ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 89
(a) Rava says that if a rumor has spread that an unmarried woman behaves
immorally with a Nochri or an Eved - we ignore it (and she remains permitted
to marry a Kohen).
(b) The reason for this is - because the rumor merely implies that people
saw them playing around in the street (but no more that).
(c) Rava holds like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the following Beraisa.
(a) Rebbi Meir say that a woman who ate in the street, who walked proudly in
the street with her head in the air or who nursed her baby in the street -
must leave her husband.
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva, she does not leave husband unless the women -
who spin by the light of the moon and who discuss all the juicy items of
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri comments - that according to Rebbi Akiva, no
woman will remain married, seeing as all it needs to separate them from
their husbands is some nasty soul who has taken a dislike to them, by
initiating such a rumor.
(d) He extrapolates his own opinion from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ki Matza Bah
Ervas *Davar*" ( Ki-Seitzei -regarding a Get) and "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ...
Yakum *Davar*" (Shoftim - regarding testimony) - which teaches us that
Beis-Din only have the right to force a woman to leave her husband for
something definite, but not as a result of a mere rumor).
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says that we ignore ...
1. ... 'Be'ulah' - he means that an unmarried girl is not forbidden to marry
a Kohen Gadol on the basis of a mere rumor that she had relations with a
(b) The difference between these cases and our Mishnah 'Yatza Sh'mah be'Ir
Mekudeshes, Harei Zu Mekudeshes' is - that our Mishnah speaks when people
actually saw the candles lit, the couches spread, and guests coming and
going, a clear indication that an engagement was indeed taking place.
2. ... 'Nesu'ah' - that a woman who is assumed to be unmarried is not
considered to be married on the basis of a mere rumor that she is.
3. ... 'Arusah' - he means that we do not consider a woman whom we believed
to be available, to be betrothed on the basis of a mere rumor that she has
been betrothed for some time.
(c) What a rumor that a woman became betrothed but the name of the man is
not mentioned, and a rumor that she became betrothed to a specific man in
another town have in common is - that they are another two examples of
rumors that we ignore.
(d) Neither do we contend with the rumor that ...
1. ... a woman is a Mamzeres or a Shifchah.
2. ... someone declared his property Hekdesh or Hefker.
(a) We amend the Beraisa which, describing the rumor of 'Mekudeshes' in our
Mishnah, writes 've'Omros *P'lonis Miskadeshes* Hayom*' (meaning - that she
is about to become betrothed [but how do we know that she ultimately
did?]) - to 'P'lonis Niskadshah Hayom' (meaning that she became betrothed
(b) In a similar statement, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan adds
'Amru Davar, Zehu Kol; Lo Amru Davar, Zehu Amasla'. If they didn't say
anything, it cannot be called an Amasla. So what he meant to say is that it
is only if the rumor did *not spread* independently (only with an Amasla)
that we ignore it, but not if it *did*, in which case an Amasla that comes
into effect only later will not break it.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan comes to preclude the opinion of Rabah bar Rav Huna who
says - that as long as the Amasla emerges within ten days, it breaks the
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav said that a mere rumor is insufficient
to send a woman away from her husband. What is required is - that the rumor
can be traced back from one witness to another, until it stops at a firm
testimony (two witnesses), who actually saw the act taking place.
(b) We refute Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav's statement on the grounds -
that what we then have is a clear-cut testimony (and not just a rumor).
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel added to the statement of Rebbi Aba Amar Rav
Huna Amar Rav - that each witness received testimony from the one before
him, but that, when it came to the crunch, all the witnesses (responsible
for the rumor) had gone abroad.
(d) In connection with the previous ruling, Abaye asked Rav Yosef whether a
rumor can be negated, which might mean - that women and children are
silencing it, or that the witnesses themselves, who returned from overseas,
denied that the rumor was true.
(a) Rav Yosef replied to Abaye's She'eilah on the basis of Rav Chisda, who
required Kasher witnesses to create the rumor, a clear indication that the
Chachamim were lenient (and by the same token, they would allow. Abaye
countered - that, in that case, one could bring the opposite proof from Rav
Sheishes, in whose opinion the rumor was acceptable even if it was initiated
by women. From here it appears that the Chachamim were strict and that the
rumor could therefore not be negate.
(b) Rav Yosef's last word on the subject was - that this was in fact, a
conflict between two towns; because in Sura they tended to permit the
negation of a rumor, but in Naherda'a, they did not.
(c) There was a case where a rumor had spread that a woman was betrothed to
a certain Talmid, whom Rav Chama brought before his father. The Talmid
claimed - that the woman accepted the Kidushin only on condition that he
does not go to the Bei Chuza'i, and that, in fact, he had, thereby negating
(d) Rav Chama's father decline to accept his Amasla however - based on what
we learned earlier, that an Amasla which emerges only after the rumor has
already been established does not break the rumor.
(a) In another incident, a rumor had it that a certain woman had become
betrothed by means of 'Atzipa de'Tuchla' by the well of Bei Shifi. 'Atzipa
de'Tuchla' are - dates that have not fully ripened and that one places in a
basket of palm-branches to improve slightly (though they never become fully
ripe - see also Mesores ha'Shas).
1. Abaye told Rav Idi bar Avin that even the Neherdians, who did not
normally negate rumors, would negate this one - because (rather than
assuming that a betrothed woman married another man) people would conclude
that the Chachamim had determined that the dates were not worth a Perutah.
(c) When he quoted the Pasuk "li'F'lagos Re'uven Gedolim Chikekei Leiv" - he
meant to say that it is only a Gadol in age who has 'Chikekei Leiv' (Da'as),
not in size.
