Jewish audio on chabad.org. This שיעור will be in מסכת גיטין דף מ״ו, but we will start on דף מ״ה עמוד ב׳, from the beginning of the משנה towards the bottom of the עמוד. The משנה starts: המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע, if someone divorces his wife because of her bad name, because of a rumor that went out on this woman that she is unfaithful to him and therefore he divorced her, לא יחזיר, he is not allowed to ever remarry her again. Also, משום נדר, if he divorces his wife because of certain vows that she made and he claims he doesn't want to have a wife who has נדרים, vows upon her, so לא יחזיר, so he is never allowed to remarry her again. And the גמרא later on gives two possible reasons for this דין. One reason is because חיישינן לקלקולא, and the other reason is שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות ובנדרים. It means one reason is that we're afraid that later on if she will remarry somebody else and he will find out that the rumor was false, she was not unfaithful to him, or she will later on nullify her נדרים, he will come along and he will say that the reason that I divorced you was because of that rumor, or because of the נדרים that you had, had I known that that rumor was false, or had I known that you would nullify your נדרים, I would never have divorced you. So he would claim that the divorce he gave her was a טעות, was a mistake, and therefore the גט really wasn't חל, the גט really wasn't valid, so when she remarried, she was still an אשת איש, a married woman, so the children that she has from her second husband are really ממזרים. So in order to avoid that claim of the husband, so the דין is that he can never remarry her. So the husband knowing that when he divorces her because of one of these two reasons, he will never be able to remarry her, and still he divorces her, that shows that he made up his mind to divorce her no matter what. So later on, if he will claim that had I known that the rumor was false, or that you would nullify your נדרים, I wouldn't have divorced you, we tell him that that is not true, because when you divorced her, you knew that this is it, you will never be able to remarry her, and nevertheless you divorced her, obviously you didn't like her and you divorced her no matter what. And therefore, his claim that the גט is the טעות, and the children of the second marriage are ממזרים, are not acceptable. That is one reason why the חכמים made this דין that he cannot remarry her in these two cases. Another reason is that this is a קנס on the woman. The חכמים did not want women to constantly make נדרים, they did not want women to be open to זנות, and therefore they said that if a husband divorces his wife for one of these two reasons, he is never able to remarry her, so the women will be more careful not to cause their husbands to divorce them for this reason. So this will prevent them from being open to זנות, and will prevent them from making נדרים. Then the משנה continues:

רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says that this דין that we said before that if he divorces his wife because of נדרים, he is not allowed to remarry her, does not apply to all kinds of נדרים, but כל נדר שידעו בו רבים, any נדר that the public knew about, a נדר that she made in public, לא יחזיר, if he divorces her for that נדר, then he is not allowed to remarry her, ושלא ידעו בו רבים, but if it is because of a נדר that the public did not know about, יחזיר, then he is allowed to remarry her. And the reason for that is, because רבי יהודה holds that a נדר that is made in public could never be nullified, and also רבי יהודה does not accept the reason that we gave before why you are not allowed to remarry in these two cases is because of קלקולא, is because we're afraid that the husband would later claim that the גט was a טעות, was a mistake, but he holds that the reason was because the חכמים did not want the women to be open to נדרים and open to זנות, and therefore he says like this: If it is a נדר that can be nullified, then there is no reason for the חכמים to make this קנס that he shouldn't be able to remarry her, because even if the women will make such נדרים, they are allowed to be nullified, so the חכמים didn't care. The only thing that the חכמים cared about was concerning a נדר that cannot be nullified, and that's what he said, that since a נדר that is made in public cannot be nullified, only in a case like that did the חכמים make the קנס, the fine, that the husband will not be able to remarry her. But a נדר that was not made in public and can be nullified, a נדר like that, there is no reason for the חכמים to fine her that she shouldn't be able to remarry with her husband. Concerning the other reason, that we're afraid the husband would claim that the גט was a טעות, רבי יהודה does not accept that reason to begin with, so for that reason there is no סברא, no reason to make this דין that he shouldn't be able to remarry her, the only reason possible is because we're afraid that she's going to make tons of נדרים. According to רב יהודה, this only applies to a נדר that cannot be nullified, which is a נדר made in public. Then the משנה continues,

רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, כל נדר שצריך חקירת חכם, any נדר that needs investigation of a חכם, and only a חכם could be מתיר, could nullify after he investigates the case, but the husband cannot nullify this נדר, לא יחזיר, if he divorces her because of such a נדר, he is not allowed to take her back. ושאינו צריך חקירת חכם, but a נדר that doesn't need the investigation of a חכם, but the husband himself could nullify that נדר, יחזיר, if he divorces her for such a נדר, he is allowed to take her back. And the reason for that is because רבי מאיר accepts the main reason, the reason of קלקול, that why did חכמים make this דין that in these two cases, you're not allowed to remarry your wife, is because we're afraid he's going to claim that he only divorced her thinking that she had נדרים, or thinking that the rumor was true, but now he feels that the גט was by mistake. So if this is the main reason, רבי מאיר says like this, that if it's a נדר that he himself cannot nullify, then he is able to say later on that had I known that a חכם could nullify this נדר, I would never have divorced you. And in order to avoid that טענה of the husband, the חכמים said he is not allowed to take her back. But in a case where he himself was able to nullify the נדרים, he cannot טענה later that had I known this could be nullified, I wouldn't have divorced you, because according to רבי מאיר a person doesn't make such a mistake. If he is able to nullify the נדר himself, he would know about it. So he can't say later had I known that the נדר could be nullified, I wouldn't have divorced you because he could have nullified it. And since there is no reason for such a claim later on, there is no reason for the חכמים to say that he is not allowed to take her back. And concerning the other חשש, that the חכמים didn't want that women should be open to זנות and open to נדרים, רבי מאיר doesn't accept that חשש at all, he doesn't accept that as a reason for this דין. So according to him, the only reason is the reason of קלקול. So he says in a case where there is no חשש of קלקול, there's no possibility of that claim of the husband, the דין is that he is allowed to remarry her. And the משנה continues,

