5:32 A: Anyone who dismisses his wife, except on the grounds of
fornication, makes her an adulteress.
Jesus recognizes only πορνεία as a ground for divorce, because by it the marriage union is actually
abolished. The ancient synagogue knows a whole series of reasons for divorce;
the school of Shammai takes the stricter standpoint, while the school of Hillel
sometimes judges laxly to the point of frivolity. The Old Testament base
passage is Deut 24:1: “If a man marries a woman and consummates the marriage
with her, and then if she finds no favor in his eyes because he found something
shameful עֶרְוַת
דָּבָר in her, and he writes her a
letter of divorce.…” The expression ערות דבר, literally, “a thing of disgrace,” that is, a disgraceful
thing, is entirely indefinite and may denote something morally disgraceful as
well as something physically repulsive.
1. Interpretation of the base passage Deut 24:1.
Mishnah Giṭṭin 9.10: The school of Shammai said, “The husband shall
cast away יְגָרֵּשׁ his wife only if he has found in her a
thing of shame דְּבַר
עֵרְוָה (i.e., something shameful);
for it is said, ‘Because he has found in her a thing of shame’ (Deut 24:1).” In
contrast, the school of Hillel said, “Even if she burned his food; for it says,
‘Because he found in her anything shameful at all.’ ” (The school of
Shammai thus understands ערות דבר
narrowly = a shameful thing, that is, sin of fornication, the school of Hillel
broadly = anything shameful, that is, not merely sins of fornication). R. Aqiba
(† ca. 135) said, “Even if he finds another who is more beautiful than she; for
it is said, ‘And if she finds no favor חֵן
in his eyes’ (Deut 24:1).” (Aqiba understands חן
in the sense of grace, beauty.) ‖ Sifre Deuteronomy 24:1 § 269: “If she finds
no favor in his eyes” (Deut 24:1). The school of Shammai said, “The husband
shall not cast out his wife unless he has found in her a disgraceful thing ערות דבר; for it says, ‘Because he has found in her
a disgraceful thing’ (Deut 24:1).” In contrast, the school of Hillel said,
“Even if she burned his food; for it says, ‘Because he found some shameful
thing in her’ (Deut 24:1).” The school of Hillel said to the school of Shammai,
“If it says ‘something’ דבר,
why does it (also) say ‘shameful’ ערוה?
And if it says ‘shameful,’ why does it (also) say ‘something’? If it said
‘something,’ but not ‘shameful,’ I would say, ‘she who moves away (from his
house) because of “something” may marry (elsewhere), and she who moves away
because of “a shameful thing” may not marry (elsewhere).’ And do not be
surprised: if she (the woman who committed fornication) is forbidden to the one
who (until then) was allowed to her (i.e., her husband), should she not be
forbidden to the one who (until then) was forbidden to her (i.e., another man)?
Then Scripture teaches, ‘(Because he found in her) something shameful … and she
departs from his house (and becomes another man’s wife)’ (Deut 24:1f.). And if
it said, ‘shameful thing,’ but not ‘something,’ I would say, ‘Because of a
“shameful thing” she shall depart (from his house), because of “something”
(else) she shall not depart.’ Then Scripture teaches ‘something’ דבר (he has found) and she moves away from his
house.’ ” R. Aqiba said, “Even if he finds another who is more beautiful
than her, as it says, ‘If she finds no favor (no pleasure) in his eyes’ (Deut
24:1).” ‖ A baraita in m. Giṭṭ. 90A: The school of Hillel said to the school of
Shammai, “Does it not already say ‘something’ דבר
(Deut 24:1)?” The school of Shammai answered them, “Does it not already say
‘shameful’ ערות (Deut 24:1)?” The school of Hillel said to
them, “If it said (merely) ‘shameful’ and not ‘something,’ I would say,
‘Because of “something shameful” she shall depart (from her husband’s house),
but because of “something” (else) she shall not depart.’ Therefore, it said
‘something’ דבר. And if it said (merely) ‘something’ and
not ‘shameful thing,’ I would say, ‘Because of “something” she may marry
another, but because of a “shameful thing” she may not marry another.’
Therefore it said ‘shameful’ ערוה.”
Now what does the school of Shammai do with this דבר
“something”? (It says,) “It says here (Deut 24:1) דבר
and it says there (Deut 19:15) דבר:
‘By the testimony of two witnesses or by the testimony of three witnesses the
“thing” דבר gains validity.’ As there (Deut 19:15) it
is a matter of two witnesses, so here (Deut 24:1) it is a matter of two
witnesses’ ” (i.e., not of any arbitrary thing, but of shameful things
which, like criminally punishable things, must be established by the testimony
of two witnesses). The school of Hillel said, “Does it say ערוה בדבר = ‘shameful based on testimony’?” And the
school of Shammai said, “Does it say (as one should expect according to the
understanding of the words ערות דבר
by the Hillelites) אי ערוה או דבר
= ‘either something shameful or anything (else)’?” The school of Hillel
answered, “This is precisely why we read ערות דבר, which can be interpreted thus (= ‘a shameful thing’) and thus
(= ‘anything else’).” R. Aqiba said, “Even if he finds another woman.” What is
the basis of the disagreement? It is as Resh Laqish (ca. 250) thought. For Resh
Laqish said, “The word כִי
is used with a fourfold meaning: it means אי
‘if’; דלמא ‘perhaps’; אלא
‘but, rather’; דהא ‘because.’ Now the school of Shammai
thought that the words in Deut 24:1 כי מצא בה ערות דבר meant ‘because דהא
(= כי) he found something shameful in her,’ and
R. Aqiba interpreted it as ‘if he further found something shameful in
her.’ ” ‖ Jerusalem Talmud Giṭṭin 9.50D.29: How do they (the Hillelites)
interpret the words of the school of Shammai (i.e., the words ערות דבר to which the Shammaites refer)? (These
words are written,) lest it be said, “She who departs (from her husband’s
house) because of a shameful thing is forbidden, but she who departs because of
another thing is permitted (to marry another).” R. Shela from Kefar Temarta
(ca. 280) said, “Against the opinion of the school of Shammai (that ערות דבר refers only to shameful things and not
also anything else) argues: ‘Her first husband, who dismissed her, cannot take
her back again to be his wife’ (Deut 24:4).” How do we understand these words?
If in the sense that they forbid her to him (to remarry), then she is already
forbidden to him (as an adulterous wife)! Rather we understand them in such a
way that this gives a (further) prohibition to him (i.e., that the man also
cannot take back again a woman dismissed for other reasons; this shows that דבר, contrary to the opinion of the
Shammaites, has an independent meaning beside ערות,
that consequently ערות דבר
is to be understood in the sense of the Hillelites = something shameful or
anything else). It says, “For the woman who suffers by her separation and for
the man who suffers from his flow” (Lev 15:33). The earlier teachers said, “She
shall be in her separation, not putting make-up on her eyes or body until she
comes into the water bath.” Then said R. Aqiba to them, “From here there
supposedly comes a proof (that the menstruant should not clean herself)? If you
say so, she also brings herself into ugliness, so that he (her husband) sets
his eyes on casting her out” (because the ugliness of the woman is considered a
reason for divorce according to R. Aqiba). The opinion of the earlier teachers
is the same as that of the school of Shammai. (Like the school of Shammai, the
earlier teachers consider only something shameful in a woman as a reason for
divorce; therefore, they do not fear that a man will dismiss his wife because
of ugly appearance, and therefore they forbid the menstruating woman from
cleaning herself). The opinion of Aqiba corresponds to that of the school of
Hillel (which says that a man may dismiss his wife if he finds anything else
displeasing about her besides shameful things).—The interpretation of Lev 15:33
by the earlier teachers and its rejection by R. Aqiba is also found in the SLev
15:33 (305A) and b. Šabb. 64B.
The LXX rendered the words of Deut 24:1 that pertain here with: ὅτι εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα = “something unseemly, shameful.”—Targum
Onkelos Deuteronomy 24:1 reads, “If a man takes a wife and has intercourse with
her, and then if she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in her
the transgression of a commandment עֲבֵרַת פִּתְגָּם, let him write her a letter of divorce.…”—Similarly, Tg. Yer.
I.
Accordingly, the school of Shammai, in agreement with unnamed older
teachers, declared a divorce permissible only if the wife had been guilty of
something shameful. It used as scriptural evidence the expression ערות דבר in Deut 24:1, which was conceived and
interpreted as a unitary term “something shameful.” The same view is held by
the LXX.—The school of Hillel recognizes this ground of divorce of the
Shammaites, but adds to it a second: the husband may dismiss his wife by a
letter of divorce if he finds anything displeasing in her. Proof: the
expression ערות
דבר (Deut 24:1), which is
interpreted as “something shameful and anything else.”—R. Aqiba, who also holds
the Hillelite point of view, further considers divorce justified even in the
case that a man’s inclination turns to a woman he likes better than his current
wife. He acquires the biblical justification by taking the causal clause
“because he found something shameful in her” (Deut 24:1) as a conditional
clause. Thus, the passage provides the following sense for him: “If she (first)
does not find pleasure in his eyes, if he (second) has found something shameful
in her or (third) anything else in her, then he writes her a letter of
divorce.…”—Targum Onkelos and Yerušalmi I know as the only reason for divorce
the transgression of a commandment by the wife: to them ערות דבר (Deut 24:1) = עברת פתגם.
2. Grounds for divorce which are due to the woman.
α.
The principle, recognized by both the Shammaites and the Hillelites, that a
woman was to be cast out for a shameful thing, was so general that it required
a more detailed definition of what was to be regarded as a shameful thing.
A baraita in y. Giṭṭ. 9.50D.27: The school of Shammai said, “A man
should cast out his wife only if he has found something shameful in her ערוה (= fornication).” Here I hear only of one
who moves away (from her husband’s house) solely because of fornication ערוה. Whence with respect to her who goes out
with her hair unraveled, and whose garments are torn at the sides, and whose
arms are bare? Scripture teaches, ‘Because he found something shameful in her’
(Deut 24:1).”—Accordingly, “shameful” means fornication per se; in a broader
sense it was understood to mean anything contrary to good morals. So also t. Soṭah
5.9 (302): (R. Meir [ca. 150] said,) “There is someone in whose bowl a fly
falls; he takes it, sucks it out, and (then continues to) eat what is in it. This
is an ungodly man who sees his wife going out with her hair undone, and how her
heart is frolicsome with her slaves and her neighbors, and how she spins in the
street and bathes with the men. To cast out such a woman (by divorce) is an
obligatory commandment; see Deut 24:1: ‘If a man marries a woman, … and if she
finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found something shameful in her, …
and she departs from his house’.…”—Parallel passages with changes in detail can
be found in y. Soṭah 1.17A.32; b. Giṭ 90A. ‖ A baraita in b. Giṭṭ. 89A: If a
woman eats in the street, drinks greedily in the street, suckles (her child) in
the street, she shall be divorced, as R. Meir († ca. 150) said of these all. R.
Aqiba († ca. 135) said, “When the women spinning in the moonlight begin to
speak about her.” R. Yohanan b. Nuri († ca. 110) answered him, “In that case,
you would probably not leave our father Abraham a daughter who would be allowed
to stay with her husband (for a woman will soon be spoken about), and the Torah
says, ‘Because he found a shameful thing in her’ (Deut 24:1) and there it says,
‘On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the
thing דבר obtains validity’ (Deut 19:15). As it is a
clear matter there (Deut 19:15), so it is a clear matter here (Deut 24:1) (and
not womanly gossip)”; see b. Giṭ. 90A at § Matt 5:32 A, #1, about halfway
through the first paragraph.—The Mishnah called these violations of good morals
that entail divorce transgressions of Jewish law; see m. Ketub. 7.6 (in the
next paragraph).
β.
According to Tg. Onk. and Yer. I on Deut 24:1 (see § Matt 5:32 A, #1, second
paragraph), the transgression of a commandment by a wife is a ground for
divorce.
We learn more about this from m. Ketub. 7.6: The following women are
to be dismissed by a letter of divorce, but without payment of the marriage
prescription: the one who transgresses the law of Moses and Jewish law. What is
meant (in this context) by the law of Moses? If, for example, a woman gives her
husband food that has not been tithed to eat, or if she lets him have
intercourse during her menstruation (without telling her husband that she is
unclean), or if she does not separate the yeast, or if she takes vows upon
herself and does not keep them. What is meant by Jewish law? If she goes out
with her hair unraveled, if she spins in the street, if she talks to any man
she pleases. Abba Saul (ca. 150) said, “Also she who shames the man’s parents
in his presence.” R. Tarfon (ca. 100) said, “Also a yeller. What is a yeller?
She who talks in her house (confidentially with her husband), and her neighbors
hear her voice.”—This Mishnah passage shows that the commandment transgressions
that are grounds for divorce are not the commandments of the Torah in general,
but only those commandments that were specifically incumbent upon women.—There
is a partial parallel in t. Ketub. 7.6f.
γ.
Another reason for divorce that comes up is the behavior of a wife that is
likely to bring the husband into ill repute.
Tosefta Ketubbot 7.4: If a woman vows that she will not lend a winnow,
sieve, mill, and oven, he dismisses her (by divorce letter) and does not give
her a wedding prescription, because she makes him bear an evil reputation
before his neighbors.—The baraita in b. Ketub. 72A extends the vow to the
effect that she will not make beautiful clothes for his children.—Here also
belongs the violation of the duty to show due honor to the husband. The wife of
R. Yose, the Galilean (ca. 110), is often held up as a model of a wicked wife אנתתא בישא. The students urge the teacher to finally
dismiss her by a letter of divorce; in doing so, they assert as a reason for
divorce the following: “She does not honor you!” (y. Ketub. 11.34B.52; Gen.
Rab. 17 [11D]; Lev. Rab. 34 [131D]). Moreover, a woman’s manifest character as
a so-called “wicked wife” was in and of itself a sufficiently valid ground for
divorce; yet there was disagreement as to whether or not her being cast out was
a mandatory obligation for the husband. Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 63B: Raba (†
352) said, “It is an obligatory commandment to dismiss a wicked wife; see Prov
22:10: ‘Drive away the mocker, and the quarrel will go away, and there will be
an end to trial and reproach.’ ” … In the Book of Ben Sira it is written,
“A good gift for her husband is a good wife”; further, it says, “A good wife is
placed on the bosom of the godly” (cf. Sir 26:3). A wicked wife is leprosy to
her husband. What is the remedy for this? Let him dismiss her (by letter of
divorce), and he will be cured of his leprosy (cf. Sir 25:25). There is a
parallel passage in b. Sanh. 100B. ‖ A baraita in b. ʿErub. 41B: … Three do not
see gehenna (because they have already had hell on earth), namely whoever has
to deal with oppressive poverty, with abdominal suffering and with the
authorities (with creditors, Rashi). Some say, “Also he who has an evil wife.”
Those (who do not include a wicked wife among these) think that it is an
obligatory commandment to divorce a wicked wife (so if the man fulfills this
duty, he has nothing more to do with the wicked wife). They were led to their
opinion, because either her wedding prescription (to be paid out at the
divorce) is very large, or because he has children by her, so that he cannot
divorce her. With respect to what does something follow from this? With respect
to taking those sufferings upon oneself out of love (because by doing so they
gain atoning power to save from gehenna).—Also R. Yose, the Galilean, appeals
to his disciples that the dowry of his wife to be repaid is too large. Thus, he
did not consider divorce in this case to be an obligatory commandment. Only
when his disciples raised the required sum does he consent to the dismissal of
his wife.
