Gittin 89a — the Talmud in English

This woman is divorced, and

permitted to everyone.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

Since there went out

a voice

on the one hand, that she is betrothed,

and its refutation with it,

on the other hand, that she is divorced, the voice forbade her and the voice permitted her.

Rava said:

A single woman

about whom a name went out

of

having illicit relations

with a gentile or a slave, who disqualify her from marrying a priest, and there is a voice concerning this

in the city, we are not concerned

to forbid

her

to marry a priest.

What is the reason?

Illicit relations are uncommon, and it is possible to attribute it to merely

an act of mere licentiousness that they saw in her,

and it does not disqualify her from marrying a priest.

And the Gemara establishes it

as a dispute between tannaim!

A woman

who ate in the marketplace

or

who rolled her neck—

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 had illicit relations.

Rabbi Akiva says:

she must leave only from the time

that they conduct discussion and negotiation,

they speak

about her,

the women who spin

cords

of spun flax, Tosafot, Sota 27a, at night by the light of

the moon,

for it is their practice to speak about the importance of the deeds in the city.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you have not left a daughter for Abraham our father who sits under her husband,

because concerning every one of them her enemies could spread a voice without cause.

And the Torah said [Deuteronomy 22], “And it shall be, if he does not find favor in his eyes

because he found in her a matter of sexual impropriety,”

because he found in her a matter of sexual impropriety.”

And below [there, 19]

[there, verse 9]

it says: “

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

And Scripture compares them:

Just as there,

with witnesses, there must be knowledge of

a clear matter.

So too here,

when a man divorces his wife because of a matter of sexual impropriety, he is not obligated to remove her until there is

a clear matter.

And Rava holds in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.

The Sages taught:

A. If concerning a virgin a voice went out that she is

one who has had intercourse,

we are not concerned about her to forbid her from marrying a high priest, who is forbidden to one who has had intercourse.

B. If concerning a single woman a voice went out that she is

married

from some time ago,

we are not concerned about her.

C. And likewise, if a voice went out concerning her that she is

betrothed,

we are not concerned about her.

D. If concerning a single woman a voice went out that she married today, if they said that she is married to a particular so-and-so, we are concerned about her, as it is taught in our Mishna.

But when

they did not

say, “

to so-and-so,”

we are not concerned about her.

E. If a voice went out: So-and-so is being betrothed today

in another city,

we are not concerned about her.

F. If a voice went out that she is

a mamzeret, we are not concerned about her.

And likewise, that she is

a maidservant, we are not concerned about her.

G. If a voice went out:

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

to forbid him from using it.

H. If a voice went out: “

So-and-so declared his property ownerless,”

we are not concerned about it.

Ulla said,

that which is taught in our Mishna, “A voice went out that she is betrothed,” and we are concerned about her,

does not

refer to

their having heard

only

a voice of rumor—

a report.

Rather, so 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 to be concerned about the voice.

And we object: Is the report that so-and-so is destined to be

betrothed

today sufficient to forbid her?

Perhaps

in the end

I will not betroth her.

And we answer:

Say

that the voice went out as follows: “

So-and-so

already

was betrothed today

to so-and-so.”

And Levi likewise taught: Not that they hear a voice of rumor, but so that lamps are burning, beds are prepared, and women are spinning by the light of the lamp and rejoicing over her

Tosafot read: “and people are entering and leaving and saying,”

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

And he asks: “

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 Yohanan: Not that they heard a voice of rumor, but so that lamps are burning, beds are prepared, and people are entering and leaving.

If

they said a matter:

So-and-so was betrothed today,

this is a voice.

And if

they did not say a matter,

but were silent,

this is an amta’la,

which breaks and cancels the voice.

And we challenge this:

But

if

they did not say,

there is here neither a voice

nor anything,

so what do we mean by saying, “This is an amta’la”?

And we resolve: Rabba bar bar Ḥana comes

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

below:

the amta’la that they said

cancels the voice is

even

if the amta’la came out

ten days later.

