Midrash · Halachah
Sifrei Devarim 269/ספרי דברים רס״ט
אוְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, מִכָּן הָיוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָּהּ עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַּבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: דָּבָר.
1Pisqa’ 2693451. “In the event that she doesn’t please him” (Dt. 24:1).On this basis:The circle of Shammai would say:A man should not divorce his wifeunless he finds her lewd,as it is stated:“And he found in her a lewd thing” (`ervat davar; 346 254.2-3 Dt. 24:1).But the circle of Hillel say: Even if she burned his dinner,as it is stated:“And he found in her a lewd thing” (Dt. 24:1).347
באָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: אִם נֶאֱמַר דָּבָר לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר עֶרְוַת, וְאִם נֶאֱמַר עֶרְוַת לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר דָּבָר? שֶׁאִם נֶאֱמַר דָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר עֶרְוַת, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר הַיּוֹצְאָה מִפְּנֵי דָבָר תְּהֵא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהַיּוֹצֵאָה מִפְּנֵי עֶרְוָה לֹא תְהֵא מֻתֶּרֶת לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, אִם נֶאֶסְרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָהּ לֹא תְהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִן הָאָסוּר לָהּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: עֶרְוַת וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. וְאִם נֶאֱמַר עֶרְוַת וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר דָּבָר, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי עֶרְוָה תֵּצֵא, מִפְּנֵי דָבָר לֹא תֵּצֵא, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: דָּבָר וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ.
22. Said the circle of HillelTo the circle of Shammai:If thing (davar) is said in the verse,what is the purpose of lewd (`ervat)?But, if lewd is said,what is the purpose of thing?For if thing [alone] had been statedwithout the addition of lewd,I might have thought:A woman who is expelled over a thingshould be permitted to remarry,but one expelled because she is lewd,shouldn’t be permitted to remarry.So, don’t be surprised!If she is prohibited [by her lewdness]from marrying a man who wouldnormally be permitted to her,shouldn’t she be prohibited to onewho is normally prohibited to her?The Teaching states:“A lewd thing. . . and he shall send her from his house,so she can go out and be with another man” (Dt. 24:1-2)—[thus, the addition of lewd actuallygives the woman an option to remarry].And, likewise, if lewd [alone] had been statedwithout the addition of thing,I might have thought:A woman who is lewd should be expelled,but one who fails to satisfy in a thing shouldn’t be expelled.The Teaching states:“A lewd thing . . . and he shall send her from his house.” (Dt. 24:1-2)—[thus, the addition of thing reinforcesa husband’s option to end the marriage].
גרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו.
3R. Akiva says:Even if he found a prettier one[a husband may divorce his wife,]for it is stated:“In the event that she doesn’t please him” (Dt. 24:1). 348
דוְכָתַב לָהּ, לִשְׁמָהּ. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: כָּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה פָּסוּל. כֵּיצַד? הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק כּוּלַּ׳ מַתְנִי׳.
43. “Then he shall have written for her” (Dt. 24:1)—specifically in her name.On this basis they taught:Any document of divorcenot written in the name of a specific woman is invalid.How so?He was passing in the street{and heard the voice of scribes reading copy, saying:The gentleman, So-and-So, divorcesthe lady, So-and-So,from Such-and-Such a place.And he thought:This is my name, and that’s my wife’s name!This is an invalid notice of divorce.}349
הוְכָתַב, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כָּתַב בִּדְיוֹ, בְּסַם וּבְסִיקְרָא בְּקוֹמוֹס וּבְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְכָתַב מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
5“Written” (Dt. 24:1)—I might only infer thatit be written in black ink.How do I know that it can be writtenwith pigment, with red ink,with pine-gum ink, or with vitriol?The Teaching states:“Written” (Dt. 24:1)—with anything [making a permanent mark]. 350
וסֵפֶר, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא סֵפֶר, מִנַּיִן עֲלֵי קָנִים עֲלֵי אֱגוֹז עֲלֵי זַיִת עֲלֵי חָרוּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְנָתַן מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר סֵפֶר? מַה סֵּפֶר מְיֻחָד שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל קַיָּמָא, יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קַיָּמָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה אוֹמֵר: מַה סֵּפֶר מְיֻחָד שֶׁהוּא תָּלוּשׁ מִן הַקַּרְקַע, יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁמְּחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע.
6“A document”351 In biblical and rabbinic texts, sefer generally refers to a text of some importance preserved on a scroll and archived in a safe place. (Dt. 24:1)—I might infer only thatit must be written on a parchment-scroll[like a scriptural text].How do I know thatit may even be written on leavesof reeds, nuts, olives, and carob?The Teaching states:“He places it in her hand” (Dt. 24:1)—whatever it may be [written on].Well, if so, why does[the verse] specify a document [in the form of a scroll]?Just as a scroll is distinctive for its durability,any material lacking durabilityis excluded [from the rule].R. Judah b. Betyra says:Just as a scroll is distinctivein being detached from the ground,any writing surface attached to the groundis excluded [from the rule].352
זכְּרִיתוּת, שֶׁיְּהֵא כְּרִיתוּת. מִכָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ לְעוֹלָם, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתִּי יַיִן לְעוֹלָם, אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתִּי יַיִן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לִפְלוֹנִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. לְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נִכְנְסוּ אַרְבָּעָה זְקֵנִים לְהָשִׁיב עַל דְּבָרָיו: רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
74. “Writ of separation” (Dt. 24:1)—it must effect a separation [between the two parties].On this basis you can teach—One who says to his wife:Here is your divorce-document—on condition thatyou never again visit your father’s house;On condition thatyou’ll never again drink wine—this is not a complete separation[since the stated condition enablesthe husband to control his ex-wife’sactivities after the divorce].On condition thatyou not visit your father’s housefor the next thirty days [prior to the divorce].On condition thatyou drink no wine for the next thirty days—this is [an effective] separation[since the husband’s conditionis fulfilled prior to the divorce].353One who divorces his wife, saying to her:You are indeed permitted to any man,except for So-and-So!—R. Eliezer permits [the condition, and accepts the divorce];But sages forbid it[since the stated condition enablesthe husband to control his ex-wife after the divorce].3545. After the death of R. Eliezer,four elders entered to refute his views[on the degree of separation required for divorce]:R. Tarfon, R. Yose the Galilean,R. Elazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiva.
חנַעֲנָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְאָמַר: הָלְכָה וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאָחִיו וּמֵת בְּלֹא וָלָד, הֵיאַךְ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת? לֹא נִמְצָא מַתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
8R. Tarfon spoke up and said:If the woman [followed R. Eliezer’s view,]proceeding to marry [So-and-So],her former-husband’s brother,who then died without offspring—how could she contract a levirate marriage[since marriage to the levir is prohibited by the conditional divorceimposed by her former-husband].Hasn’t [her former-husband]stipulated a condition [contrary]to what is written in the Torah?And whoever stipulates a condition [contrary]to what is written in the Torah—the condition is void?355Thus, you learn that[the original divorce] did not effect a complete separation[and the divorcee remains married to her former-husband].
טאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁמֻּתֶּרֶת לְאֶחָד וַאֲסוּרָה לְאַחֵר? אֶלָּא מֻתֶּרֶת לְאֶחָד מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם, אֲסוּרָה לְאֶחָד אֲסוּרָה לְכָל אָדָם. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
9Then R. Yose the Galilean spoke:Where do we find in the Torahthat a woman is permitted to one manbut prohibited to another man [like So-and-So]?Rather, a woman permitted to any manis permitted to all men[unless the partners are close relativesor the man is a priest, who may not marry a widow or divorcee].If she’s prohibited to any manshe is prohibited to all men!Thus, you learn that[the original divorce] did not effect a complete separation[and the woman remains married to her first husband].
יאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: כְּרִיתוּת – דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה.
10Said R. Elazar b. Azariah:Separation implies a complete cutting offof his [life] from her [life].Said R. Yose the Galilean:I prefer the teachings of R. Elazar b. Azariah!
יארַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: וְכִי בַּמֶּה הֶחְמִירָה תּוֹרָה, בִּגְרוּשָׁה אוֹ בְאַלְמָנָה? חֲמוּרָה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאַלְמָנָה. מָה אַלְמָנָה קַלָּה נֶאֶסְרָה מִן הַמֻּתָּר לָהּ, גְּרוּשָׁה חֲמוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִן הָאָסוּר לָהּ? הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
11R. Akiva says:Now which woman hasthe Torah treated with greater stringency—the divorcee [prohibited from marrying So-and-So]or the widow [of So-and-So’s deceased brother]?Clearly, the divorcee’s situationis more stringent than the widow’s[as the following comparison discloses:]Just as the widow,whose case yields a leniency[in that she is truly free of her dead husband],nevertheless is prohibited [from marriage]to a permissible man [until her levir releases her],so, too, the divorcee, whose case yields a stringency,[in that she is still encumbered by the flawed divorce]—isn’t it reasonable that she should be prohibited [from marriage]to a prohibited man [such as So-and-So]?Thus, you learn that[the original divorce] did not effect a complete separation[and the woman who follows R. Eliezer’s view cannot remarry].
יבדָּבָר אַחֵר: הָלְכָה וְנִשֵּׂאת לְאֶחָד וְהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים מִמֶּנָּה וָמֵת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת לָזֶה, לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בָנָיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן מַמְזֵרִים? הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.
12Another word:If a woman,[after the death of her first husband,]went and married the fellow[So-and-So, whom her husband warned her against],and he had children with her and then died,and afterward she married another—wouldn’t the offspring of the first marriagecarry impaired lineage?356Thus, you learn that [R. Eliezar’s ruling]does not effect a complete separation!
יגבְּיָדָהּ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּיָדָהּ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת גַּגָּהּ חֲצֵרָהּ וְחֻרְבָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְנָתַן מִכָּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בְּיָדָהּ? מַה יָּדָהּ מְיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא רְשׁוּתָהּ, כָּךְ כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רְשׁוּתָהּ.
136. “Places it in her hand” (Dt. 24:2)—I might assume only thathe must place the document in her hand.How do I know to include[places under he domain], such as:her roof, her courtyard, or eventhe ruins of her house?The Teaching states:“Places it in her hand” (Dt. 24:2)—anywhere [her hand can reach].If so, why does [the verse] specify her hand?Just as her hand is distinctive,in being under her control,so, too, anything under her control[is considered as her hand.]
ידוְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ בְּיָדָהּ מְשַׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְכוּ׳ מַתְנִי׳, אָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה, אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאַתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וְכוּ׳ מַתְנִי׳.
14“Places it in her hand, and sends her from his house” (Dt. 24:2)—as soon as he places it in her hand,he must send her from his house.On this basis they taught:One who throws a divorce-documentto his wife, while she standsin her house or in her courtyard—she is indeed divorced.{If he threw it to her while she stoodin his house or in his courtyard,even if he was with her on her couch—she is not divorced.If [he placed it in] her blouse or in her basket,she is indeed divorced.If he said to her: bring in this bill of debt,or she found it behind him—if she read it, and it was her divorce-document,this is not a valid divorce-document[and the woman remains married.}357