Study Gittin folio 81B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
as Beit Shammai hold: A person does engage in licentious sex. Although they were seen having sex, one cannot assume that he intended to betroth her, since they were recently divorced. The assumption is that they were simply engaging in licentious sex. Consequently, he is not required to give her a
And Beit Hillel hold: A person does not engage in licentious sex. Therefore, he had the intention to betroth her, and he must give her another bill of divorce. But if they did not see that she had sex, even though they spent the night together at an inn, everyone agrees that she does not require a
The Talmud challenges this understanding of the Mishnah: We learned in the Mishnah that Beit Hillel concede that when she was divorced following the state of betrothal, she does not require a second bill of divorce from him because he is not accustomed to her. And if the Mishnah is referring to a ca
Rather it can be explained that the Mishnah is actually speaking about a case in which they did not see that she had sex. R' Yoḥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna. As it is taught in a baraita that R' Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai did not di
With regard to what case did they disagree? They disagreed about a case where they saw that she had sex. As Beit Shammai say: A person does engage in licentious sex. And Beit Hillel say: A person does not engage in licentious sex. R' Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with the Mishnah.