Study Gittin folio 83B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הרי גרושה אצלו – בזנות! אלא ב״חוץ״.
isn’t the woman a divorcée with regard to engaging in licentious behavior with him? The husband stipulated that she not marry that man, but he did not prohibit her from engaging in licentious behavior with him. Therefore, she is considered a divorcée with regard to him as well. This removes the a fortiori inference, as with regard to all other men she is not considered married at all. Rather, the objection was clearly raised with regard to a case of exception.
The Talmud asks: If R' Akiva holds that R' Eliezer is referring to a case of an exception, he should raise an objection with regard to an exception, and if he holds that R' Eliezer is referring to a case of a stipulation, he should raise an objection with regard to a case of a stipulation. Why does he raise one objection with regard to an exception and then another with regard to a stipulation?
רבי עקיבא שמיע ליה דאיכא דאמר ״חוץ״ ואיכא דאמר ״על מנת״; מאן דאמר ״חוץ״ – האי פירכא, ומאן דאמר ״על מנת״ – האי פירכא.
The Talmud answers: R' Akiva heard that there is someone who states R' Eliezer’s ruling with regard to an exception, and there is someone else who states it with regard to a stipulation. He therefore raised objections with regard to both exceptions and stipulations; according to the one who says that it is with regard to an exception, this is the refutation, and according to the one who says that it is with regard to a stipulation, that is the refutation.
ומאי פירכא? אי נימא איסור כהונה שאני, הא רבי אליעזר נמי מאיסור כהונה קא מייתי ליה!
The Talmud asks: What is the refutation that Rava found for R' Akiva’s second objection? If we say that it is that the prohibition against marrying into the priesthood is different, and therefore the halakhot of adultery and divorce cannot be inferred from it, doesn’t R' Eliezer also derive his opinion from the prohibition against marrying into the priesthood? R' Yoḥanan stated (82b) that R' Eliezer’s ruling is derived from the verse that states with regard to priests: “Neither may they take a woman divorced from her husband” (Leviticus 21:7), indicating that even if a woman was divorced only from her husband and was not permitted to marry others, she is disqualified from marrying into the priesthood as a divorcée.