אמר רבי אלעזר, רבי אלעזר says, לא אסרו זה אלא מפני זה. They only made the איסור, and him remarrying her in the case where a חכם must nullify the נדר, because of the case where he himself could nullify the נדר. In other words, he argues on רבי מאיר. רבי מאיר said that this איסור of remarrying her only applies in the case of a נדר that you must have a חכם to nullify. רבי אלעזר says just the opposite, that this applies only in the case where he himself could nullify the נדר. But nevertheless, he says that the חכמים made the איסור in both cases because they said since the דין is in the case where he himself could nullify the נדר, he is not allowed to take her back, so they also made the איסור in taking her back in the case where the חכם must nullify the נדר. And the reasoning behind the סברא of רבי אלעזר is that he holds a person does not want his wife to be embarrassed by going to בית דין and having to go through a great investigation in front of בית דין in order to nullify the נדר. So in a case where the nullification must be done through a חכם, so there רבי אלעזר holds he cannot say had I known that she could have nullified the נדר in בית דין, I wouldn't have divorced her, because we will tell him that even if you would have known that she could nullify it in בית דין, you still wouldn't want her to go to בית דין, you wouldn't want her to nullify it in such a way. So in a case like that, there is no claim that had he known he wouldn't have divorced her. While if it is a case where he himself could nullify the נדר, there he could claim had I known that I could nullify the נדר myself, I wouldn't have divorced you. And according to רבי אלעזר, we must say, he holds a person could make such a mistake, a person could claim that I didn't know that I could nullify this נדר. So therefore, in a case where it doesn't need חקירת חכם, where it doesn't have to go through the בית דין, we're afraid he'll say later on that I would have known that I could nullify it, I would have divorced you, so he could make this קלקול. So therefore, there the דין is that he shouldn't be able to take her back, to avoid this problem. In a case where she has to go through בית דין and he cannot claim had I known, I wouldn't have divorced you, because he wouldn't have wanted her to go to בית דין anyway, so over there really there is no reason to make this דין that he shouldn't be able to take her back. But nevertheless, רבי אלעזר says, the חכמים אסר the case where he does have to go to בית דין, because of the case where she doesn't have to go to בית דין. Then the משנה continues, אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה,

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה says, מעשה בצידון, there was a story in צידון, באחד שאמר לאשתו, a man who said to his wife, קונם, I take upon myself an איסור, אם איני מגרשך, if I will not divorce you, וגירשה, and he divorced her later, והתירו לו חכמים שיחזירנה, and the חכמים allowed him to take her back, מפני תיקון תיקון העולם, because of the betterment of the world. And the גמרא will later explain, what is the connection between this story and the דין that the משנה mentioned before. And the גמרא will also explain what the last words of the משנה, מפני תיקון העולם, mean. What does it refer to? Does it refer to the beginning of the משנה, or does it refer to the last case, to the story that רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה told? And now we will continue with the גמרא. אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן, רב יוסף בר מניומי said in the name of רב נחמן, והוא, this דין that we said in the משנה that if a person divorces his wife because of the bad rumor, or because of the נדרים she made, so he's not allowed to remarry her, that is only שאמר לה, if he said to her when he divorced her, משום שם רע אני מוציאך, that I am divorcing you because of that bad rumor, or משום נדר אני מוציאך, I am divorcing you because of the נדר. But if he didn't say that in the time when he divorced her, then the דין is that he is allowed to remarry her. And the גמרא

