Gittin

In that case she is for purposes of fornication a divorcee in respect of him?  — It must be therefore where he says 'except'. Now if R. Akiba [thought that the difference is where he says] 'except', why did he not bring [merely] the objection which applied to that case,  and if [he thought that it was where he says] 'on condition', why does he not bring [merely] the objection applying to that case?  — R. Akiba had heard one report according to which R. Eliezer said 'except', and another according to which he said 'on condition'. For the version which gave 'except' he had one objection, and for the version which gave 'on condition' he had another objection. And what is the flaw [in the second objection of R. Akiba]? We cannot say it is that the prohibition of her marrying a priest is on a special footing,  because R. Eliezer also bases his ruling  on the priestly prohibition?  — Raba follows the version which R. Jannai gave in the name of a certain elder. 'R. Joshua said to them, You should not seek to confute the lion after he is dead.' This would imply that R. Joshua concurred with him. But how can this be, seeing that he himself also brought an objection against him?  — What he meant was this: I also have objections to bring, but whether for me or for you, it is not fitting to seek to confute the lion after he is dead. What was the objection of R. Joshua? — As it has been taught: R. Joshua said: Scripture compares her status before the second marriage to the one before the first marriage.  Just as before the first marriage she must not be tied to any other man, so before the second marriage she must not be tied to any other man. [To revert to] the above text: 'R. Eliezer agreed that if a man divorced his wife saying to her, You are permitted any man except So-and-so, and she went and married some other man and became widowed or divorced, she is then permitted to marry the man to whom she was at first forbidden.' R. Simeon b. Eleazar argued against R. Eliezer's view, saying, Where do we find that what one man renders forbidden can be made permissible by another?  But are there no such cases? Is there not that of the sister-in-law who is rendered forbidden  by the husband and permissible by the brother-in-law?  — In that case it is really the brother-in-law who makes her forbidden, since as far as the husband is concerned she is permitted.  But what of vows, where the one who makes the vow forbids and the wise man permits?  — [This is not really so], as R. Johanan has said that the wise man does not release except where there is a change of mind.  But there is the husband's power of disallowing, since the wife vows but the husband disallows?  — The answer to that is provided by what R. Phineas said in the name of Raba; for R. Phineas said in the name of Raba: A woman who makes a vow always does so subject to the consent of her husband. 'R. Eleazar b. Azariah argued as follows: "Cutting off"17 means something that cuts him off from her. From this we conclude that this is not "cutting off".' What do the [other] Rabbis  make of this 'cutting off'? — They require it for the ruling contained in the following, as had been taught: '[If a man says], This is your Get on condition that you never drink wine, on condition that you never go to your father's house, this is not "cutting off".  [If he says], For thirty days, this is "cutting off".' And the other [R. Eleazar]? — We can learn this, [he says,] from the use of the form kerithuth in place of kareth.  And the Rabbis? — They do not stress the difference between kareth and kerithuth. Raba said: [If a man said,] This is your Get on condition that you do not drink wine all the days of my life, this is no 'cutting off', but if he said, All the days of So-and-so's life, this is 'cutting off'. Why this difference? [If you say that where he says] 'the life of So-and-so', it is possible that he may die and she may fulfil the condition, [I may rejoin that where he says] 'my life', there is also a possibility that he may die and she may fulfil the condition? — We should read therefore, [If he says,] All the days of your life,  this is no 'cutting off', but if he says, All the days of my life or of So-and-so's life, this is cutting off'. Raba put the following question to R. Nahman: [If he says], To-day you are not my wife, but to-morrow you will be my wife, what is to be done? The answer is not clear whether we accept the view of R. Eliezer  or that of the Rabbis. We ask: If we adopt the view of R. Eliezer, are we to say that in that case R. Eliezer ruled as he did, because as he permitted her she is permitted in perpetuity, but here  he would not do so, or are we to say that he makes no difference? And we ask, if we adopt the view of the Rabbis, are we to say that in that case the Rabbis ruled as they did because she is not entirely separated from him, but here they would say that once she is separated she is separated?  Having asked the question he himself answered it: