It means, the prospective right of the second.
MISHNAH. IF A MAN WROTE A GET WITH WHICH TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE AND THEN CHANGED HIS MIND, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT HE HAS THEREBY DISQUALIFIED HER FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.1 BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH HE GAVE IT TO HER ON A CERTAIN CONDITION, IF THE CONDITION WAS NOT FULFILLED, HE HAS NOT DISQUALIFIED HER FOR MARRYING A PRIEST.
GEMARA. R. Joseph the son of R. Manasseh of Dewil sent an inquiry to Samuel saying: Would our Master instruct us with regard to the following problem. If a rumour spread that So-and-so, a priest, has written a Get for his wife, but she still lives with him and looks after him, what are we to do?2 — He sent back a reply: She must leave him, but [first] the case must be examined. What are we to understand by this? Shall we say that we examine whether we can put a stop to the rumour or not? [This cannot be] because Samuel lived in Nehardea, and in Nehardea it was not the rule [of the Beth din] to put a stop to rumours.3 But we do examine whether people speak of 'giving' also as 'writing'.4 But granted that they call 'giving' 'writing', do they not also call 'writing' itself 'writing'? — That is so; and [the reason why she has to leave him is] because if it is found that 'giving' is called 'writing', perhaps the people [when they say he has 'written'] mean that he has 'given' [her the Get].5 And still must she leave him? Has not R. Ashi said: We pay no regard to any rumour [that is spread] after the marriage? — When it says 'she must leave', it means 'she must leave the second husband'.6 If that is so, you cast a slur on the children of the first?7 — Since it is from the second that we separate her and we do not separate her from the first, people will say that he divorced her just before his death.8
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reported R. Johanan as saying in the name of Rabbi Judah b. Ila'i: What a difference we can observe between the earlier generations and the later! (By the earlier generations he means Beth Shammai, and by the later R. Dosa). For it has been taught: 'A woman who has been carried away captive may still eat terumah,9 according to the ruling of R. Dosa. Said R. Dosa: What after all has this Arab done to her? Because he squeezed her breasts, has he disqualified her for marrying a priest?'10 Rabbah b. Bar Hanah further quoted R. Johanan as saying in the name of Rabbi Judah b. Ila'i: What a difference we can observe between the earlier generations and the later! The earlier generations used to bring in their produce by way of the kitchen garden11 so as to make it liable to tithe, whereas the later generations bring in their produce over roofs and through enclosures so as not to make it liable for tithe, R. Jannai laid down that tebel12 is not liable for tithe13 until it has come in front of the house, since it says, I have put away the hallowed things out of mine house.14 R. Johanan, however, says that even a courtyard15 imposes the liability, as it says, That they may eat within thy gates and be filled.16
MISHNAH. IF A MAN HAS DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND THEN STAYS WITH HER OVER NIGHT IN AN INN, BETH SHAMMAI SAY THAT SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE FROM HIM A SECOND GET, BUT BETH HILLEL SAY THAT SHE DOES REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM. THIS, HOWEVER, IS ONLY WHEN THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER MARRIAGE; [FOR BETH HILLEL] AGREE THAT IF THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER BETROTHAL,17 SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT [YET] TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER.
GEMARA. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: The difference of opinion [recorded here] relates only to the case where she was seen to have intercourse,
Beth Shammai holding that a man [in such a case] will not scruple to commit fornication, whereas Beth Hillel hold that a man will scruple to commit fornication.1 Where, however, she was not seen to have intercourse, both agree that she does not require a second Get from him.
We learn: [BETH HILLEL] AGREE THAT IF THE DIVORCE IS ONE AFTER BETROTHAL, SHE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND GET FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT TAKE LIBERTIES WITH HER. Now [if a second Get is required] where she was seen to have intercourse, what difference does it make whether it was after betrothal or after marriage?2 — We must suppose therefore that the Mishnah speaks of a case where she was not seen to have intercourse, and that R. Johanan was giving the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: 'R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel were of accord that where she was not seen to have intercourse she does not require from him a second Get. Where they differed was when she was seen to have intercourse, Beth Shammai holding that a man would not scruple [in such a case] to commit fornication, and Beth Hillel holding that a man would scruple to commit fornication'. But according to the Mishnah, which we have explained to refer to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse, what are we to say is the [ground of] difference [between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel]? — We must suppose there were witnesses to their being alone together but no witnesses to the intercourse, in which case Beth Shammai hold that we do not regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse, whereas Beth Hillel hold that we do regard the witnesses to their being alone together as being ipso facto witnesses to their intercourse.3 Beth Hillel admit, however, that if the divorce is one after betrothal she does not require a second Get from him, because since he would not take liberties with her we do not regard them as being ipso facto witnesses to intercourse.4 But did R. Johanan say this?5 Did not R. Johanan say that the halachah follows the anonymous Mishnah,6 and we have explained the Mishnah to be referring to the case where she was not seen to have intercourse? — Different Amoraim report R. Johanan's opinion differently.
MISHNAH. IF A MAN MARRIES A [DIVORCED] WOMAN ON THE STRENGTH OF A 'BALD' GET,7 SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE.8 THIS IS THE VIEW OF BEN NANNOS, BUT R. AKIBA SAYS THAT IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE.9 WHAT IS A 'BALD' GET? ONE WHICH HAS MORE FOLDS THAN SIGNATURES.10
GEMARA. What is the reason for [invalidating] A 'BALD' GET? — As a precaution, in case he said 'All of you [write]'.11
A 'BALD' GET MAY BE COMPLETED BY ANYONE'S SIGNATURE. Why does R. Akiba not permit a slave [to sign]? — Because this might lead people to say that he is competent to bear witness [in general]. But in the same way they might be led to say that a near relative is competent to bear witness? — The fact is that the reason why he does not allow a slave is because people might be led to think him of Israelite parentage.12 According to this a robber who could prove his Israelitish descent13 should be competent. Why then do we learn here: R. AKIBA SAYS, IT MAY BE COMPLETED ONLY BY RELATIVES WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY ELSEWHERE, which would imply that a relative may testify but not a robber? — We must say therefore that the reason in the case of a slave is that people might be led to say that he has been emancipated; and similarly in the case of a robber people might be led to say that he has reformed himself. But as to a relative what objections can be raised? Everyone knows that a relative is a relative.
R. Zera said in the name of Rabbah b. She'ilta who had it from R. Hamnuna the elder who had it from R. Adda b. Ahabah: If a 'bald' Get has seven folds and six witnesses, or six folds and five witnesses, or five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses, then Ben Nannos and R. Akiba differ [as to how it is to be completed]. But if it has three folds and two witnesses both agree that only a relative may complete it. Said R. Zera to Rabbah b. She'ilta: Let us see now. Three in a folded Get correspond to two in a plain Get.14 Seeing then that a relative is forbidden to sign the latter, should he not be forbidden to sign the former also? — He replied: I was also perplexed by this, and I asked R. Hamnuna, who in turn asked R. Adda b. Ahabah, who replied, Don't bother about three on a folded Get, since these are not required by the Torah.15 It has been taught to the same effect: A 'bald' Get which has seven folds but six witnesses, six folds and five witnesses, five folds and four witnesses, or four folds and three witnesses is judged differently by Ben Nannos and R. Akiba, to the extent that if it was completed by a slave Ben Nannos says that the child [born from a marriage contracted on the strength of such a Get] is legitimate while R. Akiba says that it is a mamzer. If, however, it has three folds and two witnesses, both agree that only a relative may complete it.
R. Joseph read [in the statement of R. Zera] 'a competent witness' [instead of 'relative']. But in the Baraitha it says 'relative'? — R. Papa said: Read, 'a competent witness'.
R. Johanan said: Only one relative has been declared eligible to sign as witness on it but not two, for fear lest it should be confirmed on the strength of the signatures of two relatives and one competent witness.16 Said R. Ashi: This is indicated in the Baraitha also
- To Next Folio -