Source: http://halakhah.com/gittin/gittin_80.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:01:02+00:00

Document:
IF SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE, SHE BECOMES DISQUALIFIED FOR EATING TITHE,1 AND IF THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST FOR EATING TERUMAH.2 THE HEIRS NEITHER OF THE ONE HUSBAND NOR THE OTHER INHERIT HER KETHUBAH,3 AND IF THEY DIE BROTHERS OF BOTH ONE AND THE OTHER OF THEM [IF NECESSARY] TAKE HALIZAH BUT NEITHER CAN MARRY HER. IF HIS NAME OR HER NAME OR THE NAME OF HIS TOWN OR THE NAME OF HER TOWN WAS WRONGLY GIVEN, SHE MUST LEAVE BOTH HUSBANDS AND ALL THE ABOVE PENALTIES APPLY TO HER.
BY THE EMPIRE OF GREECE. All [these eras] had to be mentioned.17 For if I had been told only the REIGN WHICH OUGHT NOT TO COUNT, I might have thought that the objection to it is that it bears sway now, but in regard to the Empire of Media and Greece I might think that what is past is past.18 And if I had been told the empires of Media and Greece, I might have thought that the objection is that they were once empires, but as regards the building of the Temple, what is past is past. And if I had been told the building of the Temple, I might have thought that the objection is because they might say that the Jews are recalling their former glory, but this does not apply to the mention of the destruction of the Temple, which recalls their sorrow.19 Hence all were necessary.
The kethubah referred to here is a stipulation made by her with her husband that, should she die in his lifetime, her sons should inherit her property over and above their share in their father's inheritance, v. Yeb. 91A.
I.e., (potential) co-wives. Cf. 1. Sam. I, 6. The reference is to two women within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity who married two brothers, v. Yeb. 22.
The wife of the brother still living.
Her marriage consequently was void, and hence the sister-in-law could have married the deceased husband's brother and had no right to contract another marriage without giving halizah.
I.e., she must leave her husband and cannot marry the brother-in-law.
I.e., another wife of the dead brother. Where there are two wives, only one may contract the levirate marriage.
To hand over to the husband on payment of her kethubah.
Because we suspect collusion between the wife and the first husband.
[The reference is to the Eastern Roman Empire; v. next note].
V. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 50, n. 2.
To make it clear that the Get should be dated according to the era of the State where it is made out.
And therefore dating by it would cause no jealousy on the part of the Government.
On the eras mentioned in this passage v. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 42, n. 7, and p. 47, n. 2.
Shili and Hini were two places within walking distance of each other. V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 753, n. 6.
The local of the deed is the place where the deed is written and this must be entered in the deed, not the place where the transaction recorded took place.
This1 is the ruling of R. Meir, but the Sages say that even though he dated it only by the term of office of the Santer2 in the town, she is divorced. A certain Get was dated by the term of office of the prefect3 of Bashcar.4 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,5 but to date it this way is a compliment to them.
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 rulings6 might have been run into one? We conclude therefore that it was the Rabbis.
IF A MAN MARRIES HIS SISTER-IN-LAW etc. Both cases10 required to be stated. For had I only the first one, I might say the reason [why she is penalised]11 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,12 but in the other case where she is not put at his disposal13 I might say that she should not be penalised. Hence [both statements were] necessary.
That the year of the current reign must be mentioned.
Probably = Senator: an elder whose office it was to decide questions regarding boundaries between fields, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 270, n. 10.
Viz., to the Government, the Santer being a minor official.
This and the one regarding the year of the reign.
This and the one about the forbidden degrees.
And forbidden to the brother-in-law.
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.