divorced her, a man not wanting his wife to be demeaned in beth-din before a sage, to go to his beth-din and to inquire as to her oath. But it is because of a vow that does not require a sage, which the husband himself could have annulled, that they forbade (him to take her back) in all instances, that he not say: "Had I known that I could have annulled it, I would not have divorced her."] R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said; It happened in Tziddon that one said to his wife: "I vow to divorce you," and he divorced her, and the sages permitted him to take her back, for "the general good." [The gemara explains that something is lacking and that this is the intent: When is this so (that he may not take her back)? When she vowed. But if he vowed to divorce her, and he divorced her, he may take her back, and we do not fear any undermining. And R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: It also happened in Tziddon that one said to his wife: "Konam, if I do not divorce you." That is: May all the fruits in the world be forbidden to me if I do not divorce you. And he divorced her, and the sages permitted him to take her back. ("for the general good":) That is, the sages said: "One who divorces his wife because of a vow may not take her back" only for "the general good," in that we apprehend subsequent undermining. But this is possible only where she vows. Where he vows, however, the consideration of "the general good" does not obtain, and he was permitted to take her back. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

¹¹⁴Tosephta 7:8; quoted in Babli 74b; also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:5 (62c l. 66).“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” ¹¹⁵In the Babli (previous Note) this is quoted as a tannai'tic text. What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. ¹¹⁶The following text has a parallel with different emphasis in the Babli, loc. cit. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.¹¹⁷The reference is to Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:7 where it is stated that a man who divorces his wife because of her vows is never permitted to take her back. This is a rabbinic rule. R. Meïr holds that no remarriage is permitted in case of any vow that needs to be annulled by an Elder (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9). The reason is that one has to avoid a situation in which the divorcee marries another man and for him goes to an Elder to have him annul the vow. If the ex-husband says, “if I had known that her vow will be annulled, I would not have divorced her,” he retroactively would annul the bill of divorce, make his ex-wife a bigamist and bastards of her children from the second husband. Therefore, one has to make clear to him that the divorce is final and irreversible, to prevent him from having second thoughts. But if the cause of the divorce is an invalid vow, the divorce is not caused by the vow and the husband may remarry his divorcee (as long as she did not marry another man). R. Eleazar says that remarriage was forbidden in the second case because of the first one since it is obvious that the husband must be an ignoramus if he divorces his wife because of a vow which every competent scholar will immediately declare as invalid if asked about it (“a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage” because the Sage will declare it invalid at first sight.)” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage¹¹⁸This text is clearly elliptic. There does not seem to be a lacuna, but rather the text is a reference to an extensive argument in Giṭṭin 4:7 (and a related text in Qiddušin 2:5):אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽסְרוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other. It would have been logical that even in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage he could take her back. For the Elder uproots the vow from the start. Why did they forbid a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage.”. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry¹¹⁹The woman whose preliminary marriage has been declared invalid because of her vows may marry any other man without a divorce from the first. without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁰This is also quoted in the Babli, loc. cit.. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar¹²¹Who holds that all these prohibitions are only extreme precautions., and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis¹²²This position, rejected here, is the one adopted in the Babli. It seems that the Babli would reject the argument given for the permission to remarry as unreasonable (cf. R. Nissim Gerondi, ad Aliassi 35a.). Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce¹²³If she does not go to stay married to the first husband, one does not expect her to try to dissolve her vow for any other man.. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder¹²⁴Having used the vows to escape a marriage chosen for her when adolescent by her father, she might be expected to have the vow annulled as an adult for a man of her choice. who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁵From her first husband, who in executing the divorce has to forswear any hope ever again to be married to her..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse