Divorce Of A Ben Noach

The first Mishna in Kiddushin says וקונה את עצמה בגט ובמיתת הבעל.  Is the heter of gerushin and death limited to the kiddushin of a Jew, or does it apply to the marriage of a gentile as well?

The Gemorah Kiddushin (13b) learns from a verse that if the husband dies, the woman is permitted to marry.  The Pnei Yehoshua says that applies to a Yisroel but not to a gentile to whom the verse doesn’t apply and hence there will be an issur asseh of ודבק באשתו (בראשית ב׳:כ״ד) ולא באשת חבירו even after the husband passes away.  This Pnei Yehousha is rejected by everyone after him for reasons both from sevara and Gemarah.  One of the proofs against his theory comes from the words of Tosfos in our own parsha (12:12) משמע שהיה מתירא שיהרגוהו אם יאמר שהיא אשתו מפני שירצו לשכב עמה והם מצווים על העריות. ותימה שהרי כמו כן מצווים על שפיכות דמים ואם יודע הוא שהיו נזהרין על מה שהן מצווין א״כ לא היה לו לירא שיהרגוהו. וי״ל כי טוב יהיה להם שיהרגוהו ויעשו עבירה דשפיכות דמים פעם אחת משיבואו עליה בלא הריגה כי יהיו יראים המצרים פן יצעוק עליהם למלך.  It is clear from Tosfos after Avrohom’s death, it would be permitted for Sarah to remarry.  But why is the Pnei Yehoshua wrong, how is the wife permitted without a possuk?

What is the status of a gentile regarding divorce?  The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Kiddushin (2a) discusses this topic and it’s a subject of debate between the commentators as to how to understand the Yerushalmi.  מהו שיהא להם גירושין ר' יודה בן פזי ור' חנין בשם ר' חונה רובה דציפורין או שאין להן גירושין או ששניהן מגרשין זה את זה ר' יוחנן דצפרין ר' אחא ר' חיננא בשם ר' שמואל בר נחמן (מלאכי ב) כי שנא שלח וגו' עד את ה' אלהי ישראל בישראל נתתי גירושין לא נתתי גירושין באומות העולם ר' חנניה בשם ר' פינחס כל הפרשה כתיב יי צבאות וכאן כתיב אלקי ישראל ללמדך שלא ייחד הקב"ה שמו בגירושין אלא בישראל.

The Ran Sanhedrin (58b) cites Rabbenu David that holds a gentile can’t divorce at all; that right is only given to a Yisroel.  He must have learn along the lines of the Pnei Moshe that the question is if they don’t have the rights to divorce at all or either one of the spouses may walk out on the other and he understands the conclusion that they don’t have any means of divorce.  The logic of this opinion would seem to be that the idea that a marriage can be annulled is a chiddush of the Torah, hence, it isn’t applicable to a gentile.  

However, the Rambam Melachim (9:8) that rules either party can initiate divorced and can be done without any documentation.  He seems to have understood the Yerushalmi is also concluding there is no need for any bill of divorce.  Why would the rules of divorce for a gentile be different from that of a Yisroel?

The Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Eishus says קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה אָדָם פּוֹגֵעַ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אִם רָצָה הוּא וְהִיא לִשָּׂא אוֹתָהּ מַכְנִיסָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְתִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הָאִישׁ לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה יִקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ תְּחִלָּה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יג) כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ")  Why is the Rambam informing us of this history lesson?  Rav Gustman says that the Rambam here is explaining the concept of kiddushin and the difference between marriage of a Yisroel and marriage of a gentile.  It is when the Torah is given that there is invented a concept of kiddushin. This idea of a kiddushin, a kinyan eishus, only exists for a Yisroel.  For a gentile their status of relationship is the same as pre-Mattan Torah.  There is no kinyan eishus, it is merely the bond that exists because of the coexistence of husband and wife that creates the bond of marriage.  Hence, there is no need for a divorce bill to break any kinyan eishus, if one of the spouses simply wants to walkway, and they are no longer living together, the bond of marriage no longer is in existence.  Based upon this, it is obvious why we don’t need a possuk to tell us the heter of the woman to remarry after her husband dies, for obviously then they are no longer residing together as a couple and there is no more marriage (see Steipler Kiddushin last siman.)

This blog mentioned here the idea of the Briskor Rav that even though the Avos kept the Torah, if a din was dependent upon a chalos that didn’t exist pre-Mattan Torah, it didn’t apply to them.  The Rav says a similar idea to answer why Avrohom didn’t fulfill the mitzvah even before it was commanded.  For the mitzvah of milah is to remove the arlah.  As long as there was no commandment of milah, there was no status of arlah and Avrohom had no capability to fulfill milah. According to the aforementioned idea, the status of the marriage of Avrohom had the status of a marriage of a gentile and he would have no reason to write a bill of divorce.  However, the Pirkai D’Rebbe Eliezer (Ch. 30) and Targum Yonason (21:14) both say that Avrohom sent away Hagar with a get.  Why would Avrohom write a get if it had no halachik bearing at all? (See Beis Haotzar volume 1 klal 1 letter 5, ועדיין צ"ע.)