בת לוי מן המעשר בת כהן מן התרומה
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.
ואין יורשין של זה ויורשין של זה יורשים כתובתה ואם מתו אחיו של זה ואחיו של זה חולצין ולא מייבמין
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.
שינה שמו ושמה שם עירו ושם עירה תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
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.
כל עריות שאמרו צרותיהן מותרות
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.
הלכו הצרות האלו ונישאו ונמצאו אלו איילונית תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
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.
הכונס את יבמתו והלכה צרתה ונישאת לאחר ונמצאת זו שהיתה איילונית תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
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.
כתב סופר גט לאיש ושובר לאשה וטעה ונתן גט לאשה ושובר לאיש ונתנו זה לזה
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.
ולאחר זמן הרי הגט יוצא מיד האיש ושובר מיד האשה תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
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.
רבי אלעזר אומר אם לאלתר יצא אין זה גט אם לאחר זמן יצא הרי זה גט לא כל הימנו מן הראשון לאבד זכותו של שני:
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.
גמ׳ מאי מלכות שאינה הוגנת מלכות הרומיים ואמאי קרי לה מלכות שאינה הוגנת משום דאין להם לא כתב ולא לשון
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.
אמר עולא מפני מה תקינו מלכות בגיטין משום שלום מלכות
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.
ומשום שלום מלכות תצא והולד ממזר
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?
אין ר"מ לטעמיה דא"ר המנונא משמיה דעולא אומר היה ר"מ כל המשנה ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בגיטין הולד ממזר:
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.
לשום מלכות יון: וצריכא דאי אשמועינן מלכות שאינה הוגנת משום דמליכא אבל מלכות מדי ומלכות יון מאי דהוה הוה
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.
ואי אשמעינן מלכות מדי ומלכות יון משום דמלכותא הוו אבל בנין הבית מאי דהוה הוה
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.
ואי אשמעינן בנין הבית דאמרי קמדכרי שבחייהו אבל חורבן הבית דצערא הוא אימא לא צריכא:
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.
היה במזרח וכתב במערב: מאן אילימא בעל היינו שינה שמו ושמה שם עירו ושם עירה
§ 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.
אלא לאו סופר כדאמר להו רב לספריה וכן אמר להו רב הונא לספריה כי יתביתו בשילי כתובו בשילי ואע"ג דמימסרן לכו מילי בהיני וכי יתביתו בהיני כתובו בהיני ואע"ג דמימסרן לכו מילי בשילי
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.
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: