Gittin 89a (פט.) — the Talmud in English

She is divorced:

and permitted to everyone.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Once there has emerged

a public report

on the one hand, that she is betrothed,

with its refutation accompanying it,

on the other hand, that she is divorced, the report both prohibited her and permitted her.

Rava said:

An unmarried woman

about whom a report has emerged

of

promiscuity

with a gentile or a slave, who disqualify her from marrying a koen, and concerning whom there is a report

in the city, we are not concerned

with prohibiting

her

from marrying a koen.

What is the reason?

Adultery is uncommon, and we may attribute it to her having merely

been seen engaging in ordinary licentious behavior,

which does not disqualify her from marrying a koen.

And the Gemara establishes it

in accordance with a dispute between tanna’im!

A woman

who ate in the marketplace

or

who gulped—

she walked with her neck extended

in the marketplace,

or who nursed

in the marketplace—in all these cases, Rabbi Meir says: She must leave

her husband, because we are concerned that she committed adultery.

Rabbi Akiva says:

She need not leave him until the time

when they conduct discussion—

they speak

about her,

the women who spin

spindles [

twisted linen, Tosafot, Sota 27a] at night by the light of

the moon,

as it is their practice to discuss the importance of the events taking place in the city.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you have left no daughter for Abraham our forefather who remains married to her husband

because her enemies could spread a baseless report about any one of them.

And the Torah said [

Deuteronomy 22]: “And it shall be, if he does not find favor in his eyes,

because he has found in her an indecent matter.”

And below [

there, verse 9]

it says: “

By the testimony of two witnesses or by the testimony of three witnesses shall the matter stand.”

And Scripture juxtaposes the two matters:

Just as there,

with regard to witnesses, there must be knowledge of

a clear matter,

so too here,

when a man divorces his wife because of an indecent matter, he is not obligated to divorce her until there is

a clear matter.

And Rava holds in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.

The Sages taught:

a. If a report emerged about a virgin that she was

one who had had relations, we are not concerned about her

prohibiting her from marrying a koen gadol, who is prohibited from marrying a woman who has had relations.

b. If a report emerged about an unmarried woman that she was

married

some time ago,

we are not concerned about her.

c. And likewise, if a report emerged about her that she was

betrothed,

we are not concerned about her.

d. If a report emerged about an unmarried woman that she married today, if they said that she married a specific man, we are concerned about her, as our Mishna teaches.

But when

they did not

say, “

to so-and-so,”

we are not concerned about her.

e. If a report emerged: “So-and-so is being betrothed today

in another city,”

we are not concerned about her.

f. If a report emerged that she was

a mamzeret, we are not concerned about her.

And likewise, if she was

a maidservant, we are not concerned about her.

g. If a report emerged:

So-and-so consecrated his property! We are not concerned about it,

prohibiting him from using it.

h. If a report emerged: “

So-and-so declared his property ownerless,”

we are not concerned about it.

Ulla said:

That which our Mishna teaches, “A report emerged that she is betrothed,” and we are concerned about her,

does not

refer to a case in which they

heard

only

a vague report—

a rumor.

Rather, it is enough that lamps are burning and beds

are prepared, and people are entering and leaving, and saying, ‘So-and-so is being betrothed today,’

for all this constitutes evidence warranting concern for the report.

And we challenge this: Is the rumor that so-and-so is destined to be

betrothed

today sufficient to prohibit her?

Perhaps

in the end

I will not betroth her.

And we answer:

Say that this is how the report emerged: “

So-and-so

has already

been

betrothed today

to so-and-so.”

And Levi likewise taught: It is not that they hear a vague report; rather, it is enough that lamps are burning, beds are prepared, women are spinning by candlelight and rejoicing for her [

Tosafot’s version reads: “and people are entering and leaving and saying”],

and they say: ‘So-and-so is being betrothed today.’

And he challenges: “

Being betrothed”?

Perhaps

in the end

I will not betroth her?

Rather,

Rav Pappa said: Say: “

So-and-so was betrothed today.”

And likewise

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is not that they heard a vague report; rather, it is enough that lamps are burning, beds are prepared, and people are entering and leaving.

If

they said something—

“So-and-so was betrothed today”—

this is a report.

But if

they said nothing,

but remained silent,

this is an amatla,

which breaks and nullifies the report.

And we challenge this:

But

if

they did not say

anything, there is neither a report

nor anything at all; so what do we mean by saying, “This is an amatla”?

And we answer: Rabba bar bar Ḥana came

to exclude the view of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who said

below:

the amatla that they mentioned, which nullifies the report, is

even

if the amatla emerged

ten days later.