explains why, because קסבר רב נחמן holds, טעמא מאי, what is the reason why the חכמים said he's not allowed to remarry her? משום קלקולא, because of the קלקול. That later on he might say that, had I known that the rumor is false, or had I known that your נדר will be nullified, I wouldn't have divorced you. So he holds that אי אמר לה הכי מצי מקלקל לה, if he said to her at the time when he gave her the גט, that the reason he's divorcing her is because of the bad name, or because of the נדרים, so then he could spoil it for her, then he could claim later on that, had I known, I wouldn't have divorced you. And he could prove it, because at the time of the גט, I said it clearly, I said that the reason I'm divorcing you is because of the bad name or because of the נדר. ואי לא, but if he didn't say it at the time of the גט, לא מצי מקלקל לה, he couldn't spoil it for her anyway. Because if he'll say later on, the reason I divorced you is because I thought the rumor was true, or because of your נדרים, we'll tell him, but you didn't say anything at the time of the גט, so obviously you had a mind to divorce her no matter what. So there is no קלקול anyway. And since there is no קלקול, there is no reason for the חכמים to say that he is not allowed to remarry her. איכא דאמרי, but others say אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן, that רב יוסף בר מניומי said in the name of רב נחמן, not as we said before, but there's something else that he said. He said that when a person divorces his wife because of the bad name, or because of נדרים, צריך שיאמר לה, he must tell her, the חכמים said that he must tell her, הוי יודעת, you should know, שמשום שם רע אני מוציאך, that I am divorcing you because of your bad name, ומשום נדר אני מוציאך, or because of your נדר I am divorcing you. And the reason for this is, because קסבר רב נחמן holds, according to this פשט, רב נחמן holds טעמא מאי, what is the reason why the חכמים said that in these two cases he's not allowed to remarry her? כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות ובנדרים. It is a קנס, a fine to the woman, in order the women should not be open to זנות and not be open to נדרים. So that is the whole reason. הילכך, therefore, צריך למימר לה הכי, therefore he's supposed to tell her so she should know why he's divorcing her, because that will make her think twice concerning later on making a נדר, or later on being open to זנות. So according to this פשט, even if he didn't say it to her at the moment of the גט, still the דין is he's not allowed to remarry her. According to this פשט, רב נחמן did not make a difference and say that only if he said clearly at the time of the גט that he's divorcing her for this reason, that's when we're afraid later on he could be מקלקל. According to this פשט, even if he didn't say it, still he is able to come later on and say that, I had in mind to divorce you only because of your שם רע, or because of your נדרים. So still there is a reason for the חכמים to say that he should not take her back. So according to this פשט, in all cases, רב נחמן holds the חכמים said he's not allowed to remarry her. All רב נחמן said was that the חכמים made a דין that when he does divorce her for one of these two reasons, he must tell it to her clearly, so she should know that, so next time she will be careful in זנות and careful in the ענין of נדרים. And the גמרא says, תניא כלישנא קמא ותניא כלישנא בתרא, we learned in a ברייתא like the first לשון, and we learned in a ברייתא like the second לשון. תניא כלישנא קמא, we learned in a ברייתא like the first לשון. We learned in a ברייתא, אמר רבי מאיר, רבי מאיר said, מפני מה אמרו, why did חכמים say, המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר, that if someone divorces his wife because of the bad rumor, he is not allowed to remarry her, ומשום נדר לא יחזיר, or if he divorces her because of a נדר, he's not allowed to remarry her? So he says clearly the reason is, שמא תלך ותנשא לאחר, she might go and remarry someone else, ונמצאו דברים בדויים, and later they will find out that the original words, the original rumor was false, and the נדרים were not really נדרים because they were nullified, ויאמר, so the first husband will say, אילו הייתי יודע שכך הוא, had I known that this would be so, אפילו היו נותנים לי מאה מנה, even if they would give me a hundred מנה, לא הייתי מגרשה, I wouldn't have divorced her. And therefore he would claim that the גט that he gave her was a גט בטעות, by mistake. ונמצא גט בטל, so it comes out that retroactively the גט is canceled, ובניה ממזרים, and the children she will have from the second husband will be ממזרים. לפיכך, in order to avoid that, אומרים לו, we say to the husband, הוי יודע, you should know, שמוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר, that if someone divorces his wife because of a bad name, he never could remarry her, ומשום נדר לא יחזיר, if he divorces her because of a נדר, he cannot remarry her. And since he nevertheless divorced her, that shows that he didn't really like her. And that proves that he wanted to divorce her anyway. So later on he cannot come and claim that had I known that this is not true I wouldn't have divorced her, we will tell him, "No, no, you divorced her anyway because you just didn't like her." So that is a proof to the first לשון. תניא כלישנא בתרא, we learned in another ברייתא like the second לשון. We learned, אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי, רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי said, מפני מה אמרו המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר, why did the חכמים say if someone divorces his wife because of the bad rumor he can't take her back, ומשום נדר לא יחזיר, or if he divorces her because of a נדר he cannot take her back? So the reason is clearly, שלא יהיו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות ובנדרים, in order for Jewish daughters should not be open to עריות, to זנות, and to נדרים. לפיכך אומרים לו, therefore we tell him, אמור לה, tell her, בשעה שאתה מגרשה, you divorce her, you must tell her, הוי יודעת, you should know, שמשום שם רע אני מוציאך, that I am divorcing you because of the bad rumor, ומשום נדר אני מוציאך, and because of the נדר, I am divorcing you, so she will know next time not to make any נדרים and not to be open to זנות. And then the גמרא goes back to the משנה to explain the next part of the משנה. It said in the משנה, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, כל נדר שידעו בו רבים לא יחזיר, if he divorced her because of a נדר that was known to the public, then he's not allowed to remarry her, ושלא ידעו בו רבים יחזיר, but if it was because of a נדר that the public did not know about, he is allowed to remarry her. And as we said before in the משנה, because רבי יהודה holds that the whole reason that we're afraid of is because they should not be open to נדרים, and therefore when are we afraid of that? Only in the case of a נדר that cannot be nullified. But if it's a נדר that could be nullified, the חכמים didn't mind if the woman makes such נדרים because it could be nullified anyway. But in a case where it's a נדר that cannot be nullified, that's where the חכמים fined the woman that she cannot remarry the man. And that is only when he she made the נדר in public, because a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified according to רבי יהודה. And the גמרא says, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה, what is the reason of רבי יהודה that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified? דכתיב, because there's a פסוק that says, and this is a פסוק concerning the גבעונים. When יהושע conquered ארץ ישראל, there was one nation that came to יהושע, they dressed up in rags, and they said to יהושע, "We're coming from a far-away country, and we want to convert, we want to become part of the Jewish nation." And they asked him to swear that he will not do them any harm, and יהושע swore to them that he will not do them any harm. And later on they found out that really they were one of the nations of ארץ ישראל. So the פסוק says, ולא הכום בני ישראל, the Jewish people did not hurt them, did not hit them, כי נשבעו להם נשיאי העדה, because the נשיאי העדה, the princes of the community of the Jewish community swore to them not to bother them. But the question is, even though they swore to them not to bother them, but why didn't they nullify the שבועה? Because על פי דין you're allowed to be מתיר a שבועה, just like you're allowed to be מתיר נדר, nullify a נדר, you're allowed to be מתיר a שבועה. So why didn't they מתיר the שבועה? So that proves that this was a שבועה that you could not be מתיר. Why was it? Because it was made in public. The נשיאי העדה made it, it was a נדר, a שבועה made in public, it could not be nullified. So we see from here a נדר that is made in public cannot be nullified. And the גמרא asks, ורבנן, what will the רבנן answer to this? The רבנן hold that even a נדר that's made in public can be nullified. So why didn't they nullify the נדר over

there, the שבועה over there? And the גמרא answers, התם, there, מי חלה שבועה עליהו כלל, was the שבועה חל to begin with? Was the שבועה valid at all? כיוון דאמרו להו מארץ רחוקה באנו, since they said to them, "We came from a far-away place," ולא באו, and they did not come from a far-away place, לא חלה שבועה עליהו כלל, so the שבועה is not valid to begin with. It is not like a regular שבועה that is valid, just you have a right to nullify the שבועה, here it's a שבועה בטעות, the whole שבועה was made by mistake. They thought that they came from a far-away place, and because of that they made the שבועה, but had they known that they did not come from a far-away place, they wouldn't have made the שבועה to begin with. So the שבועה was made by mistake, so that שבועה didn't count at all. So the reason that he did not hurt them was not because of the שבועה. והאי דלא קטלינהו, the reason that he did not kill them, משום קדושת השם, because of a קידוש השם, since he promised them, and if he would have killed them it would have been a חילול השם that they did not keep the promise. Even though על פי הלכה they did not have to keep the promise, but because of a קידוש השם he did not want to kill them. So we don't see from there that you are not allowed to nullify a שבועה that's made in public because in that case, the שבועה was not a שבועה to begin with. There was a special reason because of קידוש השם. Then the

