Gittin Chapter 8, Mishnah 5: Defective Gittin

Gittin Kesubah Yibum and Chalitzah Agunah and Testimony Kiddushin

Listen0:00 / 0:00

Gittin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 5. The Sages instituted that a get must contain a date, and they further instituted that the date be written according to the years of the king or ruler who governs the region in which the get is written, in order to maintain proper relations with the government. This ordinance was stated with regard to gittin. The question our Mishnah addresses, then, is what the law is regarding a get that was dated according to a different kingdom, one that is not the government in the place where the get was written.

The text of the Mishnah and its explanation:

"Kasav l'shem malchus she'einah hogenes" - he wrote the get in the name of a kingdom that is not fitting, that is not appropriate. The Gemara explains that this is a veiled reference to the Roman Empire, and it is called "a kingdom that is not fitting" because it had no language of its own and no original script of its own, but rather borrowed them, and for this reason this derogatory expression is used about it. The real problem is that the writer of the get is not in Rome at all, but in another country.

And likewise in the other cases the Mishnah lists, in all of which the date given is not according to the local government:

"L'shem malchus Madai" - he dated it according to the kingdom of Media, and he is not there.
"L'shem malchus Yavan" - he dated it according to the kingdom of Greece, and he is not there.
"L'vinyan haBayis" - he dated it according to the years since the building of the Beis HaMikdash.
"L'churban haBayis" - he dated it according to the years since the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash.

Even though these are legitimate systems of counting, since they are not according to the local government, this is not the correct way to write a get.

"Hayah b'mizrach v'kasav b'maarav, b'maarav v'kasav b'mizrach" - he was in the east and wrote in the get that he was in the west, or he was in the west and wrote that he was in the east: he recorded the wrong location.

The consequences of a marriage based on an invalid get:

If one of these things was done improperly, and on the basis of such a get the woman was divorced and married another man, it turns out that she married while holding a get that is not valid. The results are an entire series of penalties:

"Teitzei mizeh umizeh" - she must be divorced from both husbands: from the first husband, to whom she is truly married, and from the second husband, whom she should never have married. This is because any woman who committed adultery is generally forbidden both to her husband and to the man with whom she sinned. And even though here she did so unwittingly and without intent, and by strict law she perhaps would not have been forbidden, she is penalized.
"V'tzerichah get mizeh umizeh" - she needs a get from both of them, since people will not realize that she was not lawfully married to the second husband.
"V'ein lah kesubah, v'lo peiros, v'lo mezonos, v'lo b'laos" - she has no monetary claims:
- Kesubah - she does not collect her kesubah.
- Peiros - she does not receive the produce of her melog property, which the husband was entitled to consume, and he need not pay her for it, even though at the very least this was not a valid marriage.
- Mezonos - even if she borrowed money for her sustenance before she married the second husband, the first husband need not pay it.
- B'laos - if the husband wore out the melog property that she had, he need not pay for it.
"Lo al zeh v'lo al zeh" - none of these items stand as a claim for her against either of the two husbands.
"Natlah mizeh umizeh - tachzir" - and not only that, but if she took from one of the husbands a kesubah or produce or any of these other items, she must return it.
"V'havalad mamzer mizeh umizeh" - any child born to her from either of the husbands is considered a mamzer. From the second husband this is obvious, since she cannot be married to him; and even from the first husband the child is considered a mamzer by rabbinic law.
"V'lo zeh v'lo zeh mitamei lah" - neither of the husbands becomes tamei for her if she dies.
The commentators disagree about how to understand this ruling, since it is impossible for both of them to be kohanim: the second husband could not have married her after the divorce, because she is a divorcee. It is possible, then, that he married her unlawfully; and some wish to say that the second is not a kohen but a nazir; and alternatively it may be that we are not dealing with a kohen at all but with an ordinary Israelite, and they are simply not obligated to become tamei for her.
"V'lo zeh v'lo zeh zaka'in bimtziasah" - neither of the two husbands has any right or claim to the objects she finds, which a husband normally acquires. And likewise "lo b'maaseh yadeha" - to the work that she does, "v'lo b'hafaras nedareha" - they have no authority to annul her vows and her oaths.
"Haysah bas Yisrael - nifselah min hakehunah" - she is disqualified from marrying a kohen, because she had forbidden marital relations. "Bas Levi - min hamaaser" - she does not eat maaser, and this is purely a penalty. "Bas kohen - min haterumah" - she does not eat Terumah, and this too is because of the penalty.
"V'ein yorshin shel zeh v'yorshin shel zeh yorshin kesubasah" - the ordinance of the kesubah does not apply here. There is a condition in the kesubah that the sons of a particular mother inherit their mother's kesubah and do not divide it equally, provided that there is another portion in the estate that they will divide according to the laws of inheritance - so that if the father was married to two women, each of the sons receives his own mother's kesubah. This law does not apply in such a forbidden marriage.
"V'im meisu - echav shel zeh v'echav shel zeh chotzlin v'lo m'yabmin" - if the husbands died, the brothers of each of them perform chalitzah with her, and they do not perform yibum.

