## Gittin Daf 90a

###### Gittin 90a:1
[Gittin 90a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:1)

וְהִלְכְתָא: מוּתֶּרֶת לִשְׁנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the *halakha*** is that **she is permitted to both of them.**


###### Gittin 90a:2
[Gittin 90a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָּהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds** out **about her** having engaged in **a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [*devar erva*],** i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, **as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [*ervat davar*] in her,** and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1).


###### Gittin 90a:3
[Gittin 90a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:3)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַּבְשִׁילוֹ – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel say:** He may divorce her **even** due to a minor issue, e.g., because **she burned** or over-salted **his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,”** meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her.


###### Gittin 90a:4
[Gittin 90a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:4)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** He may divorce her **even** if **he found another woman** who is **better looking than her** and wishes to marry her, **as it is stated** in that verse: **“And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes”** (Deuteronomy 24:1).


###### Gittin 90a:5
[Gittin 90a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״דָּבָר״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״עֶרְוַת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** It **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t** the word **“matter” already stated** in the verse, indicating that any disadvantageous matter is a legitimate reason for divorce? **Beit Shammai said to them: But isn’t** the word **“unseemly [*ervat*]” already stated?**


###### Gittin 90a:6
[Gittin 90a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:6)

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל: אִם נֶאֱמַר ״עֶרְוַת״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״דָּבָר״ – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מִשּׁוּם ״עֶרְוָה״ תֵּצֵא, מִשּׁוּם ״דָּבָר״ לֹא תֵּצֵא; לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״דָּבָר״. וְאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״עֶרְוַת״ – הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מִשּׁוּם ״דָּבָר״ – תִּנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר, וּמִשּׁוּם ״עֶרְוָה״ – לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר; לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: ״עֶרְוַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Hillel said to them: If** the word **“unseemly” had been stated and** the word **“matter” had not been stated, I would have said** that a wife **should leave** her husband **due to forbidden sexual intercourse,** but **she should not** have to **leave** him **due to** any other **matter. Therefore,** the word **“matter” is stated. And if** the word **“matter” had been stated and** the word **“unseemly” had not been stated, I would have said** that if he divorced her merely **due to** a disadvantageous **matter she may marry another** man, as the Torah continues: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). **But** if she was divorced **due to** her engaging in **forbidden sexual intercourse, she may not marry another** man, as she is prohibited from remarrying. **Therefore,** the word **“unseemly” is stated,** indicating that even a wife who is divorced due to adultery is permitted to remarry.


###### Gittin 90a:7
[Gittin 90a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:7)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי – הַאי ״דָּבָר״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״דָּבָר״ – ״עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״; מָה לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what do Beit Shammai do with this** word **“matter”?** How do they interpret it? It seems superfluous, as in their opinion the verse refers specifically to a wife who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse. The Gemara answers: The word **“matter” is stated here,** with regard to divorce, **and** the word **“matter” is stated there,** with regard to testimony: **“At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be established”** (Deuteronomy 19:15). **Just as there,** it is stated that a matter is established only **through two witnesses, so too here,** a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse justifies divorce only if it is established **through two witnesses.**


###### Gittin 90a:8
[Gittin 90a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:8)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל – מִי כְּתִיב ״עֶרְוָה בְּדָבָר״?! וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי – מִי כְּתִיב ״אוֹ עֶרְוָה אוֹ דָּבָר״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond to this analogy in the following manner: **Is it written:** Because he has found something **unseemly in a matter [*erva bedavar*],** indicating that it was established through the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adultery? **And Beit Shammai** would respond to Beit Hillel’s interpretation as follows: **Is it written:** Because he has found **either** something **unseemly or** another **matter *[o erva o davar*],** in accordance with Beit Hillel’s understanding?


###### Gittin 90a:9
[Gittin 90a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:9)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל – לְהָכִי כְּתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״; דְּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי, וּמַשְׁמַע הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Beit Hillel** would respond that **for this** reason the expression **“some unseemly matter [*ervat davar*]” is written, as it indicates that** interpretation, i.e., that a husband is not obligated to divorce his wife unless there are two witnesses to her having engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, **and it** also **indicates this** interpretation, i.e., that he may divorce her due to any deficiency, be it adultery or any other shortcoming.