גמרא continues, וכמה רבים? How much is called a רבים? What is called public? רבי יהודה who holds that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified, how many people must you have in order to consider it public? רב נחמן אמר, רב נחמן says, ג', three. רב יצחק אמר, עשרה, רב יצחק says ten. And the גמרא explains, רב נחמן אמר ג', רב נחמן says three because we see from another פסוק it says, ימים רבים. This is concerning a a woman who becomes a זבה. And if she sees blood during a certain period in her cycle, then if she sees three days in a row, she is considered a זבה. How do we know it has to be three days in a row? Because the תורה uses the expression if she will see blood, ימים רבים, many days, and we דרשן, ימים means days in plural is base two because whenever it says plural without a number, we assume it's two. מיעוט רבים שנים, the least that plural could be is two, so when it says ימים, it means two. Then, it adds the word רבים, many, that comes to add another one, so that means ג', that means three. So from there we see that it has to be at least three days in order to make her a זבה. But one thing we see from there that when it says רבים, it means three. So here too, when we say a נדר that's made in רבים, in public, cannot be nullified, it has to be in front of three people. רב

יצחק אמר עשרה, but רב יצחק says it has to be in front of ten, דכתיב עדה, because public is considered an עדה, and עדה means a community. How much is an עדה? So we learn out that an עדה is if you have ten people, because by the מרגלים it says, ד' was angry and he said that he's upset with this עדה, and he was upset with the ten people, because he had twelve מרגלים, twelve spies, but two of them were good, יהושע and כלב, they were good, so ד' was not upset with them. So he's only upset with the rest, which are ten, and he refers to them as an עדה, so we see that ten people make up an עדה, make up a community. So here too, when we say that if you make a נדר ברבים, in public, you cannot nullify it, it means in front of an עדה, in front of ten people. Then the גמרא continues to explain the next part of the משנה. It says in the משנה, רבי מאיר אומר, כל נדר שצריך וכו', רבי מאיר said that any נדר that needs a חקירת חכם, that has to be nullified only by a חכם, so if you divorce her because of that נדר, you cannot remarry her. But if you divorce her because of a נדר that does not need a חכם to nullify it, the husband himself could have nullified that, so he could remarry her if he divorced her for such a נדר. But רבי אלעזר argues. רבי אלעזר says the contrary, that the main reason why the חכמים made this איסור is in the case of a נדר where he himself could nullify, but because they made the איסור in that case, they also made the איסור in the case where the חכם has to nullify it. And the גמרא says, תניא, we learn in a ברייתא, רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, לא אסרו צריך אלא מפני שאינו צריך, and the חכמים did not אסר the case where you need a nullification of a חכם, only because of the case where you do not need the nullification of a חכם, but the husband himself could nullify. And the גמרא says, ובמאי קמיפלגי? What is the סברא of their argument? רבי מאיר סבר, רבי מאיר

holds, אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין. A person does not mind if his wife is embarrassed in בית דין. And therefore, in the case where to nullify her נדר she would have to go to a בית דין, the husband could say later on, "Had I known that she could have nullified it through the בית דין, I wouldn't have divorced her." "I? If she would go to בית דין, she would be embarrassed?" A husband doesn't mind if his wife is embarrassed through the בית דין. So therefore, he could claim that, "Had I known that she would nullify the נדר through the בית דין, I wouldn't have divorced her." But רבי אלעזר סבר, רבי אלעזר holds, אין אדם רוצה שתתבזה אשתו בבית דין. A person does not want his wife to be embarrassed by going to בית דין, so he cannot claim, "Had I known that she could have nullified her נדר in a בית דין, I wouldn't have divorced her," because we tell him, "You wouldn't have wanted her to go to the בית דין anyway." So the only place he could say that, in the place where he could nullify himself, and he could claim, "I did not know that I could nullify it myself. Had I known that I could nullify it myself, I wouldn't have divorced her." But because they made the איסור in the case where he could nullify it himself, they also made the איסור in the place where the בית דין has to nullify it. Then the גמרא continues to explain the other part of the משנה.

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה, רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה said, מעשה בצידן, there was a story in צידון, there was one person who made a נדר that he אסרs it upon himself if he will not divorce his wife, and then he divorced her, the חכמים allowed him to remarry her. The גמרא asks, מאי תנא דקתני מעשה? What did he say before that he brought this מעשה as a proof to what he said before? It seems like there is no connection between this story and the case before. because the whole משנה is talking about a woman who makes נדרים, and the husband divorces her because of the נדרים that she made, and here it tells us a story about a man who made a נדר to divorce his wife. And the גמרא answers, חסורי מחסרא, really there is something missing in the משנה, והכי קתני, this is how it should have said, במה דברים אמורים, when is the דין said before that he is not allowed to remarry her, if he divorced her because of נדרים, כשנדרה היא, if she made נדרים, אבל נדר איהו, but if he made a נדר, יחזיר, he is allowed to remarry her. ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה, and on that it says that רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה said, מעשה נמי בצידן, there was also a story in צידן, באחד שאמר לאשתו, this man who said to his wife, קונם, I אסר upon myself, אם איני מגרשיך, if I will not divorce you, וגירשה, and he divorced her, והתירו לו חכמים שיחזירנה, and the חכמים allowed him to remarry her, מפני תיקון העולם, because of the betterment of the world. And the

גמרא asks, מאי קונם? What kind of איסור did he take upon himself? It says just that he said that he takes upon himself an איסור if he will not divorce her, and then he divorced her, so the חכמים were מתיר him to take her back. But it does not say in the משנה what kind of איסור he took upon himself. אמר רב הונא, so רב הונא said, באומר, this is the case where he said, יאסרו כל פירות שבעולם עלי, that all פירות of the world, all fruit of the world, should be forbidden upon me אם איני מגרשיך, if I will not divorce you. And then he divorced her, and the חכמים allowed him to take her back. Then the גמרא goes back to explain the משנה. It said in the משנה, והתירו לו שיחזירנה, and the חכמים allowed him to remarry her. So the גמרא asks, פשיטא! It's very simple. Why would we think that the חכמים should not allow him to remarry her? If he made a נדר to divorce her, and then he divorced her, what kind of סברא should there be that he shouldn't be able to remarry her that the משנה has to tell us that the חכמים allowed him to remarry her? It is very simple that he's allowed to remarry her. And the גמרא answers, מהו דתימא, I would think ליגזור משום דרב נתן, the חכמים should make a גזירה and fine him that he should not be able to remarry her because of what רב נתן said. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רב נתן אומר, רב נתן says, הנודר, when someone makes a נדר, he אסר's upon himself certain things, כאילו בנה במה, it is as if he built a במה. At a certain time in history, a במה was allowed. A במה was a private מזבח, a private altar, that a person was able to build in his own house, in his own backyard, and bring certain קרבנות to השם on that במה. But at certain periods in history, this was forbidden. And especially after the בית המקדש was built, this is forbidden forever. And that's what רב נתן says, that if someone makes a נדר, it is as if he built a במה in a time when במות are forbidden. והמקיימו, and if someone keeps the נדר, in other words doesn't look for ways to nullify the נדר if he did make the נדר, כאילו הקריב עליה קרבן, it's even worse than just building a במה. It's as if he even brought a קרבן on that במה, which is even another עבירה. So we would think, since it is not good to make נדרים, so the חכמים maybe would קנס him, would fine this man who made a נדר to divorce his wife that he should not be able to remarry her, קא משמע לן, so the משנה has to tell us that the חכמים did allow him to remarry her, and they did not give this קנס upon the man. Then the גמרא goes back to the משנה. It said in the משנה at the end, מפני תיקון העולם, because of the betterment of the world. And the גמרא asks, מאי תיקון העולם איכא? What kind of betterment of the world is there? Because the way we learn פשוט פשט in the משנה, it seems that the words מפני תיקון העולם are going on the last words of the משנה. The end of the משנה tells us a story of the person who made the נדר to divorce his wife, and then he divorced his wife, and the חכמים allowed him to remarry her, and that's where it says מפני תיקון העולם, as if the reason why the חכמים allowed him to remarry her was because of a תקנה for the world. And that's the גמרא's קושיא: What kind of תקנה for the world is there by allowing him to marry her? And the גמרא answers, מפני תיקון העולם, it means that the חכמים allowed him to remarry her because of תיקון העולם which is not here. In other words, there is no תיקון העולם here to not allow him to remarry her, and therefore the חכמים allowed him to remarry her. And now we will continue with the משנה. The

משנה says, המוציא את אשתו משום איילונית, if someone divorces his wife because she is an איילונית, she cannot have any children, when he married her, he did not know that she will not be able to have children. Later, he found out that she can't have any children, so it's like a מקח טעות, like the whole deal, the whole קידושין is a mistake. And normally, if the whole deal is a mistake, then the דין would be that automatically the deal is null and void, and she wouldn't even need a גט, because the קידושין to begin with were not real קידושין. Nevertheless, רש"י holds, as he explains, that because of the כלל, אין אדם עושה בעילתו בעילת זנות, a person does not make his relation with a woman to be turned into זנות, so we assume that even though he didn't have in mind to marry a woman that can't have any children, nevertheless, he made up his mind to be מקדש her, the קידושין should be קידושין. And therefore, when he divorces her, he must give her a גט and we don't say just that the קידושין retroactive were not קידושין, but he must give her a גט. On the other hand, the כתובה he doesn't have to pay her, because it is a מקח טעות. He could tell her, "When I married you, I thought you could have children, and that is the reason why I obligated myself to pay you the כתובה, but now that I found out that you are an אילונית, I don't want to pay the כתובה." And the דין is he would not have to give her the כתובה, but a גט she would need. So the משנה says, if someone divorces his wife because he found out that she is an אילונית, רבי יהודה אומר, לא יחזיר, רבי יהודה says he could never take her back. And the reason for that is, because it's possible that she will marry somebody else, and she will have children, the husband could come and claim that the whole reason he divorced her was because he thought she couldn't have any children. Now that he sees that she could have children, the גט is not a גט. And therefore, when she married the second man, she was really an אשת איש, and the children she has from the second husband are ממזרים. So what do we do? We tell him before he divorces his wife, "You should know that if you divorce her, you'll never be able to take her back." And still if he says, "I still want to divorce her," obviously, he made up his mind to divorce her no matter what. So if he will later on claim that, "The reason I divorced her was only because I thought she couldn't have any children," we will tell him, "No, it is not true. We told you how strict it is, that you'll never be able to take her back, and nevertheless you divorced her. Obviously you meant to divorce her no matter what," and his claim is not accepted. And therefore, the דין is according to רבי יהודה, that he cannot take her back. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, יחזיר, that he is allowed to take her back. The חכמים do not care about this קלקול, they're not afraid of this claim of the husband, and therefore the חכמים hold that there is no reason for the חכמים to אסר, to prohibit this man from remarrying his wife. Then the משנה continues,

