Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nashim · 336 sections

1.1.1
המביא גט ממדינת הים – All [areas] that are outside of the land of Israel are called, “countries aboard.”
1.1.2
צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – There are those who give the [following] reason, because there aren’t Torah scholars found in countries abroad, and they don’t know that one must write the Jewish bill of divorce for [the express purpose of] the [specific] woman. Therefore, the agent states, “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” And of itself, we ask him [the agent] if it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was written for her sake [alone], and he answers in the affirmative; [on the other hand,] there are those who say that the reason [that he must say that the Jewish bill of divorce was written in his presence and signed in his presence], because caravans [bearing numbers of people] are not found [traveling] from there to here, for if the husband would coביןme and raise a complaint [contesting the legality of the action] saying: “I did not write it,” witnesses would be found to recognize the signatures of those who witnessed [the writing of the Jewish bill of divorce]. But the Rabbis believed the agent as if he were two [witnesses], and furthermore, the complaint of the husband would have no effect.
1.1.3
בין קדש ובין ברד – (As is written in Genesis 16:14): “[Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi;] it is between Kadesh and Bered.” And the Aramaic (Onkelos) translation of this is: "מן הרקם ומן החגר" .
1.1.4
אפילו מכפר לודים – which is considered outside of the land of Israel.
1.1.5
ללוד – which is near it and it is from the land of Israel.
1.1.6
מהגמוניא להגמוניא – there were in one town two jurisdictions jealous of each other (Gittin 4a).
1.2.1
מרקם למזרח – from Rekem until the end of the world to its east is called outside the land of Israel. But Rekem itself is judged as being in the eastern part of the world and not in the land of Israel.
1.3.1
ואם יש עליו עוררים – that the husband complains that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] is forged.
1.3.2
יתקיים בחותמיו – if the witnesses will testify on their own signatures, or other witnesses who recognize their signatures [of the original witnesses], it is valid. And in our times, a person who brings a Jewish bill of divorce whether from the land of Israel or from outside the land of Israel must give it to her [the wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] and must say: ”It was written my presence and signed in my presence.” And if the signatures of the witnesses are recognized in the location where the Jewish bill of divorce is delivered and the Jewish bill of divorce is validated through its signatories, there is no need to say: “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
1.3.3
ואינו יכול לומר – [it was written in my presence and signed in my presence] for example, that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was given to her when he was lucid but he was not able to say: “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence” until he became a deaf-mute.
1.4.1
שוין למוליך ומביא – to state “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
1.5.1
חוץ מגיטי נשים – that if there was upon it [a Jewish bill of divorce] one witnesses who is a Cuthean/a member of the sect of the Samaritans (on occasion, this word is used in place of גוי/non-Jew; עכו"ם /idol worshiper or מין/sectarian as a result of censorship), it is valid, if both of the them are Cutheans, the first teacher of the Mishnah disqualifies them for Jewish bills of divorce, but Rabban Gamaliel relates a story where he validated [it], even where both of them [the witnesses] were Cutheans. But nowadays, they [the Rabbis] decreed [against] the Cutheans as they were [to be considered] as non-Jews in all matters, making no distinction between other documents and Jewish bills of divorce, for even if one witness was a Cuthean, it [the document] is invalid.
1.5.2
בערכאות של גוים – that the witnesses would offer their testimony before the sitting judge in the place where their matters of justice take place. But this is where they knew that judge and of those witnesses who do not accept bribes. And this specifically [refers to] loan documents and documents of sale where the witnesses saw funds exchanged. But documents of admission and Jewish bills of divorce, and any thing which is a legal matter in their [i.e., Roman] gentile offices, everything is invalid.
1.5.3
רבי שמעון אומר כשרים – they were not mentioned in the Jewish academy (Bet Midrash) to be invalidated.
1.5.4
אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט – through non-Jewish commoners who are not judges, but the Halakha does not follow like [the opinion of] Rabbi Shimon.
1.6.1
רצה לחזור בשניהן – before it [the Jewish bill of divorce or the bill of manumission] reaches the hand of the woman and/or the slave.
1.6.2
יחזור – But the agent cannot provide their needs for their benefit since it [the document] is something to their detriment and they lose their food/support.