###### Gittin 90a:10
[Gittin 90a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:10)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת: בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״כִּי״ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּאַרְבָּעָה לְשׁוֹנוֹת – אִי, דִּלְמָא, אֶלָּא, דְּהָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **Rabbi Akiva says:** He may divorce her **even** if **he found another woman** who is better looking than her. **With regard to what do they disagree?** They disagree **with regard to** the application of **Reish Lakish’s** statement, **as Reish Lakish said** that the term ***ki*** actually **has** at least **four** distinct **meanings: If, perhaps, rather,** and **because.**


###### Gittin 90a:11
[Gittin 90a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:11)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: ״וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״ – דְּהָא מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר; וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: ״כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר״ – אִי נָמֵי, מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Shammai hold** that the verse **“And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because [*ki*] he has found some unseemly matter in her”** means that she did not find favor in his eyes **due to** the fact that **he has found some unseemly matter in her. And Rabbi Akiva holds** that the phrase **“because [*ki*] he has found some unseemly matter in her”** means: **Or if he has found some unseemly matter in her.**


###### Gittin 90a:12
[Gittin 90a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: לֹא מָצָא בָּהּ לֹא עֶרְוָה וְלֹא דָּבָר, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Pappa said to Rava:** According to Beit Hillel, if the husband **found about her neither forbidden sexual intercourse nor** any other **matter,** but divorced her anyway, **what is** the *halakha*? Is the divorce valid?


###### Gittin 90a:13
[Gittin 90a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מִדְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי אוֹנֶס: ״לֹא יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ כׇּל יָמָיו״ – כׇּל יָמָיו בַּ״עֲמוֹד וְהַחְזֵיר״ קָאֵי; הָתָם הוּא דְּגַלִּי רַחֲמָנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא – מַאי דַּעֲבַד עֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him** that the answer can be derived **from what the Merciful One reveals** in the Torah **with regard to a rapist: “He may not send her away all his days”** (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that even if he divorces the woman whom he raped and was subsequently commanded to marry, **all his days he stands** commanded **to arise and remarry** her as his wife. Evidently, **specifically there** the husband is obligated to remarry his divorcée, **as the Merciful One reveals** as much. **But here, what he did, he did.**


###### Gittin 90a:14
[Gittin 90a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: אִם לִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ, וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחְתָּיו וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, מַהוּ? קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״אַל תַּחֲרֹשׁ עַל רֵעֲךָ רָעָה וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב לָבֶטַח אִתָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: If he intends to divorce her and she is living with him and serving him, what is** the *halakha*? Rava **read** the following verse **about** such a person: **“Devise not evil against your neighbor, seeing he dwells securely by you”** (Proverbs 3:29).


###### Gittin 90a:15
[Gittin 90a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:15)

תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַדֵּעוֹת בְּמַאֲכָל, כָּךְ דֵּעוֹת בְּנָשִׁים. יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ כּוֹסוֹ – וְזוֹרְקוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹתֵהוּ; וְזוֹ הִיא מִדַּת פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה, שֶׁהָיָה נוֹעֵל בִּפְנֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Sota* 5:9) that **Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are** different **attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are** different **attitudes with regard to women.** With regard to food, **you have a person who,** when **a fly falls into his cup, he throws out** the wine with the fly **and does not drink it. And this is** comparable to **the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda** with regard to his wife, **as he would lock** the door **before his wife and leave** so that she would not see any other man.


###### Gittin 90a:16
[Gittin 90a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:16)

וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ כּוֹסוֹ – וְזוֹרְקוֹ, וְשׁוֹתֵהוּ; וְזוֹ הִיא מִדַּת כׇּל אָדָם, שֶׁמְּדַבֶּרֶת עִם אַחֶיהָ וּקְרוֹבֶיהָ – וּמַנִּיחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you have a person who,** when **a fly falls into his cup, he throws out** the fly **and drinks** the wine. **And this is** comparable to **the demeanor of any** common **man, whose** wife **speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her** do so.


###### Gittin 90a:17
[Gittin 90a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/90a:17)

וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁזְּבוּב נוֹפֵל לְתוֹךְ תַּמְחוּי – מוֹצְצוֹ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ; זוֹ הִיא מִדַּת אָדָם רַע, שֶׁרוֹאֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוָה בַּשּׁוּק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you have a man who,** when **a fly falls into** his **serving bowl, he sucks** the fly **and eats** the food. **This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out** into the street **with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace** immodestly,