Gittin 73b — the Talmud in English

As a married woman with regard to all her matters!

For the get takes effect only close to his death, and until that time she is like his wife with regard to everything. And one who has relations with her intentionally, his punishment is strangulation, and unintentionally, his punishment is a sin-offering.

Rabbi Yose says:

her status is like that of

a divorced woman and not a divorced woman,

for he maintains that at every moment there is a doubt: perhaps this is the moment close to death, and she is therefore divorced as a matter of doubt, and one who has relations with her unintentionally brings a provisional guilt-offering.

Their dispute applies even in a case in which the husband ultimately dies from that illness, because Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he intended to divorce her only close to death.

And in the Gemara they establish that the case is one in which he says to her when giving her the get: “This is your get, and be divorced through it from the time that I am in the world, if I die.” Therefore Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the get takes effect only close to death, and beforehand she is a married woman; whereas Rabbi Yose maintains that from the time the get is given she is in doubt, perhaps now is the time close to death. Therefore she is considered a married woman as a matter of doubt, and one who has relations with her is liable for a provisional guilt-offering.

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

They saw her seclude herself with him

[with her husband]

in darkness

after she received this get from him,

or she slept with him beneath the foot of the bed, we are not concerned that perhaps they engaged in another matter [בתשמיש] [marital relations].

sexual relations ].

But we are concerned

that perhaps he had relations with her

for the sake of [לשם] [for the sake of]

for the purpose of ]

promiscuity, [לקמן יבואר] [this will be explained below].

as will be explained below ].

But we are not concerned

that perhaps he had relations with her

for the sake of [לשם] [for the sake of]

for the purpose of ]

betrothal

so as to require her, because of this, to receive an additional get.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: We are also concerned for the sake of betrothal.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is he saying?

For at first it is stated in the beraita that we are not concerned that perhaps they engaged in intercourse, and afterward it is stated that we are concerned that perhaps he had relations with her for the sake of promiscuity.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said:

This is what it says

and this is how the beraita is to be read and explained:

If they saw her seclude herself with him, we are not concerned about intercourse.

And if

they saw

also

that she had intercourse

with him—

we are concerned

that perhaps he had relations with her

for the sake of [לשם] [for the sake of]

for the purpose of ]

betrothal,

and she requires an additional get because of this betrothal.

Indeed, the get that he gave her previously takes effect if the condition is fulfilled, but it does not apply to this betrothal that was performed afterward.

And the first get is not considered an old get because of this intercourse, since an old get is only when he has relations with her after the writing and signing of the get and before giving it to her, whereas here he had already given her the get, and only a condition is lacking for it to take effect from the time he gave it to her.

And if

he gave her money

after intercourse—

we are concerned

and we attribute that this intercourse was

for the sake of promiscuity.

that is, we say ] that that

with

the money of

the payment for intercourse he gave her

this money.

And we are not concerned for the sake of betrothal

so as to require her, because of this, to receive an additional get.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Also in this case

in which he gave her money after intercourse

we are concerned

that perhaps he had relations with her

for the sake of [לשם] [for the sake of]

for the purpose of ]

betrothal.

And according to Rav Naḥman’s explanation, in the words of the beraita,

in accordance with whom does this statement go [כמו מי מהשיטות שבברייתא, הולך מה שאמר] [in accordance with which of the positions in the beraita does the statement go]

that is, which of the opinions in the beraita does the statement follow ]

that Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan

later, in the next chapter, that

the dispute

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel [below, 81a], concerning a divorcee who secluded herself with her husband after the divorce—whether we are concerned for betrothal and she requires a second get—is only

when they saw that she had intercourse,

for according to Beit Shammai she does not require a second get, and according to Beit Hillel she does.

But

when

they did not see that she had intercourse—

according to everyone, she does not require a second get from him.

In accordance with whom [כמו איזה שיטה שבברייתא] [in accordance with which position in the beraita]

did Rabbi Yoḥanan speak?

In accordance with everyone,

both according to the view of the first tanna and according to the view of Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda, for both maintain that when they did not see that she had intercourse, we are not concerned for betrothal and she does not require a second get, while when they saw that she had intercourse, we are concerned for betrothal. They disagree only in the case in which they saw him give her money.

Abaye challenged it

against Rav Naḥman, who establishes the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda in the beraita as referring to a case in which he gave her money after having relations with her.

Is it the case [וכי] [that]

is it so ] that

that the beraita teaches money

in the beraita? And even if an error in the version could be possible, such an error is not possible, for if the tanna taught the giving of money, they would not err in the version by omitting it entirely.

Rather, Abaye said: This is what it says

this is how the beraita is to be read and explained:

If

they saw that she had intercourse—

we are concerned for the sake of promiscuity, but we are not concerned for the sake of betrothal.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: We are also concerned for the sake of betrothal.

And according to Abaye’s explanation of the words of the beraita:

In accordance with whom does this statement go [כמו מי מהשיטות שבברייתא, הולך מה שאמר] [in accordance with which of the positions in the beraita does the statement go]

that is, which opinion in the beraita does the statement follow ]

that Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The dispute

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning a divorcee who secluded herself with her husband after the divorce—whether we are concerned for betrothal and she requires a second get, for according to Beit Shammai she does not require a second get, and according to Beit Hillel she does—refers specifically to

when they saw that she had intercourse.

