Explanation: It appears that this suspicion (that he may cast) is only rumor. It will not cause her Get to be nullified retroactively and her sons to be Mamzerim, as he did not say "Al Menas" -- "on condition."

Implied Question: In many cases, revealing one's mindset does make a difference regarding whether or not the transaction is valid. For example, this is the case when a woman writes a Mivrachas document (see Kesuvos 79a), and when a person sold a field but not for the money (he wanted to buy something else immediately with the money). (Note: The fact that we know their mindset alters the law regarding their transaction. Why, then, does is this husband's mindset when he gave the Get insignificant?)

Answer: Here, we cannot say this, as Rebbi Meir requires a double condition for these things to take effect.

It therefore seems that this is only rumors. He will spread rumors in order to get her back. Even though she is already married to someone else (and a person is not allowed to remarry his ex-wife after she has already married someone else), they will permit her to marry him as she was promiscuous accidentally (as she did not realize that the second marriage was invalid). The Chachamim therefore said that he cannot remarry his wife, as now he will never be able to disseminate such rumors.

Explanation: Rashi explains that even if he will say "If I would have known etc." he is not believed, because he knows he will not be able to remarry her. He did not wait and check out whether his accusations were indeed correct. Accordingly, he showed that he did not really care about his wife (and therefore did not care that he would not be able to remarry her, and divorced her wholeheartedly).

According to Rebbi Meir who requires a double condition, if he did not make a double condition there is not even any basis for rumors.

Rebbi Meir says that any vow that requires a Chacham to look into it in order to permit it should be basis for him not being allowed to remarry her (when he divorces her because she makes vows). This is only if he doubled his statement, but not his condition. However, if he doubled his condition, it does not help that he is not able to remarry her, as he will always be able to ruin her.

Explanation: These two versions of Rav Yosef are according to the Tana Kama. The first version holds that because the Mishnah also says she was divorced due to a bad name, and this is not necessarily promiscuity on her part, as a person cannot do anything when people spread rumors about them, the problem must be that he can end up ruining her second marriage.

The second version holds that he cannot ruin her second marriage if he divorces her because she had a bad name. Being that he is divorcing her because of her bad name, he is divorcing her whether or not the rumors are true. The same is regarding his divorcing her because she makes vows, as the law regarding both cases is because of the same reason.

Now it is understandable why the Gemara quotes a Beraisa supporting the first version that is according to Rebbi Meir, even though the proof is for the position of the Tana Kama. It only quotes what is relative to giving someone a bad name that ends up making her second marriage problematic. This is also true according to the Tana Kama.

Question: According to the second version of Rav Yosef that the reason is due to her being loose (with either promiscuity or vows), how do we know that the Rabbanan argue on Rebbi Yehudah, and that they hold that a vow that was made in public can be negated, as we say later (46a), "According to the Rabbanan, is it valid?" (Note: Perhaps the Rabbanan hold it cannot be negated, as is indeed the position of Rebbi Yehudah?)

Answer#1: This Gemara is according to the first version that the reason for these laws is because of ruining (her second marriage).

Answer#2: Alternatively, when the Gemara asks later about the Rabbanan, it is referring to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Eliezer who say that they did not forbid a vow that required (being permitted by a Chacham) etc. They hold the reason is because he might ruin her second marriage. Even if the vow is made publicly they hold that they only forbade it due to a vow that did not need to be permitted by a Chacham. If a vow made in public would forbid him to remarry due to her being loose with vows, they should have forbade a vow that the public did not know about due to a vow that the public does know about. They should not have said the vow requiring a Chacham is forbidden due to one that is not required.

Question: Even without the Gemara's logic the oath should be invalid, as it is an oath that nullifies the Mitzvah of "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" -- "do not let any soul live" (Devarim 20:16)!

The Yerushalmi in Shevi'is (ch. 6) quotes Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini as saying that there were three messages that Yehoshua sent to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael before Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael. They were that whoever wants to leave should do so, whoever wants to make peace should do so, and whoever wants to make war should do so. The Girgashi left and went to Africa. The Givonim made peace, as is stated in Yehoshua (10:1), "And when those who dwelled in Givon made peace with Bnei Yisrael." The thirty-one kings made war, and fell in battle. (Note: Why, then, were the Givonim supposed to be killed?)

This was before Bnei Yisrael crossed the Jordan River, as is stated "before they entered Eretz Yisrael." However, once they entered, the implication is that nobody was accepted peacefully anymore. This is why they had to resort to trickery, and say that they came from a far away land.

Answer: It must be that the prohibition of "Lo Sechayeh" is only for people who do not want to make peace. This is implied by the Pesukim, "And you will call out to her for peace...And if they will not make peace with you...Only from the cities of the nations...Do not let any soul live."

Question#1: What is Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning? This was certainly an oath under mistaken pretenses!

Question#2: Additionally, according to Rebbi Yehudah, how did Bnei Yisrael allow them to stay in Eretz Yisrael? Doesn't the Pasuk say, "They should not settle in your land etc.?" This is an oath that will nullify a Mitzvah! It must be that the only reason the oath was kept was due to Chilul Hash-m, as stated by the Rabbanan.

Answer: Rebbi Yehudah holds that if it would indeed be able to be negated, it would not be a Chilul Hash-m to negate it (and act accordingly).

Question: They could not have possibly killed them without causing a Chilul Hash-m, as they were coming to convert. This is as stated earlier (45a), "They should not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin towards Me." It could be that this is referring to an idolater who accepted not to serve Avodah Zarah etc. (Note: The Gemara says this is not true.)

We also say in Sotah (35b) that Bnei Yisrael were instructed to write for them (the nations who would discover the Torah written on this large rock), "In order that they should not teach you to do etc." This implies that if they would repent, we would accept them. This Pasuk is clearly talking about the seven nations (that we were otherwise obligated to kill out in Eretz Yisrael). (Note: This indicates that if they would come to convert we clearly would not kill them, before even taking into account whether or not it would be a Chilul Hash-m.)

Answer#1: If it would not be a Chilul Hash-m, even if they could not kill them, they could exile them from their cities.

Answer#2: Additionally, at that time they did not come to convert. This only happened afterwards.

Explanation: It appears that a vow taken based on the mindset of the public only requires two people. In Shevuos (39a), Moshe said to Bnei Yisrael, "You should know that I am not making you swear on your mindset (rather on the mindset of Hash-m and me)." Rashi explains there that this was a case of a vow based on the public mindset. (Note: This implies two people is enough.)

Implied Question: However, according to this there is no permitting a Cheirem today. (Note: The Maharam explains that they used to make a Cheirem "based on the mindset of Hash-m and the congregation.")

Answer: Moshe only said this in order that they should not resort to trickery, as explained there (39b), due to the case of the cane used by someone in Rava's Beis Din. (Note: When he had to swear that he paid the lender, he hid the money in his cane, and he gave it to the lender to hold while he swore (see Nedarim 25b where the incident is recorded).)

Question: When someone swears based on the mindset of an individual, it also should not be able to be negated, being that his vow was based on this person's mindset.

Answer: He negates his mindset because of the public, but not because of an individual.

Explanation: Rabeinu Eliyahu explains that this is derived from a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Chadlah." It says here, "When you will refrain from taking a vow," and it says there, "You should refrain from (listening to) the man...for what is he." We derive that one should not read the Pasuk as saying "Bameh" but rather "Bamah" -- "an altar."

In Nedarim (22a), the Gemara derives using this Gezeirah Shaveh (of "Chedlah") that he is called an evildoer, as the Pasuk states, "There the evildoers stop from their anger" (Iyov 3:16).

Observation: The Mishnah implies that an Aylonis requires a Get.

Question: This is difficult. In the beginning of Yevamos (2b), the Gemara implies that a Get is not required (if someone married an Aylonis), as this is considered a mistaken Kidushin. This is as the Mishnah states that all of these women who performed Miun or were found to be an Aylonis, their co-wives are permitted.

Answer: The Mishnah here is referring to someone who is only possibly an Aylonis, and he is divorcing here because he suspects she is an Aylonis.

You should know that this is correct, as the end of the Mishnah continues that if she then married someone else and had children etc. A woman who is certainly an Aylonis does not have any cure. This is apparent from the argument between Rebbi Yehoshua (should be Rebbi Eliezer, see Rashash) and Rebbi Akiva in Yevamos (79b) regarding a Sris Chamah who can be cured, whether or not he does Chalitzah and Chalitzah is done to his wife. However, they do not argue regarding an Aylonis. We indeed derive in Yevamos (12a) from the Pasuk, "That will give birth" (Devarim 25:6) that an Aylonis is excluded from Yibum.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Yevamos (64b) that Sarah Imeinu was an Aylonis. (Note: How can we say a definite Aylonis cannot have children if Sarah did have children?)

Answer: We do not mention miracles, as we state regarding Iyov in Chulin (43a).

