## Mishneh Torah, Divorce Chapter 1

###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:1
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:1)

אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לָהּ וּכְתָב זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא גֵּט. וַעֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים הֵן עִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) שֶׁלֹּא יְגָרֵשׁ הָאִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. ב) וְשֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ בִּכְתָב וְלֹא בְּדָבָר אַחֵר. ג) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיַן הַכְּתָב שֶׁגֵּרְשָׁהּ וֶהֱסִירָהּ מִקִּנְיָנוֹ. ד) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיָנוֹ דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. ה) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכְתָּב לִשְׁמָהּ. ו) וְשֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחֻסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה אַחַר כְּתִיבָתוֹ אֶלָּא נְתִינָתוֹ לָהּ [בִּלְבַד]. ז) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ. ח) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים. ט) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין. י) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַבַּעַל אוֹ שְׁלוּחוֹ הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ. וּשְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּגֵּט כְּגוֹן הַזְּמַן וַחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַכּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A woman may be divorced only by receiving a bill [of divorce].¹ This bill is called a *get*.² is Aramaic for legal document, and indeed when accompanied by a modifier is used to refer to other types of legal documents. Nevertheless, the most common use of the word is within the context of divorce, and when the term *get* appears without a modifier, it generally refers to a bill of divorce. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Gittin* 2:5.)
The Torah establishes ten principles as fundamental [for a divorce to be effective].³ (Positive Commandment 222) and *Sefer HaChinuch* (Mitzvah 579) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The intent is not that it is a mitzvah to divorce one's wife, but rather that if a man does desire to divorce his wife, it is a mitzvah for him to follow the rules prescribed by the Torah. To cite a parallel example: There is not a mitzvah to eat meat. If, however, one does desire to eat meat, it is a mitzvah to have the animal slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by the Torah. They are:⁴
a) That a man must voluntarily initiate the divorce;
b) That he must effect the divorce by means of a written document and through no other means;
c) That this document must communicate that he is divorcing [his wife] and releasing her from his domain;
d) That it should utterly sever the connection between the husband and his wife;
e) That [the *get*] should be written for the sake [of the woman being divorced];
f) That once [the *get*] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer to the woman;
g) That he should actually transfer [the *get*] to her;
h) That he should transfer [the *get*] to her in the presence of witnesses;
i) That he should actually transfer it to her for the sake of divorce;
j) That the husband or his agent should be the one who gives it to her.
The other requirements of a *get* - e.g., dating it, having it signed by witnesses and the like - are all Rabbinic institutions.

footnotes:
¹ In the Guide for the Perplexed (Vol. III, Chapter 49), the Rambam explains a rationale for this mitzvah. If it were possible to effect a divorce through speech alone, a woman might commit adultery and then try to free herself of liability by claiming that she had been divorced previously. Requiring a written bill of divorce prevents such a possibility from arising.
² The word get
³ Sefer HaMitzvot
⁴ The details of all these principles are described in the halachot and chapters that follow.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:2
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:2)

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁעֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ". אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. וְאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אֲבָל הָאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בִּרְצוֹנָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹנָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What are the sources that indicate that these ten requirements stem from Scripture itself? [They are derived from Deuteronomy 24:1, which] states: "And if it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand and send her from his home."
"If... she does not find favor in his eyes" - this indicates that he divorces her only on his own initiative. If a woman is divorced against her husband's will, the divorce is invalid. A woman may, however, be divorced either voluntarily or against her will.⁵ 119:6) and has been accepted by many Sephardim as well.

footnotes:
⁵ This is the law as prescribed by Scriptural and Talmudic law. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Gershom, one of the Sages who laid the foundations for Ashkenazi custom and tradition, ordained that, except in several unique instances, a man may not divorce his wife without her consent. This practice is followed universally within the Ashkenazi community (Ramah, Even HaEzer


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:3
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:3)

(דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב. (דברים כד א) "לָהּ". לִשְׁמָהּ. (דברים כד א) "סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת". דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ עָלֶיהָ רְשׁוּת. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִכְרַת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵן הַגֵּט בְּיָדָהּ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחָה שֶׁהוּא כְּיָדָהּ אוֹ לַחֲצֵרָהּ שֶׁהַכּל כְּיָדָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ". שֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיַן הַגֵּט שֶׁהוּא הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אוֹתָהּ. לֹא שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח עַצְמוֹ מִמֶּנָּה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
"And he will write" - this teaches that a woman can be divorced only by means of a written document.
"For her" - that it should be written for her sake.
"A bill of divorce" - i.e., a deed that severs the relationship between [the husband and his wife], without leaving him any jurisdiction over her. If [the relationship] between them is not entirely severed, the divorce is not effective, as will be explained.⁶
"He will... place it in her hand" - this teaches that she is not divorced until the bill of divorce is placed in her hand, in the hand of her agent - which is considered to be her hand - or in her domain - which is considered to be her hand - as will be explained.⁷
"And he will... send her" - [the wording of] the *get* should indicate that he is sending her away and not that he is sending himself away from her.

footnotes:
⁶ See Chapter 8, Halachah 2.
⁷ See Chapter 5, Halachah 1.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:4
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:4)

כֵּיצַד. כָּתַב לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְשֻׁלַּחַת הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמֵךְ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְגוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב לָהּ אֵינִי בַּעְלֵךְ אֵינִי אֲרוּסֵךְ אֵינִי אִישֵׁךְ אֵין זֶה גֵּט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ" וְלֹא שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is implied? If he writes to her: "Behold you are sent away," "Behold you are divorced," "You are [now] independent," "You are now permitted [to marry] any man," or the like, the divorce is effective. The essence [of the text] of a *get* is the statement: "You are now permitted to [marry] any man."
If, by contrast, he writes to her: "I am no longer your husband," "I am no longer the one who consecrates you," or "I am no longer your man," the divorce is not effective. For "and he will... send her" implies that he should not send himself away from her.
Similarly, if a man writes to his wife: "Behold you are free," the divorce is not effective.⁸

footnotes:
⁸ This wording is used in the deed freeing a slave from servitude and is not appropriate with regard to a woman's divorce.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:5
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:5)

זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ" אֵין עִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּמְרוּ גֵּרוּשֶׁיהָ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ גָּמְרוּ גֵּרוּשֶׁיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּבֵיתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר וְשִׁלְּחָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם גֵּרֵשׁ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ וְהֶחֱזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The Torah's expression, "And he will... send her from his home," does not mean that the divorce does not become effective until she leaves his home. Instead, the divorce becomes effective when the *get* reaches [a woman's] hand, even though she still is in her husband's home, as will be explained.⁹ "And he will... send her" teaches that if he divorces her, but does not send her away from his home, it is as if he divorced her and then remarried [her]. Therefore, she requires another *get*, as will be explained.¹⁰

footnotes:
⁹ See Chapter 5, Halachah 8.
¹⁰ See Chapter 10, Halachah 18.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:6
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:6)

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחֻסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה אַחַר כְּתִיבָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב" (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן" מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר אֶלָּא כְּתִיבָה וּנְתִינָה הוּא הַגֵּט הַכָּשֵׁר. יָצָא דָּבָר שֶׁמְּחֻסַּר קְצִיצָה אַחַר הַכְּתִיבָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתַב גֵּט עַל קֶרֶן הַפָּרָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ הַפָּרָה. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַקֶּרֶן אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בִּמְחֻבָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתְמוּ בּוֹ הָעֵדִים אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is the source that teaches that once [the *get*] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer? The [sequence of the verbs] "And he will write..., [and] place," indicating that a *get* is acceptable only when [the only things] lacking are writing and transfer. This excludes an article that must be detached after it has been written.¹¹ (*Even HaEzer* 124:3), which states that the scribe should cut the paper or parchment used for the *get* to the right size before writing it. If he cuts it to size after he writes it, it is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law.
Therefore, if a man writes a *get* on the horn of a cow, he must give [his wife] the cow [for the divorce to be effective]. If he cut off the horn after he wrote [the *get*] on it, it is not effective. Similarly, if he wrote [a *get*] on a plant that was still attached to its source of nurture, the divorce is not effective.¹², *Even HaEzer* 124:4). [This applies] even if the witnesses signed after it was detached.

footnotes:
¹¹ See Shulchan Aruch
¹² Even if the man gives the woman the entire plant and the land on which it grows, the divorce is void (Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:7
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:7)

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחֻבָּר אֲפִלּוּ טֹפֶס הַגֵּט. כָּתַב הַטֹּפֶס בִּמְחֻבָּר וּתְלָשׁוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּתַב שֵׁם הָאִישׁ וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה וְהַזְּמַן וַהֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may not even write the standard text¹³, leaving blank places for the name of the man, his wife, the date and the line that states: "Behold, you are free to [marry] any man." See Chapter 3, Halachah 7. of [a *get*] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture.
If [a scribe] writes the standard text of [a *get*] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture, and detaches it and afterwards writes the names of the husband and the wife, the date¹⁴ is only a Rabbinic requirement. Nevertheless, if it is written while the *get* is still attached, the *get* is not acceptable according to Rabbinic law. and the words, "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man," and the witnesses signed and it was given to her, it is acceptable.¹⁵ while it is attached to its source of nurture. After the fact, as long as the fundamental elements of the *get* were written after it was detached, it is acceptable.

footnotes:
¹³ I.e., the standard text of the get
¹⁴ The date of the get
¹⁵ I.e., at the outset, one should not write any portion of the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:8
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:8)

כָּתַב כָּל הַגֵּט עַל הֶעָלֶה הַזָּרוּעַ בְּעָצִיץ נָקוּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הֶעָצִיץ כֻּלּוֹ הַגֵּט פָּסוּל גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטֹם. אֲבָל כּוֹתֵב הוּא עַל חַרְסוֹ שֶׁל עָצִיץ וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the husband writes the *get* on a leaf growing in a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, the *get* is unacceptable, even if he gives her the entire flowerpot. [This is] a decree, [lest] one detach [the leaf].¹⁶ 124:12 and the *Beit Shmuel* 124:12 both emphasize that the term "unacceptable" - *pasul* in Hebrew - implies that while the *get* is acceptable according to Scriptural law, it is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree. Accordingly, they explain that this law applies when there is an interruption between the flowerpot and the earth. If there is no interruption, the *get* is void according to Scriptural law, because when a flowerpot has a hole at its base, it is considered as though it were attached to the ground.
Similarly, according to the *Chelkat Mechokek* 124:13, even when a *get* is written on the leaves of a plant growing in a flowerpot that does not have a hole at its base, the *get* is unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree. He may, however, write [the *get*] on the pottery of the flowerpot and give it to her.

footnotes:
¹⁶ The Chelkat Mechokek


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:9
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:9)

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת" וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹרַת סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת. אֲבָל אִם נְתָנוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹרַת שֶׁהוּא שְׁטַר חוֹב אוֹ מְזוּזָה אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה וְנֵעוֹרָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ אַחַר כָּךְ הֲרֵי הוּא גִּטֵּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is the source that teaches that [the *get*] must be given to her for the sake of divorce? It is written: "... a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand," [implying that] he must place [it in her hand] for the sake of divorce. If, however, he gave it to her as a promissory note or as a *mezuzah*,¹⁷ (*Gittin* 78a, quoted by the Ramah in *Even HaEzer* 136:5) states that although the woman need not be informed by her husband at the time the *get* is given, she must be informed by the witnesses afterwards, or in some way have this matter made known to her. The commentaries question whether or not the Rambam differs with this view. or he placed it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she awoke and [discovered] it in her hand, the *get* is void.¹⁸ (*Even HaEzer* 138:3) states that even if he tells the witnesses: "See the *get* that I am giving her," the divorce is void.
From this clause, it appears that, in addition to the husband's intent, the Rambam requires that the woman take an active part in receiving the *get*, even if she is not totally aware of what it is. If, however, he told her afterwards, "Behold this is your *get*, the divorce is effective.¹⁹

footnotes:
¹⁷ From this and the following halachah, it appears that the Rambam maintains that it is sufficient that the husband state his intent to the witnesses; the woman need not know that she is being divorced. Tosafot
¹⁸ With regard to the latter instance, the Shulchan Aruch
¹⁹ According to Rav David Arameah, this clause applies to all the instances mentioned in the halachah.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:10
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:10)

אָמַר לְעֵדִים רְאוּ גֵּט שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדִיעַ אֶת הָעֵדִים שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ שְׁטַר חוֹב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּכְלַם מִמֶּנָּה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The above principle must be clarified in the context of the following law.] A man tells witnesses, "See the *get* I am giving her," and then he tells [his wife]: "Take this promissory note," [the *get*] is effective. For he has told the witnesses that he was giving it to her for the sake of divorce. He told her that it was a promissory note only because he was embarrassed [to face] her.²⁰ with his statements.

footnotes:
²⁰ We accept this rationale and do not say that he nullified the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:11
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:11)

הַמְגָרֵשׁ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ כְּשֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ אוֹ הוּא גִּטֵּךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עִמָּהּ עַל עִסְקֵי גִּטָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עַל עִסְקֵי גִּטָּהּ וְנָטַל הַגֵּט וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
At the time he gives the *get*, [a man who] divorces [his wife] must tell her: "Behold, your *get*," or "This is your *get*," or the like. If he places the *get* in her hand without saying anything, the *get* is not acceptable.²¹ generally means "unacceptable according to Rabbinic decree." (See Chapter 2, Halachah 7; Chapter 10, Halachah 2.) In this instance, however, there are authorities who maintain that the Rambam's intent is that the *get* is utterly void. The *Tur* (*Even HaEzer* 136) and Rabbenu Nissim indeed rule in that manner.
The *Beit Shmuel* 136:1, however, explains that the *get* itself indicates the purpose for which it is given. Hence, in contrast to *kiddushin* (*Hilchot Ishut* 3:8), even if it is given in silence, it is acceptable according to Scriptural law and disqualified only by the Rabbis.
When does the above apply? When the husband was not speaking to her about divorce [immediately beforehand]. If, however, he had been speaking to her about divorce [at the time], and he takes the *get* and places it in her hand without saying anything, the divorce is acceptable.

footnotes:
²¹ As mentioned previously, the word pasul


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:12
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:12)

גֵּט שֶׁהָיָה מֻנָּח עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָמַר לָהּ טְלִי גִּטֵּךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע וּנְטָלַתּוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קָשׁוּר עַל יָדוֹ אוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ וּשְׁלָפַתּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ" לֹא שֶׁתִּקַּח הִיא מֵעַצְמָהּ וַהֲרֵי לֹא נָתַן לָהּ לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלוּחוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הִרְכִּין לָהּ בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ הִטָּה יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁשָּׁלְפָה הַגֵּט מֵעָלָיו וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a *get* has been placed on the ground, and [the husband] tells [his wife], "Pick your *get* up from the ground," or it was tied to his hand or to his thigh, and she takes it from him. Even if after it reaches her possession, he tells her, "Behold this is your *get*," it is void.
[The rationale is] that it is written: "And he will... place it in her hand," [implying] that she may not take it on her own accord.²² And [in these instances,] neither [the husband] nor his agent gave it to her.
If, however, he bends his body toward her,²³ 78a, Rabbenu Asher offers a slightly different conception of the activity necessary for a husband to perform so that helping his wife take the *get* is considered "giving." The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 138:1) quotes both views, but appears to favor that of Rabbenu Asher. or tilts his hand until she takes the *get* from him and says,²⁴ 8:2), it appears that this statement must be made in the process of transferring the *get*, and not afterwards. "Behold this is your *get*," the *get* is [effective].²⁵.

footnotes:
²² See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, where the Rambam states this explicitly.
²³ Based on Gittin
²⁴ Based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin
²⁵ For he has performed an action making it easier for her to take the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:13
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:13)

