Gittin 80a — the Talmud in English

11. And if she was a

Levite’s daughter

—she is thereby disqualified

from the tithe.

12. And if she was a

priest’s daughter

—she is thereby disqualified

from the teruma

, according to the law of a married woman who committed adultery, who is disqualified from the teruma.

13.

And the heirs of this one and the heirs of that one do not inherit her ketuba.

Her sons from the two husbands do not inherit her ketuba.

The Gemara in Yevamot [91a] asks: This woman herself does not have a ketuba, as we learned above; how, then, could the sons inherit her ketuba?

And it explains that the matter concerns the “ketubat banin dikhrin,” which is a special enactment that the Sages enacted: if a woman dies during her husband’s lifetime and her husband inherits her, then, when her husband subsequently dies, her sons inherit the money of her ketuba and the dowry that she brought to him [nikhsei tzon barzel]—that is, only her sons from him inherit from him the dowry that she brought to him, whereas all his sons from other wives do not inherit it at all.

And the Mishna comes to say that if this woman died during the lifetimes of both of them, and afterward the husbands died, and she has sons from the first and from the second, they do not alone inherit her ketuba and dowry according to their special share by the law of “ketubat banin dikhrin”; rather, everything is divided equally among all the sons of her husbands, including the sons from another wife.

And the Mishna needed to teach this novelty, because it might have been said that only she was penalized, but not her sons; and the Mishna teaches that they penalized her by completely removing her rights, even the rights of her offspring.

14. And if both of them died before they gave a bill of divorce

—

And the Mishna now brings another case in which she “leaves this one and that one”:

He changed the name

of the husband on the bill of divorce

and her name

—or the woman’s name—

and the name of his city

of the husband,

and the name

—or the name—

of her city,

the bill of divorce is invalid. And if she went and married with this bill of divorce, she thereby

leaves this one and that one, and all these ways apply to her

. All the stringencies stated in our Mishna above apply to her.

And the Mishna brings a third case of “she leaves this one and that one”:

All

the women who are forbidden as

forbidden relatives

to the levir, and do not fall before him for yibum or halitza,

about whom they said

that also

their co-wives are permitted

to marry into the marketplace without yibum or halitza [for so we learned at the beginning of tractate Yevamot: if one of the wives of the deceased brother is forbidden as a forbidden relative to the levir, for example, if she was his daughter, then not only is she exempt from yibum and halitza, but all the wives of the brother [who are “co-wives” of the woman forbidden to the levir as a forbidden relative] are also exempt from yibum and halitza.

If

these co-wives went and married

another man,

and

afterward

these were found

the forbidden relatives to be “

an aylonit

” [who is naturally incapable of giving birth], and it now becomes clear that the levir’s forbidden relatives had not been married at all to the deceased brother, because their betrothals to the deceased brother as aylonit women were in the category of a mistaken transaction, and it now becomes clear that their co-wives are not considered co-wives of a forbidden relative, for it now becomes retroactively clear that the aylonit women had not been married at all, and they are not their “co-wives,” and they had not been exempt from yibum on their account.

And it follows that the co-wife married a stranger while she was bound to the levir—

she thereby

leaves this one,

the husband whom she married, for she married him in a forbidden manner [as a yevama bound to the levir],

and this one,

the levir, to whom she may not perform yibum [but must perform halitza with him].

And all these ways apply to her.

And a fourth case in which she leaves this one and that one:

One who takes his yevama

, and through this her co-wife was released and permitted to marry anyone,

and his co-wife went and married another,

and afterward

this one

whom he performed yibum with

was found to have been an aylonit

, and her betrothal to the deceased brother was a mistaken betrothal, and she had never been the wife of the deceased, and the levir’s intercourse with her does not release her co-wife; and it follows that the co-wife married a stranger while she was bound to the levir—this co-wife thereby

leaves this one and that one, and all these ways apply to her.

And a fifth case:

The scribe wrote

the

bill of divorce for the man

so that he would divorce his wife with it, and

the receipt

[a receipt for payment of the ketuba]

for the woman, the “recipient,” who writes off her ketuba, for she receives it at the time of the divorce.

, who “receives” her marriage settlement at the time of the divorce.

And

the scribe erred and switched them,

and gave

the

bill of divorce to the woman,

instead of giving it to the husband so that he would give it to his wife,

and the receipt

he gave

to the man,

instead of giving it to the woman so that she would give it to her husband when he paid her ketuba.

And

because of the scribe’s error,

they gave them to one another

. The husband gave the woman the receipt instead of giving her the bill of divorce. Whereas the woman gave her husband the bill of divorce instead of giving him the receipt. And the woman went and married another because she thought that she had received a bill of divorce from her husband,

and after some time,

when the husband wishes to present his receipt as evidence of payment of the ketuba,

the bill of divorce emerges from the man’s hand, and the receipt from the woman’s hand.

