Rambam — 3 Perakimרמב״ם ג׳ פרקים

א׳אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ עוֹמֵד כְּגוֹן דְּיוֹ וְסִקְרָא וְקוֹמוֹס וְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם כְּתָבוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד כְּגוֹן מַשְׁקִין וּמֵי פֵּרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵינוֹ גֵּט. כְּתָבוֹ בַּאֲבַר בְּשָׁחוֹר וּבְשִׁיחוֹר כָּשֵׁר. וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בָּהֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה:

¹A get may be written only with a substance that leaves a permanent impression - e.g., ink,1In Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, the Rambam describes the process by which ink is made as follows:One collects the vapor of oils, of tar, of wax or the like, [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with sap from a tree and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried and then stored.When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] in gallnut juice or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to. sikra, kumus, kankantum2In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:3, the Rambam mentions three Arabic terms for these words. Rav Kapach explains the meaning as follows: sikra refers to red clay that is used for painting. Kumus and kankantum are two similar substances, yellow and green powders, which when mixed with gallnut juice produce a black substance. Other commentaries offer different interpretations. or the like. If, however, [a get] is written with a substance that does not leave a permanent impression - e.g., beverages, fruit juices or the like - the get is void.If [a get] is written with lead, a stylus or charcoal,3Our translation of these terms is based on the Aruch, as quoted by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 125:2). it is acceptable. At the outset, however, these substances should not be used.

ב׳כּוֹתְבִין בְּמֵי עַפְּצָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַל גַּב הַנְּיָר וְהָעוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֲבָל לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְגִלָּה עֲפוּצָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכָּר. וְאִם כָּתַב אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. עַל הַכּל כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל אִסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה. וְכוֹתְבִין עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְהוּא שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

²A priori, we may write with gallnut juice on paper, on a hide or the like. We may not use it to write on parchment that has been treated with gallnut juice, for it will not be distinct. If such a get is written, it is void. The same applies in all similar situations.A get may be written on any substance, even a substance from which one is forbidden to benefit.4The Beit Shmuel 124:1 explains that, a priori, the Rambam allows a get to be written on a substance from which we are forbidden to benefit. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 124:1) differs and follows the opinion of Tosafot, which states that it is only after the fact that such a get is acceptable. The Ramah adds that if we are obligated to destroy the substance on which the get was written, the get is void. We may write [a get] on a substance on which an erasure would not be noticed, provided it is given [to the woman] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer.5The Rambam rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is valid even when it was given without witnesses' observing the transfer (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). In this instance, however, even he maintains that witnesses must observe the transfer, for it is possible that the signatures of the witnesses on the get could be forged (Chelkat Mechokek 124:2).

ג׳כֵּיצַד כּוֹתֵב (אוֹתוֹ). עַל הַנְּיָר הַמָּחוּק וְעַל הַדִּפְתְּרָא וְעַל הַחֶרֶס וְעַל הֶעָלִין וְעַל יָדוֹ שֶׁל עֶבֶד וְעַל קֶרֶן שֶׁל פָּרָה. וּמוֹסֵר לָהּ הָעֶבֶד וְהַפָּרָה אוֹ הַנְּיָר הַמָּחוּק וְהַדִּפְתְּרָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים:

³What is implied? If a get is written on paper with erasures,6The difficulty with a get written on a parchment with erasures is that the text can be erased again and additions or deletions made without making a noticeable difference in the final product. Thus, stipulations could be added to the get, or the signatures of the witnesses altered. Similarly, changes could be made to a get written on any of the other substances that follow.Another type of legal document written on such parchment would not be acceptable. The laws pertaining to a get are different, for in this instance the purpose of the document is not to serve as proof of the divorce, but instead to effect the dissolution of the marriage bond. The purpose of other legal documents, by contrast, is to serve as an account of the transactions they record. on parchment that has not been fully processed, on a shard, on leaves, on the arm of a servant or on the horn of a cow,7As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one may not detach the horn from the cow after the get was written on it, before giving the cow to the woman. [it is acceptable, provided the husband] gives [his wife] the servant, the cow,8Normally mesirah, transferring the reigns of an animal, is not an acceptable means of acquiring a cow, as stated in Hilchot Mechirah 3:5. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, because the fundamental purpose of this transaction is not to transfer the cow, but to transfer the get (Hafla'ah; see also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 9, Halachah 3). the paper, the parchment or the like in the presence of witnesses.

ד׳הָיָה הַגֵּט חָקוּק עַל יָדוֹ שֶׁל עֶבֶד בִּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ וְהָיוּ הָעֵדִים חֲקוּקִים עַל יָדוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף. אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻחְזָקִין בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְגֵט חָקוּק עַל יָדוֹ וְהוּא יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּעֵדִים נִמְסַר לִי הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ נִכְנַס לָהּ שֶׁהַגּוֹדְרוֹת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה:

⁴When the get is tattooed on the hand of a servant,9As reflected by a comparison to the second clause, this law applies when it is known that the servant belonged to the woman (Beit Shmuel 124:17). (See the notes on the following halachah.) the signature of the witnesses is also tattooed there,10The commentaries question why the signature of the witnesses is significant, for by tattooing the servant they have committed a transgression that disqualifies them from serving as witnesses. and he is in the possession of [the wife], the divorce is effective, even though there are no witnesses to [the servant's] transfer,11In this instance, the situation parallels the law described in Chapter 1, Halachah 16, which rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is acceptable, even when there are no witnesses to its transfer. for [the tattoo] cannot be forged.Even when it is known to us that the servant [previously] belonged to the husband, the get is tattooed on his hand, and he is in the possession of the woman, and she says: "He was given to me in the presence of witnesses," the status of the divorce is in doubt.12See the Chelkat Mechokek 124:19, which states that if there are witnesses to the transfer of the servant, or the husband admits that the servant was given to the woman, the divorce is effective. For the possession of living beings that can move independently is not considered proof of their ownership.13See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 10:1.

ה׳הָיָה הַגֵּט חָקוּק עַל הַטַּבְלָא וְהָעֵדִים עָלָיו וְהוּא יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻחְזָקִין בְּטַבְלָא שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ כּוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּטָּהּ. שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּחוֹתְמָיו אִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

⁵If a get is engraved on a tablet [with a stylus], and it is signed by witnesses, and [the tablet] is in [the woman's] possession, the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when it is known to us that the tablet [had previously] belonged to [the wife].14Although the article on which the husband has the get written must belong to him, there is no difficulty in this instance, as will be explained. For a woman is allowed to write her get herself. The verification of a get is dependent on [the witnesses who] signed it, if there are no witnesses to its transfer.15We assume that the witnesses who signed the get would have signed it only after verifying that the woman gave the tablet to her husband for the purpose of the divorce.

ו׳חָקַק הַגֵּט עַל הַלּוּחַ אוֹ עַל הָאֶבֶן אוֹ עַל טַס שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת אִם חָפַר יַרְכֵי הָאוֹתִיּוֹת כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁזֶּה כְּתָב הוּא. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ירמיה יז א) "כְּתוּבָה בְּעֵט בַּרְזֶל" כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא חֲפָרוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָקַק הַיְרֵכוֹת מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַטַּס עַד שֶׁבָּלְטוּ בִּפְנֵי הַטַּס. אֲבָל אִם חָפַר תּוֹךְ הָאוֹת עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאוּ הַיְרֵכוֹת גְּבוֹהוֹת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן כִּכְתַב דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁהַכְּתָב בּוֹלֵט אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּתָב:

⁶[The following laws apply when] a get is engraved on a board, on a stone or on a metal plate: If the scribe engraved the form of the letters,16I.e., he hewed out the lines that would normally be written. it is acceptable. This is considered writing, as [reflected by] the verse, [Jeremiah 17:1]: "Written with a pen of iron" - i.e., hewed out. Similarly, if one engraved the letters from the back of the plate until they projected from the front of the plate [the get is acceptable].If, however, one hewed out the inside of the letter, [and the area around it,] until the form of the letter protruded on both sides, like the protruding writing on golden dinarim, the get is void, because this is not considered writing.17I.e., the letter is formed by working around the letter, and not on the form of the letter itself. This law has a corollary that is applicable to contemporary halachah. If ink spills near a letter, the shape of the letter may not be formed by scratching out the ink blotch (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 125:8).

ז׳הַמְקָרֵעַ עַל הָעוֹר תַּבְנִית כְּתָב אוֹ שֶׁרָשַׁם עַל הָעוֹר תַּבְנִית כְּתָב הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט בְּכָל כְּתָב וּבְכָל לָשׁוֹן. גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּכְתָב מִן הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת וְעֵדָיו חֲתוּמִין בִּכְתָב אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ הָעֵדִים מַכִּירִין לְשׁוֹן הַכְּתָב וְהַכְּתִיבָה

⁷If one etches out the shape of letters on a hide,18Without writing. or one sketches the form of letters on a hide19In this instance, the writing will not remain permanently, but instead will be rubbed out in a short time. For this reason, the Rambam rules in Hilchot Shabbat 11:16 that sketching on a hide is not considered writing. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there is nothing lacking in the writing itself, the Rambam deems the get acceptable. [the get is acceptable].20See the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:5), which mentions that there are some authorities who rule that etching is acceptable and sketching unacceptable, and others who accept sketching and disqualify etching.A get may be written with any letters21I.e., one may use Rashi script, rather than ordinary Hebrew writing (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 126:1). Indeed, in one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that his teacher, Rav Yosef Migash, preferred having a get written in Rashi script rather than using the letters used in writing a Torah scroll. The univeral custom at present, however, is to use the Assyrian script with which Torah scrolls are written [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:1)]. and in any language.22I.e., there is no requirement to write it in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, for centuries, it has been customary to use the standard Aramaic text quoted by the Rambam later on in this chapter. A get that is written with the letters of one language and whose witnesses sign with the letters of another language is acceptable, provided the witnesses comprehend the language and the letters used.23In Chapter 1, Halachah 23, the Rambam allows a get to be read for the witnesses. Nevertheless, in this instance the Rambam requires the witnesses to read the get themselves. Since signing in another language is already a departure from the norm, no further leniency is granted (Ma'aseh Rokeach).

ח׳אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים חָתַם בִּכְתָב (לָשׁוֹן אַחַת) וְהָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי בִּכְתַב לָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת כָּשֵׁר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מִקְצָת הַגֵּט כָּתוּב בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחַת וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת פָּסוּל:

⁸If one of the witnesses signed the get with letters [from one language], and the other signed with letters of another language, the get is acceptable.24Gittin 9:7 gives an example of one witness signing in Greek and the other in Hebrew. Even though the two languages use different characters, and even require writing in different directions, the get is acceptable.Each of the witnesses' signatures is a separate and independent statement. Therefore, there is no need for the two signatures to be in the same language. The get, by contrast, is a single unit and must be written in one language (Kessef Mishneh).If, however, a portion of the get is written in one language, and another portion is written in another language, it is unacceptable.25This ruling is accepted by all authorities. Although the standard text of the get that is universally employed uses both Aramaic and Hebrew, this does not represent a contradiction. Our Sages explain that since both these languages were used at Mount Sinai, they are considered to be a single tongue (Ramah, Even HaEzer 126:1).

ט׳כָּל לָשׁוֹן שֶׁיִּכָּתֵב בָּהּ הַגֵּט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּזָהֵר הַסּוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי הַגֵּט שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מַשְׁמָעָן שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַקּוֹרֵא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא לְכָךְ וּלְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁמָעוֹ לְשׁוֹן גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לְעִנְיָן זֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ לְשׁוֹן גֵּרוּשִׁין. אֶלָּא יִהְיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן סָפֵק בְּאוֹתוֹ הַלָּשׁוֹן אֶלָּא מַשְׁמָעָן עִנְיָן אֶחָד שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ וְשָׁלַח פְּלוֹנִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִית:

⁹Regardless of the language in which a get is written, the scribe must be careful that the wording of the get does not allow for two meanings. It should not [leave] the reader [in doubt, wondering]: "Perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., something other than divorce - "or perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., divorce.26See Halachah 13 for examples of wording that could create such doubt. Instead, [whatever] the language [of the get], the wording should unequivocally state one concept: that so and so divorces so and so.

י׳וְכֵן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אוֹתוֹ הַכְּתָב מְבֹאָר הֵיטֵב בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכְּתָב שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ הַקְּטַנִּים לִקְרוֹתוֹ שֶׁמַּכִּירִים אוֹתוֹ כְּתָב שֶׁאֵינָן לֹא נְבוֹנִים וְלֹא סְכָלִים (וְלֹא בִּקְטַנִּים) אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹנִים. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כְּתָב מְעֻקָּם וּמְבֻלְבָּל שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה אוֹת לְאוֹת וְנִמְצָא הָעִנְיָן מִשְׁתַּנֶּה:

¹⁰Similarly, regardless of the letters used, the penmanship [of the scribe] must be clear, so that children who know those letters would be able to read it. [The intent is] children who are not overly bright, nor those who are overly slow, but rather those of average intelligence.27See Hilchot Tefillin 1:19, which states that when a question arises concerning the writing for the parchments of the tefillin, a determination may be made on the basis of the reading of such a child.The writing should not be crooked, nor incoherent, lest one letter be confused with another, changing the meaning of the text.28See Halachah 13 for examples of steps taken to prevent such confusion from arising.