1.6.3
וחכמים אומרים: בגיטי נשים – He (i.e., the husband) can retract (his Jewish bill of divorce),
1.6.4
אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים – but he cannot retract in his bill of manumission of slaves. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
1.6.5
שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי – Therefore, when he (i.e., the owner) frees him (i.e., his slave), he does not cause him to lose his support/food, but he is not permitted to feed his wife; therefore, if he divorces her, she causes her to lose her support/food.
1.6.6
מפני שהוא קנינו – That is to say, since he {i.e., the slave] eats the heave-offering/Terumah when the slave is the servant of a Kohen/Priest, it is only because he is the purchase-property of the Kohen/Priest, since regarding the cattle of Kohen/Priest which can eat the veches of Terumah/heave-offering, but it is not a a perfect comparison. Therefore, when he frees him (i.e. the slave), even though he causes him to lose the ability to eat Terumah/heave-offering, it is not an obligation for the slave [to do so].
1.6.7
לא יתנו לאחר מיתה – The Get/Jewish bill of divorce does not take effect until it reaches her hand, and if it reaches her hand, he has died, and there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death. And similarly, the document of manumission, when it reaches his (i.e. the slave’s) hand if he died, his ownership over him is broken.
1.6.8
יתנו לאחר מיתה – even though he (i.e., the now deceased owner) did not say, “this Maneh”/weight equivalent to fifty silver shekels, since the words of someone who is on his death bed are regarded as if they are written and transmitted.
2.1.1
המביא – נחתם חציו – one of the witnesses signed in my presence.
2.1.2
נכתב חציו וכו' פסול – and specifically the final half. But [if the agent said}: “in my presence, the first-half was written, which is the [the section containing the] name of the man and [the name of] the woman and the time (i.e. date), it is valid. And [regarding] the first half as well, it is not necessary for him [the agent] to see the writing itself, but if he heard the sound of the reed/writing pen alone passing over the paper at the time of the writing [of the Jewish bill of divorce], nothing further is necessary.
2.1.3
אחד אומר בפני נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול – at the time when the Jewish bill of divorce leaves from under the hand of one of them (i.e., the agents), and since the Rabbis required for the agent who brings the Jewish bill of divorce to say both [things] (i.e. that the Get was written in my presence and that the Get was signed in my presence), but if the Jewish bill of divorce leaves the hands of both of them (i.e., the agents), it is considered valid. For two [individuals] who brought a Jewish bill of divorce, they do not need to say, “in our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed.”
2.1.4
שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול – At the time when the Jewish bill of divorce leaves under the hand of one of them, but if it leaves the hand of both of them, it is valid.
2.1.5
ור' יהודה מכשיר – And even if the Jewish bill of divorce leaves the hand of one of them, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
2.2.1
בלילה ונחתם ביום כשר – since the daytime goes after the [previous] night, and this is not in advance/early.
2.2.2
ביום ונחתם בלילה פסול – since it is early. And the Sages instituted the time in Jewish bills of divorce, decreed, less a person would be married with his sister’s daughter (niece}, and she will commit an offense against him, and he has compassion upon her that she not be strangled to death, and he gives her a Jewish bill of divorce without the time included, and when they testify against her in the Jewish court, she takes out her Jewish bill of divorce and states that she was a divorcee and was a free (literally, “open”) woman at that time.
2.2.3
ור"ש מכשיר – (a Jewish bill of divorce written in the daytime and signed at night), for Rabbi Shimon thinks (i.e., “holds”) that the Sages established [putting] the time in the Jewish bill of divorce because of the usufruct [involved], for if the time would not be [stated] in the Jewish bill of divorce, the husband would sell the usufruct (the wife’s estate of which the husband has fruition without responsibility for loss or deterioration – while married] of his wife after the divorce, and when she would claim against him in court, he would claim that he sold it prior to the divorce. And Rabbi Shimon validates this when it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was written during the day time and signed at night, even though it is in advance. For he holds that from the time that he desired to divorce her even though he had not [yet] divorced her, from then on, the husband does not have [access to] the usufruct, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
2.3.1
בדיו – “Almidar” in Arabic
2.3.2
סיקרא – Red color
2.3.3
קומוס – resin/sap of the tree
2.3.4
קנקנתום – Vidriolov in foreign tongue
2.3.5
על העלה של זית – detached
2.3.6
ונותן לה את הפרה – as he is not able to cut it after it is written, as it is written (Deuteronomy 24:3); “[then this latter man rejects her,] writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her [and sends her away from his house;…” which is not requiring other than writing and giving [the Jewish bill of divorce], excluding the situation which is requiring the writing [of the Jewish bill of divorce], cutting it [from where it was written] and giving it [to the woman].
