Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 2, 2016 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 80

If a get in not written according to particular laws instituted by the Rabbis, Rabbi Meir holds that a woman who gets remarried based on this is forbidden both to her first husband and to the second one and children born from the second or her remarriage to the first are mamzerim. 聽There are also many other ramifications such as, the woman loses her ketuba, she can’t eat truma and many others. 聽According to the gemara, the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir about some of the cases. 聽There is a difference of opinion whether he thinks a woman can get remarried based on this get or only if she is already remarried and has children, we don’t consider her children mamzerim. 聽A similar situation occurs when a husband dies childless and one of the wives either is forbidden to one of the brothers, thus allowing all other wives to marry others without performing yibum, or one of the wives marry the brother聽and the other wives marry others and then they find out that the wife (who was forbidden or married the brother) was an aylonit聽(someone who can’t have children and never shows signs of puberty) and was therefore never married in the first place. 聽The other wives now can’t stay married to their new husband and also have to do chalitza with the brother.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讘转 讻讛谉 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

If she was the daughter of a Levite, through these two marriages she becomes prohibited from partaking of the tithe that is given to Levites. If she was the daughter of a priest, she becomes prohibited from partaking of teruma, even after she returns to the house of her father the priest.

讜讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇 讝讛 讬讜专砖讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗诐 诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

And the heirs of this husband and the heirs of that husband do not inherit the rights to collect payment of her marriage contract if she dies. And if the husbands die, the brother of this first husband and the brother of that second husband perform 岣litza, since she was betrothed to the second one as well, and they do not consummate the levirate marriage.

砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

The mishna proceeds to teach an additional halakha concerning a bill of divorce written not in accordance with its halakhot: If he changed his name, i.e., he wrote a different name in the bill of divorce, or he changed her name, or if he changed the name of his city or the name of her city, and she remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then she must leave both this first husband and that second husband. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

The mishna teaches another halakha associated with the previous halakhot: With regard to all of those cases in which they said that a man who died without children and left behind a widow who is, to the man鈥檚 brother, one of those with whom relations are forbidden, e.g., she is his wife鈥檚 sister, not only is there no levirate bond for her, but the rival wives of the brother who died are also permitted to marry without either levirate marriage or 岣litza.

讛诇讻讜 讛爪专讜转 讛讗诇讜 讜谞讬砖讗讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

The mishna discusses another case: These rival wives went and married another man without 岣litza, and these widows with whom relationships were forbidden were found to be sexually underdeveloped women incapable of bearing children [ailonit]. Therefore, it became clear, retroactively, that the marriage to the dead brother was never valid, and accordingly, the rival wives were never exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage due to their being the rival wives of a forbidden relationship. Consequently, the rival wives were forbidden to marry anyone else without 岣litza, and the rival wives must leave both this man whom they remarried, and that yavam, i.e., they cannot enter into levirate marriage with him. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 爪专转讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

Similarly, with regard to one who marries his yevama, and her rival wife went and got married to another man, and it was found that this yevama was a sexually underdeveloped woman, the rival wife must leave this man whom she remarried and that yavam, i.e., she cannot enter into levirate marriage with him. Because the yevama was a sexually underdeveloped woman, the obligation of levirate marriage never applied to her, and her levirate marriage did not exempt her rival wife. And all of those aforementioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讻转讘 住讜驻专 讙讟 诇讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗砖讛 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗讬砖 讜谞转谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛

The mishna now discusses another case: A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for a man, so that the man could divorce his wife with it; and he wrote a receipt for the woman, for her to give to her husband upon receiving payment of her marriage contract, verifying that she received the payment. And the scribe erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, and not knowing what was written in the documents that were in their possession, they gave what they received from the scribe to each other. The woman gave her husband a bill of divorce and the husband gave his wife a receipt, and consequently, there was no divorce at all.

讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚 讛讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

And after some time, the bill of divorce is in the possession of the man, and the receipt is in the possession of the woman, and they discover that the divorce never actually transpired. If the woman had remarried another man, she must leave this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗诇转专 讬爪讗 讗讬谉 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讬爪讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讘讚 讝讻讜转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬

Rabbi Elazar says: If the bill of divorce is immediately [le鈥檃ltar] in the husband鈥檚 possession, this is not a valid bill of divorce, since he clearly never gave it to her. But if it is in his possession after some time, then this is a valid bill of divorce, since it is not in the power of the first husband to eliminate the right of the second husband. The assumption is that the husband did in fact give her the bill of divorce in the correct manner, but at some point, he took it back from her.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讜诪讬讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 诇砖讜谉

GEMARA: It was stated in the mishna that if one wrote the date on a bill of divorce according to a kingdom that is not legitimate, it is invalid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the description: A kingdom that is not legitimate? The Gemara answers: This is referring to the Roman Empire, and he wrote the bill of divorce in a different country, such as Babylonia, where the Romans were not in power. And why is it called: A kingdom that is not legitimate? Because they have neither their own script, nor their own language, but rather, they took them from other nations.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转拽讬谞讜 诪诇讻讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 诪诇讻讜转

Ulla said: For what reason did the Sages institute that the date should be written according to the years of the local kingdom, in bills of divorce? Due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as the government is particular that important documents issued in its domain be written with the date of that government.

讜诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 转爪讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara asks: But due to an ordinance instituted by the Sages solely for the sake of maintaining peaceful relations with the kingdom, would they be so stringent that the woman would be forced to leave her husband, and they would declare the status of the offspring is a mamzer?

讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara answers: Yes. Rabbi Meir conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that anyone deviating from the formula coined by the Sages for bills of divorce, even if it is only a minor deviation, the bill of divorce is invalid, and if the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then the offspring from that marriage is a mamzer.

诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 讜诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

It was stated in the mishna: If he wrote the date on a bill of divorce in the name of the Greek Empire, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this halakha and the other halakhot as well. As, if the mishna had taught us this halakha only with regard to a kingdom that is not legitimate, one could say that the bill of divorce is invalid because this kingdom is currently ruling, and the local government where he is writing the bill of divorce therefore objects to his writing the date of an another kingdom. But with regard to the kingdom of Medea, and the Greek Empire, it is not necessary to invalidate the bill of divorce, since what was, was, and since these kingdoms are no longer in power, the local government is not particular if they are mentioned in a document.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 讜诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讛讜讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the kingdom of Medea and the Greek Empire, one could understand the concern, because they were kingdoms, and the current government objects to another kingdom being mentioned in a document. But if he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, then one could say what was, was, and the local government is not particular if this is mentioned in a document. Consequently, it was necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专讬 拽诪讚讻专讬 砖讘讞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讚爪注专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the building of the Temple, then one could say that the reason why this is problematic is because the governments will say: The Jews mention their own praise, instead of honoring the ruling government. But with regard to the destruction of the Temple, which is a cause of anguish for us, say that no, the government is not particular about this. Therefore it is necessary to mention all of these halakhot.

讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛

搂 It was stated in the mishna, that if he was in the east and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the west, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara asks: Who is the mishna discussing? If we say that the place of the husband was changed, then this is the same as what is stated later on in the mishna: He changed his name, or her name; the name of his city or the name of her city.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜驻专 讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇住驻专讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讬转讘讬转讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诇讻讜 诪讬诇讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讬转讘讬转讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诇讻讜 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬诇讬

Rather, is it not referring to a scribe who changed the place in which the bill of divorce was written, and did not record the correct location where he was when he wrote the bill of divorce? As Rav said to his scribes, and similarly, Rav Huna said to his scribes: When you are situated in the place called Shili, write the location of the document as: In Shili, even though the matters were presented to you, i.e., the transaction recorded in the document took place, in the place called Hini. And when you are situated in the place called Hini, write: In Hini, even though the matters were presented to you in Shili. One must be careful to write the precise location where the document was written and not somewhere else, as that is considered an illegitimate deviation.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 住谞讟专 砖讘注讬专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who is particular about maintaining peaceful relations with the kingdom, with regard to bills of divorce. But the Rabbis say: Even if he wrote a date on the bill of divorce only in the name of the guardsman [santar] in the city, she is divorced, since it is irrelevant which calendrical system was used for the date.

讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇砖诐 讗讬住讟谞讚专讗 讚讘砖讻专 砖诇讞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬

It is related that there was a certain bill of divorce in which the date was written in the name of the governor [istandera] of the city of Bascar, i.e., the date was marked according to the years of his government. Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda sent this dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha in a case like this?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜讚讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛讜讗

He sent him in response: With regard to this, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the bill of divorce is valid. What is the reason? The governor is an official from that kingdom, so the ruler of the kingdom does not mind.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住谞讟专 砖讘注讬专 讛转诐 讝讬诇讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the guardsman in the city? The Gemara answers: There, it is demeaning for them that the date is written in the name of an unimportant official. Here, with regard to the governor, it is complimentary for them that the date is written in the name of a senior official.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 砖讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: This mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to this bill of divorce and holds that the child is a mamzer. But the Rabbis say: The lineage of the offspring is unflawed. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir, that if he changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, the offspring is a mamzer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

Rav Ashi says: We, too, learn in the mishna: If he changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, and she remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then she must leave this husband and that husband, and all of those ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her.

讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

It is necessary to clarify who teaches this halakha? If we say that it is Rabbi Meir, let him combine the case of one who writes a different kingdom, and the case of one who changes the names, and teach them both as one halakha. Rather, conclude from it that this halakha is the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that until this point the mishna was quoting the statement of Rabbi Meir, but subsequently it is the statement of the Rabbis that is quoted, that in a case of such a fundamental change, even in their opinion such a bill of divorce is invalid.

讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讻讜壮 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬谞讜 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna that in all of those cases in which they said that a man who died and left behind a widow who is to the yavam one of those with whom relations are forbidden, and the rival wives were thought to be permitted to remarry, if it later became clear that the forbidden relation was an ailonit and therefore they were in fact forbidden from remarrying, then they must leave the man whom they remarried, and they cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yavam, and many other penalties apply to them as well. The Gemara comments: It is possible to deduce from the language used by the mishna that only if they married other men, then yes, these halakhot apply to them. But if the rival wives engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, then no, these halakhot do not apply to them.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A widow awaiting her brother-in-law to perform levirate marriage who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse is likened to a married woman who committed adultery, and she is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam.

诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讝讬谞讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗讜 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 谞拽讟

The Gemara rejects this: No, this is not a refutation, since it is possible to explain that the mishna gave the example that they married, and the same is true in a case where they engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. And this that the mishna teaches: If they married, is because it employed a euphemistic expression, to refrain from discussing a case of licentiousness.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讝讬谞讜

And there are those who say that the exchange went as follows: From the mishna鈥檚 statement about the rival wives that remarried, one can understand, that the halakha is so if they married, and the same is true in a case where they engaged in licentious sexual intercourse.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it supports the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A widow awaiting her brother-in-law to perform levirate marriage who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam.

诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讚讜讜拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞诇驻讗 讘讗砖讛 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is specifically when they married that they are forbidden, because she is confused with a woman whose husband traveled to a country overseas and she went and remarried. In that case she is certainly prohibited from marrying both the first and the second husband. Similarly, they instituted the same decree for a yevama who married someone else. By contrast, in the case of a yevama who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, which is completely different, they did not institute this decree.

讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna that one who marries his yevama, and her rival wife went and married another man, and ultimately the yevama was found to be an ailonit, then the rival wife must leave her husband, and she cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yavam, and many other penalties apply to her as well. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach this halakha as well, although it seemingly deals with the same issue as the previous halakha. As, if the mishna had taught us this halakha only with regard to the first case of a rival wife of a woman who is forbidden to the yavam, then one could say that the halakha is so, because the mitzva of levirate marriage was not fulfilled at all, since the rival wife married someone else, and the yavam did not perform levirate marriage.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

But here, in this latter case, where the mitzva of levirate marriage was fulfilled in some way when he married the yevama, although ultimately it became clear that it was not a legitimate levirate marriage, say that the rival wives are not penalized, since she is not guilty by not having waited.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha here, with regard to a yavam who married a yevama who was ultimately found to be an ailonit, then one could say that specifically here there is reason to penalize her, because this rival wife who remarried was also placed before the yavam, as he could have entered into levirate marriage with any of his brother鈥檚 wives. Therefore, she could have waited to see if the levirate marriage was effective before remarrying. But there, in the first case of a yevama who is forbidden to the yavam, that she is not placed before him, as all of them are entirely exempt from levirate marriage, say that the rival wives are not penalized. Therefore, it is necessary to state both halakhot.

