## Gittin Daf 80b

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

זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא כָּתַב אֶלָּא לְשֵׁם סַנְטָר שֶׁבָּעִיר – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

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


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

הָהוּא גִּיטָּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ לְשֵׁם אִיסְטַנְדְּרָא דְּבַשְׁכָּר, שַׁלְחֵהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent this** dilemma **before Rabba: What** is the *halakha* in **a case like this?**


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

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: בְּהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר מוֹדֵי, מַאי טַעְמָא? מֵאוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת הוּא.

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


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

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִסַּנְטָר שֶׁבָּעִיר? הָתָם זִילָא לְהוּ מִילְּתָא, הָכָא שְׁבִיחָא לְהוּ מִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, שֶׁאִם שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ – שֶׁהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר.

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


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שִׁינָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכׇל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָּהּ.

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


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

הָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? אִילֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – לִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִיתְנִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבָּנַן; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ כּוּ׳. נִישְּׂאוּ – אֵין, זִינּוּ – לָא;

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


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

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא – דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה, אֲסוּרָה לִיבָמָהּ!

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


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

לָא; נִישְּׂאוּ – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְזִינּוּ. וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי נִישְּׂאוּ – לִישָּׁנָא מְעַלְּיָא נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: נִישְּׂאוּ – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְזִינּוּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that the exchange went as follows: From the mishna’s 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.**


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

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא – דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם שֶׁזִּינְּתָה – אֲסוּרָה לִיבָמָהּ?

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


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

לָא; נִישְּׂאוּ דַּוְוקָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחַלְּפָא בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

הַכּוֹנֵס אֶת יְבִמְתּוֹ כּוּ׳. וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אִיקַּיַּים מִצְוַת יִבּוּם;

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


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

אֲבָל הָכָא – דְּאִיקַּיַּים מִצְוַת יִבּוּם, אֵימָא לָא;

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


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

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא רַמְיָא קַמֵּיהּ; אֲבָל הָתָם – דְּלָא רַמְיָא קַמֵּיהּ, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

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


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

כָּתַב הַסּוֹפֵר וְטָעָה, וְנָתַן גֵּט לָאִשָּׁה וְשׁוֹבָר וְכוּ׳; רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אִם לְאַלְתַּר יָצָא וְכוּ׳.

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


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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי לְאַלְתַּר, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי לְאַחַר זְמַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וַעֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְיָן – זֶהוּ לְאַלְתַּר; עָמְדוּ – זֶהוּ לְאַחַר זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which the bill of divorce is **immediately** in the husband’s 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.**


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

וְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: לֹא נִישֵּׂאת – זֶהוּ לְאַלְתַּר; נִישֵּׂאת – זֶהוּ לְאַחַר זְמַן.

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


###### Gittin 80b:20
[Gittin 80b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/80b:20)

תְּנַן: לֹא כׇּל הֵימֶנּוּ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״שֵׁנִי״, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל – מַאי ״שֵׁנִי״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We learned** in the mishna with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s 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’s 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’s opinion, how does Rabbi Elazar’s statement apply?