2.3.7
רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר וכו' – Since the All-Merciful (i.e., the Torah) refers to a Jewish bill of a divorce as a ספר/bill [of divorcement] (Deuteronomy 25:1, 3); just as a bill (book) is unique and has no life-spirit in it and does not eat, so too everything which has no life-spirit in it and does not eat. And the Rabbis state that if he wrote it [the Jewish bill of divorce] in a document as you stated, here where it the word "ספר"/bill – it comes [to refer not to the writing material but merely to] the act of writing the words (formula of divorce (see Gittin 21b). And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
2.4.1
אין כותבין במחובר – because it is missing “cutting.”
2.4.2
כתבו על המחובר וכו' – This is how it should be said: If he wrote [the Jewish bill of the divorce] the blank form of the document [of the Jewish bill of divorce] on something attached, which is the entire Jewish bill of divorce except for the place of the man and the place of the woman and the time (i.e., date).
2.4.3
תלשו וחתמו – that is to say, that he [the scribe] wrote that part of the document that makes it binding, which is the place of the man and the place of the woman and the time (i.e., date).
2.4.4
כשר – For since the part of the document that makes it binding was written on [something] detached, even though the blank form of the document was written while it was attached, it is valid.
2.4.5
על נייר המחוק – because he can go back and erase it until [the names of the witnesses] and write upon it what he wants and no one would recognize anything, for the signature of the witnesses is written over an erasure.
2.4.6
דיפתרא – its erasure is not recognized. דיפתרא – that is, [prepared] with salt and flour, but not prepared with gall-nut juice.
2.4.7
וחכמים מכשירין – [The Sages validate] only in Jewish bills of divorce alone, as they think that the witnesses who deliver the Jewish bill of divorce [to the woman] make it [the divorce] final. For the Jewish bill of divorce that is delivered in the presence of the witnesses is the essence of the Jewish divorce, and not the witnesses who signed it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce]. But on other documents, we rely upon the witnesses who signed it [i.e., the document]. The Sages admit that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] cannot be written either on a blotted-out paper or on something prepared with gall-nut juice. And the Halakha is according the Sages.
2.5.1
ואפילו חרש שוטה וקטן – [and concerning them – the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor], a Jewish adult stands over them and says to him: Write this for the sake of “so-and-so.” But a heathen and a slave, even if an adult Jew stands over them, ab initio, he should not write the Jewish bill of divorce, because they have the temperament [to write a Jewish bill of divorce], and on their personal knowledge we operate, for even if a Jewish adult says to him: “Write for the sake of “so-and-so” , he should not write other than for himself. But if a heathen or slave wrote the blank form of the document [of the Jewish bill of divorce] and a Jew possessing awareness wrote the part of the document that makes it binding; which is the name of the man and the woman and the time (i.e., date), for all of these require [being written] for their sake (i.e., the man, the woman and the Jewish bill of divorce), the Jewish bill of divorce is valid. And similarly, a when we say in our Mishnah that a deaf-mute, imbecile and/or minor are fit to write a Jewish bill of divorce, these words refer to the blank form of the document, but not the part of the document that makes it binding, is not valid, other than if it is written by an adult Jew who possesses awareness.
2.5.2
חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן – who all lack awareness.
2.5.3
וסומא – [A blind person] is prohibited from bring a Jewish bill of divorce from outside the land of Israel, because he is unable to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” But, to bring a Jewish bill of divorce in the land of Israel, where it is not necessary to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” or even in the Diaspora, if the Jewish bill of divorce is verified through its signatories, or to serve as the agent of the woman to receive her Jewish bill of divorce, for all of these, the blind person is considered valid.
