שמים ביני לבינך Heaven (is) between me and you

Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract... The second is a woman who says to her husband: Heaven (is) between me and you. They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified as follows: ...as for a woman who says: Heaven (is) between me and you, the court must act and deal with the matter by way of a request (a banquet?), rather than force the husband to divorce his wife.

Heaven (is) between me and you: as heaven is far from earth, so far be this woman from that man. ... Rav Huna said, they should have dinner and they will get accustomed to be with one another...

So far be this woman: ...this is to say that she would say that she is distanced from him and he really is not with her...

They: Will get accustomed. To reconcile or to engage in sexual intercourse thanks to the meal.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman said to her husband: You divorced me, ...is she believed or not?

Rav Hamnuna said: ...concerning the claim: You divorced me, with regard to which he knows the truth about whether or not he actually divorced her, she is believed. Why? Because the court relies on the presumption that a woman is not brazen enough to lie in the presence of her husband and present a claim that he knows is patently false.

Rava said to Rav Hamnuna: On the contrary, even according to the initial version of the Mishna that teaches that the woman is believed in her claim that she is defiled to her husband, it may be argued that it is only there that she is believed, because a woman would not demean herself by claiming she was raped if she were not telling the truth. But here, where it is sometimes hard for her under the authority of the man, i.e., her husband, she would be brazen to his face, and therefore the court does not believe her.

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection: Let the ruling of the initial version of the Mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven (is) between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as here she suffers no embarrassment on account of her claim, and yet the Tanna teaches that she is believed.

Heaven (is) between me and you - this is to say that to the Heaven are revealed things that are between me and you, that is the fact that the seed is not shot like an arrow and is thus incapable of fecundation...

Heaven (is) between me and you - it is proven in the Gemara that what she is saying to him is that the seed is not shot like an arrow at the time of their relations and is unfit for impregnation... it is also possible that this phrase "Heaven (is) between me and you" includes everything, however, it is proven in the Gemara (spoiler alert), that the explanation [of the phrase] is that the seed is not shot like an arrow and when she is saying that "Heaven (is) between me and you", what she is saying is that this thing is not known anywhere other than by the Divine.

Heaven (is) between me and you - as to say that she claims something which cannot be proven, however, she knows that the Holy One alone knows that the husband does not come (sorry!) onto/into her appropriately.

Didn’t Shmuel say: Any semen that is not shot like an arrow cannot fertilize?...

The Gemara addresses a related case. If he said that the cause for their failure to have children is from her, i.e., it is she who is infertile, and she said it is from him, Rabbi Ami said: With regard to such matters between him and her, she is believed. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for this ruling? She is certain whether his semen shoots like an arrow, whereas he is not certain whether his semen shoots like an arrow.

The Gemara answers: Rava maintains that there, since it is not sufficient for her if she does not state in precise detail her claim that he does not shoot like an arrow, i.e., his semen is not emitted forcefully, then, were it not as she said, she would not say it. She would be too ashamed to speak of such things before the court. It is for this reason that she is believed.

The Gemara further comments: Let the ruling of the ultimate version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who maintains that a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed. But here, as in the case of the alleged divorce, she knows and her husband also knows with regard to her whether or not she is lying, and yet the tanna of the mishna teaches that she is not believed.

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna maintains that here too, the woman herself says in her heart: Though he may know whether or not we engaged in sexual intercourse, does he know whether or not he shoots like an arrow? And it is due to that reason that she lies. Since the woman can make a false claim against her husband without having to fear that he will contradict her, she is not believed. A similar point cannot be made in the case of an alleged divorce, as the husband knows whether or not he divorced his wife, and therefore a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed.

[The following rules apply when there is a dispute with regard to which of the couple it is whose affliction prevents the couple from having children. The husband] claims: "It is she who cannot bear children," and she claims "He cannot conceive children, for he does not [release semen] as one shoots an arrow." Her word is accepted... he must pay her [the money due her by virtue of her] ketuba... Why is the woman's word accepted when she makes such a claim? Because she can feel whether or not he [releases semen] as one shoots an arrow, and he cannot make such a distinction.

When a woman demands of her husband to divorce her after ten years [of marriage], because she has not given birth, and she claims that he does not [release semen] as one shoots an arrow, her request is accepted. Although she is not commanded to fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, she needs sons [to assist] her in her old age. [Therefore,] he should be compelled to divorce her.

If she says that he has erectile dysfunction and cannot have intercourse with her, and she requests a divorce, and he contradicts her, some authorities say that she is believed (Rem"a: even if they have not been married for ten years), and we force him to divorce her immediately, though he does not give her the Ketubah. If he divorced her without being coerced, he must give her the Ketubah...

When is this the case? When she does not demand the Ketubah. If, however, she demands the Ketubah, she is not believed, and we do not even force him to divorce. Rem"a: Some authorities say that these days when some woman are impudent, she is not believed. Nevertheless, if there are reasons to suspect (or circumstantial evidence) that she is telling the truth, she is believed... Some authorities say that even in cases where we do not force him to divorce, we still do not force her to make peace with him, and we do not consider her to be a rebellious wife. Instead, we allow time to pass such that they either make peace or wait ten years without children... If she claims that he husband refuses to lie with her or have intercourse with her, it is judges as if she said he had erectile dysfunction.

A certain adulterer entered into the house of a certain woman. Her husband came (back home) and the adulterer hid behind the door. There was cress (in the room), which a snake tasted. The Master of the House wanted to eat from the cress without his wife's knowledge, but the adulterer said to him: "Do not each from the cress for it was tasted by a snake!".

Rava said: "his wife is permitted (to the Master of the House), because if he (the adulterer) committed a transgression, it would have been better for him (that the Mater of the House) would eat (the cress) and die... (Rava's case is clearly needed, because) one might said that he (the adulterer) committed a transgression and he (the adulterer) was better off keeping the husband alive so that the wife would become prohibited (to Master of the House), but thanks to Rava, we know this is not the case.