And it follows that this woman married another while she was a married woman—she thereby

leaves this one and that one, and all these ways apply to her.

Rabbi Elazar says:

Only

if immediately,

immediately and at once after they gave them to one another,

it emerged

the bill of divorce from the husband’s hand and the error was revealed [and the Gemara will show to what extent “immediately” is called immediately],

this is not a bill of divorce,

for we believe them that an error indeed occurred here.

But

if after some time it emerged

the bill of divorce from her husband’s hand, and he claims that they switched them between themselves,

this is a bill of divorce,

and she does not leave her second husband.

Because

the first one has no standing,

everything is not as the first one says; that is, he is not believed

to deprive

the right of

the second

husband, to whom she is now married.

Rather, we say that the first husband and the woman conspired between themselves, and switched the documents between themselves after the second marriage, so that she could return to her first husband.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: He wrote it in the name of an improper kingdom.

And we raise an objection:

What

is the one called

“an improper kingdom”?

And we answer:

The kingdom of the Romans.

And we raise an objection:

And why did it call it

“an improper kingdom”?

And we answer:

Because they have neither a script nor a language

[a language] of their own, but copied them from another nation.

Ulla said: For what reason did the Sages enact

that they should write

the kingdom in bills of divorce?

Because of the peace of the kingdom.

So that the authorities would say: We are important in the eyes of the Jews, to the extent that they write the name of our kingdom in their documents; and through this peace will prevail between us and the kingdom.

And we raise an objection:

And

since

because of

the peace of the kingdom

we invalidate a bill of divorce written in the name of an improper kingdom, to such an extent

that she leaves

her second husband, whom she married with such a bill of divorce, in which the name of a proper kingdom was not written,

and the child

born from him will be

illegitimate!?

And we answer:

Yes!

Our Mishna was taught anonymously, and an anonymous Mishna is Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Meir follows his position, as Rabbi Hamnuna said in the name of Ulla: Rabbi Meir would say, whoever alters the formula that the Sages instituted in bills of divorce

, the bill of divorce is completely invalid,

and the child

from the second husband is

illegitimate.

We learned in the Mishna: He wrote

in the name of the kingdom of Greece.

And it is necessary.

The Mishna needs to teach us all the cases in which the bill of divorce is invalid because the name of the kingdom was not written in it correctly.

For if it had taught us

only the invalidity of one who writes in the name of

“an improper kingdom,”

I would have said that only there is it invalid,

because it reigns,

for the kingdom of Rome currently exists, and perhaps the king of this country will be jealous of it and take offense at us because we recognize another kingdom that currently exists.

But

“

the kingdom of Media

” and “

the kingdom of Greece

”—which have already passed from the world—the king does not take offense at our reference to them, because what was, was,

what was in the past has already been and passed; therefore there is no concern that the kingdom of this country might be jealous of them. Therefore the Mishna needs to teach us that here too the bill of divorce is invalid.

And if it had taught us

only

“the kingdom of Media and the kingdom of Greece,”

I would have said that only in this case is the bill of divorce invalid,

because they were kingdoms,

for there is nevertheless a mention of the “name” of a kingdom here, and therefore there is concern that the king might take offense at it.

But

how do we know concerning the counting of

“the building of the House” that the king will not take offense? For the House does not now exist, and

what was

in the past

in the past

was, and there is no “name” of a kingdom in this.

; moreover, no kingdom’s name is mentioned in this.

And if it had taught us

only

“the building of the House,”

I would have said that nevertheless the kingdom has a grievance, because

they say

about us:

“They mention praise of them!”

They take pride in the Temple that they had.

But

“

the destruction of the House

,”

which is distress

for us, I would say that the kingdom will not take offense at this, and the bill of divorce will be valid.

Therefore

it is necessary.

The Mishna needed to teach us all these cases, that in all of them the bill of divorce is invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

He was in the east and wrote in the west.

And we raise an objection:

Who?

Who was in the east, while the scribe wrote that he was in the west?

If you say

that

the husband

was in the east, and the scribe changed his location and wrote that he was in the west, if so,

this is

“He changed his name and her name, and the name of his city and the name of her city,”

which appears later in the Mishna: if he changed the name of the husband’s city, the bill of divorce is invalid, and all the stringencies apply to her. If so, why does the Mishna need to write this twice?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that the

scribe

was in the east at the time of writing the bill of divorce, and he wrote that the bill of divorce was written “in the west”?

And

as Rav said to his scribes,

the scribes in his city,

and likewise Rav Huna said to his scribes:

When you sit,

when you write a document while you are sitting

in Shili

[a place],

write

the place of the document, which is

in Shili, even though instructions were delivered to you

to write it in Hini [a place].

And when you sit in Hini, write in Hini, even though instructions were delivered to you in Shili.

It follows that one must write in the document the place where it was written, and this is what the Mishna discusses: if he changed the place, the bill of divorce is invalid.