Now we can explain the question of the Yerushalmi:
"הרי למדנו גוים אין להן קידושין [בכסף אלא בביאה], מהו שיהא להם גירושין?
We learned that גויים don't have Kiddushin, what is the halacha about גויים having divorce?
The discussion revolves around what what it says earlier that a Jew can get married in 3 ways [כסף, שטר and ביאה] while a גוי can only get married with ביאה. Now the Gemara wants to know if a גוי can get divorced with a גט or not.
Rav Yuda answered that either they don't have divorce or they can divorce each other.
או שאין להן גירושין או ששניהן מגרשין זה את זה.
What this means is that EITHER WAY YOU SPIN IT there is no question about a גט. According to the understanding that marriage is a קנין, there is no way that a גוי can get divorced because there is no פרשה of divorce for a גוי. So no גט there. And if it is not a קנין but a "מצב" of two people having a monogamous, marital relationship, then they don't need a גט. Because like we said, when one of them walks away, the מצב of their union is automatically dissolved and no גט is necessary. So either way there is no גט!!
That is why it says in the Gemara "או או" - either-or. It doesn't mean that he wasn't sure but that there is no room for the question. For if there is a room for a גט [because marriage is a קנין], then a גט won't help [because they don't have a פרשה of גט]. And if there is no room for a גט [because marriage is a מצב], then no גט is necessary. So either way - no גט.
On this the Yerushalmi quotes the pasuk [Malachi 2-16]:
"כי שנא שלח וגו' עד את ה' א-להי ישראל".
If he hates and divorces his wife etc. Hashem the G-d of Israel.
And expounds:
בישראל נתתי גירושין לא נתתי גירושין באומות העולם.
Only to Israel I have given divorce and not to the nations of the world.
Then the Gemara says:
ר' חנניה בשם ר' פינחס כל הפרשה כתיב "י-י צבאות" וכאן כתיב "א-להי ישראל"
In the entire Parsha it says "Hashem Tzivaos" and here [regarding divorce] it says "E-lohei Yisroel".
ללמדך שלא ייחד הקב"ה שמו בגירושין אלא בישראל בלבד.
This teaches that Hashem only "lent His name" [we would say today] regarding divorce to Jews.
These two drashos corresponds to the two sides of the question that the Gemara had just presented. First, there is an explicit exclusion of גויים from divorce which corresponds to the first side of the Gemara, asking if we need to release the wife from the קנין of the husband. To that the Gemara says - no way. גויים are excluded from giving גיטין to release from קנינים [even though they do have a קנין in their wives]. Then there is an inference [albeit not an explicit exclusion as we just had] that teaches us, bottom line, there is no place at all for divorce with respect to גויים. Nothing to talk about [that is why it is not explicit]. That corresponds to the second side of the question - that they can both "cut bait" [contemporary expression meaning "end the marriage"] because there is no need for a formal גט. All one of them has to do is walk away. On this the Gemara quotes Rav Chiya who says -
A גוי who divorces his wife and she marries someone else and then they convert - he may take her back [despite the fact that if this scenario happens to a couple born Jewish they wouldn't be able to remarry]. From this we see that גויים MAY divorce, which proves that the second side of the query is correct - either of them may walk away and end it. So no formal גט is needed but divorce is possible without a גט.
And that is EXACTLY how the Rambam paskens - like the conclusion of the Gemara that either of them can end it by walking away.
The מדרש we quoted earlier said:
ומניין שאין להם גירושין? ר' בר סימון ור"ח בשם ר' יוחנן אמר שאין להם גירושין או ששניהם מגרשין זה את זה א"ר יוחנן אשתו מגרשתו ונותנת לו דופורין.
It starts with the premise that they don't have a formal גירושין [like the conclusion of the Yerushalmi]. On that R' Yochanan says "because they don't have geirsuhin", meaning that there is no קנין hence no need for a formal גט. He then adds "או, meaning "or" [not as an expression of doubt but to say] - what they DO have is שניהם מגרשין זה את את זה - either side can walk away.
On that the Gemara adds that R' Yochanan says that his wife may divorce him and give him a דופורין, Rashi explains that Rav Yochanan now retracts and says that that THERE WAS A קנין but the קנין may be nullified just with will alone - even her will. And then he says that she gives him the דופורין - i.e. the [double] Ksuba. This can understood based on the Rambam and Meiri who hold that a Ksuba is only given when there was a ביטול קנין. About which R' Yochanan says that since בני נח have a קנין and the divorce nullifies the קנין, there must be a Ksuba as well. As we explained earlier based on Rashi on the מדרש, the word דופורין means "double Ksuba". The explanation is that the husband owes the wife even MORE when she breaks it off. If nullifying the קנין is what obligates one in a Ksuba, then when SHE is the initiator of the nullification, all the MORE SO will he be obligated to pay the Ksuba. [It doesn't mean that he necessarily owes her more money but that he has a stronger obligation than he would have had if he had been the one to call it quits.]
However, we don't pasken like this opinion but as we learned from Rav Chiya in the Yerushalmi that there is NO קנין in a marriage between בני נח and thus it can be broken off by either party [and no קנין, so no כתובה]. Since the Yerushalmi doesn't cite the retraction of Rav Yochanan mentioned by the מדרש, it is not codified as practical halacha.
Still a LOT more to explain. ועוד חזון למועד בל"נ בעז"ה!!!