נישאת לאחר והיו לה בנים הימנו, if she did marry somebody else, and she had children from the second man, והיא תובעת כתובתה, now she comes back to her husband, and she claims the כתובה. The reason why she doesn't get the כתובה when he divorced her because she's an אילונית, is because it's a מקח טעות, because it was a mistake, he married her thinking that she could have children. But now that we see that she could have children, because she has children from the second husband, so it was not a מקח טעות, the first marriage was not a מקח טעות, so she comes and claims her כתובה. She says, "I want you to give me the כתובה for the divorce you gave me." אמר רבי יהודה, so רבי יהודה said, אומר לה, he tells her, שתיקותיך יפה מדיבוריך, it is better for you to be quiet than to claim what you are claiming, because had I known that later on you would claim your כתובה, I would never have divorced you. And therefore, he would say that the גט that he gave her is not really a גט, because the גט was only given thinking that he doesn't have to pay the כתובה. Now that she wants the כתובה, claiming that it's not a מקח טעות, he says, "If I would know that, I wouldn't have given you the גט." So he could make a whole חשש on her גט. So he tells her, "You better not claim your כתובה, because if you claim your כתובה, then there's a whole שאלה on your second marriage and a whole שאלה on the children," and that would make her not claim her כתובה. The גמרא says, למימרא, are you saying, דרבי יהודה חייש לקלקולא, that רבי יהודה is afraid of קלקול? From our משנה we see that רבי יהודה, who says that if you divorce your wife because she's an אילונית you can't take her back, it is because he is afraid of קלקול, he's afraid that the husband might spoil it for her, he might come later and claim that the גט is no good גט. ורבנן, the רבנן who say that he is allowed to remarry her, לא חיישי לקלקולא, they are not afraid of קלקול, that's what it seems from the משנה. והאיפכא שמעינן להו, but didn't we find just the opposite? דתנן, because we learned in the previous משנה, המוציא את אשתו משום שם רע לא יחזיר, if someone divorces his wife because of a bad name that she has, he's not allowed to remarry her, ומשום נדר לא יחזיר, if he divorces her because of a נדר that she has, he's also not allowed to remarry her. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, כל נדר שידעו בו רבים, any נדר that is known in public, לא יחזיר, he cannot remarry her, ושלא ידעו בו רבים, and if it's a נדר that is not known for public, יחזיר, he could remarry her. אלמא, we see from that משנה, רבנן חיישי לקלקולא, that the רבנן are afraid of the קלקול, ורבי יהודה לא חייש לקלקולא, רבי יהודה is the one that's not afraid of the קלקול. As the גמרא explained before, that the reason why the רבנן say that he cannot remarry her is because they're afraid of קלקול, they're afraid he's going to say that, "Had I known that the rumor was false, or had I known that you would nullify your נדרים, I would never have divorced you," and he would be מקלקל her. On the other hand, the גמרא explained before, that רבי יהודה is not afraid of that קלקול. The only thing thing רבי יהודה is afraid of, the חכמים don't want women to be open to זנות and open to נדרים, and therefore he said, only in a נדר that's made in public, which cannot be nullified, that's where the חכמים קנס her that she cannot remarry her husband again, because the חכמים don't want a woman to be open to נדרים and to עריות. But if it's a נדר that wasn't done in public and she could nullify, so there is no reason for the חכמים to קנס her, and that's why רבי יהודה said she is allowed to be married to him again. So we see from there that as far as קלקול is concerned, as far as being afraid that the husband would claim that the גט is no good גט, רבי יהודה is not afraid of that. So it seems to be the opposite of what our משנה here is telling us. Our משנה here is telling us that רבי יהודה is the one that is afraid of the קלקול, and the חכמים are the ones that are not afraid of the קלקול. And the

גמרא answers, אמר שמואל, שמואל said, איפכא, we have to turn it around. It is true, in our משנה we have to change the names. Where it says in the משנה that you are not allowed to take her back, it should say the חכמים hold that. Where it says the דין that you are allowed to take back, that should say רבי יהודה, so it would fit with the previous משנה. According to the חכמים who are afraid of קלקול in the previous משנה, here too hold that you are not allowed to take her back if you divorce her because of איילונית. רבי יהודה, who in the previous משנה is not afraid of קלקול, is not afraid of קלקול here either, and therefore he says that he is allowed to take her back. And the גמרא asks, והא מדקתני סיפא ניסת לאחר והיו לה בנים הימנו, since it says in the סיפא, in the end of the משנה, that if she married somebody else and she had children from him, and she claims her כתובה, אמר רבי יהודה, that רבי יהודה said, אומר לה, he says to her, שתיקותיך יפה מדבוריך, that your being quiet would be better than your speech. And the reason for that is because he tells her that if you're going to claim your כתובה, I'm going to tell you that I only divorced you thinking I don't have to pay the כתובה, but now that you're telling me that you want me to pay the כתובה, the whole גט retroactive is no גט because on that condition I did not divorce you. מכלל, so we see that רבי יהודה חייש לקלקולא, we see that רבי יהודה is afraid of קלקול, because what is the reason of רבי יהודה? Why we tell her to be quiet? Because otherwise he's going to be מקלקל her, he'll spoil her גט. So we see that רבי יהודה is the one that is afraid of קלקול, so how can you tell me that we have to change the names in this משנה and say that the רבנן are the ones that are afraid of קלקול? The גמרא answers, הא נמי איפכא, that this part of the משנה also has to be changed. In other words, in the משנה where it says that we tell her that she should rather be quiet than to speak, it is not that רבי יהודה said that, but the חכמים said it. So we have to change the name in the

