## Gittin Daf 81a

###### Gittin 81a:1
[Gittin 81a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:1)

זְכוּת הָרְאוּיָה לַשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is not referring to the right of a second man that she already married, but rather to **the right that is due** to a suitor who wishes to become her **second** husband, meaning that the first husband cannot eliminate the right of a second man who wishes to marry her.


###### Gittin 81a:2
[Gittin 81a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנִמְלַךְ; בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ עַל תְּנַאי, וְלֹא נַעֲשָׂה הַתְּנַאי – לֹא פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one wrote** a bill of divorce **to divorce his wife, and reconsidered** and did not give it to her, **Beit Shammai say:** Although merely writing the bill of divorce does not dissolve the marriage, by doing so **he disqualified her from** marrying into **the priesthood. And Beit Hillel say: Even if he gave** the bill of divorce **to her conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled,** and therefore the bill of divorce did not take effect, **he did not disqualify her from** marrying into **the priesthood.** A woman is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood only if the divorce takes effect.


###### Gittin 81a:3
[Gittin 81a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשֶּׁה מִדְּוִיל, לִשְׁמוּאֵל: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, יָצָא עָלָיו קוֹל – ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן כָּתַב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ״, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashe from Devil, sent** a query **to Shmuel: Our teacher, instruct us.** In the case of a priest **about whom** the following **rumor circulated: So-and-so** the **priest wrote a bill of divorce to his wife, but she is** still **residing under his** roof **and attending to him; what is** the *halakha*? Need one lend credence to this rumor?


###### Gittin 81a:4
[Gittin 81a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:4)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: תֵּצֵא, וְהַדָּבָר צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא דְּאִי מְבַטְּלִינַן קָלָא אוֹ לָא מְבַטְּלִינַן; וְהָא נְהַרְדְּעָא אַתְרֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הִיא, וּבִנְהַרְדְּעָא לָא מְבַטְּלִי קָלָא! אֶלָּא דְּאִי קָרוּ לִנְתִינָה ״כְּתִיבָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Shmuel **sent** the following response **to him: She** must **leave** her husband; **but the matter requires investigation** before he is forced to divorce her. The Gemara asks: **What is** the investigation that is required? **If we say that** the investigation is **whether we** can **abolish the rumor** that circulated, **or we cannot abolish** it; that cannot be the question: **But isn’t Neharde’a the place** where **Shmuel** is the halakhic authority and the rulings there are in accordance with his opinion, **and in Neharde’a they do not abolish a rumor? Rather,** the required investigation is to determine **whether** people in that place **refer to giving** a bill of divorce as **writing.** If that is the case, the rumor would be that he gave her a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 81a:5
[Gittin 81a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:5)

וְכִי קָרוּ לִנְתִינָה ״כְּתִיבָה״ – לִכְתִיבָה גּוּפַהּ מִי לָא קָרוּ לַהּ ״כְּתִיבָה״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if they refer to giving** as **writing,** it proves nothing, as **don’t they refer to writing itself** as **writing?** Therefore, the fact that they refer to giving as writing does not mean that he gave the woman the bill of divorce. The same term would be employed even if he only wrote the bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 81a:6
[Gittin 81a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:6)

אִין; דְּאִי מִיגַּלְּיָא מִילְּתָא דְּקָרוּ לִנְתִינָה כְּתִיבָה, דִּלְמָא ״נָתַן״ קָאָמְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, as if it is discovered that they refer to giving** as **writing,** then there is reason to suspect that **perhaps they are saying** in the rumor **that he gave** her the bill of divorce, and there is concern that she is actually divorced.


###### Gittin 81a:7
[Gittin 81a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:7)

תֵּצֵא?! וְהָאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל קָלָא דְּבָתַר נִישּׂוּאִין – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos Shmuel’s statement that she must leave his home, the Gemara asks: **She** must **leave? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: We are not concerned for any rumor that** circulates **after marriage.** According to Rav Ashi, if a rumor circulates that a woman was betrothed to a man, there is concern about the rumor, and she is not allowed to marry someone else until she receives a bill of divorce from her rumored betrothed. But if such a rumor circulates after she has married someone else, there is no concern about such a rumor, and she is not obligated to leave her husband. Here too, in the case of this woman who is suspected of being divorced, she is currently living with her husband. Therefore, perhaps we should not be concerned about such a rumor.


###### Gittin 81a:8
[Gittin 81a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:8)

מַאי ״תֵּצֵא״ נָמֵי – תֵּצֵא מִשֵּׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What** is the meaning of Shmuel’s directive: **She** must **leave?** This **also** means that **she** must **leave the second** husband. If her first husband dies, and she marries another priest, she must leave him due to the rumor that circulated that her first husband gave her a bill of divorce.


###### Gittin 81a:9
[Gittin 81a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:9)

אִם כֵּן, אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנָיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן! כֵּיוָן דְּמִשֵּׁנִי הוּא דְּמַפְּקִינַן לַהּ וּמֵרִאשׁוֹן לָא מַפְּקִינַן לַהּ, אָתֵי לְמֵימַר: סָמוּךְ לְמִיתָה גֵּרְשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so, you cast aspersions on the children of the first** husband. If the reason that she must leave the second husband is because she is assumed to be a divorcée, this means that she remained with her first husband while she was already divorced, and the children they had after the rumor circulated would be disqualified from the priesthood. The Gemara answers: **Since we remove her** only **from the second** husband, **and we do not remove her from the first** husband, **they will come to** explain the incident by **saying** as follows: The first husband **divorced her proximate to** his **death,** and the children from him are of unflawed lineage. Since he divorced her, she may not marry another priest. Because the assumption here is that the divorce took place proximate to the first husband’s death, there is no concern of aspersions being cast on the children from the first husband.


###### Gittin 81a:10
[Gittin 81a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:10)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations,** as the earlier generations were more conscientious about maintaining an unflawed lineage.


###### Gittin 81a:11
[Gittin 81a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:11)

דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים – רַבִּי דּוֹסָא. דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁבוּיָיה – אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי דּוֹסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The earlier generations** is referring to **Beit Shammai.** Beit Shammai were so careful about the sanctity of the priesthood that they said, as stated in the mishna, that the writing of a bill of divorce alone renders a priest’s wife forbidden to him. **The later generations** is referring to **Rabbi Dosa, as it is taught** in a mishna (*Eduyyot* 3:6): A priest’s wife who was taken **captive** may **partake of *teruma*,** and there is no concern that perhaps she was raped while in captivity and thereby became forbidden to her husband and disqualified from partaking of *teruma*. This is **the statement of Rabbi Dosa.**


###### Gittin 81a:12
[Gittin 81a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי דּוֹסָא: וְכִי מָה עָשָׂה לָהּ עַרְבִי זֶה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּיעֵךְ לָהּ בֵּין דַּדֶּיהָ, פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In explanation of this statement, **Rabbi Dosa says: And what did this Arab do to her** when he took her captive? **Because he fondled her breasts he disqualified her from the priesthood?** As long as it is not determined that her captors actually raped her, she is not prohibited from partaking of *teruma*. It is apparent from here that the later generations are more lenient than the early generations with regard to the sanctity of the priesthood.


###### Gittin 81a:13
[Gittin 81a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:13)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַי: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, מַכְנִיסִין פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן דֶּרֶךְ טְרַקְסְמוֹן, כְּדֵי לְחַיְּיבָן בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים, מַכְנִיסִין פֵּירוֹתֵיהֶן דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת, כְּדֵי לְפוֹטְרָן מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: Come and see that the later generations are unlike the earlier generations. The earlier generations** would **bring in their produce** from the field by **way** of the **main entranceway [*teraksemon*], in order to obligate** the produce **in tithes.** By contrast, **the later generations** would **bring in their produce** by **way** of **roofs and** by **way** of **enclosures, in order to exempt** the produce **from tithes.**


###### Gittin 81a:14
[Gittin 81a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:14)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵין הַטֶּבֶל מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה פְּנֵי הַבַּיִת – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן הַבַּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As Rabbi Yannai says: Untithed produce does not become obligated in tithes until it sees the entrance of the house,** through which people enter and exit, **as it is stated** in the declaration of the tithes: **“I have put away the hallowed things out of my house”** (Deuteronomy 26:13). As long as untithed produce is not taken into the house through the primary entrance of the house, it is permitted to eat it casually without tithing it. Consequently, they would take the produce in through another entrance in order to exempt it from tithes.


###### Gittin 81a:15
[Gittin 81a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:15)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר קוֹבַעַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** with regard to this issue: **Even** entry into the **courtyard establishes** an obligation to tithe, **as it is stated: “That they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied”** (Deuteronomy 26:12). This indicates that once the produce is brought into the courtyard, it is obligated in tithes.


###### Gittin 81a:16
[Gittin 81a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּנְדְּקִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי; וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who divorces his wife, and** afterward **she spent the night with him at an inn [*befundaki*], Beit Shammai say: She does not require a second bill of divorce from him, and Beit Hillel say: She requires a second bill of divorce from him,** since they may have engaged in sexual intercourse at the inn and thereby betrothed her once again.


###### Gittin 81a:17
[Gittin 81a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:17)

אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין; וּמוֹדִים בְּנִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין – שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט שֵׁנִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** did they say this *halakha*? **When she was divorced following** the state of **marriage.** Beit Hillel **concede that when she was divorced following** the state of **betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him, due to** the fact that **he is not accustomed to her.** Therefore, there is no concern that they engaged in sexual intercourse, even though they spent the night together at the inn.


###### Gittin 81a:18
[Gittin 81a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/81a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁרָאוּהָ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The **dispute** between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is specifically **in** a case **where they saw that she engaged in sexual intercourse,**