Gittin 89b — the Talmud in English

There was a certain woman about whom a rumor spread that she had been betrothed

before witnesses

to

one

of the sons of

a certain

person,

but people did not say to whom. The witnesses then came from overseas and said: We never testified that this woman had been betrothed.

Rava said: Even according to the one who says

generally

we do not cancel

a rumor, because of the concern that perhaps she is still betrothed, in this case

we cancel the rumor,

because

people will say

certainly

the Sages examined her betrothal,

and it became clear to them

that it was the betrothal of a minor,

and that is why they permitted her to marry another man without a bill of divorce.

There was a certain

woman

about whom a rumor spread that she had been betrothed to a certain man who was a minor,

who had not yet reached the age of majority,

but appeared

physically

to be an adult. The question was raised: If witnesses were to come and say, “She was not betrothed in our presence,” should we cancel the rumor, because people will say: He was a minor, and therefore there was no valid betrothal? Or perhaps we should not cancel the rumor, since he appeared to be an adult, and people do not know that he was a minor; consequently, they may suspect that she is still a married woman.

Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: There was an incident of this

kind,

and

the Sages said

that we cancel the rumor and do not be concerned about suspicion, because people understand even when someone appears to be an adult

that he is still

a minor, since he

has not reached “

the divisions of Reuben,”

as it is stated

about them: “

For the divisions of Reuben there were great resolves of heart.”

This means that adults possess wisdom and depth of understanding, whereas it can be seen that a minor does not have the understanding of an adult. We are not concerned that people might say he was an adult; rather, we cancel the rumor, since people will say that the Sages examined this betrothal and established that it was the betrothal of a minor.

We learned in the Mishna:

provided that there is no plausible explanation for the rumor.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: The plausible explanation of which they spoke,

which cancels the rumor,

even

if the rumor spread now and the plausible explanation did not become known

from now until

after

ten days,

the rumor is canceled because of that plausible explanation.

Rav Zevid said: Where

there can be

a plausible explanation, we are concerned for the plausible explanation,

even if it did not emerge together with the rumor.

Rav Pappa raised an objection from a source to Rav Zevid:

We learned in the Mishna:

provided that there is no plausible explanation.

This implies that if the plausible explanation did not emerge together with the rumor, we are not concerned for it, even though such an explanation is possible.

He said to him

Rav Zevid: In our Mishna as well,

where

there can be

a plausible explanation, it is stated

that we cancel the rumor.

Rav Kahana said to Rav Pappa: And

if

you do not accept

Rav Zevid’s view, that where there is a plausible explanation we cancel the rumor,

but we learned: A woman whose husband went overseas, and one witness came and said, “Your husband has died,” the Sages instituted that he should be believed. They were lenient and accepted the testimony even of one witness, although matters concerning marital status generally require two witnesses, so that the woman would not remain unable to remarry. If the woman then went and married, and afterward her first husband returned, she must leave the second man, because a married woman who had relations with another man is forbidden to her husband; she does not have the exemption that applies to a woman who was violated, for the reason explained there in Tractate Yevamot. She requires a bill of divorce from him. And even from her second husband, although it has now become clear that his betrothal never took effect, the Sages required her to receive a bill of divorce, so that people would not say: Her first husband divorced her, she married a second man, and she returned to the first without a bill of divorce—thus a married woman would be seen leaving her husband without a bill of divorce.

But if she did not marry the second man, but only

But if she did not marry the second man, but only

became betrothed

to him,

and afterward her husband came,

we say [in Yevamot 88b] that she is

permitted to return

to her first husband. She does not require a bill of divorce from the second man.

And why did they not require a bill of divorce from the second man?

Is it not because

people

will say

that the second man

betrothed her conditionally:

if her first husband were to come, his betrothal would not take effect? Therefore she leaves him without a bill of divorce, and there is no concern that people might say that a woman left a marriage without a bill of divorce.

This proves that we attribute the matter to a plausible explanation, namely, that she had been betrothed conditionally, even though the plausible explanation did not emerge and we never heard that he had betrothed her conditionally. This accords with Rav Zevid, who said that where there is a plausible explanation, we are concerned for it.

Rav Pappa said to him:

This case is different, because the first husband came

and

challenged

the matter, claiming that he had never divorced her and that the second man’s betrothal had never taken effect. Therefore, she does not require a bill of divorce from the second man.

And we challenge this:

If so, even if she married,

she should not require a bill of divorce from the second man, because the first husband claims that he never divorced her. People would not come to suspect that the first husband divorced her, the second man married her, and she left him without a bill of divorce.

Rav Pappa concludes: Rather,

if she married, since she committed a forbidden act, the Sages penalized her

the Sages

by requiring her to receive a bill of divorce from the second man.

If she became betrothed, since she did not commit a forbidden act, the Sages did not penalize her.

But we are not concerned that people might say that a woman leaves a marriage without a bill of divorce.

Rav Ashi said: Any rumor that has not been established in the court,

meaning that the court did not rule that one must be concerned for this rumor,

is not a rumor,

and we are not concerned for it.

And Rav Ashi said: Any rumor that emerges after the marriage,

meaning that after she married, a rumor spread that she had already been betrothed to another man,

we are not concerned for it

to require her to receive a bill of divorce from the first man. For if you were to be concerned for the rumor, we would have to remove her from her husband, because the established rule is that just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to the man with whom she committed adultery. Therefore, the Sages instituted that we should not be concerned for the rumor, and she may remain with her husband.

The Gemara infers from Rav Ashi’s statement:

But

a rumor

that

emerges

after betrothal, we are concerned for it,

and she must receive a bill of divorce from the first man so that she can remain with her second husband.

Rav Haviva said: Even

a rumor

that emerges after betrothal, we are also not concerned for it

to require her to receive a bill of divorce from the first man, so that she will not become repugnant to her husband.

And

so

is the halakha:

that

we are not concerned for it.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: They sent word from the study hall

of

Rav to Shmuel:

Our teacher, instruct us: A woman

about whom a rumor

spread

that she had accepted betrothal

from a first man, and another man came and betrothed her with a Torah-valid betrothal

in the presence of witnesses,

what is the law?

Shmuel sent back to them:

She must

leave

the second man,

and establish the matter with certainty!

Investigate the source of the rumor, whether it is true or not, and inform me.

And we wonder: For

what

purpose did Shmuel need to investigate the source of the rumor?

If you say

it was

because if it becomes known that

the rumor was false, then

the first man’s betrothal was not a valid betrothal,

and we would consequently cancel the rumor and permit her to remain with her husband—

but Nehardea is the place

where

Shmuel’s authority prevails,

and we said above that the scholars of Nehardea do not cancel a rumor!?

Rather,

the reason he needed to investigate the source of the rumor must be

that if it becomes clear that the first man’s betrothal

was genuinely

a valid betrothal,

and the rumor was true, then

she does not require a bill of divorce from the second man,

because his betrothal never took effect from the outset.

And this disagrees

with the opinion

of Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: If a married woman extends her hand and accepts betrothal from another man,

even though she has the presumptive status of a married woman, we are concerned that she may have been divorced by her first husband,

and she is betrothed

to the second man and requires a bill of divorce from him.

The source of Rav Huna’s statement is

from Rav Hamnuna.

For Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who says to her husband, “You divorced me,” is believed.

This is because

of the presumption that “a woman does not have the audacity to make such a claim in her husband’s presence.”

Here too, if she extends her hand and accepts betrothal from another man, we are concerned for the validity of his betrothal, since a woman would not have the audacity to become betrothed to another man while she is still married.

But the other

—Shmuel—said:

When Rav Hamnuna’s statement was stated,

that she does not have the audacity to make such a claim before her husband, this applies specifically

in his presence.

But

when he is not present, she does have such audacity.

Here, the case concerns a woman who became betrothed to another man when her first husband was not present, and we attribute the matter to her still being married to the first man. Therefore, she does not require a bill of divorce from the second man.

The Gemara now returns to explain Shmuel’s statement that the matter must be established with certainty.

If they did not establish the matter with certainty,

meaning that they did not determine the source of the rumor,

what is the law?

Rav Huna said: He divorces

the

first man,

about whom the rumor spread that he had betrothed her,

and the second man marries her,

if he wishes.

And we infer:

But

to say that

the second man divorces

her and

the first man marries

her,

we do not

say this.

What is the reason?

People might say

that the first man betrothed her and divorced her, and the second man betrothed her and divorced her, and now

the first man is taking back

his

divorced wife after betrothal,

which we know is forbidden.

Rav Shinena, son of Rav Idi, said:

This statement that the first man divorces and the second man marries her is not meant specifically;

the second man may also divorce her and the first man may marry her,

and we are not concerned that people might say that he is taking back his divorced wife after betrothal,

because people will say

:

the Sages examined her betrothal

to the second man

and

saw

that it was a mistaken betrothal; therefore she returned to the first man, and they will not suspect him.

and that is why she returned to the first man, so they would not suspect him.

A rumor spread about her

that she had become betrothed

to this man, and

afterward

to that man—what is the law?

Rav Pappa said: In this case too, he divorces

the man about whom the rumor spread that he had betrothed her

first, and the second man marries

her,

and not the reverse,

because here too we are concerned that people might say: The first man divorced her, the second man married her and divorced her, and now she is returning to the first man; thus, he would be taking back his divorced wife after betrothal.

But

Ameimar said: She is permitted to both men—

either the first man marries her and the second man divorces her, or the first man divorces her and the second man marries her.