What Did He Find? (article preview)

As Gittin draws to a close, the final Mishnah (90a) discusses what would justify a man divorcing his wife. A Biblical verse about divorce, Devarim 24:1, states כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, “for he found an unseemly matter in her”. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue about the implications of the עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, whether it needs to relate to immorality (Beit Shammai) or just that she burned the food (Beit Hillel). Then, Rabbi Akiva endorses no-fault divorce, saying even if he finds someone else better looking than her, as the preceding phrase in the verse was וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, “and it will be, if she doesn’t find favor in her eyes.”

Derasha Mechanics

I wonder how Rabbi Akiva’s derivation operates. Is it merely a matter of simple peshat, that any reason she no longer finds favor will suffice, with the later clause about finding עֶרְוַת דָּבָר as non-binding, but merely an alternative? This is how the Talmudic Narrator explains the dispute between Beit Shammai and Rabbi Akiva (and according to a printing / some manuscripts, also Beit Hillel). The Narrator invokes Reish Lakish, who elsewhere says that the word כִּי can designate one of four things: אי / if, דלמא / perhaps, אלא / rather, and דהא / because. I say the Narrator invokes because the Narrator takes care to lay it out with duplicative language, בִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. We see the same way of invoking Reish Lakish in Taanit 9a / Rosh Hashanah 3a, supporting Rabbi Abahu’s revocalization of ויראו so that the Israelites didn’t only see, but were were seen, as a result (דהא / because) of Aharon’s passing and the resultant removal of the Clouds of Glory. And Reish Lakish is similarly invoked in Shevuot 49a, to help bolster Rabbi Ami, who interprets the ki of א֣וֹ נֶ֡פֶשׁ כִּ֣י תִשָּׁבַע֩ לְבַטֵּ֨א בִשְׂפָתַ֜יִם to mean אי / if. I have no idea where the primary sugya with Reish Lakish is, and in what context he really said it.

For the application in Gittin