Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 80a

IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FOR EATING TITHE,¹  AND IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST FOR EATING TERUMAH.²  THE HEIRS NEITHER OF THE ONE HUSBAND NOR THE OTHER INHERIT HER KETHUBAH,³  AND IF THEY DIE BROTHERS OF BOTH ONE AND THE OTHER OF THEM [IF NECESSARY] TAKE HALIZAH BUT NEITHER CAN MARRY HER. IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR THE NAME OF HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER.

IF ANY OF THE NEAR RELATIVES CONCERNING WHOM IT IS LAID DOWN THAT THEIR RIVALS⁴  ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY [WITHOUT GIVING HALIZAH] WENT AND MARRIED AND IT WAS THEN FOUND THAT THIS ONE⁵  WAS INCAPABLE OF BEARING,⁶  THE ONE WHO MARRIED MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS⁷  AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW AND HER RIVAL⁸  THEN WENT AND MARRIED ANOTHER MAN AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FIRST ONE WAS INCAPABLE OF BEARING, THE OTHER MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER.⁹

IF A SCRIBE WROTE A GET FOR THE HUSBAND AND A RECEIPT FOR THE WIFE¹⁰  AND BY MISTAKE GAVE THE GET TO THE WIFE AND THE RECEIPT TO THE HUSBAND AND THE TWO EXCHANGED THEM AND AFTER A TIME THE GET WAS PRODUCED BY THE MAN AND THE RECEIPT BY THE WOMAN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. R. ELEAZAR¹¹  SAID: IF [IT IS PRODUCED] AT ONCE,¹²  IT IS NO GET, BUT IF [IT IS PRODUCED] AFTER A TIME, IT IS A GET; IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE FIRST TO RENDER VOID THE RIGHT OF THE SECOND.¹³

GEMARA. What is meant by A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT? — The empire of the Romans.¹⁴  Why is it called A REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT? — Because it has neither a script nor a language [of its own].¹⁵

'Ulla said: Why was it laid down that [the year of] the reign should be stated in a Get? For the sake of keeping on good terms with the Government. And for the sake of keeping on good terms with the Government is the woman to leave her husband and the child to be a mamzer.? — Yes. R. Meir in this is quite consistent, since R. Hamnuna said in the name of 'Ulla: R. Meir used to say, If any alteration is made in the form which the Sages fixed for bills of divorce, the child is a mamzer.¹⁶

BY THE EMPIRE OF GREECE. All [these eras] had to be mentioned.¹⁷  For if I had been told only the REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT, I might have thought that the objection to it is that it bears sway now, but in regard to the Empire of Media and Greece I might think that what is past is past.¹⁸  And if I had been told the empires of Media and Greece, I might have thought that the objection is that they were once empires, but as regards the building of the Temple, what is past is past. And if I had been told the building of the Temple, I might have thought that the objection is because they might say that the Jews are recalling their former glory, but this does not apply to the mention of the destruction of the Temple, which recalls their sorrow.¹⁹  Hence all were necessary.

IF BEING IN THE EAST THE WRITER DATED IT FROM THE WEST. Who is referred to? Is it the husband? Then this is the same as IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR OF HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN! It must be then the scribe; and so Rab said to his scribe, and R. Huna also said to his scribe, When you are in Shili,²⁰  write 'at Shili', even though you were commissioned in Hini, and when you are in Hini, write 'at Hini', even though you were commissioned in Shili.²¹

Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel:

1. V. Yeb. 912.
2. v. Sot. 28A.
3. The kethubah referred to here is a stipulation made by her with her husband that, should she die in his lifetime, her sons should inherit her property over and above their share in their father's inheritance, v. Yeb. 91A.
4. I.e., (potential) co-wives. Cf. 1. Sam. I, 6. The reference is to two women within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity who married two brothers, v. Yeb. 22.
5. The wife of the brother still living.
6. Her marriage consequently was void, and hence the sister-in-law could have married the deceased husband's brother and had no right to contract another marriage without giving halizah.
7. I.e., she must leave her husband and cannot marry the brother-in-law.
8. I.e., another wife of the dead brother. Where there are two wives, only one may contract the levirate marriage.
9. V. Yeb. 94b.
10. To hand over to the husband on payment of her kethubah.
11. [Var. lec. 'R. Eliezer'.]
12. Explained in the Gemara.
13. Because we suspect collusion between the wife and the first husband.
14. [The reference is to the Eastern Roman Empire; v. next note].
15. V. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 50, n. 2.
16. Cf. supra, 5b.
17. To make it clear that the Get should be dated according to the era of the State where it is made out.
18. And therefore dating by it would cause no jealousy on the part of the Government.
19. On the eras mentioned in this passage v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 42, n. 7, and p. 47, n. 2.
20. Shili and Hini were two places within walking distance of each other. V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 753, n. 6.
21. The local of the deed is the place where the deed is written and this must be entered in the deed, not the place where the transaction recorded took place.

This¹  is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that even though he dated it only by the term of office of the Santer²  in the town, she is divorced. A certain Get was dated by the term of office of the prefect³  of Bashcar.⁴  R. Nahman son of R. Hisda sent to Rabbah to inquire how to deal with it. He sent him back reply: Such a one even R. Meir would accept. What is the reason? Because he is an official of the proper Government. But why should he be different from the Santer in the town? — To date it that way is an insult to them,⁵  but to date it this way is a compliment to them.

R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna who had it from Rab: This is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that the child is legitimate. The Sages, however, agree with R. Meir that if his name or her name or the name of his town or her town was wrongly given, the child is a mamzer. R. Ashi said: We find this also implied in our Mishnah: IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. Now who is the authority for this statement? Shall I say R. Meir? If so, the two rulings⁶  might have been run into one? We conclude therefore that it was the Rabbis.

IF ANY OF THE NEAR RELATIVES CONCERNING WHOM etc. [They are penalised] if they MARRY, which implies, 'but not if they misconduct themselves'.⁷  May we take this as a refutation of R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself, she is forbidden to her brother-in-law?⁸  — No; [it means,] if they marry, and the same is the rule if they misconduct themselves; and the reason why the word MARRY was used was as a polite expression. Some report the discussion thus: [They are penalised] if they marry, and the same rule [we should say,] applies if they misconduct themselves. May we presume then that the Mishnah supports R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself she is forbidden to her brother-in-law? — No; the rule applies only where they actually married, because in that case they may be confused with a woman whose husband went abroad.⁹

IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc. Both cases¹⁰  required to be stated. For had I only the first one, I might say the reason [why she is penalised]¹¹  is because the precept of levirate marriage has not been carried out, but here where this precept has been carried out I might say that the rule does not apply. If again I had been told only in this case, I might have said that the reason is because she was put at his disposal,¹²  but in the other case where she is not put at his disposal¹³  I might say that she should not be penalised. Hence [both statements were] necessary.

IF THE SCRIBE WROTE AND BY MISTAKE GAVE THE GET TO THE WIFE AND THE RECEIPT TO THE HUSBAND … R. ELEAZAR SAYS, IF [IT WAS PRODUCED] AT ONCE etc. How do we define AT ONCE and how do we define AFTER A TIME? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The whole of the time during which they are sitting and dealing with that matter is called AT ONCE; once they have risen it is called AFTER A TIME. R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, said: So long as she has not married, it is called AT ONCE, but once she has married, it is called AFTER A TIME. We have learnt: IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE FIRST TO RENDER VOID THE RIGHT OF THE SECOND. Now if we take the view of R. Adda b. Ahabah, it is quite correct to mention here the SECOND; but on Samuel's view, what are we to make of SECOND? —

1. That the year of the current reign must be mentioned.
2. Probably = Senator: an elder whose office it was to decide questions regarding boundaries between fields, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 270, n. 10.
3. [Pers. Astandar, a district (astan) deputy (dar) of the king. Obermeyer op. cit. p. 92.]
4. More correctly Kashkar (Jastrow). [According to Obermeyer loc. cit. Kashkar was the name given to the whole of the Mesene district (S. E. Babylon) of which it was the capital during the Sassanian period.]
5. Viz., to the Government, the Santer being a minor official.
6. This and the one regarding the year of the reign.
7. [In which case she is forbidden to her brother-in-law for fear people will say that he had already given her halizah before she remarried and is now taking her unto himself as a wife, which. is not allowed.]
8. V. Yeb. 81a.
9. [If such a woman was informed on good authority that her husband had died and she married again and then her husband returned, she is forbidden to go back to him, for fear people might say that the husband had in reality divorced her before she remarried and that now he is taking her back, which is forbidden (v. Deut. XXIV, 4). If the sister-in-law in this case were allowed to marry the brother-in-law after marrying another, this might create a precedent (cf. n. 2), but not if she misconducted herself.]
10. This and the one about the forbidden degrees.
11. And forbidden to the brother-in-law.
12. Lit., 'thrown before him', after the death of her husband, and therefore should not have remarried till she made sure that the levirate marriage of her rival was in order.
13. [Her potential rival exempts her forthwith on the death of her husband from levirate marriage and halizah.]