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Kesuvos (73a) that there is an argument regarding Kidushin that was done on a condition and Nisuin that was done without any condition, whether or not a Get is needed. (Note: This implies that it should at least be an argument whether or not a Get is required.)

Answer#1: This is regarding other blemishes, where one opinion says that the husband very possibly gave up his demand regarding this blemish, and accepted his wife as is. However, a person does not accept that his wife is an Aylonis.

Answer#2: Additionally, a person thinks regarding blemishes that perhaps the condition he made will not be met, as this is common, and ends up having relations with his bride anyway (after he finds out) in order to establish Kidushin. However, a person does not think that his wife will have the uncommon blemish of being an Aylonis, and therefore will not end up having relations with her to establish Kidushin (after finding this out).

Implied Question: The Gemara states in Kesuvos (100b) that a woman who performs Miun, a Sheniyah (woman forbidden by the Rabbanan), and an Aylonis do not receive a Kesuvah. This implies that they do require a Get. This is implied in the Gemara there (73a) regarding one who marries a girl without any condition and finds (that she had made many vows) etc. (Note: How can she require a Get if we are correct in saying that this is a mistaken purchase, where a Get is not required?)

Answer#1: The Gemara (ibid.) only stated this because of the law regarding a Sheniyah, as a woman who does Miun clearly does not require a Get. (Note: An Aylonis similarly does not require a Get.)

Answer#2: Alternatively, the Gemara there only made this deduction because it says in the beginning of the Mishnah that she is not Mekudeshes, and in the end that she should go out without a Kesuvah. (Note: The implication is that she needs a Get for some reason, as otherwise it would not have to say in the end of the Mishnah she is not given a Kesuvah when it already said in the beginning that she is not Mekudeshes.)

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Yevamos (61b) that a minor boy or girl do not perform Chalitzah etc. The reason a girl does not have Chalitzah done to her as a minor is because she might be found to be an Aylonis. We do not say that she should have Yibum done. Why? In any event, even if she is an Aylonis, the first Kidushin is no more than a mistaken Kidushin and she is therefore permitted to his brother! (Note: If she is not an Aylonis, there is no apparent reason not to perform Yibum!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the case in Yevamos (ibid.) is where the first husband accepted the fact that she was an Aylonis, and remained married to her anyway. A similar answer is given in Sanhedrin (69b).

Question: If she is quiet, are we quiet? Rav Papa indeed asks this question (that we could still claim something even though she does not) in Yevamos (65a), regarding if she got married to a fourth husband and had children.

Answer: The Gemara there is also only discussing rumors that could possibly be spread, not that her ex-husband would actually be able to break up her current marriage. He divorced her without saying why, as is explained in the Gemara here. Rav Papa therefore asks there that we should ensure her ex-husband does not spread any rumors, just as is established here.

The Gemara answers that even so there is no real rumors that can be spread, as we could possibly say that she only was healed now (and she was still sick when she was married to you, meaning that the divorce was not under false pretenses). This is also why she cannot claim her Kesuvah (as it could be she was sick and therefore it was a mistaken Kidushin). However, if she is quiet here, we are also quiet because there are no resulting rumors, being that the decree is that if he divorces her he cannot remarry her. If she tries to claim her Kesuvah, he could tell her that I did not divorce you with intent to pay you a Kesuvah.

However, here where the Gemara is dealing with only a possible Aylonis, it is not possible to claim that she was only healed now.

The Gemara's question, "Are we quiet?" is even according to the Rabbanan who do not suspect that her marriage will be ruined.

This is because the Rabbanan admit there that he clearly divorced her because she had no children, as they were married many years and they did not have children.

Question: In Nidah (12b), the Gemara asks regarding a woman who does not have a period, that it is obvious that he cannot remarry her! The Gemara answers, the law is necessary for a woman who later was healed (from this problem). One might think that he could remarry her. This is why it is necessary, as sometimes she will go and get married to someone else etc. (Note: He will claim that he didn't know she could have a period and therefore have children, turning the divorce into a mistake.) Why don't we say there that she only got better now (and therefore this goes without saying)?

Answer: The fact that she was healed shows that her medicine worked. He can therefore mess her up by saying that if I know that there was a medicine for this problem I would not have divorced her, and instead I would have tried to find the medicine. (Note: This is as opposed to an Aylonis, who does not seem to have a medicine cure her. When a definite Aylonis is cured, it is a miracle, as there was no known medicine for this condition during the times of the Gemara (see Tosfos earlier DH "ha'Motzi").)