δ.
The childlessness of the woman is also considered to be grounds for divorce.
Mishnah Yebamot 6.6: If someone has married a woman and waited ten
years with her without her giving birth, he is not entitled to remain single.
If he casts her out, she may marry another, and the second husband may wait
with her (again) ten years. If she has had a miscarriage, (the ten years) are
counted from the time of the miscarriage.—The dismissal of the barren woman is
not necessarily required by this passage from the Mishnah; the man may also
keep her with him, but he must then add a second wife to her. In contrast, t.
Yebam. 8.4 (249) presupposes her dismissal as customary: If a man has married a
wife and waited with her ten years without her giving birth, he is not entitled
to remain single, but he dismisses her and gives her the marriage prescription;
perhaps he did not obtain to be cultivated by her, and although it is not a
proof, yet an intimation in regard to this is the following: “Then Sarai took
Hagar the Egyptian at the expiration of ten years, and gave her to Abram as a
wife” (Gen 16:3). Incidentally, we learn from this that dwelling outside the
land (Israel) is not included in the number (of ten years). If he was sick, or
if she was sick (during the ten years), or if her husband had gone to a distant
place, or if her husband had been bound in prison, (the time in question) is
not reckoned in the number of the ten years. If he has dismissed her, she may
go and marry another; perhaps she did not attain to be cultivated by the first
husband (while she will possibly attain it with the second husband).—The same
is found as a baraita in b. Yebam. 64A.—The scriptural proof for the above
passage from the Mishnah is also given in Gen. Rab. 45 (28B) by Resh Laqish
(ca. 250) from Gen 16:3.
ε.
Finally, the man could dissolve his marriage without further ado if the woman
did not meet the requirements and conditions under which he had married her.
Mishnah Ketubbot 7.7: If a man becomes engaged to a woman on the
condition that no vows are upon her, and it turns out that such vows are upon
her, the engagement is invalid. If he has taken her home without any mention of
the vows, and it turns out that there are vows upon her, she will be dismissed
(by a letter of divorce) without a marriage prescription. (If he has betrothed
her to himself) on the condition that there are no bodily defects on her, and
it turns out that there are such defects on her, she is not betrothed to him.
If he has brought her home without any mention of the defects in her body, and
it turns out that there are such defects in her, then she is released without a
marriage prescription. All the bodily defects that make priests unfit (for
priestly service) also make women unfit.—The parallel passage that is expanded
in several ways in t. Ketub. 7.8f. (269) cites as examples of concealed vows
justifying the dissolution of marriage that the woman would not eat meat or
drink wine or wear brightly colored clothes. The last sentence reads in the
Tosefta: All bodily defects that make one unfit in the case of priests also
make one unfit in the case of women; moreover, in the case of women: the smell
of the mouth, smell of sweat and a mark on which there is no hair.—This
sentence is also found in y. Qidd. 2.62D.18.
3. Grounds for divorce which are due to the man.
α.
The wife has the right to demand the dissolution of her marriage if the
husband’s illness and occupation result in adversities in case of which the
continuation of the marriage cannot reasonably be expected of the wife.
Mishnah Ketubbot 7.9f.: If there are any bodily defects on the husband
(during marriage), he is not forced (by the court) to dismiss her. R. Simeon b.
