Talmud do Taanit 2:14

HALAKHAH: “If somebody declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This entire chapter [deals with the case that] he warned her and said to her, do not be at a secluded place with man X, after he declared his jealousy and she went to a secluded place⁵That the husband had some information that his wife met the man forbidden to her.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if she did not go to a secluded place⁶If there is not even a single witness against her.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa: Not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees, only he is lenient about witnesses to the hiding⁷There is no difference of interpretation between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish; the latter only follows the opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 1:1.. We have stated a disagreement. Some state it anonymously⁸The opinion attributed to R. Eliezer in Mishnah 6:1.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana⁹R. Mana I.: Rebbi Joshua does not disagree with what Rebbi Eliezer said, only that we have stated: “Rebbi Joshua says, only if¹⁰This is the reading of the Mishnah in the Babli, which can be read as meaning that if the wife is the talk of the town, even a rumor of unknown origin forces the husband to divorce his wife. she is the subject of talk of women carding by moonlight.” Rebbi Abba Mari asked: There¹¹‘Orlah, Chapter 2, Note 30., Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, everywhere where Rebbi taught a disagreement and returned to the problem later and taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous opinion. And here he says so¹²If Mishnah 6:1 is stated anonymously, it would imply that in Mishnah 1:1 practice follows R. Eliezer. However, it is evident not only that general practice follows R. Joshua against R. Eliezer but also that in the case of the suspected wife, two witnesses of her misbehavior are needed to prohibit her to her husband. Therefore, the argument that R. Joshua only makes an anonymous statement precise is invalid.?

Rebbi Meїr¹⁵⁸He is the author of the anonymous opinion in the Mishnah, as asserted by R. Simeon ben Laqish in the paragraph after the next. N. Rabbinovicz in Diqduqe Soferim Erubin 47a (Note כ) indicates that the Soncino edition, in the quote of the Mishnah here, has “the words of Rebbi Meїr”, a reading rejected by Rashi ad loc. It seems that the Soncino text is the correct quote of a parallel Mishnah. is suspicious about bills of divorce¹⁵⁹He is afraid that a man who had divorced his childless wife would notice too late that she was pregnant and say that, if he had known this, he never would have divorced her. This could invalidate the bill of divorce and make the divorcee and the second husband adulterers and the child a bastard. {Therefore, in modern divorce proceedings, one lets the husband state three times before witnesses that any later action to invalidate the bill will be null and void.}. Rebbi Jehudah is suspicious about a child¹⁶⁰He requires waiting only in cases where there could be a question of the paternity of a child. Since bills of divorce should be handled only by a competent authority, he is confident that the case behind R. Meїr‘s restrictions is not justified.. Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child¹⁶¹The “and” is taken in the strict sense: Only if there is a simultaneous question about a bill of divorce and paternity.. Could you say that Rebbi Meїr is not suspicious about bills of divorce, as we have stated¹⁶²תנן is an error of the corrector under the influence of the Babli instead of תנינן.: “Those that had received qiddushin can be married.¹⁶³Since this is stated as R. Jehudah’s opinion, it follows that R. Meїr objects. To dissolve a preliminary marriage, a bill of divorce is needed even though there normally should not be any chance of pregnancy.” Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Gedula¹⁶⁴Usually, he is called Rav Gidul; a Babylonian of the second generation, student of Rav, who immigrated into Galilee.: The one who repudiates does not have to wait three months; the one who leaves by a bill of divorce needs to wait three months¹⁶⁵Both statements are about underage girls, too young to have children. If the girl had been married off by her father, she cannot repudiate her husband but needs a bill of divorce. R. Meїr requires a waiting period for all divorcees even if there is no question of a possible pregnancy. In the Babli, 34b, this is a statement of Samuel.. This supports Rebbi Me‘ir since Rebbi Meїr is suspicious about bills of divorce. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Jeremiah: A woman who has been raped does not have to wait three months¹⁶⁶In the Babli, 35a, this is a tannaitic statement attributed to R. Yose, whose opinion is interpreted to assume that she will know how to rid herself of the unwanted semen. R. Jehudah is quoted as requiring her to wait three months; his opinion is interpreted as questioning the efficacy of means to rid herself of the unwanted semen.. This supports Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose is suspicious about bills of divorce and a child. It was stated¹⁶⁷In the parallels, only the first part, dealing with waiting before marriage, is quoted. A shortened version is in Tosephta 6:6. The text quoted here is in the Babli, 35a, with the same lack of coordination between nouns and verbs.: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood¹⁶⁸Their menstrual blood which is an original source of impurity. Gentiles cannot impart impurity by biblical standards; the impurity of menstruation certainly is not applicable to Gentiles. Therefore, a Gentile who converts to Judaism (or becomes fully Jewish in the case of the manumitted slave) really should not be a retroactive source of impurity. In the Tosephta, Niddah 1:3, the attributions are switched, and this seems to be the background both for the remark of Rebbi (not in the Tosephta) and the later discussion since in a switched version, Rebbi seems to prefer the stringency of R. Judah in the matter of remarriage. But it is difficult to change the text against the testimony of both mss. (which, however, represent the same Vorlage.)
The Babli has no possible interest in this discussion since it holds (Avodah zarah 36b) that all Gentile women are rabbinically permanently menstruating {and biblically married, since in talmudic theory, Sanhedrin 58b, a Gentile is married to the first partner he or she is copulating with, without possibility of divorce (a position which seems to be adopted by the Apostle Paul).}, Rebbi Jehudah says, makes impure 24 hours retroactively; Rebbi Yose says, from its moment onwards. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Judah are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Yose for the child. Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case and he asked Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, and Rebbi Immi, and they instructed him following Rebbi Yose for the child. For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁹In the practical rules of preference, Rebbi Yose ranks over all other students and colleagues of Rebbi Aqiba (Yerushalmi Terumot 3:1, Notes 20–26; Babli Erubin 46b).? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”¹⁷⁰This question makes sense only if Rebbi’s preference is formulated so it endorses R. Jehudah for the rules of remarriage.. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument¹⁷¹This seems to refer to the disagreement between rabbis Eliezer and Joshua over pressed figs among which some heave was lost; Terumot Halakhah 4:10, Tosephta 5:11. In neither source is there a reference to the position taken by Rebbi.. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex? Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, one disregards the anonymous [Mishnah] and follows an isolated opinion! He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁷²The Great R. Ḥiyya, not R. Ḥiyya bar Abba mentioned earlier in this paragraph. stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He understood that following Rebbi Simeon¹⁷³R. Simeon ben Laqish, cf. Note 158. The question mark put in the text by the editor of the ms. is unnecessary., he found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated it in the name of Rebbi Meїr. He said, the old man¹⁷⁴R. Joḥanan. certainly understands the chapters about bills of divorce.