י״אהָיָה בּוֹ מַשְׁמָעוּת שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְתָבוֹ עִקּוּם אוֹ בִּלְבּוּל עַד שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּקְרָא מִמֶּנּוּ עִנְיָן אַחֵר. הוֹאִיל וְנִקְרָא לְעִנְיַן הַגֵּרוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע גֵּרוּשִׁין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. כְּבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל לִכְתֹּב הַגֵּט לְשׁוֹן אֲרָמִי וּכְנֹסַח זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְכָתְבוֹ בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן לְכַתְּחִלָּה:

¹¹If [the wording of a get] has two implications, or its writing is crooked or incoherent to the extent that it is possible to understand a different concept from it, it is unacceptable. [It is not void,] because it may be read as referring to a divorce and its meaning involves divorce.Although a priori it is permissible to write a get in any language, it has already become universal Jewish practice to write gittin in Aramaic, using the following text.29This basic text was already employed during the Talmudic era. At present, the later authorities in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities have suggested minor emendations to the text quoted by the Rambam. As such, there are two standard gittin employed in Eretz Yisrael today.

י״בוזה הוא נוסח הגטבְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ לְיֶרַח פְּלוֹנִי בִּשְׁנַת כָּךְ וְכָךְ לַיְצִירָה אוֹ לַשְּׁטָרוֹת לְמִנְיָנָא דְּרָגִילְנָא לְמִימְנֵי בָּהּ הָכָא בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵיךְ אֲנָא פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי דְּמִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שׁוּם אָחֳרָן וַחֲנִיכָה דְּאִית לִי וְלַאֲבָהָתִי וּלְאַתְרִי וּלְאַתְרֵיהוֹן דַּאֲבָהָתִי צָבִיתִי בִּרְעוּת נַפְשִׁי בִּדְלָא אֲנִיסְנָא וּפַטְרִית וְשַׁבְקִית וּתְרוּכִית יָתִיכִי לֵיכִי אַנְתְּ פְּלוֹנִית בַּת פְּלוֹנִי דְּמִמָּתָא פְּלוֹנִית וְכָל שׁוּם אָחֳרָן וַחֲנִיכָה דְּאִית לֵיכִי וְלַאֲבָהָתִיכִי וּלְאַתְרִיכִי וּלְאַתְרֵיהוֹן דַּאֲבָהָתִיכִי דִּי הֲוִית אִנְתָּתִי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא. וּכְדוֹ פַּטְרִית וְשַׁבְקִית וּתְרוּכִית יָתִיכִי לֵיכִי דְּיִתְהַוְיָין רַשָּׁאָה וְשַׁלְטָאָה בְּנַפְשִׁיכִי לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנַסְבָּא לְכָל גְּבַר דְּיִתְצַבְיָין וְאִינַשׁ לֹא יִמְחֶה בְּיָדִיכִי (מִן שְׁמִי) מִן יוֹמָא דְּנָן וּלְעָלַם וַהֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וְדֵן דִּי יֶהֱוֵי לֵיכִי מִנָּאִי סֵפֶר תֵּרוּכִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבוּקִין כְּדַת משֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִים לְמַטָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי עֵד. פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי עֵד:

¹²This is the text of the get:On this day of the week, on this day of the month, in this year from creation - or according to the chronology employed for legal documents30This refers to the years dating back to the beginning of Alexander the Great's kingdom, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 27. - according to the reckoning that we keep here in [the name of the place where the get is being given], in the following way, I [the husband's name,] the son of [his father's name], from [the name of his city]31I.e., the city in which he dwells, not the city in which he was born (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 128:2). The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating "At present, when we are constantly being exiled and must wander, our place of residence is not defined." Instead, if the man is present at the composition of the get, it is written "who is located at present in this and this place." or by whatever names or nicknames32The Ashkenazi custom is not to employ this phrase and instead to specify all the names by which a person is called (Ramah, Even HaEzer 129:1). by which I, my father, my place or his place are called, desire out of independent will without anyone forcing me, to dismiss, to release, to divorce you, [the woman's name,] the daughter of [her father's name], from [the name of her city] or by whatever names or nicknames you, your father, your place or his place is known.33The concepts mentioned in the notes above with regard to the husband's place and names also apply with regard to his wife's.[Although] previously, you were my wife, now I am dismissing, releasing and divorcing you, so that you have the license and the authority to go and marry any man whom you desire. No one will protest [your actions] from the present day onward. You are free [to marry] any man. This will serve you as a bill of divorce, a get dismissing you, and a letter releasing you, from me, according to the faith of Moses and Israel.The witnesses sign below, as we explained:34Chapter 1, Hilchot 15, 18, et al. In many manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, the phrases that follow are omitted, leading some to consider them to be the additions of a printer. [The witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness, [the witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness.

י״גכְּשֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַגֵּט בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה וּבְנֹסַח זֶה לֹא יִכְתֹּב וְדֵין בְּיוּ״‎ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא וְדִין כְּלוֹמַר מִשְׁפָּט יִהְיֶה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ. וְלֹא יִכְתֹּב וְאִגֶּרֶת בְּיוּ״‎ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא וְאִי גָרַת כְּלוֹמַר אִם זָנִית. לֹא יִכְתֹּב לִימְהָךְ בְּיוּ״‎ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא לִי מֵהַךְ [וְכֵן יַרְחִיק רֶגֶל הַהֵ״‎א מִגַּגָּהּ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא לִמְחַךְ] כְּלוֹמַר לִשְׂחוֹק. וְלֹא יִכְתֹּב תֶּהֱוְיָן וְתִצְבְּיָן בִּשְׁתֵּי יוּדִי״‎ן שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא תֶּהֱוְיָין וְתִצְבְּיָין כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ לָזוֹ אֶלָּא לִשְׁתַּיִם אֲחֵרוֹת. וְכֵן יַאֲרִיךְ לְוָי״‎ו דְּוּכְדוֹ שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה לְיוּ״‎ד וְיִהְיֶה מַשְׁמָעוֹ וּכְדִי כְּלוֹמַר בִּתְנַאי זֶה אֶפְטֹר אוֹתָךְ. וְכֵן יַאֲרִיךְ לְוָי״‎ו דְּתֵרוּכִין וְשִׁבוּקִין שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה לְיוּ״‎ד וְיִהְיֶה מַשְׁמָע תְּרִיכִין וּשְׁבִיקִין כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ שֶׁהִיא שָׁבְקָה וְגֵרְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהִזָּהֵר בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע שְׁתֵּי עִנְיָנוֹת:

¹³When a get is written using the above text and wording, [the following rules should be adhered to:] The word ודן should not be written with a yud, so that it might be read as ודין, which might be interpreted as meaning: "There will be a judgment between me and you."The word ואגרת should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as ואי גרת, meaning "If you commit adultery."The word למהך should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as לי מהך - i.e., that it is a joke for me.35Some texts of the Mishneh Torah also include the statement that space should be left between the leg of the heh and its roof. According to that text, לי מהך "for me, from now on."The words תהוייין and תצבייין should not be written with only two yuddin, lest a reader get the impression that the man is speaking with two women, and rather than divorce the one, he is divorcing two others.Similarly, he should elongate the [latter] vav in the word וכדו lest it resemble a yud, which would cause the word to be read as uch'dei, in which instance, it would mean that "I am divorcing you on this condition." By the same token, he should elongate the vav in the words תרוכין and שבוקין, lest they resemble yuddin, in which instance it would mean that he is telling her that she is releasing and divorcing him.In a similar fashion, care must be taken in every language and with every form of lettering to make certain that [the wording of the get] does not leave the possibility for two implications.

י״דהֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב בְּנֹסַח זֶה וְלֹא הֶאֱרִיךְ וָוִי״‎ן אֵלּוּ אוֹ לֹא כָּתַב הַיּוּדִי״‎ן הַיְתֵרוֹת אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַיּוּדִי״‎ן שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּתְבוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן פָּסוּל:

¹⁴If [a scribe] wrote [a get] using this text and did not elongate the vavin mentioned, did not write the extra yuddin, or wrote the yuddin that we said should not be written, the get is unacceptable.36The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the get is unacceptable only when the husband protests and maintains that he intentionally had the scribe make such a mistake. If he does not issue such a protest, the get is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh also mentions that there is a difference if the woman subsequently married on the basis of the get or not, and the Tur states that the get may be disqualified on this basis only if the husband writes it himself, or the scribe writes it in response to his explicit instructions.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:22) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also mentions that of the Ra'avad and the Tur. An exception, however, is made with regard to writing the three yuddin in the words תצבייין and תהוייין. If only two yuddin are written, the get is acceptable. (See also the Beit Shmuel 126:32.) Similarly, [if a get is written] in another language, and imprecise wording or writing is used, it is unacceptable.

ט״וגֵּט שֶׁמָּחַק בּוֹ אוֹת אוֹ תֵּבָה אוֹ שֶׁתָּלָה בֵּין הַשִּׁיטִין. אִם מִטֹּפֶס הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם מִן הַתֹּרֶף אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם חָזַר וּפֵרֵשׁ בְּסוֹף הַגֵּט שֶׁאוֹת פְּלוֹנִית תְּלוּיָה אוֹ עַל מַחַק אֲפִלּוּ מִתֹּרֶף הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת. וְכֵן גֵּט שֶׁנִּמְצָא קָרוּעַ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב שֶׁהוּא קֶרַע שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִקְרַע וְאֵינוֹ קֶרַע שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין כָּשֵׁר:

¹⁵[The following rules apply if] a letter or a word of a get was rubbed out or written between the lines. If it is from the standard portion of the get, it is acceptable. If it is from the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance, the get is void. If, however, at the conclusion of the get, it is stated that the particular letter has been written between the lines or has been rubbed out, the get is acceptable, as other legal documents would be,37See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 27:8. even if [the difficulty] concerns the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance.38The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:19) states that at present it is customary to discard a get with a portion that has been rubbed out, instead of adding this line at the conclusion of the get. If, however, there is no alternative, a get is acceptable with an erasure, even if there is no explanation at the end, for we rely on the witnesses who observe the transfer (Beit Shmuel 125:35).Similarly, if a get was discovered to be torn [both] horizontally and vertically, as is customary for a court [to tear a legal document], the get is void, as would be other legal documents.39The Ra'avad states that if the get had been certified by the court, it is acceptable even if it is torn in the above manner. The rationale is that we assume that the get was torn so that the woman would not be able to use it to demand payment of her ketubah a second time. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:20), and the Ra'avad's clarification is mentioned by the Chelkat Mechokek 125:41. If, however, it is torn in a way other than the manner customary for a court [to tear a legal document], it is acceptable.

ט״זנִמֹּק אוֹ שֶׁהִרְקִיב אוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כִּכְבָרָה כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִטַּשְׁטֵשׁ וּבָבוּאָה שֶׁלּוֹ קַיֶּמֶת אִם יָכוֹל לִקְרוֹת כָּשֵׁר וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

¹⁶If [the get] has faded, rotted or become [filled with holes like] a sieve, it is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] it has been rubbed out or the letters have become blurred, but their form remains. If it can be read, it is acceptable;40As reflected by the following halachah, this refers to an instance in which the get was given when it was acceptable, and its condition deteriorated afterwards. if not, it is void.

י״זבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ בְּעֵדֵי חֲתִימָה וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁנִּמְסַר לָהּ הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְהָיָה כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה תֹּרֶף הַגֵּט עַל הַמַּחַק אוֹ בֵּין הַשִּׁיטִין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קָרוּעַ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם:

¹⁷When does the above41I.e., the disqualifications mentioned in the previous two halachot. apply? When the woman is in possession of a get that has been signed by witnesses, and there are no witnesses to its transfer. If, however, there are witnesses who testify that the get was transferred in their presence, and at that time it was acceptable, the divorce is binding.42This represents a difference between gittin and other legal documents, as reflected in Halachah 3 and notes (Maggid Mishneh).[This applies] even if the fundamental portions of the get were written on erased parchment or between the lines, or [the get] was torn [both] horizontally and vertically when it was given to [the woman] in their presence.43The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that if the get is faded to the point that it cannot be read at the time it is transferred, the fact that the transfer is observed by witnesses is to no avail, and the divorce is void.He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba, who states that a get that is torn vertically and horizontally before it is given to the woman is not acceptable. He does not, however, accept that decision. His rulings are paralleled by those of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:21), which mentions both the Rambam's and the Rashba's views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam.