讻转讘 讛住讜驻专 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗诇转专 讬爪讗 讜讻讜壮

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if the scribe wrote a bill of divorce, and erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, and consequently the husband gave his wife a receipt and she gave him a bill of divorce, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the bill of divorce is immediately in the husband鈥檚 possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. But if it is in his possession after some time, the assumption is that she was divorced in a correct manner and the bill of divorce was returned to him later.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讝讛讜 诇讗诇转专 注诪讚讜 讝讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the bill of divorce is immediately in the husband鈥檚 hand and what are the circumstances in which it is in his possession after some time? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All the while that they are sitting and are engaged in the issue of the divorce, this is considered immediately. If they already arose and concluded the proceedings, this is considered after some time.

讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬砖讗转 讝讛讜 诇讗诇转专 谞讬砖讗转 讝讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

And Rav Adda bar Ahava says: If she was not married to someone else, this is considered immediately, since they can rectify the situation by requiring him to give the bill of divorce properly. If she was married, this is considered after some time.

转谞谉 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讘讚 讝讻讜转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna with regard to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement: It is not in the power of the first husband to eliminate the right of the second husband. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: The second husband, since the mishna is discussing a case in which she remarried and has a second husband. But according to the opinion of Shmuel, what is the reference to a second husband? Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is that as soon as they arise and conclude the proceedings, it is considered to be after some time, and in this case there is no second husband. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, how does Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement apply?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 80

讘转 诇讜讬 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讘转 讻讛谉 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛

If she was the daughter of a Levite, through these two marriages she becomes prohibited from partaking of the tithe that is given to Levites. If she was the daughter of a priest, she becomes prohibited from partaking of teruma, even after she returns to the house of her father the priest.

讜讗讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讜专砖讬谉 砖诇 讝讛 讬讜专砖讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讗诐 诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讞讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讬讘诪讬谉

And the heirs of this husband and the heirs of that husband do not inherit the rights to collect payment of her marriage contract if she dies. And if the husbands die, the brother of this first husband and the brother of that second husband perform 岣litza, since she was betrothed to the second one as well, and they do not consummate the levirate marriage.

砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

The mishna proceeds to teach an additional halakha concerning a bill of divorce written not in accordance with its halakhot: If he changed his name, i.e., he wrote a different name in the bill of divorce, or he changed her name, or if he changed the name of his city or the name of her city, and she remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then she must leave both this first husband and that second husband. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讜转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转

The mishna teaches another halakha associated with the previous halakhot: With regard to all of those cases in which they said that a man who died without children and left behind a widow who is, to the man鈥檚 brother, one of those with whom relations are forbidden, e.g., she is his wife鈥檚 sister, not only is there no levirate bond for her, but the rival wives of the brother who died are also permitted to marry without either levirate marriage or 岣litza.

讛诇讻讜 讛爪专讜转 讛讗诇讜 讜谞讬砖讗讜 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

The mishna discusses another case: These rival wives went and married another man without 岣litza, and these widows with whom relationships were forbidden were found to be sexually underdeveloped women incapable of bearing children [ailonit]. Therefore, it became clear, retroactively, that the marriage to the dead brother was never valid, and accordingly, the rival wives were never exempt from the obligation of levirate marriage due to their being the rival wives of a forbidden relationship. Consequently, the rival wives were forbidden to marry anyone else without 岣litza, and the rival wives must leave both this man whom they remarried, and that yavam, i.e., they cannot enter into levirate marriage with him. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讜讛诇讻讛 爪专转讛 讜谞讬砖讗转 诇讗讞专 讜谞诪爪讗转 讝讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗讬讬诇讜谞讬转 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

Similarly, with regard to one who marries his yevama, and her rival wife went and got married to another man, and it was found that this yevama was a sexually underdeveloped woman, the rival wife must leave this man whom she remarried and that yavam, i.e., she cannot enter into levirate marriage with him. Because the yevama was a sexually underdeveloped woman, the obligation of levirate marriage never applied to her, and her levirate marriage did not exempt her rival wife. And all of those aforementioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

讻转讘 住讜驻专 讙讟 诇讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗砖讛 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 诇讗讬砖 讜谞转谞讜 讝讛 诇讝讛

The mishna now discusses another case: A scribe wrote a bill of divorce for a man, so that the man could divorce his wife with it; and he wrote a receipt for the woman, for her to give to her husband upon receiving payment of her marriage contract, verifying that she received the payment. And the scribe erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, and not knowing what was written in the documents that were in their possession, they gave what they received from the scribe to each other. The woman gave her husband a bill of divorce and the husband gave his wife a receipt, and consequently, there was no divorce at all.

讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛专讬 讛讙讟 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚 讛讗讬砖 讜砖讜讘专 诪讬讚 讛讗砖讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

And after some time, the bill of divorce is in the possession of the man, and the receipt is in the possession of the woman, and they discover that the divorce never actually transpired. If the woman had remarried another man, she must leave this, the first husband, and that, the second husband. And all of those above-mentioned ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her in this case as well.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗诇转专 讬爪讗 讗讬谉 讝讛 讙讟 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讬爪讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讘讚 讝讻讜转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬

Rabbi Elazar says: If the bill of divorce is immediately [le鈥檃ltar] in the husband鈥檚 possession, this is not a valid bill of divorce, since he clearly never gave it to her. But if it is in his possession after some time, then this is a valid bill of divorce, since it is not in the power of the first husband to eliminate the right of the second husband. The assumption is that the husband did in fact give her the bill of divorce in the correct manner, but at some point, he took it back from her.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪诇讻讜转 讛专讜诪讬讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讛 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 诇砖讜谉

GEMARA: It was stated in the mishna that if one wrote the date on a bill of divorce according to a kingdom that is not legitimate, it is invalid. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the description: A kingdom that is not legitimate? The Gemara answers: This is referring to the Roman Empire, and he wrote the bill of divorce in a different country, such as Babylonia, where the Romans were not in power. And why is it called: A kingdom that is not legitimate? Because they have neither their own script, nor their own language, but rather, they took them from other nations.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转拽讬谞讜 诪诇讻讜转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 诪诇讻讜转

Ulla said: For what reason did the Sages institute that the date should be written according to the years of the local kingdom, in bills of divorce? Due to the need to maintain peaceful relations with the kingdom, as the government is particular that important documents issued in its domain be written with the date of that government.

讜诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 转爪讗 讜讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara asks: But due to an ordinance instituted by the Sages solely for the sake of maintaining peaceful relations with the kingdom, would they be so stringent that the woman would be forced to leave her husband, and they would declare the status of the offspring is a mamzer?

讗讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 讛诪砖谞讛 诪诪讟讘注 砖讟讘注讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

The Gemara answers: Yes. Rabbi Meir conforms to his line of reasoning. As Rav Hamnuna says in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say that anyone deviating from the formula coined by the Sages for bills of divorce, even if it is only a minor deviation, the bill of divorce is invalid, and if the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then the offspring from that marriage is a mamzer.

诇砖讜诐 诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪诇讻讜转 砖讗讬谞讛 讛讜讙谞转 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 讜诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

It was stated in the mishna: If he wrote the date on a bill of divorce in the name of the Greek Empire, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state this halakha and the other halakhot as well. As, if the mishna had taught us this halakha only with regard to a kingdom that is not legitimate, one could say that the bill of divorce is invalid because this kingdom is currently ruling, and the local government where he is writing the bill of divorce therefore objects to his writing the date of an another kingdom. But with regard to the kingdom of Medea, and the Greek Empire, it is not necessary to invalidate the bill of divorce, since what was, was, and since these kingdoms are no longer in power, the local government is not particular if they are mentioned in a document.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诇讻讜转 诪讚讬 讜诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 讛讜讜 讗讘诇 讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the kingdom of Medea and the Greek Empire, one could understand the concern, because they were kingdoms, and the current government objects to another kingdom being mentioned in a document. But if he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, then one could say what was, was, and the local government is not particular if this is mentioned in a document. Consequently, it was necessary for the mishna to teach us this halakha as well.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘谞讬谉 讛讘讬转 讚讗诪专讬 拽诪讚讻专讬 砖讘讞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 讞讜专讘谉 讛讘讬转 讚爪注专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha with regard to the building of the Temple, then one could say that the reason why this is problematic is because the governments will say: The Jews mention their own praise, instead of honoring the ruling government. But with regard to the destruction of the Temple, which is a cause of anguish for us, say that no, the government is not particular about this. Therefore it is necessary to mention all of these halakhot.