2.5.4
ונכרי – he is not [included] in laws of Divorce and Kiddushin/betrothal for the sake of marriage, and anything of his own person is not worthy, he cannot perform the act of agency for another.
2.6.1
קיבל הקטן – [The minor received] the Jewish bill of divorce from the hand of the husband.
2.6.2
והגדיל – [became an adult] prior to his delivery of it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her [i.e., the wife].
2.6.3
פתוח ונסתמא וחזר ונתפתח – even if he was not restored to being sighted, since he was able to see at the time when he received the Jewish bill of divorce, he well is able to serve as an agent for he is able to say: “it was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” But, since it is required for [the Mishnah] to teach the concluding segment, “and he returned to being sighted,” that he [the agent] must be cognitively aware at the time of the giving [of the Jewish bill of divorce], the Mishnah teaches also at the beginning, “and he returned to being sighted.” But all those who are invalid for testimony through sin, are also invalid to bring the Jewish bill of divorce, for they are not believed to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” But if the Jewish bill of divorce is verified through its signatories, they are valid to bring it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce).
2.7.1
וחמותה ובת חמותה כו' – [they] are not believed to say that her husband died, because they hate her and intend to disgrace her.
2.7.2
ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם – and especially when the husband made a condition with her at the time that he delivered the Jewish bill of divorce to her hand and said to her: You will not be divorced other than in the court of so-and-so, and you will say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” And the court takes it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] from her hand after she said, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” and appoint an agent who will go back and give it [i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce] to her, but the wife whose Jewish bill of divorce leaves her hand in whatever place she happens to be, is [considered to be] divorced. And even if the Jewish bill of divorce’s signatories are not verified, and she does not have to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
3.1.1
כל גט – קול סופרים מקרין – The adults read [the Jewish bill of divorce] to their students, and when the Jewish bill of divorce comes before you, write it as such, and they mentioned the name of any person.
3.1.2
יותר מכן – and not only this – that the Jewish bill of divorce that was not written for the sake of Jewish divorce but only for practice (see Gittin 24b), but even that which was written for the sake of Jewish divorce completely, but he [i.e., the husband], changed his mind, it is invalid.
3.1.3
יתר מכאן היו לו ב' נשים כו' – and not only this alone that it (i.e., the Jewish bill of divorce) was written not for the sake of divorce of this person, it is invalid. But even if he had two wives and it was written for the sake of [the] divorce of this man, it is invalid, since it was not written for the sake of divorce of that woman.
3.1.4
גדולה וקטנה – not exactly.
3.1.5
יתר מכאן – it comes to teach us that we do not say that the matter is clear retroactively, for at the time it is written, it was also his intention for this one, and there is a divorce for him and her.
3.2.1
הכותב טופסי גיטין – A scribe who wants that they should be ready at hand with him, for there are times when a person comes to hire him [to write a Jewish bill of divorce] and he is preoccupied with other documents.
3.2.2
צריך שיניח מקום האיש ומקום האשה ומקים הזמן – And in the Gemara, it adds even a place for [the phrase] “you are permitted to any man.”
3.2.3
מפני התקנה – They permitted him to write blank forms of Jewish divorce bills and other documents not for their sake, because of the scribal ordinance that they be ready at hand with him, as long as he leaves space for the part of the document that makes it binding to write it for its own sake. And we decree that the part of the document that makes it valid for writing other documents because of the part of the document that makes bills of Jewish divorce valid.
3.2.4
רבי יהודה פוסל בכולן – For he decreed the blank forms of other documents on account of the parts of the document that make them binding, and other documents on account of Jewish bills of divorce.
3.2.5
ר"א מכשיר בכולן – for he did not decree other documents on account of bills of Jewish divorce.
3.2.6
חוץ מגטי נשים שנאמר "וכתב לה" – לשמה – And they decree that the blank forms of the document (for a Jewish bill of divorce) on account of the parts of the document that make them binding. But, the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer [which are not permitted – as they must be written explicitly for the sake of the divorce and for that particular couple].
3.3.1
לאלתר – immediately, it is valid.