It teaches us this,

that if

they did not say

a complete voice, but a doubtful voice, such as a betrothal where it is uncertain whether it was closer to him or closer to her,

that is an amta’la,

because the voice went out together with the amta’la, in one stroke.

But

if

they said

“So-and-so was betrothed today,” and only afterward added an amta’la,

it is not an amta’la.

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

That concerning which we are concerned about a voice,

does not

refer to

their having heard a voice of rumor

alone,

but so that they say

people:

So-and-so

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

from where he heard it—from so-and-so

else,

and so-and-so from so-and-so, and they investigate and proceed

to find the source of the report,

until they reach

knowledge of

the clear matter,

who are the witnesses who saw the betrothal, at which point we are concerned about the voice.

And we object: If we know

the clear matter,

before whom she was betrothed, then

it is valid testimony!

Did our Mishna come to teach the laws of testimony, that witnesses are trustworthy!?

And further, what is “her name went out in the city”? But this is complete testimony. [Ritva]

And we resolve: Rather,

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

That concerning which we are concerned about a voice,

does not

refer to

their having heard a voice of rumor, but so that they say: From where did so-and-so 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 went overseas,

so that it is impossible to establish the matter with complete certainty. In such a case we are concerned about the voice. [And even though lamps are not burning and beds are prepared].

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

If the witnesses came from overseas and said, “Nothing ever happened, and so-and-so was not betrothed in our presence,” do

we cancel the voice,

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

or do we not cancel the voice?

Rav Yosef said to him: From the fact that Rav Ḥisda said

that they

do not

validate a voice

until they hear

from people

who are fit,

who said: “In the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, so-and-so was betrothed, and they went overseas,”

learn from this

that if there is a defect in the voice, such as that people who are not fit produced it, we are not concerned about the voice. And if so, the same law applies if afterward the witnesses returned and said, “Nothing ever happened”:

we cancel the voice.

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Yosef,

on the contrary,

prove from this:

Rav Sheshet said, even

if it became known that she was betrothed in the presence of witnesses

from the mouths of women, it is a voice; learn from this

that we do not concern ourselves with the manner in which the voice was produced, lest it not be true. And if so, the same law applies:

we do not cancel the voice,

if the witnesses say that nothing ever happened.

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

They are different regions,

places divided in their customs.

In Sura,

they practiced that if the witnesses returned and said, “Nothing ever happened,”

they cancel the voice; but in Nehardea they do not cancel the voice.

There was a certain

woman

about whom a voice went out

in the city

that she was betrothed to a son of the yeshiva

who had been betrothed to one of the members of the academy.

Rav Hama had him brought

he sent for and brought

her father

of the woman,

and said to him: Tell me, how did the incident occur?

He said to him,

her father: That young man

betrothed

my daughter

on the condition—

on the stipulation

that he not go

that he should not go

to Bei Ḥozai,

but in the end

he went,

and the betrothal was nullified.

He said to him,

Rav Hama:

Since at the time when there was a voice,

when there was a complete voice,

there was not

with it

an amta’la,

now

you do not have the power to establish an amta’la

to cancel the voice.

There was a certain

woman

about whom a voice went out that she had been betrothed in the presence of witnesses to so-and-so with the pulp of an unripe date

a date that had not fully ripened and had been placed in palm-leaf baskets, vessels made from palm leaves in which it ripened. After it is eaten, some of the flesh of the fruit remains on the pit, since it was not separated during eating; it is called tzifa, meaning a covering, and with this flesh he betrothed her,

at a spring,

by a spring of a place called

Bei Shifi.

Rav Idi bar Ahin sent it before Abaye,

to ask: If the witnesses will come and say that she was not betrothed in our presence,

what is the law in such a case?

Can the voice be canceled or not?

He said to him,

Abaye:

Even according to the one who says

that generally

we do not cancel the voice,

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

in this case,

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

we cancel the voice,

and she does not require a bill of divorce in order to marry another. Because

people will say

people:

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

and from the outset she was not betrothed.