The Mishna says that if an Aguna remarried on the evidence of one witness and her husband then returned, she requires a Get from the second husband MiDerabonon. The Gemoro (88b) explains that people will assume that she had a Get from the first husband, and then see that she goes out from the second husband without a Get.
My question is that if people assume she had a Get from the first husband, (even though they have not heard about such a Get), why wouldn't they assume that she had a Get from the second husband also?!
Unfortunately, I'll have to trouble you with a bit of circular reasoning.
The problem with people assuming that the woman went out without a Get, is that we are afraid that people will assume that Gittin are unnecessary. If so, their assumption as to the first divorce need not include a Get. The false assumption is that she had legally married the second husband, for they were seen as being married, and then went out without the benefit of a Get, leading to a false conclusion that Gittin are unnecessary. This false conclusion would merely be reinforced by the fact that we had not heard of a Get from the first husband.
From the inner circle,
DOV ZUPNIK
Alternatively, the person watching can only surmise whether or not she received a Get from the first husband, since that happened a while ago, and at the time it did not attract his attention. However, that same person sees before his eyes how the woman leaves her second husband without a Get, even though his attention has been drawn to the case, and he can fully research it.
-Mordecai Kornfeld
Regarding the Kollel's answer about concern for a false assumption, LAN"D this is a Dochak as the Gemara should have said "Shemo Yomru Eishes Ish Yotz'ah Bloi Get"
Regarding the alternative explanation, Kach Nireh Lan"d and we would have to say that the reason that even if it happened a short time later she still needs a Get (even though everyone remembers that he vanished all of a sudden, and that an Eid testified etc.) is because of Lo Plug.
The question that arises is why shouldn't the Get from the first husband suffice as proof that Eshes Ish needs a Get and that the second marriage was Zenus?
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
We oftentimes see that Chazal are concerned that people will see only half of the story. The mere fact that a woman leaves a presumed husband without a Get is cause for a Gezeirah.
As for your first question, I can see no other problem in a presumed Eshes Ish going out without a Get other than Shema Yomru. Compare this to Rashi DH Nimtza where the Gemara merely says Nimtza... and Rashi explains Asi l'Meimar.
Dov Zupnik
I was aware of this before, my question still is that the Gemara asks here why the need for a Get from the second husband since it is Znus, the Gemaras answer is that they will think that the second was a legal husband, the fact that we require a Get from the first husband screams KiKruchia that this was Znus. (IOW we are doing a Pulah (and with a Get) to quash any questions).
Regarding what you wrote about the first question, I don't fully understand what you are saying here, my question is according to the way you learned the Chashash that people will say a women goes out w/o Get means that even from the first husband she went out w/o Get, why does the Gemara need to be Maarich and say also the words "Shemo Yomru Girash Zeh" and not just say Bkitzur "Shemo Yomru Eishes Ish Yotz'a Sheloi Bget" (refering to
both husbands).
Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind
The Rishonim (Rosh, based on Rashi) write that there is not a total concern (Chashash Gamur) that people will say that "this one divorced her and the other one married her;" only where there is reason, anyway, to penalize her, do we combine this Chashash to be Machmir on her to require a Get.
Regarding the question itself, it could be that if her first husband lives in a different city than the second husband, there is a fear that those who live in the second husband's city will see an Eshes Ish leaving her husband without a Get, since they are unaware of the Get that we required her husband to give her in the other city.
Mordecai Kornfeld
Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
Shaarei Svoros Lo Ninalu, however not to take too much more time on this topic, Adabrah Ach Hapa'am.
With regard to what you wrote in the name of the Rishonim that there is not a Chashash Gamur, that is based on the Maskanas Hagemara, my question was on the Hava Amina (the answer I had in mind was that Adifa Minei Makshe).
Regarding what you wrote about the husbands living in two cities, IMHO the simple reading of the Gemara is that they both live in the same city, and that is where the husband reappears.
Yitzchok Zirkind