Gittin 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

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

“I am divorcing you because of a vow.”

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

The Gemara explains the rationale of Rav Naḥman: it 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 may not take her back?

It is because of the concern that he might undermine her

.

Therefore,

if he said this to her

indeed,

he can undermine her [he can undermine her], by saying: “Had I known that the report was false or that the vow could be dissolved, even if they had given me one hundred maneh I would not have divorced you. And yet, this is what I said at the time of the divorce: that I was divorcing you for this reason. When I divorced you, I had it in mind to take you back if the report proved false, and it turns out that the bill of 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 undermine her [he cannot undermine her], since he did not say that he was divorcing her because of the bad reputation.

[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

this is what Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

This is what the Sages instituted:

He must say to her

at the time that he divorces her:

“You should know that I am divorcing you because of the bad reputation, and I am divorcing you because of a vow.”

And we explain the rationale: it 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 may not take her back?

So that the daughters of Israel will 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.

It is taught

in a beraita

in accordance with the first formulation; and it is taught

in another beraita

in accordance with the latter formulation:

It is taught in a beraita in accordance with the first formulation: Rabbi Meir said: For what reason did they say

that the Sages said that

one who divorces his wife because of a bad reputation may not take her back, and one who divorces her because of a vow may not take her back? Perhaps she will go and marry another man, and the report will prove false [the slander spread about her will prove to be untrue], or a Sage will dissolve the vow for her,

and

the first husband will say

:

“Had I known that this was the case, even if they had given me one hundred maneh I would not have divorced her,” and it will turn out that the bill of divorce is void and her children are mamzerim.

And

therefore they say to him

the husband:

“You should know that one who divorces his wife because of a bad reputation may not take her back, and one who divorces her because of a vow may not take her back.”

It is taught in a beraita in accordance with the latter formulation: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: For what reason did they say

that the Sages said that

one who divorces his wife because of a bad reputation may not take her back, and one who divorces her because of a vow may not take her back? So that the daughters of Israel will 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:

“You should know that I am divorcing you because of the bad reputation, and I am divorcing you because of a vow.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to every vow of which many people knew, he may not take her back [because it is a vow that cannot be dissolved],

but if many people did not know of it, he may take her back.

but if it was not known to the public, he may remarry her.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the rationale of Rabbi Yehuda

, who maintains that a vow of which many people knew cannot be dissolved? It is because

it is written [Joshua 9:3 and onward, abridged]: “And the inhabitants of Gibeon [from the Hivite nation that was in Eretz Yisrael] heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai. And they too acted cunningly, and went and made provisions, and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and worn-out and torn wine containers. 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, and now make a covenant with us. And Joshua made peace with them and made a covenant with them to spare 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 that they were dwelling among them

.

And [nevertheless]

[nevertheless]

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

And had they been able to have the oath dissolved, they certainly would have sought its dissolution. Rather, it is necessarily the case that it is impossible to seek the dissolution of the oath that they swore to them in the presence of many people.

And the Rabbis,

who maintain that even a vow known to many people can be dissolved,

would say

that there, with regard to the Gibeonites,

did the oath take effect upon them at all [did the oath take effect at all],

such that you would analyze why they did not seek its dissolution and prove that it is impossible to seek its dissolution?!

But

once they had said to them

the Gibeonites to Israel: “

We have come from a distant land,”

and it became clear that they

had not come

but had deceived them, then

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

at all.

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 Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion:

And how many

people are called

“many”?

Rav Naḥman said: Three,

people are called “many.”

Rav Yitzḥak said: Ten,

people are called “many.”

And the Gemara explains their rationales:

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 interpreted it: “

Days”

means two; “

many”

means three, teaching that after three days of menstrual discharge a woman becomes a major zava. We have thus learned that the term “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

congregation

had sworn to them,” and a “congregation” consists of ten, as it is stated concerning the ten spies who spoke an evil report about the Land

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: With regard to every vow that requires

a Sage’s investigation, he may not take her back; but one that does not require a Sage’s investigation, he may take her back. Rabbi Elazar said: They prohibited this only because of that:

It is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: They prohibited

taking his wife back when she made a vow that

requires

a Sage’s investigation,

only because of

a vow

that does not require

a Sage’s investigation.

With regard to what do they disagree,

what is the basis of their dispute concerning whether, as a matter of fundamental law, the Sages should have instituted that he may not take her back in the case of a vow that requires a Sage’s dissolution?

Rabbi Meir holds: A man wants

that is, he does not care

that his wife be humiliated in court,

by appearing before the court to have her vow dissolved. Therefore, had he known that it was a vow that could be dissolved, he would not have divorced her; rather, he would have sent her to have the vow dissolved, and it would turn out that he could undermine her at a later time.

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

by coming before the court to have her vow dissolved. Therefore, he cannot undermine 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 man who said to his wife: “It is konam to me if I do not divorce you,” and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the betterment of the world:

And we ask:

What is the ruling that it teaches, such that it states an incident,

that our Mishna taught concerning the husband’s vows, making it appropriate to cite this incident? After all, our Mishna deals only with the wife’s vows?

And we explain:

The Mishna is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

When is this statement applicable,

that he may not take her back?

When she made the vow; but if he made a vow [the husband]

that he would divorce her, then he

may take her back,

because in this case there is no concern that he might undermine her.

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

divorce you,” and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to take her back, for the betterment of the world.