2. Rava said the same in a case where a rumor had spread that a woman had
become betrothed to one of the sons of P'loni - because here too, they would
say that the Chachamim had determined that the son to whom she was betrothed
was a Katan (and the Kidushin, invalid).
3. And Rav Mordechai told Rav Ashi the same thing with regard to a case
where the rumor had spread that a woman had become betrothed to a Katan who
resembled a Gadol - because once again, they would attribute her marriage to
someone else to the fact that the Chachamim determined that the Kidushin of
the first boy was invalid because, in spite of his size, he was a Katan
(seeing as he behaved like one), whose Kidushin is Batel.
(a) We cited earlier the opinion of Rabah bar Rav Huna who validates an
Amasla up to ten days from the time of the rumor. Rav Z'vid holds - that we
do not even need the actual Amasla, but if there is reason to assume one,
that is sufficient to negate the rumor.
(b) Rav Papa asked Rav Z'vid from our Mishnah 'u'Bil'vad she'Lo Tehei Sham
Amasla', implying that one requires an actual Amasla - to which Rav Z'vid
replied - that what the Mishnah means is not 'Amasla', but 'Makom Amasla' (a
(a) If, on the basis of one witness who testified that her husband had died,
Beis-Din permitted a woman to marry, and after she married, her husband
returned, she is forbidden to him - because we are afraid that people will
say that the second man married her after her husband divorced her, in which
case, her first husband is performing a sin by taking her back (after she
(b) If, on the other hand, she was only *betrothed* to the second man when
her husband returned, she is permitted to return to him - because, Rav
Kahana maintains, people will assume that the second man only married her on
the condition that her husband does not return, overriding the 'rumor' that
she was betrothed (a clear proof for Rav Z'vid, that even a potential Amasla
negates a rumor).
(c) Rav Papa replied - that the reason the woman is permitted to return to
her husband, has nothing to do with Amasla, but is due to the fact that her
husband returned to her. What people will say is that he never really
divorced her in the first place, only she thought that he had died, and the
fact that he is alive, invalidates the second Kidushin (as was indeed the
(d) We do not say the same even when she was married - because there, since
she had performed a grave sin (by having relations with the second man -
albeit partially be'O'nes), we penalize her (for not making more extensive
enquiries) and prohibit her from returning to her husband (whereas when they
were only betrothed, she had not performed a sin, and there is no reason to
(a) Rav Ashi - discounts a rumor ...
1. ... that was not substantiated by Beis-Din.
(b) In the latter case, Rav Ashi is talking about - a rumor that before her
marriage, which took place today, she had been betrothed to someone else.
2. ... that only began to spread after the woman was already married.
(c) She does not even require a Get from the other man - because that would
substantiate the rumor, with the result that she would now be considered to
be living with a man who committed adultery with her, and she would be
forced to leave him.
(d) Rav Ashi does however, does contend with a similar rumor after she is
betrothed. Practically, this mean - that she requires a Get from the other
man and is permitted to remain with the man to whom she is now betrothed.
(a) Rav Chaviva is even more lenient than Rav Ashi. In his opinion - we do
not even contend with the rumor that began to spread after her betrothal
either; neither does she require a Get from the first man, as this would
only raise the hackles of her betrothed.
(b) The Halachah is like Rav Chaviva.
(a) When the Talmidim of Rav asked him (after Rav's death) what the Din will
be if a second man betrothed a woman *after* the rumor had already spread
that she was betrothed to someone else - he replied that she must leave her
betrothed, and that one should investigate further.
(b) By this latter statement, he cannot have meant that, in the event that
they discovered the first rumor to be false, they should negate it - because
Shmuel was from Neherda'a, and the custom in Neherda'a was not to negate
rumors (as we learned earlier).
(c) What he meant was - that, should they be able to confirm that the first
Kidushin did occur, then the second man would not require a Get.
(a) Rav Huna disagrees with Shmuel. According to him, if a married woman
stretched out her hand and accepted Kidushin from someone else, she is
betrothed to him, because of Rav Hamnuna - who rules that if a woman says to
her husband that he divorced her, she is believed, on the grounds that she
would not be brazen enough to make such a claim unless it was true.
(b) This does not mean that Shmuel disagrees with Rav Hamnuna - because, in
Shmuel's opinion, Rav Hamnuna is speaking exclusively when the woman made
this claim in her husband's presence, whereas in the case over which he and
Rav Huna disagree, the husband was not present when his wife accepted the
(c) In the previous case of Shmuel, but where the Kidushin of the first man
was not confirmed, Rav Huna holds - that he must divorce her, and she is
permitted to the second man.
(d) He does not allow the second man to divorce her and the first one to
marry her - because people will then suspect the first man of taking back
his divorcee after she became betrothed to someone else.
(a) Rav Shinena B'rei de'Rav Idi disagrees with Rav Huna. He permits what
Rav Huna forbids - on the grounds that, in his opinion, people will merely
think that, after looking into the matter, the Chachamim discovered the
first Kidushin to have been invalid (as was indeed the case).
(b) If a rumor spread first that the woman was betrothed to Reuven and a
second rumor, that she was betrothed to Shimon, Rav Papa extends the ruling
of Rav Huna in the previous case ('Megaresh Rishon, ve'Nosei Sheini'). When
Ameimar says 'Muteres li'Sheneihem', he means - that either of them may
marry her after the other one divorces her.
(c) Even Rav Huna will agree with this ruling - seeing as the woman was not
definitely betrothed to the second man. Consequently, people will merely say
that the Chachamim went into the matter and decided that his Kidushin was
(d) The Halachah is like Ameimar.