Gittin

SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN EVERY RESPECT; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS BOTH DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If people have observed that she consorted with him in the dark or slept with him under the foot of the bed, they do not suspect them of having engaged in something else',  but they do suspect them of loose conduct, and they do not suspect that he has betrothed her. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says, They also suspect him of having betrothed her. What is the meaning of this?  — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, The meaning is this: If they saw him have intercourse with her, they suspect he has done so as a method of betrothing her.  If he [afterwards] gave her money, they suspect that it was on account of fornication, as we say that he gave it her for her hire; but we do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, says that in this case also we have to suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference  arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'. On which view can this be justified? — On both views. Abaye strongly demurred to the explanation [given by R. Nahman]. Is the giving of money, [he said,] mentioned?  — No, said Abaye; the meaning is this. If they saw her have intercourse they suspect  her of fornication but do not suspect it was for betrothal. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, We also suspect that it may have been for betrothal. On which of these views can we justify the statement made by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises only in the case where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get'? On which view can this be justified? On the view of R. Jose.  Raba strongly demurred to this, [saying,] If so, what is the point of 'also'?  — No, said Raba; the meaning is this. R. Jose, son of R. Judah, says that even if they did not see her have Intercourse,  we still suspect he may have betrothed her. On which of these views can we justify the statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in the name of R. Johanan: 'The difference arises where they saw her have intercourse, but if they did not see her have intercourse, both sides agree that she does not require from him a second Get?' On whose view is this justified? — On neither. WHAT IS HER STATUS DURING THOSE DAYS? R. JUDAH SAYS THAT SHE IS REGARDED AS A MARRIED WOMAN IN ALL RESPECTS; R. JOSE SAYS THAT SHE IS DIVORCED AND NOT DIVORCED. A Tanna taught:  Provided he dies.  And when he dies will it be a Get?  Is it not an established maxim that there is no Get after death? — Rabbah replied: We presume that what he said to her was, [This will be a Get] from the time that I am still in the world. Our Rabbis taught: In the days between,  her husband is entitled to her finds and the product of her labour, he can annul her vows, he inherits her,