This teaches us

that if

they did not say

a definitive report, but only an uncertain report, such as a betrothal concerning which it is uncertain whether the object was closer to him or closer to her,

that is an amatla,

because the report emerged together with the amatla, at the same time.

But

if

they

said

“So-and-so was betrothed today,” and only later added an amatla,

it is not an amatla.

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav:

As for the concern for a report,

it does not

refer to a case in which they

heard a vague report

alone;

rather, it is enough that people say:

“So-and-so

said that a certain woman is betrothed,” and it is possible to investigate

from whom he heard it—from so-and-so

else,

and so-and-so from so-and-so, and they continue investigating

to find the source of the rumor,

until they reach

the knowledge of

the clear matter,

who

the witnesses were

who saw the betrothal; only then are we concerned for the report. And we challenge this: If we know

the clear matter, before whom she was betrothed, then

it is valid testimony!

Is our Mishna coming to teach the laws of testimony—that witnesses are believed!?

Moreover, what does “her name emerged in the city” mean? This is fully valid testimony. [Ritva]

And we answer: Rather,

when Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came, he said in the name of Rabbi Abba, who said in the name of Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav:

As for the concern for a report,

it does not

refer to a case in which they

heard a vague report; rather, it is enough that they say: “So-and-so— from whom did he hear it? From so-and-so. And so-and-so from so-and-so,”

who said

that so-and-so and so-and-so were the witnesses to the betrothal

and they went overseas, so that it is impossible to ascertain the matter fully. In such a case, we are concerned for the report. [And although lamps are not burning and beds are prepared

].

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If the witnesses came from overseas and said, “It never happened; so-and-so was not betrothed before us,” do

we nullify the report,

and she is permitted to everyone without a bill of divorce,

or do we not nullify the report?

or do we not nullify the report?

Rav Yosef said to him: Since Rav Ḥisda said that

they do not validate the report until they hear from

fit

people

who said, “So-and-so and so-and-so were present when so-and-so was betrothed, and they went overseas,”

learn from this

that if there is a defect in the report, such as its having been issued by unfit people, we are not concerned for the report. And therefore the same law applies if afterward the witnesses returned and said, “It never happened”:

we nullify the report.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

On the contrary,

prove from that

which Rav Sheshet said:

even

if it became known that she was betrothed before witnesses

through women, it is a report; learn from this

that we are not concerned that the report may be untrue. If so, the same law should apply:

we do not nullify the report

if the witnesses say, “It never happened.”

He said to him, Rav Yosef:

They are different places,

with differing customs.

In Sura,

the practice was that if the witnesses returned and said, “It never happened,”

they nullified the report; but in Nehardea they did not nullify the report.

There was

a certain

woman

about whom a report emerged

in the city

that she had been betrothed to a member of the yeshiva [

who had been betrothed to one of the students].

about whom a report went out

Rav Ḥama sent for her father

and said to him:

Tell me, what happened?

He said to him,

her father: That young man

betrothed

my daughter

on the condition

that

he

not go

to the land of the Khuzites;

but in the end he

went,

and the betrothal was nullified.

He said to him, Rav Ḥama:

Since at the time the report emerged,

when it was a definitive report,

there was not

an amatla accompanying it, now

you do not have the power to establish an amatla

to nullify the report.

There was

a certain

woman

about whom a report emerged that she had been betrothed before witnesses to a certain man with the pulp of an unripe date

—a date that had not fully ripened, placed in baskets made from date palms to ripen there. After it is eaten, some fruit remains attached to the pit, having not separated during the eating; this is called tzifa, meaning a coating, and it was with this flesh that he betrothed her—

at the spring

of a place called

Bei Shifei.

Rav Idi bar Ahin sent it before Abaye

to ask: If the witnesses come and say that she was not betrothed before us

in such a case, what is the law?

Can the report be nullified or not?

He said to him, Abaye:

Even according to the one who says

that generally

we do not nullify the report,

because there remains suspicion among people that perhaps she was nevertheless betrothed, and therefore, as a stringency, they require a bill of divorce,

in this case,

where he betrothed her with the pulp of an unripe date,

we nullify the report,

and she does not require a bill of divorce in order to marry another. The reason is

that people will say:

“The Sages examined her betrothal, and it was not worth a peruta,”

and she was never betrothed in the first place.

that he betrothed her with the flesh of an unripe date—

we nullify the report,

and she does not require a bill of divorce in order to marry another man. The reason is

that people will say:

The Sages examined her betrothal, and it was not worth even one peruta,

so she was never betrothed in the first place.

people:

The Sages examined her betrothal, and it did not contain the value of a peruta,

and from the outset she was not betrothed.