י״חחֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ גֵּט אֶחָד לַחֲמֵשׁ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. אִם כְּתָבוּהוּ בַּכְּלָל כְּגוֹן שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְכֵן אָמַר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ לֵיכִי דִּי תֶּהֱוְיָן וְכָל טֹפֶס הַגֵּט וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין מִלְּמַטָּה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כְּלָל כָּל מִי שֶׁתֵּצֵא מְגִלָּה זוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט וְהִתְחִיל תַּחְתָּיו גֵּט אַחֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ מְגִלָּה וְכָתַב וּבְיוֹם זֶה אוֹ בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט הַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַגִּטִּין וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה. אִם נִתְּנָה מְגִלָּה זוֹ לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מְגֹרָשׁוֹת. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה וְהָיְתָה מְגִלָּה זוֹ יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יַד אַחַת מֵהֶן. אִם הָיְתָה זוֹ שֶׁגִּטָּהּ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּגִלָּה יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יַד אַחַת מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

¹⁸[The following rules apply when] five men write a single get to divorce their five wives. The get is acceptable if the wording they use is inclusive - i.e., they wrote "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so, and so and so divorced so and so..." - every husband making a statement to his wife. Similarly, each of them told his wife: "so that you have the license to...," including the entire standard portion of the get. Two witnesses must sign below.[This get] must be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer. If no witnesses observe its transfer at all, the woman who is in possession of the get is considered to be divorced.44The others, by contrast, are not considered to be divorced, for we have no proof that the woman's husband in fact gave her this get. (See Gittin 86b.)[Different rules apply if,] by contrast, [the scribe] wrote: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," completing the entire text of the get and then began writing a second get directly under it in the same scroll. [He continued] writing: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," and so completed the entire text of the second get and similarly completed all the gittin in this manner [on the same scroll], and the witnesses signed below [the final get].If this scroll was given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, all their divorces are effective.45I.e., no attention is paid to the witnesses who signed the get. Each of the women received a get that was written in acceptable manner, and whose transfer was observed by witnesses. This is sufficient for a divorce to be acceptable. [More stringent rules apply] if there are no witnesses who observed the transfer, and the scroll is in the possession of one of the women: If hers was the last get written on the scroll and the signatures of the witnesses are read together with [that statement], her divorce is effective.46For hers is an acceptable get, signed by witnesses. We are not concerned with the fact that the scroll contains other gittin above it. If the scroll is in the possession of one of the women whose gittin precede the last one, the status of her divorce is in doubt.

י״טכָּתַב אָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּרַשְׁנוּ נְשׁוֹתֵינוּ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְסַר לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁאֵין שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים מִתְגָּרְשׁוֹת בְּגֵט אֶחָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב לָהּ" וְלֹא לָהּ וְלַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. חָזַר וּפְרָטָן בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט וְכָתַב פְּלוֹנִי גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:

¹⁹If [the scribe] writes: "We, so and so and so and so, divorce our wives, so and so and so and so,..." and then completes the get, the get is void, even though it was given to each one of them in the presence of witnesses who observed its transfer. [The rationale:] two women cannot be divorced with the same get, as [we can infer from Deuteronomy 24:1]: "And he shall write for her," [implied is:] for her and not for her and her colleague.If after [writing the text as above], he continued and wrote individual statements for each one within the get, stating, "So and so is divorcing so and so, and so and so is divorcing so and so on this date,"47The get is acceptable only if the date that is stated in the beginning of the get is restated in the individual statement written for each woman. (See Beit Shmuel 130:13.) the divorces are acceptable.

כ׳כָּתַב שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין בִּשְׁנֵי דַּפִּין בִּמְגִלָּה אַחַת זֶה בְּצַד זֶה. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים נִקְרָאִים בְּסוֹף גֵּט זֶה וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְּסוֹף גֵּט זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל שֶׁתֵּצֵא מְגִלָּה זוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

²⁰[The following rules apply when a scribe] wrote two gittin in two columns on one scroll side by side. If there are two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] one get, and two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] the other get, the get is acceptable.48If the get is given to both women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, both are divorced (Maggid Mishneh). Whichever woman is in possession of the get is divorced.49Even when there are no witnesses who observe the transfer.

כ״אהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים בִּלְבַד בָּאִים מִתַּחַת גֵּט זֶה לְתַחַת גֵּט זֶה. אִם יָצָא מִתַּחַת יָד זוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִים עִם גִּטָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם יָצָא מִתַּחַת יָד שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִים עִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים:

²¹[In the above instance, if the gittin] were signed by only two witnesses, who signed across the width of both gittin, the divorce is valid only when the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear.50I.e., under the first column, the witness signed "Ya'akov, the son of," and in the second column he continued "Yitzchak, a witness." The second witness did the same. In this instance, the witnesses have signed under the first get. If the witnesses signed their first names under one column, and signed "the son of so and so" in the second column, both gittin would be acceptable. For "the son of Ya'akov" is an acceptable signature."This interpretation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 9:6). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:8) offers a slightly different interpretation.If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures of the witnesses do not appear, the get is not acceptable unless it is given to her in the presence of witnesses [who observe the transfer].51I.e., the fact that the names of the fathers of the witnesses are located under the woman's get does not cause it to be considered a get with false signatures. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 130:8.)

כ״בכָּתַב שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין בִּשְׁנֵי דַּפִּין זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה וְהָעֵדִים בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַגִּטִּין שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּסוֹף הָרִאשׁוֹן וּלְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. אִם הָיָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָד זוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין בְּסוֹף גִּטָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְזוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין בְּרֹאשׁ גִּטָּהּ מִלְּמַעְלָה אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הָעֵדִים שֶׁחָתְמוּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף שֶׁל גֵּט אוֹ מִצִּדּוֹ אוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם נִמְסַר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים כָּשֵׁר:

²²[The following rules apply if a scribe] writes two gittin, one above the other, and the witnesses sign between the two gittin - their signatures thus being below the first get and above the second get. If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear, her divorce is valid, and the woman above whose get the signatures appear is not divorced.52These laws apply even when there are no witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll. If there are witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll to the second woman, even the second get is acceptable.If the scroll is in the possession of the woman above whose get the witnesses sign, both the gittin are unacceptable unless there are witnesses who observed their transfer.If the witnesses signed at the top of a get, at its side or on its overside, it is not a get.53When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:4) states that the get is pasul, unacceptable. That term implies that it is the Rabbis who disqualified the use of such a get, while according to Scriptural law it is acceptable. If it was given to [the woman] in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable.54The fact that the witnesses did not sign in the proper place does not make the get invalid.

כ״גהִקִּיף רֹאשׁ הַדַּף זֶה לְרֹאשׁ דַּף זֶה וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הָעֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ שְׁנֵי הַגִּטִּין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּטֵלִין. וְאִם נִמְסְרוּ לָהֶן בְּעֵדִים שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים:

²³If two gittin [were written in an arc,] with the beginning of one get facing the beginning of the other get, and the signature of the witnesses is located between the tops of both gittin, both are void. If they are transferred in the presence of witnesses, both are acceptable.

כ״דשִׁיֵּר מִקְצָת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בַּדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה בְּסוֹף הַדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר בַּמְּגִלָּה שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְתַּךְ וְשֶׁלְּכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן הַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים בַּדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְסַר בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁמָּא שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין הָיוּ וְנֶחְתַּךְ מִקְצָת זֶה מִסּוֹף הַדַּף וּמִקְצָת הַשֵּׁנִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַדַּף:

²⁴[The following rules apply if the scribe did not complete the text of the get in one column,] left a portion unwritten and wrote it at the top of a second column. If the witnesses signed below, at the end of the second column, it is acceptable, provided it is obvious that the scroll was not cut off, and it was the scribe's intent to complete the get in the second column.If, however, this is not apparent, the status of the divorce is in doubt, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses. [The rationale is that] perhaps there were two gittin, and the portion below the get in the first column and a portion above the get in the second column were cut off.55And thus a portion of the get that the woman receives would not have been written for her sake. For this reason, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, it is not acceptable unless the witnesses testify that the get was originally written in two columns (Maggid Mishneh).

כ״ההֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב הַגֵּט וְאַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר כָּתַב שַׁאֲלוּ בִּשְׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ פְּלוֹנִי רֵעִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה וְחָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה וַהֲרֵי גֵּט זֶה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁמָּא לֹא חָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא עַל שְׁאִילַת שָׁלוֹם. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב וְשַׁאֲלוּ בִּשְׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ וְשָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רֵעִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לִוָּה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי הַגֵּט וְעַל שְׁנֵיהֶם חָתְמוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם נִמְסַר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

²⁵If, after writing the get and completing it, [the scribe] wrote: "Give regards to so and so," "Greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, and afterwards the witnesses signed beneath the greeting, the status of the divorce is doubtful,56The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:3) uses the term pasul, "unacceptable," meaning that the get was disqualified by Rabbinic decree alone. (See Beit Shmuel 130:4.) despite the fact that the woman is in possession of the get. [The rationale is] perhaps the witnesses signed only for the greeting [without paying attention to the get].If, however, the scribe wrote: "And give regards to so and so," "And greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, the get is acceptable. Since [the greeting] accompanies the get,57The word "and" (in Hebrew, the letter vav) establishes a connection between the two, and the greeting is not considered to be a separate entity. [we presume that the witnesses] signed with both these thoughts in mind.If [the get] was given to her in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable in either instance.58In the first instance, even if we were to assume that the intent of the witnesses was to sign on the greeting, that does not disqualify the get. It is acceptable when given in the presence of witnesses.

א׳זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים כד א) ״‎וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ״‎ אֵין עִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לָהּ. וְאֶחָד יָדָהּ אוֹ חֵיקָהּ אוֹ חֲצֵרָהּ אוֹ שְׁלוּחָהּ שֶׁעָשְׂתָה יָדוֹ כְּיָדָהּ הַכּל אֶחָד הוּא. וְאֶחָד חֲצֵרָהּ הַקְּנוּיָה לָהּ אוֹ חֲצֵרָהּ הַמֻּשְׂכֶּרֶת לָהּ אוֹ שְׁאוּלָה לָהּ הַכּל רְשׁוּתָהּ הוּא. וּמִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ גֵּט לִרְשׁוּתָהּ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה:

¹The Torah's expression, [Deuteronomy 24:1]: "He will... place it in her hand," need not be interpreted only [according to its strict literal meaning], that the get must be placed in her hand. Regardless of whether the get is placed in her hand, her bosom or her courtyard, or is given to her agent whom she charged that his hand would be as her hand, the same law applies.1See Numbers 21:26, which uses the word miyado - literally, "from his hand" - as meaning "from his possession." A similar usage is frequent within the Torah and within Talmudic sources.It must, however, be emphasized that the accepted practice is to place the get in the woman's hand and not to remain content with depositing it in her courtyard. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 139:14.)The same laws apply to a courtyard that she acquired, one that she rented or one that is lent to her. They are all considered to be her property, and once the get reaches her property, the divorce is effective.

ב׳הַזּוֹרֵק גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְתוֹךְ חֲצֵרָהּ. אִם הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת שָׁם בְּצַד חֲצֵרָהּ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וְאִם לָאו לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה עַד שֶׁתַּעֲמֹד בְּצַד חֲצֵרָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא חָצֵר שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּר הַגֵּט בְּתוֹכָהּ. שֶׁחוֹב הִיא לָהּ הַגֵּרוּשִׁין וְאֵין חָבִין לָאָדָם אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו:

²[The following laws apply when a man] throws a get for his wife into her courtyard. If she is standing next to her courtyard, the divorce is effective.2With regard to a courtyard, a point of clarification is necessary. In general, the benefit from a woman's property belongs to her husband, and whatever is acquired by her property belongs to him. In this instance, however, we say that the acquisition of the bill of the divorce and the right to acquire the articles placed in her property become hers simultaneously. If she is not standing next to her courtyard, the divorce is not effective until she stands next to her courtyard.3The Rambam's wording implies, however, that when the woman returns to her courtyard, the divorce is effective. Rav Meir HaLevi, as quoted by the Tur (Even HaEzer 139) differs and maintains that the woman must be present at the time the get is placed in her courtyard. If she is not present at that time, Rav Meir HaLevi maintains that the divorce is not effective unless the husband waits and tells the woman: "This is your get," when she picks it up, or the husband must pick it up and give it to her again.The Rashba submits a third opinion. He maintains that the status of the divorce is doubtful, for perhaps the woman desired the divorce. (See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:2-3 and commentaries.)[These principles apply] even when the get will be guarded in the courtyard in which [it is placed]. [The rationale is that] divorce is considered to be a liability [and not an advantage] for [a woman]. And a liability may not be invoked against [a person] outside his [or her] presence.4When considering something which is to a person's advantage - e.g., the acquisition of an ownerless object - a person may perform this act on behalf of a colleague without his knowledge, for our Sages postulated: "one may act to a person's advantage outside his presence." The rationale is that the person would probably desire to acquire the object. When, however, a liability is considered, this principle does not apply. Nevertheless, if a woman explicitly states that a get should be placed in her courtyard, the divorce is effective even when she is not standing next to it (Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer 139).

