Monday, August 7, 2023

Divorce means a complete and final separation TB Gittin 82-83

Yesterday’s daf TB Gittin 82 analyzes what does the word ella (אֶלָּא ) mean when Rabbi Eliezer teaches in the Mishna “With regard to one who divorces his wife and said to her while handing her the bill of divorce: You are hereby permitted to marry any man except [ella] for so-and-so, Rabbi Eliezer permits her to remarry based on this divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation) Of course, the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer.

Does ella mean except (חוּץ) or on condition (עַל מְנָת)? “The Gemara elaborates on how this dilemma affects the understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis: Does ella mean except, and therefore it is specifically with regard to the exception of a certain man from the intended divorce that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that the divorce is invalid? This would be because in a case where the husband noted an exception, it is as if he left out part of her bill of divorce; since she is not permitted to remarry anyone she wishes it does not entirely sever the bond between them. But with regard to divorce on the condition that she will not marry a certain man the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer that it is valid, just as is the case with regard to any typical condition which the husband attaches to the divorce of his wife.

"Or perhaps this is the meaning of ella: On the condition? Accordingly, it is specifically with regard to divorce on the condition that the wife will not marry a certain man that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis and allows her to remarry based on this divorce; but with regard to the exception of a certain man from the woman’s right to remarry he concedes that the divorce is invalid as the husband left out part of her bill of divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation)

On today’s daf TB Gittin 83 five rabbis try to refute Eliezer’s statement. Some understood ella as except and some understood ella as on condition. The Gemara poked holes in all of the refutation except Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s refutation. He holds for a get to be valid it must completely separate husband from wife entirely. “Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya responded, saying: What is the meaning of the expression: “Scroll of severance,” which is used in the Torah for a bill of divorce? It means something that severs the bond between him and her entirely. This woman, by contrast, is still bound to her husband after their divorce, as his stipulation prevents her from marrying a certain man. You have therefore derived that this is not an act of severance.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The whole purpose of divorce is to create a complete separation. Having the former husband still control some aspect of his former wife is legally and morally wrong. The Gemara gives a couple of cases where the get is invalid when the husband retains some control over his wife after the divorce. “

“The Gemara asks: And what do the other Rabbis, who did not refute Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in this manner, do with this term “severance”? How do they interpret it? The Gemara answers: They need it for that which is taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will not ever drink wine, or: On the condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not an act of severance, as she remains restricted by him indefinitely. If he stipulates that she may not do so for thirty days, that is an act of severance. The Rabbis derive from the term severance that any indefinite condition prevents the divorce from taking effect.” (Sefaria.og translation)

When the get is invalid because there’s no complete severance, the husband is still on the hook to provide all the needs of his wife they tried to divorce.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment