Gittin

R. Aha b. Jacob said: This shows [that the word] soon' [used] by the Master of the Universe means eight hundred and fifty-two years. MISHNAH. A GET GIVEN UNDER COMPULSION [EXERCISED] BY AN ISRAELITE COURT IS VALID, BUT BY A HEATHEN COURT IS INVALID. A HEATHEN COURT, HOWEVER, MAY FLOG A MAN AND SAY TO HIM, DO WHAT THE ISRAELITE [AUTHORITIES] COMMAND YOU, (AND IT IS VALID). GEMARA. R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: A Get given under compulsion [exercised] by an Israelite court with good legal ground  is valid, but if without sufficient legal ground, it is invalid,  but it still disqualifies [the woman for a priest].  If enforced by a heathen court on good legal grounds, it is invalid, but disqualifies; if without sufficient legal ground, there is no tincture of a Get about it. How can you have it [both ways]? If the [heathens are] competent to apply compulsion, then it should actually be valid. If they are not competent to apply compulsion, it should not disqualify! — R. Mesharsheya explained: According to the strict rule of the Torah, a Get enforced by a heathen court is valid, and the reason why [the Rabbis] declared it invalid was to prevent any [Jewish woman] from attaching herself to a heathen and so releasing herself from her husband.  If that is so, [why did Samuel say that] if it is enforced [by a heathen court] without sufficient legal ground, it has not even the tincture of a Get? Let it at least be on a par with the similar Get exacted by an Israelite court, and disqualify the woman [for] a priest? — The truth is that R. Mesharsheya's [explanation] is erroneous.  And what is the reason? — [A Get enforced by a heathen court] on legal grounds is liable to be confused with [a Get enforced by] an Israelite court on legal grounds,  but [a Get enforced by a heathen court] without proper grounds will not be confused with [a Get enforced by] a Jewish court with legal grounds. Abaye once found R. Joseph sitting in court and compelling certain men to give a bill of divorce. He said to him: Surely we  are only laymen,  and it has been taught: R. Tarfon used to say: In any place where you find heathen law courts,  even though their law is the same as the Israelite law, you must not resort to them since it says, These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them,  that is to say, 'before them' and not before heathens. Another explanation, however, is that it means 'before them' and not before laymen? — He replied: We are carrying out their commission,  just as in the case of admissions and transaction of loans.  If that is the case [he rejoined], we should do the same with robberies and injuries?  — We carry out their commission in matters which are of frequent occurrence, but not in matters which occur infrequently. MISHNAH. IF COMMON REPORT IN THE TOWN DECLARES A WOMAN TO BE BETROTHED, SHE IS REGARDED [BY THE BETH DIN] AS BETROTHED;  IF TO BE DIVORCED, SHE IS REGARDED AS DIVORCED.  [THIS, HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE] PROVIDED THE REPORT HAS NO QUALIFICATION.  WHAT IS MEANT BY A QUALIFICATION? [IF THE REPORT IS,] SO-AND-SO DIVORCED HIS WIFE CONDITIONALLY, HE THREW HER THE BETROTHAL MONEY, BUT IT IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER IT LANDED NEARER TO HER OR NEARER TO HIM — THIS IS A QUALIFICATION. GEMARA. And do we [on the strength of such a report] declare her  prohibited to her husband? Has not R. Ashi said that we take no notice of reports spread after marriage? — What [the Mishnah] means is this: 'If common report declares her to be betrothed, we regard her as betrothed; if it declares her to have been betrothed and then divorced,