讛讬讛 讘诪讝专讞 讜讻转讘 讘诪注专讘 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛

搂 It was stated in the mishna, that if he was in the east and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the west, then the bill of divorce is invalid. The Gemara asks: Who is the mishna discussing? If we say that the place of the husband was changed, then this is the same as what is stated later on in the mishna: He changed his name, or her name; the name of his city or the name of her city.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 住讜驻专 讻讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇住驻专讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讬转讘讬转讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘砖讬诇讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诇讻讜 诪讬诇讬 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讬转讘讬转讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讻转讜讘讜 讘讛讬谞讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬诪住专谉 诇讻讜 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讬诇讬

Rather, is it not referring to a scribe who changed the place in which the bill of divorce was written, and did not record the correct location where he was when he wrote the bill of divorce? As Rav said to his scribes, and similarly, Rav Huna said to his scribes: When you are situated in the place called Shili, write the location of the document as: In Shili, even though the matters were presented to you, i.e., the transaction recorded in the document took place, in the place called Hini. And when you are situated in the place called Hini, write: In Hini, even though the matters were presented to you in Shili. One must be careful to write the precise location where the document was written and not somewhere else, as that is considered an illegitimate deviation.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says:

讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讻转讘 讗诇讗 诇砖诐 住谞讟专 砖讘注讬专 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who is particular about maintaining peaceful relations with the kingdom, with regard to bills of divorce. But the Rabbis say: Even if he wrote a date on the bill of divorce only in the name of the guardsman [santar] in the city, she is divorced, since it is irrelevant which calendrical system was used for the date.

讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诇砖诐 讗讬住讟谞讚专讗 讚讘砖讻专 砖诇讞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬

It is related that there was a certain bill of divorce in which the date was written in the name of the governor [istandera] of the city of Bascar, i.e., the date was marked according to the years of his government. Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda sent this dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha in a case like this?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讜讚讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讗讜转讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛讜讗

He sent him in response: With regard to this, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the bill of divorce is valid. What is the reason? The governor is an official from that kingdom, so the ruler of the kingdom does not mind.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住谞讟专 砖讘注讬专 讛转诐 讝讬诇讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the guardsman in the city? The Gemara answers: There, it is demeaning for them that the date is written in the name of an unimportant official. Here, with regard to the governor, it is complimentary for them that the date is written in the name of a senior official.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 砖讛讜诇讚 诪诪讝专

Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: This mishna is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Meir, who is stringent with regard to this bill of divorce and holds that the child is a mamzer. But the Rabbis say: The lineage of the offspring is unflawed. And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir, that if he changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, the offspring is a mamzer.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讬谞讛 砖诪讜 讜砖诪讛 砖诐 注讬专讜 讜砖诐 注讬专讛 转爪讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讛讚专讻讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讘讛

Rav Ashi says: We, too, learn in the mishna: If he changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, and she remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, then she must leave this husband and that husband, and all of those ways of penalizing a woman who remarried based on the bills of divorce detailed in the earlier clause of the mishna apply to her.

讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

It is necessary to clarify who teaches this halakha? If we say that it is Rabbi Meir, let him combine the case of one who writes a different kingdom, and the case of one who changes the names, and teach them both as one halakha. Rather, conclude from it that this halakha is the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that until this point the mishna was quoting the statement of Rabbi Meir, but subsequently it is the statement of the Rabbis that is quoted, that in a case of such a fundamental change, even in their opinion such a bill of divorce is invalid.

讻诇 注专讬讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讻讜壮 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讬谉 讝讬谞讜 诇讗

搂 It was taught in the mishna that in all of those cases in which they said that a man who died and left behind a widow who is to the yavam one of those with whom relations are forbidden, and the rival wives were thought to be permitted to remarry, if it later became clear that the forbidden relation was an ailonit and therefore they were in fact forbidden from remarrying, then they must leave the man whom they remarried, and they cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yavam, and many other penalties apply to them as well. The Gemara comments: It is possible to deduce from the language used by the mishna that only if they married other men, then yes, these halakhot apply to them. But if the rival wives engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, then no, these halakhot do not apply to them.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A widow awaiting her brother-in-law to perform levirate marriage who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse is likened to a married woman who committed adultery, and she is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam.

诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讝讬谞讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞讬砖讗讜 诇讬砖谞讗 诪注诇讬讗 谞拽讟

The Gemara rejects this: No, this is not a refutation, since it is possible to explain that the mishna gave the example that they married, and the same is true in a case where they engaged in licentious sexual intercourse. And this that the mishna teaches: If they married, is because it employed a euphemistic expression, to refrain from discussing a case of licentiousness.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讬砖讗讜 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讝讬谞讜

And there are those who say that the exchange went as follows: From the mishna鈥檚 statement about the rival wives that remarried, one can understand, that the halakha is so if they married, and the same is true in a case where they engaged in licentious sexual intercourse.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 砖讝讬谞转讛 讗住讜专讛 诇讬讘诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it supports the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A widow awaiting her brother-in-law to perform levirate marriage who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse is prohibited from entering into levirate marriage with her yavam.

诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讚讜讜拽讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞诇驻讗 讘讗砖讛 砖讛诇讱 讘注诇讛 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is specifically when they married that they are forbidden, because she is confused with a woman whose husband traveled to a country overseas and she went and remarried. In that case she is certainly prohibited from marrying both the first and the second husband. Similarly, they instituted the same decree for a yevama who married someone else. By contrast, in the case of a yevama who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, which is completely different, they did not institute this decree.

讛讻讜谞住 讗转 讬讘诪转讜 讻讜壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna that one who marries his yevama, and her rival wife went and married another man, and ultimately the yevama was found to be an ailonit, then the rival wife must leave her husband, and she cannot enter into levirate marriage with the yavam, and many other penalties apply to her as well. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to teach this halakha as well, although it seemingly deals with the same issue as the previous halakha. As, if the mishna had taught us this halakha only with regard to the first case of a rival wife of a woman who is forbidden to the yavam, then one could say that the halakha is so, because the mitzva of levirate marriage was not fulfilled at all, since the rival wife married someone else, and the yavam did not perform levirate marriage.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬拽讬讬诐 诪爪讜转 讬讘讜诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

But here, in this latter case, where the mitzva of levirate marriage was fulfilled in some way when he married the yevama, although ultimately it became clear that it was not a legitimate levirate marriage, say that the rival wives are not penalized, since she is not guilty by not having waited.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us this halakha here, with regard to a yavam who married a yevama who was ultimately found to be an ailonit, then one could say that specifically here there is reason to penalize her, because this rival wife who remarried was also placed before the yavam, as he could have entered into levirate marriage with any of his brother鈥檚 wives. Therefore, she could have waited to see if the levirate marriage was effective before remarrying. But there, in the first case of a yevama who is forbidden to the yavam, that she is not placed before him, as all of them are entirely exempt from levirate marriage, say that the rival wives are not penalized. Therefore, it is necessary to state both halakhot.

讻转讘 讛住讜驻专 讜讟注讛 讜谞转谉 讙讟 诇讗砖讛 讜砖讜讘专 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗诇转专 讬爪讗 讜讻讜壮

搂 It was taught in the mishna that if the scribe wrote a bill of divorce, and erred and gave the bill of divorce to the woman and the receipt to the man, and consequently the husband gave his wife a receipt and she gave him a bill of divorce, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the bill of divorce is immediately in the husband鈥檚 possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. But if it is in his possession after some time, the assumption is that she was divorced in a correct manner and the bill of divorce was returned to him later.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗诇转专 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜注住讜拽讬谉 讘讗讜转讜 注谞讬谉 讝讛讜 诇讗诇转专 注诪讚讜 讝讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the bill of divorce is immediately in the husband鈥檚 hand and what are the circumstances in which it is in his possession after some time? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All the while that they are sitting and are engaged in the issue of the divorce, this is considered immediately. If they already arose and concluded the proceedings, this is considered after some time.

讜专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬砖讗转 讝讛讜 诇讗诇转专 谞讬砖讗转 讝讛讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉

And Rav Adda bar Ahava says: If she was not married to someone else, this is considered immediately, since they can rectify the situation by requiring him to give the bill of divorce properly. If she was married, this is considered after some time.

转谞谉 诇讗 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讘讚 讝讻讜转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讬

The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna with regard to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement: It is not in the power of the first husband to eliminate the right of the second husband. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, this explanation is consistent with that which is taught: The second husband, since the mishna is discussing a case in which she remarried and has a second husband. But according to the opinion of Shmuel, what is the reference to a second husband? Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is that as soon as they arise and conclude the proceedings, it is considered to be after some time, and in this case there is no second husband. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, how does Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement apply?

Scroll To Top