לזכות הורי שיחיו לכל טוב סלה

לזכות נעמי שרה בת מרת הענא מרים וכל ב"ב 

The Rambam writes [Melachim 9-8]:

בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה הרי זה נהרג עליה משום אשת חבירו ואינו חייב עליה עד שיפשט הדבר ואמרו לה העם זו דבית עבד פלוני ומאימתי תחזור להתירה משיפרישנה מעבדו ויפרע ראשה בשוק ומאימתי תהיה אשת חבירו כגרושה שלנו משיוציאנה מביתו וישלחנה לעצמה או משתצא היא מתחת רשותו ותלך לה שאין להם גירושין בכתב ואין הדבר תלוי בו לבד אלא כל זמן שירצה הוא או היא לפרוש זה מזה פורשין:

A gentile who singles out one of his maid-servants for one of his slaves and, afterwards, engages in relations with her is executed because of her for violation of the prohibition against adultery. However, he is not liable for relations with her until the matter has become public knowledge and everyone refers to her as 'the wife of X, the slave.'

When do relations with her become permitted again? When he separates her from his slave and uncovers her hair in the market-place.

When is a gentile woman considered divorced? When her husband removes her from his home and sends her on her own or when she leaves his domain and goes her own way. They have no written divorce proceedings.

The matter is not dependent on the man's volition alone. Whenever he or she decide to separate, they may and then, are no longer considered as married.

From the Rambam we see that if he sets aside a שפחה for his עבד, she is only permitted when he separates them and uncovers her head in the marketplace. So writes the Meiri [Sanhedrin 57b]. 

The  language of the gemara [58b] is: 

"מאימת התרתה?" א"ר הונא משתפרע ראשה בשוק.

From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him.

The Aruch La-ner writes that the language of the gemara implies that she does the act and not her Master - against the Rambam who says that it is the Master. Rashi writes 

"אם תבוא להפקיר עצמה"

which would ALSO imply that it depends on her. The Ran also emphasizes the uncovering of the head and doesn't say that it is the Master who does it, so there is no reason to believe that he learns counter to the simple language of the gemara that she does it. So why does the Rambam veer from the simple understanding?? We also have to understand the logic of each side of this מחלוקת.

The Ran [58b] writes as follows:

"נראה כמו כן שהוא דוקא בשפחה שאחר שהחמירו כ"כ בייחודה כך אין התירה אלא בפריעת ראשה בשוק אבל ב"נ אחר כיון שפירש ממנה לשם גירושין וישלחנה לעצמה או שתצא היא מתחת רשותו ותלך לה זהו גירושיו שאין להם גירושין בכתב וכן כתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בפ"ט מה' מלכים. אבל ה"ר דוד ז"ל כתב בחדושיו שקרוב הוא שנאמר שב"נ אין לו היתר לעולם בגירושין כמו שאמר אמר אלהי ישראל לא ייחד הב"ה שמו על הגירושין אלא על ישראל אבל בשפחה זו שלא נעשית אשת איש בביאה כשאר ב"נ אלא בכח היחוד שייחדה לו, בזו אמרו שהותרה בפריעת ראשה בשוק שהיחוד שאסרה מתירה הפריעות. וזו אינה ראי' בעיני דאפשר לומר דמאי דאמרינן שלא ייחד הב"ה שמו על הגירושין היינו דוקא בגירושין שבכתב:

Says the Ran: When it comes to marriage, we are stricter for a שפחה than for a regular בן נח. A regular בן נח has one ביאה with her and she is his wife [as he says earlier in that passage] while for a שפחה he also has to set her aside "ייחוד". Since we have that extra stringency, it is also harder to get divorced, so we require her to uncover her head in public. But for a regular בן נח, the rule is that he simply sends her away from his house or she walks away and is divorced. No papers. No lawyers. No divorce court. Plain and simple. 

But the Ran quotes Rabbeinu Dovid who says that is is not a remote possibility that a בן נח can't even get divorced as the pasuk says in Malachi [2-16] "כי שנא שלח אמר ה' א-להי ישראל". So divorce carries the name of the "G-d of Israel" implying that non-Jews can't get divorced. However, this שפחה who doesn't become an אשת איש because of ביאה but rather because of the ייחוד can undo the ייחוד with פריעת ראש - uncovering the head. 

We REALLY have to understand this מחלוקת!! It is a case of two extremes. The Ran asserts that it is EASIER for a בן נח to get divorced than for a שפחה which is a more stringent case while Rabbeinu Dovid holds that it could be that a בן נח can't get divorced at all while the case of a שפחה is more lenient. How do we understand this? Also, at the end of the day - both a שפחה and a regular non-Jew are equally, lawfully married [however it was accomplished] so how can we make a distinction between them when it comes to divorce?  

There is also a STRAAAANGE קרית ספר who after quoting the Rambam about divorcing a שפחה by uncovering her head, adds 

"וכן אשת חבירו משיוציאנה"

So too the wife of his friend after he sends her away. 

What is the "וכן"?? The divorce of a שפחה is different than the divorce of a regular non-Jew as we see from the Rambam and the gemara, so how can he lump them together??! 

Now, regarding the words of R' Dovid that are rooted in the Yerushalmi [Kiddushin 1-1], the Ran rejects them and says that when the pasuk teaches that Hashem only authorized divorce for Jews and not for non-Jews, it is referring divorce with a document - בכתב - but otherwise they can get divorced. That is like the language of the Rambam who says here that "שאין להם גירושין בכתב" they don't have divorce with a document. So it must be that Rabbeinu Dovid understands that the pasuk is talking about ALL divorce - not only בכתב. If that is true then we have a HUUUUUGE problem! How then can a שפחה get divorced?? According to him, divorce is for Jews only. We also have to understand his logic when he says that since it is through ייחוד we allow divorce when her head is uncovered. How can this be?? She is an אשת איש and the אישות of a בן נח has no allowance for divorce, so how is she getting divorced?? 

[עפ"י תורת מו"ר הגאון הגדול רבי דוד יצחק מן זצ"ל]