Gittin 46a — the Talmud in English

And when he divorced her because of a vow, he said to her:

“Because of a vow I am divorcing you.”

But if he did not say this to her, he may take her back.

And the Gemara explains the reasoning of Rav Naḥman, which is because

he holds

that Rav Naḥman understands the opinion of the first tanna as follows:

What is the reason

that the Sages said that he should not take her back?

It is because of possible harm

to her.

And therefore,

if he said this to her,

indeed

he can cause harm to her [he can cause her harm], since he says: “Had I known that the allegations were false, or that the vow could be dissolved, even if they had given me one hundred maneh, I would not have divorced you.” And he had said so at the time of the divorce, that he was divorcing her for this reason; and when he divorced her, it had been his intention to take her back if the allegations were found to be false. It follows that the divorce is void and her children are mamzerim.

[he can harm her], because he can say: “Had I known that the allegations were false, or that the vow could be annulled, even if they had given me one hundred maneh, I would not have divorced you.” And he would have said at the time of the divorce that this was the reason he was divorcing her, and when he divorced her, he had intended to remarry her if the allegations were found to be false. Consequently, the bill of divorce is void and her children are mamzerim.

And if he did not

say this to her,

he cannot cause harm to her [he cannot cause her harm], since he did not say that he was divorcing her because of an evil report.

[he cannot harm her], since he did not say that he was divorcing her because of a bad reputation.

There are those who say

that

Rav Yosef bar Manyumei said that Rav Naḥman said:

the Sages instituted as follows:

He must say to her

at the time that he divorces her:

“Know that I am divorcing you because of an evil report, and I am divorcing you because of a vow.”

And we explain the reasoning: because

he holds

that Rav Naḥman understands the opinion of the first tanna as follows:

What is the reason

that the Sages said that he should not take her back?

So that the daughters of Israel should not become promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations and vows.

Therefore he must say this to her [therefore he must say this to her], in order to inform her that she must guard herself from this point onward.

[therefore, he must say this to her], in order to inform her that from then on she must guard herself.

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with the first formulation; and it was taught

in another beraita

in accordance with the latter formulation:

It was taught in accordance with the first formulation: Rabbi Meir said: Why did they say

that the Sages

that one who divorces his wife because of an evil report should not take her back, and because of a vow should not take her back? Perhaps she will go and marry another, and the allegations will be found to be false [the evil report that they spread about her will be found to be false], or a Sage will dissolve her vow,

[the damaging rumor spread about her will be shown to be false], or a Sage will annul her vow,

and

the first husband

will say: “Had I known that this was so, even if they had given me one hundred maneh, I would not have divorced her,” and it follows that the divorce is void and her children are mamzerim.

And

therefore they say to him

the husband:

“Know that one who divorces his wife because of an evil report should not take her back, and because of a vow should not take her back.”

It was taught in accordance with the latter formulation: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei said: Why did they say

that the Sages

that one who divorces his wife because of an evil report should not take her back, and because of a vow should not take her back? So that the daughters of Israel should not become promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations and vows.

Therefore they say to him

the husband,

say to her

the woman at the time of the divorce:

“Know that I am divorcing you because of an evil report, and I am divorcing you because of a vow.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any vow known to the public—he should not take her back [because it is a vow that cannot be dissolved],

[because it is a vow that cannot be annulled],

but one not known to the public—he may take her back.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that a vow known to the public cannot be dissolved? It is because

it is written [Joshua 9:3 and onward, with omissions]: “And the inhabitants of Gibeon [from the Hivite people that was in the Land of Israel] heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai. And they too acted cunningly, and they went and made provisions, and they took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and worn-out and torn and bound wineskins. And they went to Joshua, to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel: From a distant land we have come, and now make a covenant with us. And Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to preserve their lives, and the leaders of the assembly swore to them. And it was at the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them, that they heard [Israel] that they were near to them [the Gibeonites], and that they were dwelling among them.

[Joshua 9:3 and onward, with omissions]: “And the inhabitants of Gibeon [from the Hivite people who were in the Land of Israel] heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai. They too acted deceptively, and they went and prepared provisions, and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and worn-out and split wine-skins, tied up. And they went to Joshua, to the camp at Gilgal, and said to him and to the men of Israel: We have come from a distant land; now make a covenant with us. And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them to preserve their lives, and the leaders of the congregation swore to them. And it was at the end of three days after they had made a covenant with them that they heard [Israel] that they were near [the Gibeonites] and living among them.

And [nevertheless]

[nevertheless]

the Children of Israel did not strike them, because the leaders of the assembly had sworn to them”—

And if they had been able to dissolve the oath, surely they would have asked about it. Rather, it is necessarily the case that it is impossible to ask for the dissolution of an oath that they had sworn to them publicly.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that even a vow known to the public can be dissolved,

will say:

there, concerning the Gibeonites,

did the oath take effect upon them at all [did the oath take effect at all], that you should reason why they did not ask about the oath and prove that it is impossible to ask for its dissolution?!

[did the oath take effect at all], that you should reason about why they did not seek its annulment and prove that it cannot be submitted for annulment?!

But

once they said to them

the Gibeonites to Israel: “

From a distant land we have come,”

and it became clear that they

had not come

but had deceived them, if so

the oath did not take effect upon them [the oath did not take effect upon Israel]

[the oath did not take effect upon Israel]

at all.

And the fact that they did not kill them [and the fact that they did not kill them]

was

because of the sanctification of the Name,

so that the gentiles would not say that Israel had violated their oath.

And we explain according to Rabbi Yehuda:

And how many

people are called

“the public”?

Rav Naḥman said: Three

people are called “the public.”

Rav Yitzḥak said: Ten

people are called “the public.”

And the Gemara explains their reasoning:

Rav Naḥman said: Three,

because it is stated [Leviticus 15:25]: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood for many days,” and the Sages expounded:

“Days”

means two;

“many”

means three, to teach that through three days of menstrual flow a woman becomes a major zava. We have therefore learned that the expression “many” means three.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Ten,

because

it is written: “

And the Children of Israel did not strike them, because the leaders of the

assembly had sworn to them,” and an “assembly” consists of ten, as it is stated concerning the ten spies

who spoke an evil report about the Land: “How long shall I bear with this evil assembly?”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: Any vow that requires

the inquiry of a Sage—he should not take her back; and one that does not require the inquiry of a Sage—he may take her back. Rabbi Elazar said: They prohibited this only because of that:

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar says: They did not prohibit

taking back his wife when she made a vow that

requires

the inquiry of a Sage

except because of

a vow

that does not require

the inquiry of a Sage.

With regard to what do they disagree,

what is the reason for their disagreement, in that they disagree whether, according to the fundamental law, we should have instituted that he should not take her back in the case of a vow that requires the dissolution of a Sage?

Rabbi Meir holds: A person wants

—that is, it does not matter to him—

that his wife should be humiliated in court,

to come before them to have her vow dissolved. If so, had he known that it was a vow that could be dissolved, he would not have divorced her, but would have sent her to dissolve the vow; and it follows that he would cause harm to her at a later time.

And Rabbi Elazar holds: A person does not want his wife to be humiliated in court

to come before them to have her vow dissolved, and it follows that he cannot cause harm to her, because even had he known that the vow could be dissolved, he would have divorced her.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident in Sidon,

involving a certain man who said to his wife: “A konam if I do not divorce you,” and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back because of the rectification of the world:

And we raise an objection:

What ruling did he teach that he stated “There was an incident”,

what law did our Mishna teach concerning the husband’s vows, such that there was reason to bring this incident concerning it? After all, our Mishna deals only with the wife’s vows.

And we explain:

Our Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

When do these words apply,

that he should not take her back?

When she made the vow; but if he made a vow [the husband] that he would divorce her, then

[the husband] that he would divorce her, he may

he may take her back,

because in this case there is no concern of causing harm.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda also said: There was likewise an incident in Sidon, involving one who said to his wife: “A konam if I do not

divorce you,” and he divorced her, and the Sages permitted him to take her back, because of the rectification of the world.