"Shinah shemo ushemah, shem iro v'shem irah":

Another case of an error in the get: he changed his name or her name and wrote them mistakenly, or he mistakenly recorded the name of his city or the name of her city - "teitzei mizeh umizeh", and once again all the rules we listed apply, and she must be divorced from both of them. "V'chol hadrachim ha'eilu bah" - all of these rules apply equally to a woman who holds a get containing an error in the names of the cities or in the personal names.

In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that a get dated according to a kingdom that is not the local government - a kingdom that is not fitting, Media or Greece - or according to the count from the building of the Beis HaMikdash or its destruction, and likewise a get in which an incorrect location or an incorrect name of the couple or of their cities was written, is invalid. And if on the basis of such a get the woman married another man, the Mishnah listed a long series of penalties: she must leave both husbands and receive a get from both, she forfeits her kesubah, produce, sustenance and worn property, she must return whatever she took, the child is disqualified, the husband's rights and her own rights are nullified, the inheritance of the kesubah is nullified, and chalitzah is performed instead of yibum.

Original maamar

אות גיטין ח:ה

כָּתַב לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת שְׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת, לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת מָדַי, לְשׁוּם מַלְכוּת יָוָן, לְבִנְיַן הַבַּיִת, לְחֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, הָיָה בַמִּזְרָח וְכָתַב בַּמַּעֲרָב, בַּמַּעֲרָב וְכָתַב בַּמִּזְרָח, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְאֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתֻבָּה וְלֹא פֵרוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, לֹא עַל זֶה וְלֹא עַל זֶה. אִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, תַּחֲזִיר. וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ, וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה זַכָּאִין לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִפְסֶלֶת מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה. בַּת לֵוִי, מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. בַּת כֹּהֵן, מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשָׁיו שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁין כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְאִם מֵתוּ, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. שִׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ, שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וְכָל הַדְּרָכִים הָאֵלּוּ בָהּ: If he wrote the date on the bill of divorce using a calendrical system that counts years in the name of a kingdom that is not legitimate, or he wrote the date in the name of the kingdom of Media, or in the name of the Greek Empire, after it ceased to exist, or he wrote the date counting to the building of the Temple, or counting to the destruction of the Temple, in all these case, the bill of divorce is not valid. In the time of the mishna, the local government was particular that documents be dated with the official government date. Therefore, the Sages instituted that this must be done in bills of divorce as well. If one deviates from this practice, the rabbinic dictates of bills of divorce have been violated, and the bill of divorce is invalid. If he was in the east and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the west, or if he was in the west and he wrote the location in the bill of divorce as in the east, the bill of divorce is not valid. If he divorced her with this bill of divorce and she remarried, she must leave both this first husband and that second husband, and she needs a bill of divorce from this husband and that husband. And she does not receive payment of her marriage contract, and not the profits from her properties that her husband consumed, and she does not have a claim to receive sustenance, and she does not have a claim to worn clothes that belonged to her, but which her husband used. She cannot demand these items, not of this husband and not of that husband. If she took any of these items from this husband or from that husband, she must return what was taken. And the child that was born from this husband or from that husband that was conceived after she married the second husband is a son born from an adulterous relationship [mamzer]. And neither this husband nor that husband, if they are priests, is permitted to become ritually impure by her when she dies, which a husband may ordinarily do for his wife. And neither this husband nor that husband have the rights to objects she finds, or to her earnings, or to the annulment of her vows. If she was an Israelite woman, then through these two marriages she becomes disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, due to the prohibition against a priest marrying a zona. 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. 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. 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.