Gittin

What konam  was there here? — R. Huna said: We suppose he said, Every species of produce shall be forbidden to me if I do not divorce you. AND THEY PERMITTED HIM TO REMARRY HER. This surely is self-evident? — You might think that we should prohibit him on account of the dictum of R. Nathan, as it has been taught: R. Nathan says: To make a vow is like building a high place  and to keep it  is like bringing an offering thereon. Therefore we are told [that this is not so]. TO PREVENT ABUSES. What prevention of abuses is there here? — R. Shesheth said that the words refer to the earlier clauses [of the Mishnah]:  Rabina said that they refer indeed to the last clause, and the meaning is, There was no ground for forbidding this on the score of preventing abuses. MISHNAH. IF A MAN DIVORCES HIS WIFE BECAUSE [HE FINDS HER] TO BE INCAPABLE OF BEARING,  R. JUDAH SAYS HE MAY NOT REMARRY HER,  BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE MAY REMARRY HER.  IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND AND THEN DEMANDS HER KETHUBAH SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST,  R. JUDAH SAYS, HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER. GEMARA. This would seem to show that R. Judah takes into account the possibility of mischief-making and the Rabbis do not take it into account. But we have found the opposite opinions ascribed to them, as we have learnt: If a man divorces his wife on account of ill fame or on account of a vow she has made, he must not remarry her. R. Judah says: If the vow was made publicly, he may not remarry her, but if it was not made publicly he may remarry her.  This seems to show that the Rabbis take account of the possibility of mischief-making and R. Judah does not take account of it? — Samuel said: Reverse the names.  But since the Mishnah goes on to say, IF SHE MARRIES AGAIN AND HAS CHILDREN FROM THE SECOND HUSBAND, AND THEN DEMANDS HER KETHUBAH SETTLEMENT FROM THE FIRST, R. JUDAH SAYS THAT HE CAN SAY TO HER, THE LESS YOU SAY THE BETTER, we can conclude that R. Judah does take into account the possibility of mischief making? — Reverse the names here also.  Abaye said. There is no need to reverse, since R. Judah in that  case concurs both with R. Meir and with R. Eleazar. In the case [of a vow] which requires [the investigation of a Sage] he concurs with R. Eleazar,  and in the case [of a vow] which does not require [investigation] he concurs with R. Meir.  Raba said: Is there a contradiction between the statements of R. Judah and no contradiction between the statements of the Rabbis?  — No, said Raba; Between the statements of R. Judah there is no contradiction, as has been explained. Between the statements of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction. For who are the Sages [here]? R. Meir, who said that we require the condition to be duplicated,  and here we are dealing with a case where he did not duplicate his condition. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN, HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED. HIS CHILDREN, HOWEVER, ARE TO BE REDEEMED AFTER THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER. GEMARA. R. Assi said: This rule applies only if he sold himself a second and a third time. Certain [Jews of] Bemekse  borrowed money from heathens, and when they were unable to pay the latter seized them for slaves. They appealed to R. Huna, who said: What can I do, seeing that we have learnt IF A MAN SELLS HIMSELF AND HIS CHILDREN TO A HEATHEN HE IS NOT TO BE REDEEMED? R. Abba thereupon said to him: You have taught us, Master, that this applies only if he has so sold himself a second and a third time. R. Huna replied: These men do this habitually. A certain man sold himself to the Lydians  and then appealed to R. Ammi saying,