Gamliel (ca. 140) said, “In which case do the words apply? In the case of minor
bodily defects; but in the case of major bodily faults, one forces him to
dismiss her. And the following are those whom one forces to dismiss her: a
leper מֻכֵּה
שִׁחִין, one afflicted with a polyp
(in the nose), the collector of dog excrement (see below), the smelter of
copper, and the tanner, whether he was so before he was married, or whether he
became so after he was married.” And about all of them R. Meir (ca. 150) said,
“Even if he agreed (made it a condition) with her (before marriage), she may
say (afterward), ‘I believed that I would be able to bear it; but now I cannot
bear it.’ ” But the scholars said, “She must bear it against her will
except for the leper, because she makes him consumptive (through conjugal
intercourse).” It happened in Sidon that a tanner died who had a brother who
was (also) a tanner (and claimed the widow for levirate marriage). Then the
scholars declared, “She may say, ‘Your brother I could bear, but you I cannot
bear!’ ” ‖ Tosefta Ketubbot 7.11 (269): Who is meant by the “collector” המקמץ? This is a tanner. Others say, “This is
one who collects refuse (used for flaying and tanning); the copper smelter:
this is he who makes copper liquid; the one afflicted with a polyp: this is he
who has bad breath.” R. Yose b. Judah (ca. 180) said, “In what case has it been
said of the (excrement) collector and copper smelter and tanner, ‘He dismisses
her and gives the marriage prescription’? If he is willing and she is not
willing, (or) if she is willing and he is not willing. But if both of them are willing
(namely, to continue living together in marriage), they can do it; but as for
the leper, even if both of them are willing, they cannot do it.” Rabban Simeon
b. Gamliel (ca. 140) said, “I met an old man among the lepers in Sepphoris, who
said to me, ‘There are 24 kinds of leprosy; in the case of all of them a woman
is harmful only to those afflicted with the oozing leprosy.’ ”—Parallel
passages can be found in y. Ketub. 7.31D.22 and b. Ketub. 77A; in the latter
passage there is the remark, “What does מקמץ
‘collector’ mean?” Rab Judah († 299) said, “The collector of dog excrement.”
β.
A number of passages are noteworthy in which vows are mentioned that the
husband forces his wife to make and the execution of which put her in an
extremely undignified position. To protect the women against this, the Mishnah
specifies the cases in which the actions of the men are to be answered with the
dissolution of the marriage and the payment of the marriage prescription.
However, the whole thing gives the impression that it was only a trick of the
men’s world to get hold of a convenient means of divorce in this way.
Mishnah Ketubbot 5.5: R. Simeon b. Gamliel (ca. 140) said, “Also, if
anyone compels his wife to vow that she will not do any work, he must dismiss
her and pay out her marriage prescription; for idleness leads to spiritual
ruin.” ‖ Tosefta Ketubbot 7.4 (268): If someone compels his wife to vow that
she will not lend a winnow, sieve, mill, and oven, he must dismiss her and pay
off the marriage prescription; because she will (thereby) acquire a bad
reputation before her neighbors. (A similar text is found in t. Ketub. 7.4 at §
Matt 5:32 A, #2, β.)—The
same is found as a baraita in b. Ketub. 72A. ‖ Tosefta Ketubbot 7.6 (269): If
someone compels his wife to vow that she will let everyone taste of her food,
or that she will fill it and pour it out on the dunghill, or that she will tell
everyone the words that were spoken between him and her, he must dismiss her
and pay out the marriage prescription, because he has not dealt with her
according to the law of Moses and Israel.—The same is found somewhat shorter in
m. Ketub. 7.5. ‖ Mishnah Ketubbot 7.1: If someone compels his wife to vow that
she will have no benefit from him, he must appoint a provider for her for 30
days (if she is unable to support herself on the earnings of her own hands); if
the vow extends beyond that time, he must dismiss her and pay the marriage
prescription. R. Judah (ca. 150) said, “In the case of an (ordinary) Israelite,
if the vow is for one month; but if for two, he must dismiss her and pay the
wedding prescription; and in the case of a priest’s wife,234 if it
is for two months; but if for three, he must dismiss her and pay the marriage
prescription.” There is a parallel passage in t. Ketub. 7.1 (268). ‖ Mishnah
Ketubbot 7.2: If someone compels his wife to vow that she will not enjoy any of
the fruits, he must dismiss her and pay off the marriage prescription. R. Judah
(ca. 150) said, “In the case of an Israelite, if the vow is for one day; but if
it is for two, he must dismiss her and pay the marriage prescription; in the
case of a priest’s wife, if it is for two days; but if it is for three, he must
dismiss her and pay the marriage prescription.”—There is a parallel passage in
t. Ketub. 7.2 (268); here R. Judah notes, “The daughters of Israel would rather
not taste food and fruit than be divorced from their husbands for a day.” ‖
Mishnah Ketubbot 7.3: If someone compels his wife to vow that she will not
adorn herself with any adornments of any kind, he must dismiss her and pay off
her marriage prescription. R. Yose (b. Halapta [ca. 150]) said, “In the case of
the poor, if he has not specified a certain time (but this must not exceed 12
months), in the case of the rich, thirty days.”—More fully, t. Ketub. 7.3
(268). ‖ Mishnah Ketubbot 7.4: If someone compels his wife to vow that she will
not go to her father’s house, then, if the father lives with her in the city,
it is for one month; but if for two, he must dismiss her and pay the marriage
prescription. If he dwells in another city, it shall be for one feast [but if
for two feasts, he must dismiss her and pay the marriage prescription; in the
case of a priest, it shall be for two feasts], but if for three feasts, he must
dismiss her and pay the marriage prescription. ‖ Mishnah Ketubbot 7.5: If
someone compels his wife to vow that she will not go to a house of mourning or
a wedding house, he must dismiss her and pay off the marriage prescription,
because he locks her up (he withdraws her from fellowship with people, so that
later no one will take care of her either). But if he has something else to
complain about (that his wife meets licentious men there), he is entitled to do
so (and does not need to dismiss his wife).—There is a parallel passage in t.
Ketub. 7.5 (269).
4. On the basis of the passages given in #1–3, one may say that in the
Mishnaic period there was no marriage among the Jewish people that could not
have been summarily dissolved by the man in a completely legal way by handing
over a letter of divorce. And that it was no different later is proved by b. Giṭ
90A: Rab Papa († 376) said to Raba († 352), “If he found in her neither
something shameful (fornication) nor anything else (but nevertheless dismissed
her), how does it stand (must he take the divorced woman back)?” He answered,
“What he has done, he has done!”—So even the dissolution of a marriage without
any reason is valid, so the husband cannot be forced to take his divorced wife
back.
5. Statements against frivolous dissolution.
Babylonian Talmud Giṭṭin 90A: Rab Mesharshia (ca. 350) said to Raba (†
352), “If a man sets his mind on casting out his wife while she dwells with him
and serves him, how does it stand?” He applied to such a one: “Do not do
anything evil against your neighbor, while he stays with you in confidence
(Prov 3:29).” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Giṭṭin. 90B: כי שנא שלח (“For I hate divorce,” Mal 2:16). R. Judah (ca. 150) said, “If
you hate your wife, dismiss her.” R. Yohanan († 279) said, “Hated is he who
dismisses.” But they are not of different opinion: in one case (namely in R.
Yohanan’s saying) it is about the first wife, in the other case about the
second. For R. Eleazar (ca. 270) said, “If a man casts out his first wife, even
the altar sheds tears over him; see Mal. 2:13f.: ‘And this you do secondly: you
cover with tears the altar of Yahweh, with weeping and wailing, so that he may
no longer turn to the offering and accept good things from your hand. And do
you say, “Why?” Because Yahweh is witness between you and the wife of your
youth, with whom you have acted unfaithfully, since she is your companion and
the wife of your covenant.’ ”—The saying of R. Eleazar is also found in b.
Sanh. 22A. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 22A: Rab Shemen b. Abba (when?) said,
“Come and see how hard a divorce is! For behold, king David was permitted (to
be with Abishag) (see 1 Kgs 1:1ff.), but he was not permitted to put away one
of his 18 wives (to marry Abishag).” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash,
ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino;
Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:348-57)
