Gittin 160

Chapter 160

א זו דברי ר"מ אבל חכמים אומרים אפילו לא כתב אלא לשם סנטר שבעיר הרי זו מגורשת
1 This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the year of the current reign must be mentioned. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ההוא גיטא דהוה כתיב ביה לשם איסטנדרא דבשכר שלחה רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לקמיה דרבה כי האי גוונא מאי
2 is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that even though he dated it only by the term of office of the Santer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably = Senator: an elder whose office it was to decide questions regarding boundaries between fields, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 270, n. 10. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג שלח ליה בהא אפילו ר"מ מודי מאי טעמא מאותה מלכות הוא
3 in the town, she is divorced. A certain Get was dated by the term of office of the prefect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Pers. Astandar, a district (astan) deputy (dar) of the king. Obermeyer op. cit. p. 92.] ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד ומאי שנא מסנטר שבעיר התם זילא להו מילתא הכא שביחא להו מילתא
4 of Bashcar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' More correctly Kashkar (Jastrow). [According to Obermeyer loc. cit. Kashkar was the name given to the whole of the Mesene district (S. E. Babylon) of which it was the capital during the Sassanian period.] ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אמר ר' אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב זו דברי ר"מ אבל חכמים אומרים הולד כשר ומודים חכמים לר"מ שאם שינה שמו ושמה שם עירו ושם עירה שהולד ממזר
5 R. Nahman son of R. Hisda sent to Rabbah to inquire how to deal with it. He sent him back reply: Such a one even R. Meir would accept. What is the reason? Because he is an official of the proper Government. But why should he be different from the Santer in the town? — To date it that way is an insult to them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to the Government, the Santer being a minor official. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו אמר רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא שינה שמו ושמה שם עירו ושם עירה תצא מזה ומזה וכל הדרכים האלו בה
6 but to date it this way is a compliment to them.
ז הא מאן קתני לה אילימא ר"מ ליערבינהו וליתנינהו אלא ש"מ רבנן ש"מ:
7 R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna who had it from Rab: This is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that the child is legitimate. The Sages, however, agree with R. Meir that if his name or her name or the name of his town or her town was wrongly given, the child is a mamzer. R. Ashi said: We find this also implied in our Mishnah: IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THESE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER. Now who is the authority for this statement? Shall I say R. Meir? If so, the two rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This and the one regarding the year of the reign. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח כל עריות שאמרו כו': נישאו אין זינו לא
8 might have been run into one? We conclude therefore that it was the Rabbis.
ט לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב המנונא דאמר רב המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה
9 IF ANY OF THE NEAR RELATIVES CONCERNING WHOM etc. [They are penalised] if they MARRY, which implies, 'but not if they misconduct themselves'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In which case she is forbidden to her brother-in-law for fear people will say that he had already given her halizah before she remarried and is now taking her unto himself as a wife, which. is not allowed.] ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
י לא נישאו וה"ה לזינו והאי דקתני נישאו לישנא מעליא נקט
10 May we take this as a refutation of R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself, she is forbidden to her brother-in-law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yeb. 81a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יא ואיכא דאמרי נישאו וה"ה לזינו
11 — No; [it means,] if they marry, and the same is the rule if they misconduct themselves; and the reason why the word MARRY was used was as a polite expression. Some report the discussion thus: [They are penalised] if they marry, and the same rule [we should say,] applies if they misconduct themselves. May we presume then that the Mishnah supports R. Hamnuna, who said that if a woman while waiting for her brother-in-law misconducted herself she is forbidden to her brother-in-law? — No; the rule applies only where they actually married, because in that case they may be confused with a woman whose husband went abroad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [If such a woman was informed on good authority that her husband had died and she married again and then her husband returned, she is forbidden to go back to him, for fear people might say that the husband had in reality divorced her before she remarried and that now he is taking her back, which is forbidden (v. Deut. XXIV, 4). If the sister-in-law in this case were allowed to marry the brother-in-law after marrying another, this might create a precedent (cf. n. 2), but not if she misconducted herself.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יב לימא מסייע ליה לרב המנונא דא"ר המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה
12 IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc. Both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This and the one about the forbidden degrees. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יג לא נישאו דווקא משום דמיחלפא באשה שהלך בעלה למדינת הים:
13 required to be stated. For had I only the first one, I might say the reason [why she is penalised]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And forbidden to the brother-in-law. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יד הכונס את יבמתו כו': וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בהך קמייתא משום דלא איקיים מצות יבום
14 is because the precept of levirate marriage has not been carried out, but here where this precept has been carried out I might say that the rule does not apply. If again I had been told only in this case, I might have said that the reason is because she was put at his disposal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thrown before him', after the death of her husband, and therefore should not have remarried till she made sure that the levirate marriage of her rival was in order. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
טו אבל הכא דאיקיים מצות יבום אימא לא
15 but in the other case where she is not put at his disposal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Her potential rival exempts her forthwith on the death of her husband from levirate marriage and halizah.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טז ואי אשמעי' הכא משום דקא רמיא קמיה אבל התם דלא רמיא קמיה אימא לא צריכא:
16 I might say that she should not be penalised. Hence [both statements were] necessary.
יז כתב הסופר וטעה ונתן גט לאשה ושובר וכו' ר"א אומר אם לאלתר יצא וכו':
17 IF THE SCRIBE WROTE AND BY MISTAKE GAVE THE GET TO THE WIFE AND THE RECEIPT TO THE HUSBAND&nbsp;… R. ELEAZAR SAYS, IF [IT WAS PRODUCED] AT ONCE etc. How do we define AT ONCE and how do we define AFTER A TIME? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The whole of the time during which they are sitting and dealing with that matter is called AT ONCE; once they have risen it is called AFTER A TIME. R. Adda b. Ahabah, however, said: So long as she has not married, it is called AT ONCE, but once she has married, it is called AFTER A TIME. We have learnt: IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE FIRST TO RENDER VOID THE RIGHT OF THE SECOND. Now if we take the view of R. Adda b. Ahabah, it is quite correct to mention here the SECOND; but on Samuel's view, what are we to make of SECOND? —
יח היכי דמי לאלתר והיכי דמי לאחר זמן אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל זמן שיושבין ועסוקין באותו ענין זהו לאלתר עמדו זהו לאחר זמן
18 
יט ורב אדא בר אהבה אמר לא נישאת זהו לאלתר נישאת זהו לאחר זמן
19 
כ תנן לא כל הימנו מן הראשון לאבד זכותו של שני בשלמא לרב אדא בר אהבה היינו דקתני שני אלא לשמואל מאי שני
20