But

if

they did not see that she had intercourse—

according to everyone, she does not require a second get from him.

In accordance with whom [כמו איזה שיטה שבברייתא] [in accordance with which position in the beraita]

did Rabbi Yoḥanan speak?

In accordance with Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda,

and not in accordance with the first tanna, since according to the first tanna, even when they saw that she had intercourse, we are not concerned for betrothal; and if the first tanna maintained that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disputed this matter, he would not have adopted this as the position of Beit Shammai.

But Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan, who established the position of Beit Hillel—that she requires an additional get—when they saw that she had intercourse, and he adopted the position of Beit Hillel. He did not agree with the one who disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan and establishes the dispute of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai even when they did not see that she had intercourse.

For according to Abaye’s statement concerning the beraita, in a case in which they did not see that she had intercourse, everyone agrees that we are not concerned about intercourse.

Rava challenged it

against Abaye:

If so,

that this is how you explain the beraita,

what is the meaning of “also”

that Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda said, “Also in this case we are concerned for the sake of betrothal,” whose meaning is that he comes to include something? For according to Abaye, he does not come to include something; rather, he comes to say that we do not attribute the matter leniently to ordinary promiscuous intercourse, but we are concerned that it was for the sake of betrothal.

Rather, Rava said: This is what it says

this is how the beraita is to be read and explained:

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Also

if

they did not see that she had intercourse—

we are concerned for the sake of betrothal.

For he comes to include that not only when they saw that she had intercourse are we concerned that perhaps he had relations with her for the sake of betrothal, but even when they did not see that she had intercourse, we are concerned that she had intercourse for the sake of betrothal.

And according to this,

in accordance with whom does this statement go [כמו מי מהשיטות שבברייתא, הולך מה שאמר] [in accordance with which of the positions in the beraita does the statement go]

that is, which opinion in the beraita does the statement follow ]

that Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan

that

the dispute

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning a divorcee who secluded herself with her husband after the divorce—whether we are concerned for betrothal and she requires a second get—is specifically

when they saw that she had intercourse.

But

if

they did not see that she had intercourse—

according to everyone, she does not require a get from him.

In accordance with whom [כמו איזה שיטה שבברייתא] [in accordance with which position in the beraita]

did Rabbi Yoḥanan speak?

Not in accordance with

any

one

of them.

For according to the first tanna, even when they saw that she had intercourse, we attribute it to promiscuity and she does not require a get; and if he maintained that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disputed this matter, he would not have adopted this, in accordance with the position of Beit Shammai.

And according to Rabbi Yose, even when they did not see that she had intercourse, we are concerned; and this is like the one who disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan and maintains that even when they did not see that she had intercourse, Beit Hillel required her to receive an additional get.

We learned in the Mishna:

What is her status during those days

between the giving of the get and the fulfillment of the condition?

Rabbi Yehuda says: As a married woman with regard to all her matters; Rabbi Yose says: A divorced woman and not a divorced woman

and she is a married woman as a matter of doubt, and one who has relations with her is liable for a provisional guilt-offering.

A tanna taught

in a beraita:

provided that he dies,

only then, according to Rabbi Yose, is he liable for a provisional guilt-offering.

But if he did not die in the end, it becomes clear retroactively that there was no get, and she was a completely married woman, and he is liable for a sin-offering.

And we raise a difficulty: Both according to Rabbi Yose, who considers her after the giving of the get a married woman as a matter of doubt, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who considers her certainly a married woman, in a case in which the condition is fulfilled and the husband ultimately dies, the get takes effect only at the time of death.

For it is impossible to say that the get takes effect retroactively from the time of its delivery, since if so, the woman would have been neither a married woman nor a married woman as a matter of doubt.

And it is difficult,

and when he dies, does it become a get [וכי בשעת מיתה חל הגט] [does the get take effect at the time of death]?

that is, does the divorce document take effect at the time of death ]?

But we hold that there is no get after death!

Rabbah said

to resolve this: The Mishna is not speaking of a case in which he says that the get should take effect from today, for in that case, if the condition is fulfilled, the get takes effect from the time of its delivery, and one who has relations with her is exempt.

Rather, it is speaking

of one who says

that the get should take effect

from the

last

time that I am in the world,

meaning that it should take effect a short time before death.

Therefore, according to Rabbi Yehuda, close to the time of death the get takes effect, and beforehand she is a completely married woman. And Rabbi Yose maintains that from the time of delivery we are uncertain whether now is the time close to death, and at every moment there is a doubt whether the get has taken effect. Even though in the end it became clear that he lived longer, Rabbi Yose maintains that there is no retroactive determination, and we do not say that it became clear retroactively that she was not a divorced woman as a matter of doubt.

The Sages taught: The intervening days,

the days between the giving of the get and the fulfillment of the condition of the get, when he dies—

her husband is entitled

with regard to his wife:

to what she finds—

the object that she found belongs to him.

And to the product of her labor—

the wages of her work belong to him.

And to the annulment of her vows—

he can still annul her vows.

And he inherits her

if she dies in the interim.