3.3.2
ואם לאו פסול – And especially if it [the Jewish bill of divorce] was lost in a place where [regular] caravans are found, and one could say that it [the Jewish bill of divorce] fell from those who come and go. But if it was lost in a place where caravans are not [regularly] found, even after a lengthy period of time, it is valid. And even if it was lost in a place where the caravans are [regularly] found, if there [is known] to the witnesses a distinguished mark of identification, such as if they [i.e., the witnesses] say that it [i.e, the Jewish bill of divorce document] has a perforation on the side of a certain letter, or they say, that we never signed the Jewish bill of divorce with these names but rather on this one alone, it is valid, even after a lengthy period of time.
3.3.3
בחפיסא או בדלוסקמא – sacks in which documents are regularly placed therein and they contain a particular sign that they belong to him.
3.3.4
אם מכירו כשר – this is a matter for itself, and this is how it should be read: If they found it in a small leather bag or in a case, even though he does not recognize it as a Jewish bill of divorce, or that he recognizes as a Jewish bill of divorce, even though he found it in any place, it is valid.
3.3.5
נותנו לה בחזקת שהוא קיים – And we don’t fear lest the husband died and his agency is voided, for we say, that a matter stands on its presumption. But if it is known that the husband died prior to the Jewish bill of divorce reaching her hand, the Jewish bill of divorce is voided, for there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death.
3.3.6
מקריבין אותה – and we don’t fear lest its owner(s) died, and the sin offering of those whose owners died, are considered as if their death is established.
3.4.1
כרקום – from the Aramaic translation, works of siege (the husband is presumed to be alive in such a setting as opposed to when the city is conquered).
3.4.2
המטרפת – but has not yet sunk.
3.4.3
לידון – in [a matter of] capital crimes.
3.4.4
בת ישראל לכהן – the stringencies regarding death
3.4.5
בת כהן לישראל – the stringencies regarding life
3.5.1
המביא גט בארץ ישראל – where it is not necessary to say, “it was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
3.5.2
משלחו ביד אחר – And makes him [of the other] an agent on his own and not in the Jewish court, and specifically if he had become ill.
3.5.3
ואם אמר לו – the husband to the agent
3.5.4
טול לי הימנה חפץ פלוני – When you give her the Jewish bill of divorce
3.6.1
עושה בית דין – [the court appoints] an agent and sends him
3.6.2
שליח בית דין אני – without further qualification, the Jewish court did this validating him, and the second agent appoints a third agent, [and so-on-and-so-forth] until [the] one-hundred[th agent], and all of them are [appointed] in the Jewish court, since it is taught in our Mishnah, “the last agent [does not have to say, ‘it was written in my presence and signed in my presence’]” but only says that “I am the agent of the [Jewish] court.”
3.7.1
להיות מפריש עליהן מחלקן – When he separates out the Terumah/heave-offering (which goes to the Kohen) , he should [first] sell it, he should detain the money to himself on account of his own obligation that he has towards the Kohen/priest. And the first tithe and second tithe he should withhold [them] and eat it for the obligation that he has towards the Levite and the poor, but he (the Levite) separates out from the first tithe [that he has received] the heave-offering (of one-tenth) [that he is required to give to the Kohen/priest]. But if he is accustomed to give his heave-offerings and tithes to this particular Kohen or particular Levite or the poor person who lent to them, he does not need to transfer to them their tithes and heave-offerings through another person, but he takes them for himself immediately after he has separated them out. But if he was accustomed to give his heave-offerings and tithes to others, he may not withhold them through his obligation, until he takes possession of them through another [Kohen or Levite] first and thereafter he should go back and take them as part of his obligatory [gift].
3.7.2
צריך ליטול רשות מן היורשים – That inherited from them property that had been mortgaged to a creditor, he must take permission from them if they want to repay this loan through these heave-offerings and tithes [that they have received], lest they wish to take their [priestly/Levitical] gifts and to repay their hereditary loans from another place.
3.8.1
המניח פירות להיות מפריש עליהן כו' – He relies upon these and eat from other TEVEL/eatables forbidden to be consumed prior to the separation of sacred gifts that he has, and says, ‘Behold their heave-offerings [come] from these fruits that I have set aside for this purpose.’
3.8.2
ואם אבדו – He went to check them and found that they had become lost.
3.8.3
הרי זה חושש – for these selfsame eatables forbidden to be consumed prior to the separation of sacred gifts, which he had legally fit for use by giving the priestly dues with the promise of those. And if he did not eat them, he must separate [tithes] from them, lest when he says: ‘Behold their priest-due is with the fruit that I have set aside’ have already become lost.
3.8.4
מעת לעת – of being examined. And when he checked them and found them to be lost, he fears lest from yesterday at that particular time they had been lost, and if he had designed them as tithes in the midst of the time period of twenty-four astronomical hours over other fruit. He must separate from them [tithes] out of doubt, and more than this, the Rabbis were not stringent to fear, but they rely upon the presumptive continuance of an actual condition until evidence of change is produced.
3.8.5
בודקין את היין – that he left it to [have tithes] separated out, he must check it, lest it soured, since we don’t offer heave-offerings from wine that had soured.
3.8.6
בקדים של מוצאי החג – since when the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival [of Sukkot].
3.8.7
בשעת כניסת המים – when they are like the white bean (see Mishnah Kilayim 1:1), they are called half-ripe fruit (i.e. grapes). But when the moistness enters and grows in it when one is able to store away from them a bit, that is at the time when the water enters. Another explanation: When they were crushing the grapes when they were half-ripe, and putting water into it, and making vinegar to make it subject to setting aside sacred gifts. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
4.1.1
השולח גט והגיע בשליח – for he had not intended to pursue after him to overtake him, but rather, when the agent got detained along the way and he [the husband] was on the path to there and saw him and nullified the Jewish bill of divorce, even so, it is nullified. And we don’t say that he intended to merely cause suffering, for if he had intended to nullify it, he (the husband) would have pursued after him.
4.1.2
אינו יכול לבטלו – that comes to teach us that even though we saw him that he ran after him to nullify it, we don’t say that this matter was revealed retroactively that he (i.e., the husband) had revoked the Jewish bill of divorce. For where a person gives a Jewish bill of divorce to his wife for a time or on condition, or says to her, “Behold this is your Jewish bill of divorce from now or from this [particular] time”; or if the specific condition had been fulfilled, and if he did not say to her “from now” – even if after her Jewish bill of divorce had reached her hand, he can annul it.
4.2.1
בראשונה – He would not nullify it in the presence of the woman nor in the presence of the agent, but in the place where he is standing, he would nullify it in the presence of three [judges].
4.2.2
מפני תקון העולם – that the agent who does not know of the matter would bring it to her and she would [as a result] marry [again] through it. And on the strength of the ordinance of Rabban Gamaliel, we flog whomever nullifies the Jewish bill of divorce [in a Jewish court in another place] or issues a protest/ declaration before witnesses against a forced or unduly influenced action concerning the Jewish bill of divorce.
4.2.3
בראשונה היה משנה שמו ושמה – when he (i.e. the husband) had two names – one here (in the land of Israel) and another abroad, he would divorce her with the name common used in the place where the Jewish bill of divorce was written, and he would not be exacting to write both [names].
4.2.4
מפני תיקון העולם – so as to not cast aspersion on [the legitimacy of] her children from the second [name of her] husband, to say, that her husband didn’t divorce her for that is not his name. And a person who is known by two names in two [different] places, one in the place where [the Jewish bill of divorce] was written and another in the place where it is delivered/given, she is not divorced until the name of the place where [the Jewish bill of divorce] is delivered/given, and the name of the place where it was written with it. But, if he was known by two names in one place and he wrote [in the Jewish bill of divorce] (only) one of those names, post facto, the Jewish bill of divorce is valid. However, ab initio, one must write both of [the names] and where he changed his name or her name in the Jewish bill of divorce, even though he wrote after it, “and every name that he has,” the Jewish bill of divorce is null and void.
4.3.1
אין אלמנה נפרעת – Her Ketubah/Jewish marriage contract
4.3.2
מנכסי יתומים, אלא בשבועה – she had not been made the recipient of anything
4.3.3
נמנעו מלהשביע – because she is preoccupied before the orphans, she provides herself with a legal permission to take an oath that she had not taken anything. But even though she took a small amount, she believes that she is taking it as payment for her trouble [involved], but it is not for the paying off of the obligations [owed her] from her Jewish marriage contract.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.