Gittin

that he permits what he had forbidden, if he says only 'To Reuben',  what is to be done? Do we take the words 'To Reuben' to apply also to Simeon, presuming that why he now says Reuben is because he had been mentioned first, or does he mean Reuben and Reuben only? And assuming that he means Reuben only, if he says 'To Simeon' what is to be done? Do we take the words 'To Simeon' to apply to Reuben also, presuming that why he now says Simeon is because he had just mentioned him, or does he mean Simeon and Simeon only? R. Ashi asked,  If he said, Also to Simeon, what are we to do? Do we take 'also' to mean 'besides Reuben', or 'besides everyone else' [but not Reuben]? — These questions are left undecided. Our Rabbis taught: After the demise of R. Eliezer, four elders came together to confute his opinion. They were R. Jose the Galilean, R. Tarfon, R. Eleazar b. Azariah, and R. Akiba. R. Tarfon argued as follows:  Suppose this woman went and married the brother of the man to whom she had been forbidden and he died without children, would not the first be found to have uprooted an injunction from the Torah?  Hence you may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'.  R. Jose the Galilean then argued as follows: Where do we find the same thing should be forbidden to one and permitted to another? What is forbidden is forbidden to all alike and what is permitted is permitted to all alike. Hence we may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'. R. Eleazar b. Azariah then argued as follows: 'Cutting off' means something which completely cuts him off from her. Hence you may conclude that this is no cutting off'. R. Akiba then argued as follows: Suppose this woman went and married some other man and had children from him and was then widowed or divorced from him, and she afterwards went and married this man to whom she had been forbidden, would not her original Get have to be declared void and [consequently] her children bastards? From this we conclude that this is no cutting off'. Or alternatively I may argue: Suppose the man to whom she was forbidden was a priest and the man who divorced her died, then in respect of the priest she would be a widow  and in respect of all other men a divorcee.  There then follows an argument a fortiori: Seeing that she would have been forbidden to the priest qua divorcee, though this involves but a minor [transgression],  should she not all the more as a married woman, which is a much more serious affair,  be forbidden to all men?  From this we may conclude that this is no 'cutting off'. R. Joshua said to them: You should not seek to confute the lion after he is dead.  Raba said: All these objections can be countered except that of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, in which there is no flaw. It has been taught to the same effect: R. Jose said: I consider the argument of R. Eleazar b. Azariah superior to all the others. The  Master said above: R. Tarfon argued thus: Suppose she went and married the brother of the man to whom she was forbidden and he died without children, would not the first be found to have uprooted an injunction from the Torah? Uprooting, [you say]? He uprooted?  — You should read, He stipulates to uproot an injunction from the Torah. He stipulates? Is there any word about it? Can she not do without marrying the brother of that man? — You should read, He may possibly cause an injunction to be uprooted from the Torah. But in that case a man should be forbidden to marry his brother's daughter, since perhaps he will die without children and he will thus cause an injunction to be uprooted from the Torah?  — This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Tarfon assume R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? Is it where the husband says 'except'? In that case R. Eliezer would allow her to marry him,  as it has been taught: 'R. Eliezer agreed that if a man divorced his wife Saying to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and was widowed or divorced, she is permitted to marry the man to whom she had been forbidden.' It must be therefore where he says 'on condition'. 'R. Jose the Galilean argued as follows: Where do we find that the same thing should be forbidden to one and permitted to another? What is forbidden is forbidden to all and what is permitted is permitted to all'. Is that so? What of terumah and holy meats which are forbidden to one class  and permitted to another?  — We are speaking of sexual prohibitions. But what of forbidden degrees of consanguinity? — We speak of marriage. But there is the case of a married woman?  — This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Jose assume R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? Is it where he says 'on condition' [that you do not marry So-and-so]? She is permitted to him in the way of fornication!  — It must be then where he says 'except'. 'R. Akiba argued as follows: Suppose she went and married some other man and had children from him and was then widowed or divorced and she went and married the man to whom she had been forbidden, would not her original Get have to be declared void and her children bastards?' If that is so, then wherever there is a condition in the Get she should not marry, for fear lest she should not fulfil the condition and the Get would prove to be void and her children bastards. This is the flaw in the argument. In what case then [does R. Akiba suppose R. Eliezer to differ from the Rabbis]? It cannot be where he says 'except', because there R. Eliezer permits her, as it has been taught, 'R. Eliezer agrees that if a man divorced his wife saying to her, You are hereby permitted to any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and became widowed or divorced, she is permitted to the man to whom she was originally forbidden'?  — It must be therefore if he says 'on condition'. 'Alternatively [R. Akiba argued]: Suppose the man to whom she was forbidden was a priest and the man who divorced her died, then she would be a widow in respect of the priest and a divorcee in respect of all other men. There thus follows an argument a fortiori. Seeing then that she would be forbidden to the priest qua divorcee, though this involves but a minor [transgression], should she not all the more as a married woman, which is a much more serious affair, be forbidden to all men'. In what case then [does R. Akiba assume R. Eliezer to have differed from the Rabbis]? Is it where he says 'on condition'?