משנה and write that חכמים אומרים that he could tell her that she should better be quiet than claim her כתובה. אביי אמר, אביי said, לעולם לא תיפוך, באמת you don't have to change the names around. And here in the משנה it is רבי יהודה who says that he is not allowed to take her back, and the חכמים are the ones that hold that he is allowed to take her back. And the question that we asked before, that in the previous משנה it seems that the חכמים are the ones that are afraid of קלקול, and רבי יהודה is the one that is not afraid of קלקול, and here it seems to be saying the opposite, so he says that באמת רבי יהודה is afraid of קלקול. And the reason why in the previous משנה he says that only if she made a נדר in public, that's where the חכמים said that he is not allowed to remarry her, that is for a different reason, because ורבי יהודה, רבי יהודה בהיא סבר לה כרבי מאיר וסבר לה כרבי אלעזר. In the previous משנה he holds like רבי מאיר says and he holds like רבי אלעזר, and when you combine these two opinions, you come out that the only time your your דין is that he shouldn't take her back is only if it's a נדר made in public. Why? Because בצריך סבר לה כרבי אלעזר. In those נדרים that need a חקירת חכם, that need דווקא a חכם to nullify, and the husband himself cannot nullify, so he holds like רבי אלעזר holds, that a person does not want his wife to be embarrassed by going to בית דין. So therefore if it's a נדר that needs חקירת חכם, he cannot claim later on that had he known that she could nullify the נדר he would not have divorced her, because we tell him, you wouldn't have let her nullify her נדר anyway because you don't want her to go to בית דין and go through the investigation and the embarrassment of being in בית דין. So therefore there is no חשש of קלקול in the case of a נדר that needs a שאלת חקירת חכם. בשאינו צריך, if it's a נדר that does not need the חקירת חכם, could be nullified by the husband himself, and there we think that maybe he could claim later that had I known that I could nullify the נדר I never would have divorced you, so there סבר לה כרבי מאיר, רבי יהודה holds like רבי מאיר, that a person does not make a mistake not knowing that he could nullify certain נדרים. So if he would claim that I didn't know that I could nullify it and had I known I wouldn't have divorced you, we do not accept that claim because a person doesn't make such a mistake. So it comes out that by נדרים, if you hold like רבי מאיר and you hold like רבי אלעזר, there's never a חשש of קלקול because in any case he could never claim had I known I wouldn't have divorced you. So therefore the only possible problem there would be the problem of a woman being open for נדרים and open for עריות, so that's what רבי יהודה said, That that is the only problem, and that problem is also only in a case where she made a נדר in public that cannot be nullified, and that is the only case רבי יהודה says that the חכמים said that he cannot take her back. Then the

גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא, דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא? The קשיא that we asked before was a סתירה between רבי יהודה, that in the previous משנה it's משמע that רבי יהודה doesn't care about קלקול, and here it's משמע that he does care about קלקול. But that wasn't the only קשיא. There was a סתירה in the רבנן's words, too. In the previous משנה, it is משמע that the רבנן are afraid of קלקול, and in this משנה it's משמע that they are not afraid of קלקול. So the answer we just gave before, that in the previous משנה according to רבי יהודה there is no possibility of קלקול because he holds like רב מאיר and holds like רבי אלעזר, this only answers the contradiction in the words of רבי יהודה, but we also have a contradiction in the words of the רבנן. What about that contradiction? אלא אמר רבא, so רבא said, דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא, כדשנינן. There is no קשיא between רבי יהודה against רבי יהודה as we answered before, that really he holds of קלקול, but the reason of the previous משנה is because he holds like רב מאיר and holds like רבי אלעזר. דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא. The סתירה between the words of the רבנן there and their words of the רבנן here is also no קשיא, because מאן חכמים? רב מאיר.

Who are the חכמים? רב מאיר. דאמר, and he says, בעינן תנאי כפול, that whenever we do something on condition, we have to have a double condition. We have to say that I'm doing this on condition of this and this, and if not for that and that, I don't want this thing to happen. You have to double it, you have to say the positive and you have to say the negative. But according to רב מאיר, if you only say one side, you say I'm doing this on condition of so-and-so, but you did not say, but if not so-and-so, then I don't want the thing to be, then the condition is not valid, and it's as if you did not make a condition, and the thing takes effect without a condition. והכא במאי עסקינן, and in this משנה, we are talking in a case בדלא כפליה לתנאי, that he did not double his תנאי. In other words, the חכמים really hold that we are afraid of קלקול. And the question why in this משנה the חכמים say he is allowed to take her back when he divorces her because of איילונית, and we are not afraid of קלקול here is, because the חכמים here are רב מאיר, who holds that you must double your תנאי. And here we are talking in a case where he did not double his תנאי. He just said to her, I am divorcing you because you are an איילונית, but he did not say, but if you are not an איילונית I wouldn't divorce you. So according to that, the תנאי, the condition לכתחילה is no condition. So if he will later on come and say that the גט is no good גט because now I found out you are not an איילונית, and I only divorced you on condition you're an איילונית, so we'll be able to tell him that the גט is a good גט anyway, because your condition wasn't doubled, and therefore the condition never took effect, so it's as if you divorced her without a condition, you divorced her just because you wanted to divorce her. So since he did not make his תנאי double, so there is no חשש in this case for a קלקול, and therefore the חכמים in this משנה hold that he is allowed to take her back, because in this case there is no possibility of a קלקול.

Concerning what we learned before in the גמרא, that רבי יהודה holds that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified, and he learns it out from the story of the גבעונים. The פסוק says that the reason the בני ישראל did not hurt them was because they swore to them, and therefore they couldn't hurt them. And the question is, but why didn't they nullify the שבועה? So from here רבי יהודה learns out that a שבועה that's made in public cannot be nullified. And the רבנן, who hold that even a שבועה that's made in public can be nullified, they say that from there there is no ראיה, because over there the שבועה was not חל, didn't take effect to begin with, because they said we came from a faraway land, and really they didn't. So the שבועה that was made to them was made on the understanding that they came from a faraway land, and since that was not true, so the שבועה to begin with was not a שבועה. And the whole reason why they didn't hurt them was because of קידוש השם, as the גמרא says. So תוספות asks a קשיא, that באמת there's another reason why the שבועה should not be חל, shouldn't take effect, because it's a שבועה לבטל את המצוה. We know that a person who makes a שבועה to go against a מצוה of the תורה, his שבועה does not take effect. And here, too, since the גבעונים were one of the seven nations that there is a מצוה of לא תחיה כל נשמה, that they were told, the יידן were told that is not allowed to allow not even one of them to live, so they had a מצוה to kill out all the people from those nations. So when they made a שבועה not to kill them, this was a שבועה against the מצוה, and a שבועה against the מצוה is not חל, so therefore that שבועה should not be חל either. And תוספות says that even though we do find in ירושלמי where it says that יהושע sent letters to the nations of ארץ ישראל before he entered ארץ ישראל asking them who wants to make peace and he would make peace with them and not kill them, still תוספות says that's only before he entered ארץ ישראל, but after he entered ארץ ארץ ישראל, he couldn't do that. After he entered ארץ ישראל, it seems as if there was a מצוה of לא תחיה כל נשמה no matter what. So when he made the שבועה to the גבעונים that he wouldn't hurt them, it was against the ציווי of השם, the commandment of השם of לא תחיה כל נשמה. So that שבועה should not be חל anyway. And תוספות answers that this דין of לא תחיה כל נשמה, that they had to kill every one of those nations, only applied to those that didn't want to make peace. But those that did want to make peace, there was no ציווי of לא תחיה כל נשמה. Then תוספות asks another קושיא: What is really the answer of רבי יהודה to the טענה of the רבנן? The רבנן seem to be right by saying that that שבועה was not חל because they lied, they said they came from a faraway country and they didn't. So we must say that the reason they weren't killed was because of קידוש השם. So how can רבי יהודה really learn out from the story of the גבעונים that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified? And תוספות answers that רבי יהודה holds that if this נדר could have been nullified, then it would not have been a חילול השם. So we're back to the question: if it is not really a שבועה, so why didn't they actually kill them? So for whatever reason it is, but we must say that the שבועה was חל. So then the question is back: why wasn't it nullified? So we must say that this שבועה couldn't have been nullified. So from here he sees that a שבועה or a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified. Another interesting thing here is concerning something the גמרא had mentioned דרך אגב, just by the way. The גמרא brought the ברייתא from רב נתן, where he says that if someone makes a נדר, it is as if he built a במה. And then if somebody fulfills the נדר, doesn't nullify it, it is as if he brought a קרבן on that במה. So the רדב״ז in the end of הלכות נדרים asks a קושיא on the רמב״ם. The רמב״ם also quotes this מאמר חז״ל, but he doesn't quote it completely. The רמב״ם says in סוף הלכות נדרים: כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה, anybody who makes a נדר, it is as if he built a במה. ואם עבר ונדר, if he was עובר and did make a נדר, מצוה להשאל על נדרו, there is a מצוה that he should try to ask a חכם and nullify his נדר. So the רדב״ז asks: why doesn't the רמב״ם bring the end of the מאמר חז״ל, that if you kept your נדר, then it is as if you brought a קרבן on that במה? And the רדב״ז answers that the רמב״ם learns that the פשט in this מאמר חז״ל, that if you kept your נדר, it is as if you brought a קרבן on that במה, that's only a person who is not sure that he is able to fulfill his נדר a 100%. But a person who is a 100% sure that he will not come to a מכשול and he will definitely fulfill his נדר, that person we do not say that it is as if he brought a קרבן on that במה. And therefore the רמב״ם doesn't bring it because according to the רמב״ם, this is not in all cases. And since the רמב״ם is giving a כלל, which seems to be saying in all cases, therefore the רמב״ם doesn't mention the second half of the מאמר חז״ל. But the ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט״א in his ספר לקוטי שיחות answers the רמב״ם a little bit differently. Amongst the many ways he answers the רמב״ם, one of the ways is as follows: He says that this מאמר חז״ל is brought down in many places in ש״ס. In some places the לשון is: הנודר כאילו בנה במה, as the לשון is in גמרא in גיטין here that we learned today, that if you make a נדר, it is as if you built a במה. But in some places in ש״ס the לשון is: כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה, anybody who makes a נדר, it is as if he built a במה. And the רמב״ם, when he quotes the מאמר חז״ל, he quotes with the לשון: כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה. And he explains that it's possible to say that the reason why the רמב״ם stresses כל, because in נדרים we find two types of נדרים, as we see it clearly in the גמרא נדרים and in the רמב״ם: There are נדרי איסור and נדרי הקדש. נדרי איסור means when you make a נדר to אסר, to prohibit upon yourself a certain thing. נדרי הקדש means when you make a נדר that a certain thing should be הקדש, or they are referred to as נדרי מצוה. So the רמב״ם, by saying כל הנודר כאילו בנה במה, is trying to tell us that any type of נדר that you make, it is as if you built a במה. Not only if you make נדרי איסור, a נדר that you take an איסור upon yourself, but even if you make a נדר of הקדש, it is also as if you built a במה. In other words, you shouldn't do it. And as we see from what the רמב״ם himself writes, because afterwards, at the end of הלכות נדרים, after he says that if a person did make a נדר, it's a מצוה to be שואל on the נדר, it's a מצוה to try to nullify the נדר, the רמב״ם writes מפורש: במה דברים אמורים, בנדרי איסר. This is only said by נדרי איסר. אבל נדרי הקדש, מצוה לקיימו. But if you make a נדרי הקדש, then it is a מצוה to fulfill that נדר. So we see clearly that it's only concerning the second half of what the רמב״ם said that he makes the difference between נדרי איסור and נדרי הקדש. Concerning that that he said that if you did make the נדר, you should try to nullify it, so there he says that only by נדרי איסר you should try to nullify it, but by נדרי הקדש you shouldn't try to nullify it, you should keep it. But concerning the first part, where it says that you shouldn't make a נדר to begin with, the רמב״ם did not write that this is only by נדרי איסר, not by נדרי הקדש. So it seems as if the רמב״ם holds that even נדרי הקדש should not be made, and if a person did do it, it's as if he built a במה. And therefore, the רמב״ם cannot finish off by saying that anybody who fulfills his נדר, it's as if he brought a קרבן on the במה, because since the beginning of this מאמר חז״ל, the way the רמב״ם quotes it, is concerning נדרי איסור and נדרי הקדש, so then if he would finish off and say that if you are מקיים your נדר, it's as if you brought a קרבן on the במה, this would refer also to נדרי איסור and נדרי הקדש. Concerning נדרי הקדש the רמב״ם says clearly it's a מצוה to be מקיים. So therefore, the רמב״ם does not bring the end of the מאמר חז״ל, he just quotes the beginning that anybody who makes a נדר it's as if he built a במה, because that refers to both, and that is true by both that even נדרי הקדש, if you make a נדר, it's as if you built a במה, but after, if you did make a נדר, then by נדרי איסור, it's a מצוה try to nullify it, by נדרי הקדש, it's a מצוה to fulfill it.