## Gittin Daf 80a

###### Gittin 80a:1
[Gittin 80a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:1)

בַּת לֵוִי – מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. בַּת כֹּהֵן – מִן הַתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 80a:2
[Gittin 80a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:2)

וְאֵין יוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשִׁין שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁים כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. וְאִם מֵתוּ – אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין, וְלֹא מְיַיבְּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 *ḥalitza*,** since she was betrothed to the second one as well, **and they do not consummate the levirate marriage.**


###### Gittin 80a:3
[Gittin 80a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:3)

שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ, וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ, וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 80a:4
[Gittin 80a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:4)

כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ ״צָרוֹתֵיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s brother, one of **those with whom relations are forbidden,** e.g., she is his wife’s 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 *ḥalitza*.


###### Gittin 80a:5
[Gittin 80a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:5)

הָלְכוּ הַצָּרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ וְנִישְּׂאוּ, וְנִמְצְאוּ אֵלּוּ אַיְילוֹנִיֹּת – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna discusses another case: **These rival wives went and married** another man without *ḥalitza*, **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 *ḥalitza*, 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.


###### Gittin 80a:6
[Gittin 80a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:6)

הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ, וְהָלְכָה צָרָתָהּ וְנִישֵּׂאת לְאַחֵר, וְנִמְצֵאת זוֹ – שֶׁהָיְתָה אַיְילוֹנִית; תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 80a:7
[Gittin 80a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:7)

כָּתַב סוֹפֵר גֵּט לָאִישׁ, וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִשָּׁה; וְטָעָה וְנָתַן גֵּט לָאִשָּׁה, וְשׁוֹבָר לָאִישׁ, וְנָתְנוּ זֶה לָזֶה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Gittin 80a:8
[Gittin 80a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:8)

וּלְאַחַר זְמַן הֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִיַּד הָאִישׁ וְשׁוֹבָר מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 80a:9
[Gittin 80a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:9)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִם לְאַלְתַּר יָצָא, אֵין זֶה גֵּט; אִם לְאַחַר זְמַן יָצָא, הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט – לֹא כָּל הֵימֶנּוּ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says: If** the bill of divorce **is immediately [*le’altar*] in** the husband’s 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.


###### Gittin 80a:10
[Gittin 80a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת״? רוֹמִי. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין לָהֶם לֹא כְּתָב, וְלֹא לָשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 80a:11
[Gittin 80a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:11)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִפְּנֵי מָה תִּיקְּנוּ מַלְכוּת בְּגִיטִּין – מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 80a:12
[Gittin 80a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:12)

וּמִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת – תֵּצֵא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?**


###### Gittin 80a:13
[Gittin 80a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:13)

אִין, רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כָּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה מִמַּטְבֵּעַ שֶׁטָּבְעוּ חֲכָמִים בְּגִיטִּין – הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Gittin 80a:14
[Gittin 80a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:14)

לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת יָוָן. וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת – מִשּׁוּם דִּמְלִיכָא; אֲבָל מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּמַלְכוּת יָוָן – מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Media, 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.


###### Gittin 80a:15
[Gittin 80a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:15)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַלְכוּת מָדַי וּמַלְכוּת יָוָן – מִשּׁוּם דְּמַלְכְוָתָא הָווּ; אֲבָל בִּנְיַן הַבַּיִת – מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna **had taught us** this *halakha* with regard to **the kingdom of Media 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.


###### Gittin 80a:16
[Gittin 80a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:16)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בִּנְיַן הַבַּיִת – דְּאָמְרִי: קָמַדְכְּרִי שְׁבָחַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל חוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, דְּצַעֲרָא הוּא – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Gittin 80a:17
[Gittin 80a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:17)

הָיָה בַּמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב: מַאן? אִילֵּימָא בַּעַל, הַיְינוּ ״שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Gittin 80a:18
[Gittin 80a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:18)

אֶלָּא לָאו סוֹפֵר – כְּדַאֲמַר לְהוּ רַב לְסָפְרֵיהּ, וְכֵן אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי יָתְבִיתוּ בְּשִׁילֵי, כְּתוּבוּ בְּשִׁילֵי; וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִימַּסְרָן לְכוּ מִילֵּי בְּהִינֵי. וְכִי יָתְבִיתוּ בְּהִינֵי, כְּתוּבוּ בְּהִינֵי; וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִימַּסְרָן לְכוּ מִילֵּי בְּשִׁילֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Gittin 80a:19
[Gittin 80a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80a:19)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:**