ג׳הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַגַּג שֶׁלָּהּ וְהוּא מִלְּמַטָּה בַּחֲצֵרוֹ וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ לְמַעְלָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַאֲוִיר מְחִצּוֹת הַמַּעֲקֶה אוֹ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים סָמוּךְ לַגַּג נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ. אֲבָל אִם נִמְחַק אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחַק לְאַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַאֲוִיר מְחִצּוֹת אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים סָמוּךְ לַגַּג כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּשְׁבָה הָרוּחַ וְהֶעֱלַתְהוּ וְנִמְחַק אוֹ נִשְׂרַף הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לָנוּחַ אֵינוֹ גֵּט וְלֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה:

³[These rules apply when a get is given in the following situation. A woman] is standing on her roof, and [her husband] is standing in his courtyard that is located below it. He throws a get upwards to her.Once the get reaches the space of the guardrail [to her roof] or comes within three handbreadths5In many different halachic contexts, three handbreadths of empty space is considered to be a continuation of the nearest significant halachic entity. This principle is referred to by the name l'vud. of the roof [when her roof does not have a guardrail], the divorce is effective.6Since it will ultimately come to rest within her property, it is considered as though it has already come to rest.Accordingly, from this time onward, even if the husband changes his mind and desires to nullify the divorce before the get reaches the ground, he no longer has that option. The divorce is effective and the marriage bond has been broken. If a second man consecrates her at this time, she is considered to be his wife (Maggid Mishneh). [This applies provided the get ultimately] comes to rest on her roof.7Most other authorities differ with the Rambam on this point and maintain that as soon as the get enters the woman's possession, the divorce is effective, even though afterwards it is consumed by fire or its writing is wiped away by water, provided the fire or the water was not there before the husband threw the get. [Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 8:3), the Rambam does not mention the provision that ultimately the get must come to rest.] Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:4-5) mentions the Rambam's view, it is the approach of the other authorities that is favored.If, however, [the writing of the get] is erased or [the get] is consumed by fire before it reaches her, the divorce is not effective. [This applies] even if the get is erased or consumed by fire after it passes the barriers of the woman's property or after it reaches within three handbreadths of her roof. [The rationale is that] since the get will never come to rest [in a complete state], it is void.

ד׳הָיָה הַגַּג שֶׁלּוֹ וְהוּא מִלְּמַעְלָה בּוֹ וְהִיא מִלְּמַטָּה בֶּחָצֵר שֶׁלָּהּ וְזָרַק לָהּ גִּטָּהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא הַגֵּט מִמְּחִצּוֹת הַגַּג וְהִגִּיעַ לִמְחִצּוֹת מְקוֹמָהּ שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בּוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה:

⁴[Different rules apply when] the roof belongs to the husband and he stands on it, while his wife stands below in a courtyard that belongs to her, and he throws her a get. Once the get passes the boundaries of his property and enters the boundaries of her property, where she is standing, the divorce is binding.8I.e., immediately, even if the get does not reach the woman's property. The rationale is that as long as the conditions mentioned in the following halachah are met, it may be assumed that the laws of gravity will prevail, and the get will come to rest in the woman's property. Therefore, even if it is destroyed by a fluke occurrence beforehand, the divorce is effective (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:6).

ה׳זְרָקוֹ לִרְשׁוּתָהּ לְתוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ וְנִשְׂרַף אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם [וְנִמְחַק אוֹ] נֶאֱבַד אֵינוֹ גֵּט. אֲבָל אִם הִגִּיעַ לִרְשׁוּתָהּ [וְנָח] וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא הָאֵשׁ וּשְׂרָפַתְהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט:

⁵If, however, he throws a get into a fire located on the woman's property and it is consumed by the flames, or into water and it is erased or lost, the get is void.9Since he initially threw the get into the fire, it is considered as though it will never come to rest and will never enter the woman's possession in a complete state. If, however, it enters her property (and comes to rest),10The phrase set off by parentheses is found in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah, but is lacking in many authentic manuscripts and early printings. Eliminating the phrase would imply that there is a difference between the situation described in Halachah 4 and that described in Halachah 3.This indeed is the Maggid Mishneh's contention. As he explains, in Halachah 3 the husband is throwing the get against the natural gravitational pattern that prevails within the world, while in Halachah 4 the get is being thrown in a manner that conforms with the pattern of gravity. Therefore, as long as the get was not thrown into fire or water, the divorce is binding as soon as the get enters the woman's domain. and afterwards fire comes and consumes it, the divorce is effective.

ו׳זְרָקוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי קָנֶה אוֹ רֹמַח הַנְּעוּצִים בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ בְּמָקוֹם הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּר בּוֹ. שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁלָּהּ וְהַחִיצוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְכָתְלֵי הַחִיצוֹנָה גְּבוֹהוֹת עַל הַפְּנִימִית כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּרַק הַגֵּט לְתוֹךְ אֲוִיר הַחִיצוֹנָה נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. שֶׁהַפְּנִימִית בְּכָתְלֵי הַחִיצוֹנָה מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּקֻפּוֹת:

⁶When the husband tosses the get on top of a reed or a spear implanted in her domain,11The commentaries on Gittin 79a explain that this refers to an instance where the top of the reed or the spear is higher than the walls of the courtyard. the divorce is not effective until [the get] comes to rest in a place that is protected by her.12For the wind may blow it outside the courtyard.[The following rule applies when] there are two courtyards, the inner courtyard belongs to the woman, the outer courtyard belongs to the man, and the walls of the outer courtyard are taller than those of the inner courtyard. If [the husband] throws the get into the space [of the inner courtyard, above its walls, but lower than the walls] of the outer courtyard, the divorce is effective.13Since the get will be protected by the walls of the outer courtyard even within the inner courtyard, if it is thrown toward the inner courtyard the divorce is effective after it enters the space of the outer courtyard (Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 139:9). [The rationale is] the inner [courtyard] is protected by the walls of the outer [courtyard]. This concept does not apply with regard to containers.

ז׳כֵּיצַד. שְׁתֵּי קֻפּוֹת זוֹ לְפָנִים מִזּוֹ הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁלָּהּ וְהַחִיצוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ וְזָרַק לָהּ גִּטָּהּ בְּתוֹכָן אֲפִלּוּ הִגִּיעַ לַאֲוִיר הַפְּנִימִית אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ עַל צַד הַקֻּפָּה הַפְּנִימִית. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיְתָה מֻטָּה עַל צִדָּהּ וְאֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם אֲפִלּוּ נָח בְּקַרְקָעִיתָהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁכְּלִי הָאִשָּׁה בִּרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה לָהּ הַגֵּט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן אֵינוֹ מַקְפִּיד עַל מְקוֹמוֹ:

⁷What is implied?14There are two differences between courtyards and containers located in the husband's domain: a) With regard to the courtyard, it is sufficient for the get to enter the space of the husband's courtyard. With regard to a container, by contrast, this is not sufficient.b) Even when a get comes to rest within a container, the divorce is not effective, except in the specific instance mentioned by the Rambam.The rationale for both these differences is that the walls of a courtyard are made primarily for protecting the articles contained within, and in the above instance the walls of the outer courtyard also protect the articles within the inner courtyard. In contrast, the function of the wall of a container is to hold the object it contains (Rashi, Gittin 79b). There are two containers, located one inside the other [and both are located in the husband's domain].15The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. There are other commentaries that maintain that the containers are located in the woman's domain or in a neutral domain. (See Beit Shmuel 139:13 and the gloss of Rabbi Akiva Eiger on those comments.) The inner container belongs to her and the outer container belongs to him. If [the husband] throws the get to [his wife] toward the containers, the divorce is not effective16The fundamental principle involved here is that a person cannot acquire an object by virtue of its being placed in a container belonging to him, if that container is located in a domain belonging to the giver, unless the giver is not concerned with the presence of the recipient's container. (See Hilchot Mechirah 4:1.)It must be emphasized that this concept is not accepted by Rabbenu Asher and the Tur. (See Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 200:3 and commentaries.) - even when the get reaches the space of the inner container - until it comes to rest on the side of the inner container.[Moreover,] the above applies only when [the woman's container] is lying on its side and does not have a bottom.17When a container is lying on its side and it does not have a bottom, it will not serve a functional purpose. Therefore, the husband will not be concerned that it is placed in his property. As such, if the get comes to rest on it, the divorce is effective. If it has a bottom, even if [the get] comes to rest on that bottom, the divorce is not effective.18In this instance, the woman's container will serve a functional purpose. Therefore, it is likely that the husband will object to its presence on his property.It must be emphasized that Tosafot, the Ra'avad, Rabbenu Nissim and others interpret the passage in Gittin, loc. cit., differently from the Rambam. It is, however, the Rambam's view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:9). For when a container belonging to a woman is located in the domain of the husband, the woman may not acquire a get by means of it unless the husband is not concerned about the place it occupies.

ח׳זָרַק לָהּ גִּטָּהּ וְהִיא בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לִכְלִי מִן הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מַקְפִּיד עַל מְקוֹמוֹ כְּגוֹן צְלוֹחִית אוֹ קְפִיפָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן אִם הִגִּיעַ לַמִּטָּה שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלֶיהָ וְהָיְתָה גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהֲרֵי חָלְקָה רְשׁוּת לְעַצְמָהּ וְאֵין הַבַּעַל מַקְפִּיד עַל מְקוֹם כִּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה:

⁸When [a husband] throws a get to his wife while she is located in his house or in his courtyard, the divorce is not effective until the get reaches the woman's hand or a container that belongs to her, to whose presence within his domain the husband does not object - e.g., a small bottle or basket or the like.19Rashi (Gittin 77a) explains that a man must assume that a woman will bring such articles with her when she enters a domain. Therefore, the husband's acceptance of the woman's presence also implies a willingness to allow her to bring in such articles.Similarly, if the get reaches a couch belonging to her20If, however, the couch belongs to the husband, the divorce is not effective unless the get is given to the woman, even when the woman is sitting on the couch. on which she is sitting that is ten handbreadths high, the divorce is effective. For [the couch] is considered to be a separate domain,21Since the couch is ten handbreadths (80 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, 96 centimeters according to Chazon Ish) high, it is considered to be a separate entity. (See a parallel concept in Hilchot Kri'at Shema 3:9.) and the husband does not object to the place taken by its legs.22Note the Maggid Mishneh, which explains that in other situations - e.g., a couch belonging to a purchaser that is in the domain of a seller - this concept would not necessarily apply, and the transfer would not be considered effective. (Note Beit Shmuel 139:15.)

ט׳הִשְׁאִיל לָהּ הַבַּעַל מָקוֹם בַּחֲצֵרוֹ וְלֹא יִחֲדוֹ [לָהּ] וְזָרַק לָהּ גֵּט וְהִגִּיעַ לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בָּהֶן הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. נִתְגַּלְגֵּל וְנָפַל עַל גַּבֵּי קוֹרָה אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי סֶלַע רָחוֹק מִמֶּנָּה. אִם הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנָּפַל עָלָיו אֵין בּוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְאֵינוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְאֵין לוֹ שָׁם לְוַוי הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא חָלַק רְשׁוּת לְעַצְמוֹ וּכְאִלּוּ הוּא וְהִיא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ חָלַק רְשׁוּת לְעַצְמוֹ וּמָקוֹם אֶחָד הִשְׁאִיל לָהּ שְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת לֹא הִשְׁאִיל לָהּ וְאֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ:

⁹[The following rules apply when] the husband lends his wife a place in his courtyard [for the purpose of receiving her get], without defining its borders.23If he specified a place, the get would have to be deposited in that place. If he throws her the get and it reaches within four cubits of where she is standing, the divorce is effective.24For we assume that the place where the woman is standing is the place that she was granted.When [in the above instance, the get] rolled away [from the place where the woman is standing,] and fell on a beam or on a rock further removed from her,25Our translation is based on the interpretation of the Rambam's ruling offered by Rabbenu Nissim. The Maggid Mishneh questions the Rambam's rulings, interpreting his approach as implying that if the place where the get comes to rest is within four cubits of the woman, it would appear that the divorce should be effective even if any of these factors applies. And if the place is further removed, the divorce is never effective. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:11) rules according to other authorities, who interpret this passage according to the interpretation offered by Rabbenu Nissim. The interpretation of the Rambam's words offered by the Maggid Mishneh is mentioned as a minority opinion. [the following rules apply]. If the place where [the get] fell is not four cubits by four cubits, nor is it ten [handbreadths] high, nor does it have a separate name of its own, it is not considered to be a distinct entity, and it is as if [the get] and [the woman] were in the same place. [Therefore, the divorce is effective.]If the place is characterized by any of these three factors, it is considered to be a distinct entity. [Since] the husband lent the woman one place, but not two places, the divorce is not effective until the get reaches her hand.

י׳זָרַק לָהּ גִּטָּהּ לִרְשׁוּתָהּ וְעָבַר בְּתוֹךְ רְשׁוּתָהּ שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בָּהּ וְנָפַל חוּץ לִרְשׁוּתָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָבַר בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סָמוּךְ לָאָרֶץ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיָּנוּחַ בִּרְשׁוּתָהּ:

¹⁰If [the husband] throws the get to her [while she is in her domain], and [the get] passes through the domain and falls outside her domain [the divorce is not effective]. Even if the get passes within three [handbreadths] of the ground,26Based on the principle of l'vud, three handbreadths is an extension of any given entity. Nevertheless, since, as happened, the get did not come to rest within the woman's domain, the fact that it passed through it close to the ground is not significant. This same principle is cited in several other contexts - e.g., Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 4:9. See also Hilchot Shabbat 13:16. the divorce is not effective27The Tur (Even HaEzer 139) maintains that, as appears from Bava Metzia 12a, the matter is the subject of an unresolved Talmudic debate. Hence, the status of the divorce is a matter of doubt, and although the woman may not consider herself to be divorced, she may not continue living with her first husband, and if she was consecrated by another person, he is required to divorce her before she may marry anyone else. until [the get] comes to rest in her domain.

י״אהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל גַּגָּהּ (זוֹ) וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ וְנָפַל בְּגַג אַחֵר סָמוּךְ לוֹ. אִם יְכוֹלָה לִפְשֹׁט יָדָהּ וְלִטְּלוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדִּיּוּרִין חֲלוּקִין לְמַעְלָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן חֲלוּקִין לְמַטָּה אֵין בְּנֵי אָדָם מַקְפִּידִין עַל מָקוֹם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

¹¹[The following rule applies when a woman] is standing on her roof, [her husband] throws her [a get], and [instead of reaching her,] it falls on a roof [belonging to another person].28Our translation is based on the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh. The Ra'avad and others interpret Gittin 79b, the source for this halachah, as referring to two roofs belonging to the husband, and explain that it teaches a concept similar to that reflected by Halachah 9. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:12) mentions the Rambam's view, it favors the other interpretation. If the woman can stretch out her hand and take it, the divorce is effective.[The rationale is that] although the domains are divided above as they are divided below, [and thus the get is located on a domain that does not belong to the woman, this is not significant,] for people are not concerned with [a neighbor's making use of] their property in such a manner.

י״בהָיְתָה יָדָהּ קַטַפְרֵס וְזָרַק הַגֵּט עַל יָדָהּ וְנָפַל לָאָרֶץ. אִם נָפַל לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ וְנָח הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. נָפַל לְתוֹךְ הַיָּם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְהוּא שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּיִם אוֹ סָמוּךְ לָאֵשׁ שֶׁמִּתְּחִלַּת נְפִילָתוֹ לְאִבּוּד הָיָה עוֹמֵד:

¹²[The following rules apply if a woman holds] her hand at an incline, [her husband] throws a get to her hand, and it falls to the earth. If it falls within four cubits of where she is standing and comes to rest there, the divorce is effective.29In certain circumstances, our Sages ordained although a person is standing in property that does not belong to him, the four cubits around him [or her] are considered to be his courtyard. And placing an article within that space is considered to be placing it in his domain. (See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:9.) Therefore, just as if the get in a woman's courtyard had come to rest in the woman's courtyard, the divorce would be effective, so too it is effective if it comes to rest within four cubits of her.If the get does not come to rest within four cubits of the woman, one might say that the outcome is dependent on the difference of opinion between the Rambam and the Tur mentioned in the notes on Halachah 10. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:15) follows the opinion of the Tur and rules that the status of the divorce is doubtful.When, [however, the get] falls into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is not effective, if she is standing next to the water or the fire [when the get is thrown to her]. [The rationale is] that, at the outset, it would be destroyed as it fell.

י״גזְרָקוֹ לָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁנֵיהֶם קָרוֹב לוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הָיָה הַגֵּט מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה וּמִמֶּחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הָיָה קָרוֹב לָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתָּשׁוּחַ וְתִטְּלֶנּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה:

¹³[The following rules apply when a husband] throws a get to [his wife] in the public domain or in a domain that does not belong to either of them. If [the get] is "close to him," the divorce is not effective. If [the get] is partially "close to him," and partially "close to her," the status of the divorce is in doubt unless it is definitely close to her. If [the get] is close enough to her that she can bend down and pick it up, the divorce is unacceptable [according to Rabbinic decree].30In this instance, if the woman erred and remarried she is not forced to divorce her second husband. If, however, she remarried when the status of the divorce is in doubt, she may not remain married to her second husband. [Only when] the get reaches her hand may she remarry on this basis a priori.

י״דכֵּיצַד הוּא קָרוֹב לוֹ. הָיָה הוּא יָכוֹל לְשָׁמְרוֹ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְשָׁמְרוֹ זֶה הוּא קָרוֹב לוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם יְכוֹלִים לְשָׁמְרוֹ אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אֵין יְכוֹלִין לְשָׁמְרוֹ זֶה הוּא מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה:

¹⁴What is meant by "close to him"? That he could protect the get while she could not. If both are able to protect [the get], or both are unable to protect it, it is considered to be partially "close to him," and partially "close to her."31The Rambam does not mention an instance where the woman can protect the get but the husband cannot, and yet it is not close enough to her for her to bend down and pick it up. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam would maintain that in such an instance the status of the divorce is doubtful.Although with regard to kiddushin, in such an instance the Rambam rules that a marriage bond is established (Hilchot Ishut 4:22), the laws are more stringent with regard to divorce. The Beit Shmuel 139:22 states that most other authorities would differ and would agree that according to Scriptural law, the divorce is effective in such an instance; it is disqualified only by virtue of Rabbinic decree.

ט״ובָּא הוּא תְּחִלָּה וְעָמַד וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָמְדָה הִיא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ. אִם הָיָה הַגֵּט בְּתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִם תָּשׁוּחַ תִּטְּלֶנּוּ. עָמְדָה הִיא תְּחִלָּה וּבָא הוּא וְעָמַד כְּנֶגְדָּהּ וּזְרָקוֹ לָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה הוֹאִיל וְהוּא לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ:

¹⁵[If a husband] comes to a place first and stands there, and then [his wife] comes and stands opposite him, the divorce is not effective if he throws her [a get] and [it falls] within his four cubits,32Whenever an area becomes considered to be the "four cubits" belonging to one individual, another person may not acquire an article in that area until the first person departs (Gittin 78a). even if she can bend down and pick it up.If she comes to the place first and stands, and then he comes and stands opposite her and throws it to her, even when [the get] is partially "close to him" and partially "close to her," the get is [merely] deemed unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree] because it is within her four cubits.33I.e., according to Scriptural law the divorce is effective, because the four cubits in which the woman is standing become her exclusive property. [Only when] the get reaches her hand [is the divorce effective a priori].

ט״זזָרַק הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ וְהָיָה קָשׁוּר בִּמְשִׁיחָה וּקְצָת הַמְּשִׁיחָה בְּיָדוֹ. אִם יָכוֹל לְנַתְּקוֹ וְלַהֲבִיאוֹ אֶצְלוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁתִּפְסֹק הַמְּשִׁיחָה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְנַתְּקוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

¹⁶[The following rules apply when a husband] throws a get that is tied with a string into [his wife's] hand and he remains holding the other end of the string. If he can pull [the get from her hand] and bring it back to him,34The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 138:2) interprets the intent as being that the knot tying the string to the get must be attached in a manner strong enough to allow the get to be pulled back to the husband. If it is tied loosely, the divorce is effective. If, however, it is the woman who prevents the husband from drawing back the get by clasping it within her hand, the divorce is not effective. The Shulchan Aruch does, however, mention another view, which rules the divorce acceptable in such an instance. the divorce is not effective35Gittin 78b also derives this concept from the description of a divorce in Deuteronomy 24:3: "And he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand...." As long as the husband can retake possession of the bill of divorce, he has not severed his connection with the woman. until he snaps the string.36If, however, the husband does snap the string, the Rambam rules the divorce to be effective. Other commentaries differ, explaining that since the giving of the get was not carried out in the proper manner, the get must be given again for the divorce to be acceptable. If he cannot pull [the get from her], the divorce is effective.

י״זנָתַן הַגֵּט בְּיַד עַבְדָּהּ וְהוּא נֵעוֹר וְהִיא מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ. אִם הָיָה כָּפוּת הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט וּכְאִלּוּ הִגִּיעַ לַחֲצֵרָהּ שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בְּצִדָּהּ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ כָּפוּת אֵינוֹ גֵּט. נְתָנוֹ בְּיַד הָעֶבֶד וְהוּא יָשֵׁן וְהִיא מְשַׁמַּרְתּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. וְאִם הָיָה כָּפוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

¹⁷[The following rules apply when a husband] gives [a woman's] get to a servant belonging to her. If he is awake, he is bound and she is guarding him, the divorce is effective. It is considered to be as if [the get] were placed in a courtyard belonging to her and she is standing at its side. If [the servant] is not bound, the divorce is not effective.37Since the servant has an independent will, he is considered to be a courtyard that is not guarded by the woman herself. Also, the conception of a domain as equivalent to a person's hand applies only when that domain remains still and not when, as in the case of a servant, it moves.Based on a difference in the version of Gittin 78a, the source for this halachah, the Tur (Even HaEzer 139) and others differ with the Rambam and maintain that it is necessary for the servant to be both bound and asleep for the divorce to be effective. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 139:16) quotes both opinions, the Rambam's view appears to be favored.If [the husband] places [the get] in the servant's hand while he is sleeping, and [the woman] is guarding him, the get is unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree].38I.e., since the servant was not bound, the Sages disqualified the divorce, lest one give a get to a servant while awake and unbound. If [the servant] is bound, the divorce is acceptable.

י״חכָּתַב הַגֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ בְּיַד עַבְדּוֹ וְכָתַב לָהּ שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה עָלָיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכְתָה בָּעֶבֶד זָכְתָה בַּגֵּט וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה אִם הָיָה כָּפוּת. וְאִם אֵינוֹ כָּפוּת וְנֵעוֹר קָנְתָה הָעֶבֶד וְאֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וְכֵן אִם נָתַן הַגֵּט בַּחֲצֵרוֹ וּמוֹכֵר לָהּ הֶחָצֵר אוֹ נְתָנוֹ לָהּ כֵּיוָן שֶׁקָּנְתָה הֶחָצֵר בִּשְׁטָר אוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בַּחֲזָקָה נִתְגָּרְשָׁה:

¹⁸[The following rules apply if a husband] writes a get, places it in the hand of a servant belonging to him and writes a deed for the woman, giving her the servant as a present. If the servant is bound, the divorce is effective, for when she acquires the servant she also acquires the get. If the servant is unbound and awake, [the woman] acquires the servant; the divorce, however, is not effective until the get reaches her hand.39The Rambam's wording implies that once the servant gives her the get, however, the divorce is effective. It is not necessary for the husband to take the get from the servant and give it to her. As mentioned by the Beit Shmuel 139:29, this point is not accepted by all authorities.Similarly, if [a man] placed a get in a courtyard belonging to him and sold or gave the courtyard to [his wife], the divorce is effective once she acquires the courtyard by virtue of the transfer of a deed or money, or by manifesting her ownership over it.

א׳הַשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁעוֹשָׂה הָאִשָּׁה לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ הוּא הַנִּקְרָא שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה. וּמִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיַד שְׁלוּחָהּ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ כְּאִלּוּ הִגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ. וּצְרִיכָה לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וּצְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיַד שְׁלוּחָהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ עֵדוּת גְּמוּרָה:

¹An agent who is appointed by a woman to receive her get from her husband is called a receiving agent (sh'liach kabbalah). When the get reaches this agent's hand, the divorce is completed,1And from that time onward, the husband cannot recant. as if it has reached the hands of the woman herself.[The agent] must be appointed in the presence of two witnesses, and two witnesses must be present when the get is conveyed to the agent. Even if the second pair of witnesses is the same as the first pair, or one of them is from the first pair, they are acceptable as witnesses.

ב׳בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָבַד הַגֵּט אוֹ נִקְרַע. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ עֵדִים. בֵּין שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לוֹ הַבַּעַל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְסַר לוֹ בְּעֵדִים. יְצִיאָתוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ כִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הָאִשָּׁה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן לֹא יִתֵּן לוֹ הַגֵּט לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה כְּמוֹ הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ:

²When does the above2That is, when does the requirement for witnesses apply? apply? When the get is lost or torn. If, however, the get is in the possession of the sh'liach kabbalah, there is no need for witnesses. This applies whether the get was given by the husband in private, or it was given in the presence of witnesses. The presence of the get in the possession of the agent is equivalent to its presence in the possession of the woman.3See Chapter 1, Halachah 16. Nevertheless, a priori, the get should be given only in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer, as is the case with regard to [a get given to] the woman herself.4See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.

ג׳הַבַּעַל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אֲבָל יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלִיךְ הַגֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא שְׁלִיחַ הוֹלָכָה:

³A husband may not appoint an agent to receive a get for his wife.5A divorce is considered to be undesirable and detrimental for a woman. Therefore, an agent cannot be appointed for her without her consent. For an activity that is detrimental to a person cannot be performed on his or her behalf without his will (Gittin 62b). He may, however, appoint an agent to deliver a get to his wife. Such an agent is referred to as a delivery agent (sh'liach holachah).

ד׳וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שׁוֹלַחַת שָׁלִיחַ לְהָבִיא לָהּ גֵּט מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ וְזֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה. וְאֵין שְׁלִיחַ הוֹלָכָה וַהֲבָאָה צָרִיךְ עֵדִים:

⁴Similarly, a woman may appoint an agent to fetch her get for her from her husband. Such an agent is referred to as an agent who fetches (sh'liach hava'ah). Neither a sh'liach holachah nor a sh'liach hava'ah need [be appointed in the presence of] witnesses.6See Hilchot Ishut 3:15, where the Rambam states: "For the only purpose witnesses would serve with regard to the agency... is to make known the truth of the matter."According to the Rambam, the distinction between these agents and a sh'liach kabbalah appointed by the woman is that through the acceptance of the get the marriage bonds are annulled, and "no matters involving forbidden sexual relations [are established if] fewer than two witnesses are present (Yevamot 88a)." Since the sh'liach kabbalah is concerned only with receiving the get, his agency involves nothing else but the actual divorce. Hence, witnesses must be present to acknowledge the appointment of this agent. In contrast, the agency of a sh'liach holachah and a sh'liach hava'ah also involves transporting the get, an activity that is merely a preparatory step for the divorce. Hence, witnesses are not required for his appointment.It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and others offer a far more straightforward rationale clarifying the distinction between these agents. A sh'liach holachah and a sh'liach hava'ah each carry the get with them. Hence, they need no further proof of their agency. A sh'liach kabbalah, by contrast, does not have possession of the get before the divorce. Hence, his position must be strengthened by having his appointment observed by witnesses.In practice, it has already become customary for the appointment of a sh'liach holachah to be certified by a written document. There are opinions that differ and require that the appointment of a sh'liach holachah also be observed by witnesses. (See Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 141:11, 30, 40.)

ה׳וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּגֵט שֶׁשָּׁלַח הַבַּעַל אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא לָהּ שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּעִנְיַן גִּטִּין שָׁלִיחַ סְתָם הוּא שְׁלִיחַ הוֹלָכָה אוֹ שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה:

⁵A woman is not divorced through the medium of a get sent by her husband or brought by a sh'liach hava'ah [whom she appointed] until the get reaches her hand.Whenever the term agent is used with regard to a get without any further explanation, the intent is a sh'liach holachah or a sh'liach hava'ah.

ו׳הַכּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִשְׁלִיחוּת הַגֵּט בֵּין לִשְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה בֵּין לִשְׁלִיחַ הוֹלָכָה וַהֲבָאָה חוּץ מִן הַחֲמִשָּׁה. הָעַכּוּ״‎ם וְהָעֶבֶד וְהַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהַקָּטָן. וְאִם קִבֵּל אוֹ הֵבִיא אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

⁶Anyone is acceptable to act as an agent with regard to a divorce, whether as a sh'liach kabbalah, a sh'liach holachah or a sh'liach hava'ah,7The Rambam's statements are intended to negate the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosef Migash, who maintains that a servant may serve as a sh'liach holachah. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:31) quotes both views, but appears to favor the Rambam's view. with the exception of five individuals: a gentile, a servant, a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual and a minor.8See Chapter 3, Halachah 15, and Hilchot Ishut 3:17. If one of these individuals brings or receives [a get], the divorce is not effective.

ז׳אֲבָל הַנָּשִׁים וְהַקְּרוֹבִים כְּשֵׁרִים. וַאֲפִלּוּ הַפְּסוּלִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים בַּעֲבֵרָה כְּשֵׁרִין לִשְׁלִיחוּת גֵּט. אֲבָל הַפְּסוּלִין בַּעֲבֵרָה מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה פְּסוּלִין לַהֲבָאַת הַגֵּט. וְאִם הֵבִיאוּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם הַגֵּט בְּחוֹתְמָיו אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִסְמֹךְ בּוֹ אֶלָּא עַל דִּבְרֵי פָּסוּל בַּעֲבֵרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

⁷Even women, relatives9The Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:33) states that a priori, it is proper that the agent not share any family ties with the husband, his wife, or the judges executing the divorce. and individuals who are disqualified [from serving as witnesses] because of the violation of Rabbinic law are acceptable to serve as agents for a divorce.10It would appear that even if the signatures of the witnesses have not been verified, and the acceptability of a get depends on the agents' statements, these individuals may serve as agents. Individuals who are disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, by contrast, are not acceptable [to serve as agents] to deliver a get. If they bring it, the divorce is unacceptable.When does the above11That the divorce is unacceptable, but not void. apply? When the signatures on the get have been verified.12As can be seen in the various manuscript copies of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 2:6), the Rambam changed his opinion regarding the acceptance of these individuals as agents when the veracity of the signature on a get has been established. The standard text of the Commentary on the Mishnah states that if the witnesses' signatures have been verified, the get is acceptable unless the person worships false gods or violates the Sabbath in public. This is also the view of other authorities and is the ruling favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:33). If, however, we must rely only on the words of an individual who is disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, the divorce is void entirely.13See also Chapter 12, Halachah 17. Based on the objections of the Ra'avad, the Kessef Mishneh modifies the Rambam's ruling slightly, explaining that the intent is that the woman may not remarry, and not that the get is void. If, however, she does remarry, her second husband is also required to divorce her.The get she received from her first husband is not void, because it is possible that witnesses will come and verify the signatures on the get. In such an event, the divorce will be effective retroactively. Nevertheless, since those signatures have not been verified as of yet, her second husband must divorce her.Rav David Arameah explains that the Rambam's intent is that the get is still viable, but it should be given to another agent to effect the divorce. Note the Maggid Mishneh and others, who question the source for the Rambam's ruling.

ח׳הָיָה הַשָּׁלִיחַ קָטָן כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַגֵּט וְגָדַל כְּשֶׁהֱבִיאוֹ. חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ. שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה. עַכּוּ״‎ם וְנִתְגַּיֵּר. עֶבֶד וְנִשְׁתַּחְרֵר. הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן לוֹ הַגֵּט וְהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ. הָיָה שָׁפוּי כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ הַגֵּט וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה כְּשֶׁהֵבִיא הַגֵּט לְיַד הָאִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת:

⁸If the agent was a minor when he was given the get, and he attained majority when he brought it [to the woman], [or he was a] deaf mute and gained the ability to hear and speak, [or he was] mentally incompetent and gained competence, [or he was] a gentile and converted, or a servant and was freed, the divorce is void.14In all these instances, since the agent was not fit to serve in that capacity at the time the agency was delegated to him, it is as if the agency had never been conveyed upon him.If, however, the husband gives [an agent] a get while [the agent] is able to hear and speak, [or the agent then] becomes a deaf mute and afterwards regains his ability to hear and speak, or [the agent] was mentally competent, he lost his competence and then regained it when he brought it to the woman, the get is acceptable, for at the outset and at the conclusion, [the agent] was of sound mind.15The fact that, in the interim, he was unfit to serve as an agent is of no significance. Note the Or Sameach, who on this basis questions what the law would be if the husband negates the agency and then desires to reestablish it. Must he reappoint the agent or not?

ט׳הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשְׂתָה שָׁלִיחַ בְּעֵדִים וְאָמְרָה לוֹ טֹל לִי גִּטִּי וִיהֵא לִי בְּיָדְךָ הֲרֵי זֶה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה וּכְאִלּוּ אָמְרָה לוֹ הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּטִּי. וְיֵשׁ לָאִשָּׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעְלָהּ. וּקְטַנָּה אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲצֵרָהּ קוֹנָה לָהּ גִּטָּהּ כִּגְדוֹלָה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה צָרִיךְ עֵדִים וְאֵין מְעִידִין עַל הַקָּטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בֶּן דֵּעָה גְּמוּרָה:

⁹When a woman appoints an agent in the presence of witnesses and tells him: "Take my get and keep it for me in your possession," the person is a sh'liach kabbalah. It is as if she told him: "Receive my get for me."A woman may appoint a sh'liach kabbalah to receive her get for her from an agent appointed by her husband.16Gittin 63b states that our Sages entertained a hypothesis that this involves a disregard for the honor of the husband, and therefore the divorce should be void, but they did not accept this theory.A girl below the age of majority may not appoint a sh'liach kabbalah. Although she may acquire property by virtue of her courtyard in the same manner as an adult woman17And thus, if a get were placed in her courtyard, the divorce would be acceptable. Moreover, the effectiveness of a courtyard in the acceptance of a get is associated with the concept of agency. (See Bava Metzia 10b and the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh on Chapter 5, Halachah 2.) [she does not have the privilege of appointing an agent]. The rationale is that [the appointment of] a sh'liach kabbalah requires witnesses, and witnesses may not testify with regard to a minor, because she is not of complete mental competence.18The Ra'avad disagrees with the Rambam and maintains that the rationale is that a minor is never empowered to appoint an agent. And thus, a woman below majority may not appoint a sh'liach hava'ah either. It must be noted that in Hilchot Sh'luchin V'Shutafin 2:2, the Rambam indeed states that in no instance may a minor appoint an agent. See the Lechem Mishneh and Rav Kapach, who emphasize that a special law applies with regard to an agent to receive a get, for he is considered to be the extension of the woman's hand. Note the Rambam's wording in Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

י׳הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשְׂתָה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה וְאָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּטָּהּ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטָּהּ הוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ לָהּ. הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד הַבַּעַל וְנַעֲשָׂה זֶה שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה וְלֹא שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּטָּהּ [אוֹ הֵא לְךָ] אוֹ זְכֵה לָהּ לֹא עָקַר שְׁלִיחוּת הַקַּבָּלָה. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לָהּ עָקַר שְׁלִיחוּת הַקַּבָּלָה וְנַעֲשָׂה שְׁלִיחַ הַבַּעַל. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לוֹ הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ עָקַר שְׁלִיחוּת הַקַּבָּלָה:

¹⁰[The following laws apply] when a woman has appointed a sh'liach kabbalah and her husband told him: "I do not want you to receive the get for her. Instead, here is her get. Bring it to her." The husband has this prerogative, and the person becomes a sh'liach holachah, rather than a sh'liach kabbalah.19Hence, the divorce does not become final when the agent receives the get. It is only when the get reaches the woman's hand that the divorce takes effect.If, however, the husband tells [the woman's agent]: "Receive the get for her," "Here it is," or "Acquire it for her," he has not revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged]. But if [the husband] tells [the agent]: "Bring it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged] and has made him the agent of the husband.20I.e., the husband's statements imply that he is unwilling to give the agent the get in his original capacity, but that he is willing to charge him with a different agency - bringing the woman the get as agent of the husband.This ruling is not accepted by all authorities. The Rashba and Rabbenu Nissim differ, maintaining that in such an instance, the status of the divorce is in doubt. The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:6), while the other views are cited by the Ramah. Similarly, if the husband said: "Bring it and give it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the sh'liach kabbalah [was charged].21Although with regard to the transfer of a present the Rambam maintains that the expression "Give it to him" is equivalent to saying "Acquire it on his behalf" (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:4), because the husband said "Bring it to her" it is clear that he desired the agent to serve in the capacity of a sh'liach holachah.

י״אשְׁלִיחַ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁבָּא לְקַבֵּל גֵּט מִן הַבַּעַל וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה אָנִי וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ הַבַּעַל הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה כְּלוֹמַר אֵינִי עוֹקֵר שְׁלִיחוּתְךָ אֶלָּא בֵּין שֶׁעָשְׂתָה אוֹתְךָ שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה אוֹ שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה הֲרֵי אַתָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה. וְהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט. וְאָמְרָה לוֹ לֹא [שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה] שַׂמְתִּיךָ אֶלָּא שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה אֲפִלּוּ הִגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁהֲרֵי עָקַר הַשָּׁלִיחַ שְׁלִיחוּת שֶׁאָמְרָה הִיא וְאָמַר לַבַּעַל מֵעוֹלָם לֹא נַעֲשֵׂיתִי שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה לָהּ:

¹¹[In the following situation, although the get reaches the woman's hand, the divorce is not effective because of the confusion in the delegation of agency.] An agent appointed by a woman came to receive her get from her husband. The agent told the husband: "I am a sh'liach kabbalah."The husband responded: "Bring the get [in the capacity] in which she appointed you"22The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:8) explains that the phrase "in the capacity in which she appointed you" is of primary significance here. If the husband does not add that phrase and says merely: "Bring the get to her," he is appointing the agent to be a sh'liach holachah, and by taking the get the agent is accepting this appointment. Therefore, if the agent delivers the get to the woman, the divorce is effective. - i.e., he did not revoke his agency. Instead, it is as if he had said: "Whether she appointed you to be a sh'liach kabbalah or a sh'liach hava'ah, you remain in that capacity."The agent brought [the woman] the get, but she told him: "I did not appoint you to be a sh'liach kabbalah, but rather to be a sh'liach hava'ah." Even if the agent gives her the get, the divorce is not effective, for in speaking to the husband, the agent revoked the agency that he was granted. It is as if he had told him: "I was never appointed a sh'liach hava'ah on her behalf."

י״באָמַר שָׁלִיחַ לַבַּעַל שְׁלִיחַ הֲבָאָה אֲנִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל הוֹלֵךְ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה. וְהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט. וְאָמְרָה לוֹ שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה שַׂמְתִּיךָ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָקַר שְׁלִיחוּת שֶׁאָמְרָה אֶלָּא גָּרַע אוֹתָהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לְקַבָּלָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לַבַּעַל לַהֲבָאָה בִּלְבַד:

¹²[A different ruling applies in the following instance.] The agent told the husband, "I am a sh'liach hava'ah," and the husband told him, "Bring [the get in the capacity] in which she appointed you."The agent brought [the woman] the get, but she told him: "I appointed you to be a sh'liach kabbalah." When the get is delivered to the woman, the divorce is effective, for he did not revoke the agency that he was granted. He merely reduced [her dependence on him]. For she appointed him [as an agent] to receive [the get], and he said: "I will merely bring it."23By serving as a sh'liach hava'ah, the agent accepts far more responsibility and difficulty than by serving as a sh'liach kabbalah. If he served as a sh'liach kabbalah, the divorce would be completed after he received the get. As a sh'liach hava'ah, the agent must trouble himself to bring the get to the woman. As such, we assume that since the woman was willing to accept the agent as a sh'liach kabbalah, she is certainly willing to accept him as a sh'liach hava'ah.Note the Lechem Mishneh and Rabbenu Nissim, who explain that it is possible that the husband relied on the words of the agent, or it is possible that he was concerned with the words of his wife. Indeed, with regard to questions of commercial law, there is an unresolved question in Bava Metzia 76a regarding this matter. Following this rationale, even if the get never reached the woman, as long as it reached the agent the status of the divorce is in doubt. This ruling is also cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 140:9).

י״גהַבַּעַל שֶׁשָּׁלַח גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. בָּא שָׁלִיחַ לִתְּנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא נְטַלְתּוֹ. אֶלָּא אָמְרָה לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים יִהְיֶה (לִי) גֵּט זֶה פִּקָּדוֹן אֶצְלְךָ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה לוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבְּלוֹ לִי. הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת בְּסָפֵק עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וּמִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ תִּתְגָּרֵשׁ וַדַּאי:

¹³[The following rules apply when] a husband sends a get to his wife, and when the agent attempts to give it to her, she refuses to take it and tells him in the presence of witnesses, "Hold the get in safekeeping,"24With this expression, the woman's intent is that the agent should begin acting as her agent and hold the get for her. For keeping the get as an entrusted article violates the instructions that her husband gave him (Rabbenu Nissim). or "You are an agent to receive it for me." Until the get is given to the woman, the status of the divorce is in doubt.25The doubt is whether an agent can begin acting in the capacity of the woman's agent before he has completed executing the agency with which he was charged by the husband (Gittin 63b). Once it reaches her possession, the divorce is definitely binding.

י״דשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט כְּשֶׁהוּא נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְאוֹתָן הַשְּׁנַיִם צְרִיכִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִנָּתֵן לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם. שֶׁדִּין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עִם הָאִשָּׁה כְּדִין הַבַּעַל עִמָּהּ שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו הוּא קָם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נְתָנוֹ הַשָּׁלִיחַ לָהּ וְלֹא קְרָאוּהוּ עֵדֵי מְסִירָה וּנְטַלְתּוֹ וּזְרַקְתּוֹ לַיָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

¹⁴When an agent brings a get, he must give it to the woman in the presence of two [witnesses].26See Chapter 1, Halachah 16. These two [witnesses] must read [the get] and then have it given in their presence.27See Chapter 1, Halachah 19. For the laws applying to the exchange between the agent and the woman are the same as those applying to her exchange with her husband, for the agent is taking his place.Accordingly, if the agent gave [the get] to her without having it read by the witnesses who observed its transfer, and the woman took it and threw it into the ocean, the status of the divorce is in doubt.28See Chapter 1, Halachah 21.

ט״ועָבַר הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְנָתַן הַגֵּט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ יִטְּלֶנּוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְּנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם מֵת הוֹאִיל וְהַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מְקֻיָּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

¹⁵When an agent transgresses and gives [a woman her] get in private, he should take it back from her and give it to her in the presence of two [witnesses].29The Rambam rules that after the fact, a get given in private is acceptable. There are, however, geonim who hold that such a get is unacceptable (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). Since the status of an agent is weaker than that of the husband himself, a second transfer of the get is required in this instance a priori (Maggid Mishneh). If he dies [and thus this is no longer possible], and the signatures of the witnesses on the get that the woman possesses have been verified, the divorce is acceptable.

ט״זשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁנָּטַל הַגֵּט וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הָאִשָּׁה חָזַר הַבַּעַל וְאָמַר לוֹ גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי עִמְּךָ בָּטֵל הוּא. אוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וְאָמַר לָאִשָּׁה גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לִיךְ בָּטֵל הוּא. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁלַח שָׁלִיחַ אַחֵר לְבַטְּלוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לַאֲחֵרִים גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי לְאִשְׁתִּי בָּטֵל הוּא. הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וְכָל הַמְבַטֵּל בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵרִים צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטְּלוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִּבּוּר וּבִטְּלוֹ הוֹאִיל וְאַחַר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה אוֹ לַחֲצֵרָהּ בִּטְּלוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל וַהֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

¹⁶Even when a get is delivered to the woman [for whom it is intended], it can be nullified [in the following instances]: The agent took the get, but the husband changed his mind before it reached the woman and told him or her: "The get that I sent you is void," he sent another agent to nullify [the get], or he told others, "The get that I sent to my wife is void."30See Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:59) rules that at the outset, a husband should not nullify a get unless either the agent he appointed or his wife is present. Otherwise, it is possible that the woman may receive the get - and marry another man - before receiving notice that her get was nullified.When [a husband] nullifies the get in the presence of other people,31I.e., people other than the agent. If he nullifies the get in the presence of the agent, no one else need be present. there must be at least two people present.32Note the Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:59), who cites an opinion that allows the husband to nullify the get by speaking to two people, one outside the presence of the other. If the get has already been delivered to the woman or to a sh'liach kabbalah, the husband can no longer nullify it.33For the divorce has already taken effect. [This applies] even if he nullifies the get within a very brief time34In this context, the words "a very brief time" are a loose translation. The Hebrew term toch k'dei dibbur has a very specific meaning: the amount of time necessary to say "Shalom alecha, rabbi umori." [after appointing the agent];35The rationale is that divorcing a wife is a very serious matter, and a man would not make such a decision unless he were resolute. Therefore, his change of mind is not considered to be a clarification of his original position (as in certain other instances - e.g., a retraction of a business commitment), but rather an entirely new decision. (Note the parallels to Hilchot Ishut 7:22, Hilchot Avodah Zarah 2:9 and Hilchot Sh'vuot 2:17.) since [the get] was nullified after being delivered to the woman, to [her] sh'liach kabbalah or to her courtyard, it is not void, and the divorce is effective.

י״זהָיָה מְחַזֵּר וּמְבַקֵּשׁ שָׁלִיחַ כְּדֵי לְבַטְּלוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיְּבַטְּלֶנּוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וּבֵין שֶׁהוּא מְחַזֵּר וְרוֹדֵף הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּטְּלוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה מְחַזֵּר לְבַטְּלוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ:

¹⁷Although [a husband] was seeking to appoint an agent to nullify [a get], or he was seeking two individuals so that he could nullify [the get] in their presence, and during the time he was searching for these individuals the get reached the woman's hand, and afterwards he nullified it, it is not void.36The fundamental principle involved is that Torah law depends on a person's acts and statements, not his feelings. Although it is obvious that the husband desired to nullify the get, since he was not able to take binding action the divorce is valid. (See also Halachah 25.) Despite the fact that he was trying to nullify it before it reached her hand [the divorce is effective].

י״חאָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל לָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים. שָׁלַח הַגֵּט בְּיַד שְׁנַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה מִשֶּׁבִּטְּלוֹ בִּפְנֵי אֶחָד מֵהֶם בָּטֵל הַגֵּט:

¹⁸If [the husband] told ten men: "Write a get and give it to my wife,"37See Chapter 9, Halachah 27. he may nullify [the get] in the presence of one of the ten, although the others are not present. And he may nullify it in the presence of two other people [who were not involved originally].If he sent the get via two [agents], he may negate one of the agents although the other is not present. Even when there are ten agents, when he negates [the agency] in the presence of one of them, the get is void.38The Ra'avad differs with Rambam and maintains that although a person may nullify the agency of one of the two (or ten), doing so does not nullify the agency of the other(s), and if they give the woman the get, the divorce is effective. Although the Rambam's opinion is also mentioned, it is that of the Ra'avad that is favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 149:61).

י״טוְכֵן מִי שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם גֵּט שֶׁאֲנִי כּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתִּי בָּטֵל הוּא וְכָתַב אַחַר כָּךְ גֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. וְזוֹ הִיא מְסִירַת הַמּוֹדָעָא עַל הַגֵּט. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לָהֶם כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לִי פְּלוֹנִי בָּטֵל. אוֹ כָּל גֵּט שֶׁאֶכְתֹּב בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל. אוֹ כָּל גֵּט שֶׁאֶכְתֹּב מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בָּטֵל. הֲרֵי גֵּט בָּטֵל. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם כָּל גֵּט שֶׁאֶכְתֹּב לִפְלוֹנִית אִשְׁתִּי בָּטֵל הוּא וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֲבַטֵּל בּוֹ מוֹדָעָא זֹאת הֲרֵי הוּא בָּטֵל וְכָתַב אַחַר כָּךְ גֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַגֵּט הֲרֵי הַגֵּט בָּטֵל:

¹⁹Similarly, when a person tells two [witnesses],39The Ramah (Even HaEzer 134:1) states that even when the husband makes statements to two witnesses individually, the objection is binding. "The get that I [am intending to] write for my wife is nullified," although he has a get written afterwards and gives it to her in the presence of two other [witnesses], the divorce is void. This is referred to as lodging an objection with regard to a get.40In Hilchot Mechirah, Chapter 6, the Rambam explains the details of lodging an objection with regard to a sale. There he explains that when a person is compelled to make a sale against his will, he can nullify the transaction by issuing an objection stating that he was compelled to make this sale. With regard to an objection to a get, other authorities (see Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, Chapter 134) also mention the concept of compulsion. The Rambam, however, omits mention of the subject entirely.As reflected in Halachah 27, our Sages considered lodging an objection to a get in a very negative light.Similarly, if [the husband] were to tell two [witnesses]: "Any get that so and so will write for me is nullified," "Any get that I will have written in the court of so and so is nullified," or "Any get that I will have written in the next twenty years is nullified," the get is nullified.Similarly, if he told two [witnesses]: "Any get that I write for so and so, my wife, is nullified. And any statements that I make to nullify this objection are nullified," the get is void, although he had it written and given to her, despite the fact that he nullified his objection before having the get written.

כ׳אִם כֵּן מַהוּ תַּקָּנַת דָּבָר זֶה. שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ הָעֵדִים קֹדֶם כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט אֱמֹר בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁכָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁמָּסַרְתָּ שֶׁגּוֹרְמִין כְּשֶׁיִּתְקַיְּמוּ אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים לְבַטֵּל גֵּט הֲרֵי הֵן בְּטֵלִים וְהוּא אוֹמֵר הֵן. וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹמֵר לָהֶם לִכְתֹּב וְלַחְתֹּם וְלִתֵּן לָהּ וְלֹא יְנִיחוּהוּ לֵילֵךְ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא וִיבַטְּלוֹ. וְאֵין הַמּוֹסֵר מוֹדָעָא וְלֹא הַמְבַטֵּל מוֹדָעָא צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן:

²⁰How can the latter situation be corrected?41The situation mentioned by the Rambam in the previous halachah is not merely a theoretical question. In many instances, a husband who was compelled to divorce his wife would seek to have the get nullified so that their marriage could continue. Similarly, apostates and men whose feelings toward their wives have soured have sought to nullify their divorces in order to cause their wives difficulties. The witnesses should tell [the husband] before the composition of the get: "Affirm in our presence that any statements that you have made that when verified would cause [this] get to be nullified, are themselves nullified."42Many of the other commentaries differ with the Rambam concerning this point. Some - e.g., the Rashba - are more stringent, for they maintain that the husband can word his objection to nullify even such a statement. They explain that to insure that the get is not nullified, the husband must also disqualify the testimony of any witness who heard his objections.Others - e.g., Rabbenu Asher - are more lenient and maintain that all that is necessary is for the husband to say that all objections to the get are nullified. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 134:3) rules according to the Rashba. The Ramah maintains that Rabbenu Asher's ruling is halachically acceptable; however, he counsels following the Rashba's ruling to eliminate all doubts. [The husband] must answer "Yes."Afterwards, he should instruct them to write the get, sign it and give it to his wife. We do not let [the husband] leave until the get is delivered [to his wife], lest he go out and nullify [the get].43Despite the statements that he had made previously, if the husband nullified the get afterwards, his statements would be effective and the divorce void (Maggid Mishneh).Neither a person who lodges an objection [to a get], nor one who seeks to nullify such an objection needs [to have his statements affirmed by] an act of contract.

כ״אהַשּׁוֹלֵחַ גֵּט בְּיַד הַשָּׁלִיחַ וּבִטֵּל הַגֵּט הֲרֵי חוֹזֵר וּמְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה. שֶׁלֹּא בִּטְּלוֹ מִתּוֹרַת גֵּט אֶלָּא מִתּוֹרַת שְׁלִיחוּת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה הַגֵּט בְּיַד הַבַּעַל וּבִטְּלוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמַר גֵּט זֶה בָּטֵל הוּא אֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶרֶס הַנִּשְׁבָּר. וְאִם גֵּרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְכֵן אִם פֵּרֵשׁ בְּעֵת שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר גֵּט שֶׁשָּׁלַחְתִּי הֲרֵי הוּא בָּטֵל מִלִּהְיוֹת גֵּט אֵין מְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ לְעוֹלָם:

²¹When a person has sent a get via an agent and [later] nullifies [the giving of] the get, he may divorce the woman with [this get] whenever he desires. He did not nullify the get as a get; he merely nullified the agency.Therefore, if the get was in the possession of the husband and he nullified it - e.g., he said: "This get is nullified" - he may never use it for a divorce. It is like a broken shard, and if it is used for a divorce, the divorce is not effective.44There are authorities who differ with the Rambam on this point, based on their version of Gittin 32b. According to these authorities, since the get was written according to law, it is always able to be used for a divorce and can never be nullified by the husband. In consideration of the opinion of these authorities, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:66), when quoting this law, rules that the status of the divorce is in doubt.Similarly, if the get was entrusted to the agent, but the husband made an explicit statement, saying: "The get that I sent is nullified [and may not] serve as a get," he may never use it to effect a divorce.

כ״בבְּאֵי זֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹת מְבַטֵּל הַגֵּט. אָמַר בָּטֵל הוּא. אִי אֶפְשִׁי בּוֹ. גֵּט זֶה לֹא יוֹעִיל. לֹא יַתִּיר. וְלֹא יַעֲזֹב. וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְלֹא יְגָרֵשׁ. יְהֵא כְּחֶרֶס. יְהִי חֶרֶס. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶרֶס. וְאִם אָמַר אֶחָד מֵאֵלּוּ וְכָל הַדּוֹמֶה לָהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה בִּטְּלוֹ:

²²Which wording can be used to nullify a get? [The husband] says: "It is nullified," "I cannot abide by it," "May this get not be effective," "[May it] not permit [her]," "[May it] not release [her], "[May it] not send [her] forth," "[May it] not divorce [her]," "May it be a shard," "May it be like a shard," or "Behold it is like a shard" - If he used any of these expressions or a similar one, he has negated it.45The point is that these expressions all indicate that the husband no longer desires to use this get to divorce his wife.

כ״גאֲבָל אִם אָמַר גֵּט זֶה אֵינוֹ. גֵּט פָּסוּל הוּא. אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל. אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר. אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּחַ. אֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ. חֶרֶס הוּא. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. שֶׁאֵין זֶה לָשׁוֹן מְבַטֵּל אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן מוֹדִיעַ אֲמִתַּת הַדָּבָר וַהֲרֵי הוֹדִיעַ לָנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֵּן. כְּמִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר עַל דָּבָר אָסוּר שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר אוֹ עַל דָּבָר הַטָּמֵא שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר:

²³If, however, [the husband] says: "This get is not a get," "It is unacceptable," "It is not effective," "It does not permit [her]," "It does not release [her], "It does not send [her] forth," "It does not divorce [her]," "It is a shard," his statements are not effective. This wording does not [indicate his desire to] nullify [the get]. Instead, they are statements of fact, and in this instance, statements of incorrect fact.46For all the statements quoted above are false. The get is effective; it is the husband who no longer desires to use it. It is as if someone said that a forbidden entity were permitted or that an impure object were pure.

כ״דאָמַר גֵּט זֶה בָּטַל שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ פֹּעַל שֶׁעָבַר כְּגוֹן (שיר השירים ה ו) “‎חָמַק עָבַר״‎ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה בְּגֵט זֶה הֲרֵי סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

²⁴If he says, "This get is nullified," [it is possible that] the implication is the use of the past tense, as in the phrase [Song of Songs 5:6]: "He turned away and was gone." Thus, there is a question concerning the matter.47The Rambam implies that the question is whether the word לטב implies a future tense - i.e., that his intent is to nullify the get - in which instance the divorce would not be effective. Or whether it implies the past tense, in which case, as in the previous halachah, the husband would be giving us incorrect information.Rashi offers a slightly different interpretation of the passage in Gittin 32b that serves as the source for this halachah. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:63) quotes both opinions. Therefore, if [a woman] has been divorced with this get [after such statements were made], the status of the divorce is in doubt.

כ״המִי שֶׁשָּׁלַח גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָא שָׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לוֹ לֹא מְצָאתִיהָ אוֹ לֹא רָצְתָה לִקַּח. וְאָמַר הַבַּעַל בָּרוּךְ הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּיטִיב אוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּשְׁמִיעִין שֶׁאֵין בְּדַעְתּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי שָׂמֵחַ בְּעִכּוּב הַגֵּט. לֹא בָּטֵל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא יִתֵּן וְתִהְיֶה מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהּ אוֹ יְבַטֵּל בְּפֵרוּשׁ:

²⁵[As reflected in the following instance, an explicit statement must be made to nullify the get: A man] sent a get to his wife [via an agent]. The agent returned to him and said: "I could not find her," or "She did not want to receive it." Although the husband answered: "Blessed be He who is good and does good," or made other statements that imply that he no longer wants to divorce her, and that he is happy that the get was not delivered, the get is not nullified. Instead, he may give it to her and the divorce will be effective. [For the get to be nullified,] he must explicitly say "Do not give it to her," or he should explicitly nullify it [using one of the above expressions].

כ״ומִי שֶׁשָּׁלַח גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְחָזַר וּבִטְּלוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָא עַל הַגֵּט מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לִהְיוֹת מַמְזֵרִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי יַגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ וְאַחַר זְמַן יֵצְאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁבִּטֵּל בִּפְנֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָא בִּפְנֵיהֶם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַגֵּט וְנִמְצָא הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר:

²⁶A person who sent a get to his wife [via an agent] and then nullified [the get] in the presence of two other people,48If, however, the man nullifies the get in the presence of the agent or in the presence of his wife, there is no difficulty. and similarly, a person who issued an objection [nullifying] a get, should be given stripes for rebelliousness, because he makes it possible for illegitimate children to be conceived.Since a get reached [the woman], [it is possible that] she will marry on this basis. [Only] afterwards, when the witnesses in whose presence the husband nullified the get or issued an objection before the get was written appear [will she realize the difficulty]. Thus, a child [conceived in her second marriage] will be illegitimate.

כ״זשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ לָאִשָּׁה אֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא בִּטְּלוֹ הַבַּעַל אֶלָּא נוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ. וְאִם נִמְצָא אַחַר כֵּן שֶׁבִּטְּלוֹ תֵּצֵא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְכֵן הַכּוֹתֵב גֵּט וּנְתָנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא מָסַר מוֹדָעָא עַל גֵּט זֶה אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקַת כַּשְׁרוּת וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ:

²⁷When an agent brings a get and gives it to a woman, we do not suspect that the husband nullified it. Instead, he should give it to the woman under the presumption that it is acceptable, and the woman may marry on this basis. If it is discovered afterwards that [the husband] negated it, [the woman] must leave [her second husband], and any children conceived are illegitimate.Similarly, when [a husband] has a get written and gives it to his wife, we do not suspect that perhaps he lodged an objection regarding this get. Instead, we operate under the conception that the get is acceptable, and the woman is allowed to marry on this basis.

כ״חוְכֵן הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְהִנִּיחַ הַבַּעַל חוֹלֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה זָקֵן נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַיָּם. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחוֹ גּוֹסֵס שֶׁרֹב גּוֹסְסִין לְמִיתָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין שֶׁאֵין גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְכֵן עִיר שֶׁהִקִּיפָהּ הַחַיִל וְהִיא בְּמָצוֹר וּסְפִינָה הַמּוּטְרֶפֶת בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא לָדוּן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקַת חַיִּים. וְאִם הָיָה גֵּט אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּיַד הַשָּׁלִיחַ נוֹתְנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְתִהְיֶה בְּחֶזְקַת מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

²⁸Similarly, when an agent brings a get [that was sent by] a man who was sick or elderly, he may give it to the woman under the presumption that the husband is still alive. If, however, the husband was in his death throes when [the agent left], even when he gives the get to the woman the status of the divorce is in doubt. For the majority of those in their death throes will die, and a get given after death is not effective.49The primary reason for giving such a get - for the marriage is terminated with the husband's death regardless - is to free a childless woman from the obligations of yibbum and chalitzah. If the get was given before the husband's death, these rites are not necessary. Otherwise, they are. With the current advances in record keeping and communication, it is usually possible to eliminate the doubt mentioned in this halachah.Similarly, when a city is surrounded by an army50The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:69) states that this law applies only when a city is surrounded by the army of the ruling authority. If it is surrounded by an army from another country, we no longer operate under the presumption that the husband is alive. and held under siege, a ship is in distress at sea,51In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 3:4), the Rambam defines a ship in distress as follows: "One that faces a tempest-torn sea that threatens to sink it. The sailors are unable to control its path as they desire.... Nevertheless, all the oars and the other instruments remain intact." or a person is taken out to be judged [with regard to a capital case],52This applies regardless of whether the person is being tried by a Jewish court or a gentile court. we presume that any person in such a situation is alive. If a person in such a situation has sent a get [to his wife] via an agent, he may give it to her, and the presumption will be that the divorce is effective.

כ״טאֲבָל עִיר שֶׁכְּבָשָׁהּ הַגַּיִס וְהֻבְקְעָה וּסְפִינָה שֶׁאָבְדָה בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא לֵהָרֵג מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל עַכּוּ״‎ם. וּמִי שֶׁגְּרָרַתּוּ חַיָּה אוֹ שְׁטָפוֹ נָהָר אוֹ נָפְלָה עָלָיו מַפּלֶת נוֹתְנִים עֲלֵיהֶם חֻמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחֻמְרֵי מֵתִים. וְאִם הָיָה גֵּט אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּיַד הַשָּׁלִיחַ אֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְאִם נְתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם נוֹדַע שֶׁמֵּת הַבַּעַל קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

²⁹When, by contrast, a city has been conquered by an attacking army and [its wall] broken, a ship is lost at sea,53In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam defines this as referring to a ship whose oars, steering mechanism and other navigational tools have been broken, and it is totally at the mercy of the waters.The laws that apply when a ship has sunk are described in Chapter 13, Halachah 16. a person is being taken out to be executed by a gentile court,54The implication is that if the person was sentenced to death by a Jewish court, we presume that the sentence was carried out. (See Hilchot Terumot 9:2.) In contrast, there is a possibility that a gentile court will accept a bribe. or he is being dragged by a beast of prey, swept away by a river or an avalanche has fallen upon him, the stringencies applying to both the living and the dead, are followed.If [a person in one of these situations gave] a get to an agent, the agent should not give it to the husband's wife.55Lest the husband have died already. If, however, he gives it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.56For we do not know which came first, the husband's death or the giving of the get. If it is known that the husband died before the get reached his wife, the divorce is void.

ל׳הַבַּעַל שֶׁשָּׁלַח גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וּבְכָל תְּנָאֵי כְּתֻבָּה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלִיחַ קַבָּלָה:

³⁰When a husband sends his wife a get, he is obligated to provide her with support and fulfill the other stipulations of the marriage contract, until the get reaches [his wife] or a sh'liach kabbalah she has appointed.57Although the husband desires to divorce her, she remains his wife until the get reaches her. Therefore, the husband remains obligated by the marriage contract.