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יט טו) "עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר". וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זוֹ הַיּוֹם עֶרְוָה וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וּלְמָחָר תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת בְּלֹא עֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ גֵּט כְּלָל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is the source that teaches that [a *get*] must be given in the presence of witnesses? [Deuteronomy 19:15] states: "According to the words of two witnesses or those of three witnesses will the matter be established."
It is impossible that on one day a woman will be considered to be forbidden and sexual relations with her punishable by execution, and on the next day she should be permitted [to any man] unless [the divorce is observed by] witnesses.²⁶
Therefore, if [a husband] gives [his wife] a *get* in private, or even if the exchange is observed by one witness, the divorce is utterly void.²⁷). With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is to notarize the event (*eidei kiyyum*). For a marriage bond to be established - or broken - even when the husband and wife agree that the event took place, witnesses must observe the proceedings (*Tumim* 90:14; *Tzafenat Paneach; K'lallei HaTorah*).

footnotes:
²⁶ The transition of a woman from a state where she is forbidden to one in which she is permitted is one of the "matters" referred to in the above verse.
²⁷ The commentaries explain that there is a fundamental difference between the function of witnesses in cases involving financial matters and their function with regard to marriage and divorce. With regard to financial matters, the function of witnesses is to clarify the truth (eidei berur


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:14
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:14)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט בִּכְתַב יַד סוֹפֵר. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב הַבַּעַל הַגֵּט בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְחָתַם עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל [וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהֻנָּה]:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above apply? When the *get* is written by a scribe.²⁸ the signature of one witness is enough for the *get* to be acceptable according to the Rambam. (See the notes on Chapter 2, Halachah 2.) When, however, the husband writes the *get* himself, one witness signs it,²⁹ is acceptable, for the husband's writing is equivalent to the testimony of one hundred witnesses. It is unacceptable only because of a Rabbinic decree. Indeed, even if the witness did not sign the *get*, the exact same laws would apply. The Rambam mentions the signature of the *get* by a witness only to clarify that, even with such a signature - in contrast to a *get* signed by a scribe and another witness - the *get* is still disqualified by the Rabbis (*Beit Yosef, Even HaEzer* 130). and [the husband] gives it to her, the *get* is unacceptable [only by Rabbinic decree,]³⁰, she is allowed to remain married. Other authorities, however, maintain that since the *get* was given without being observed by witnesses, it is void according to Scriptural law, and the woman must leave her second husband (*Beit Shmuel* 130:31). {and the woman is forbidden to marry a priest}.³¹, this phrase is lacking in the authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the text. The *Kessef Mishneh* states that it is self-evident from the previous clause, and therefore is most likely a printer's addition. For this reason, we have set it off in braces.

footnotes:
²⁸ And not signed by the scribe. If the scribe also signs the get,
²⁹ According to Scriptural law, the get
³⁰ In such an instance, if the woman transgresses this Rabbinic prohibition and marries again on the basis of this get
³¹ Although present in the standard texts of the Mishneh Torah


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:15
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:15)

תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט. שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לָהּ גֵּט בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְיָמוּתוּ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט שֶׁבְּיָדָהּ כְּחֶרֶס מֵחַרְסֵי אֲדָמָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בּוֹ עֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעֵדִים בְּתוֹכוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם בֵּין בִּפְנֵי אוֹתָן הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עָלָיו בֵּין בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
It is an ordinance [enacted] by our Sages that witnesses should sign a *get*, lest a [husband] give [his wife] a *get* in the presence of two [witnesses], and they die.³² 34b, 36a explains that there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer maintains, as stated here by the Rambam, that the fundamental requirement for witnesses is with regard to the witnesses who observe the transfer of the *get*. The signing of the *get* by witnesses is merely a Rabbinic ordinance. Rabbi Meir, by contrast, maintains that the fundamental requirement is for the witnesses to sign the *get*. Most authorities follow the perspective of Rabbi Eliezer. The *Beit Shmuel* maintains, however, that *a priori*, the perspective of Rabbi Meir should also be respected.
At present, the custom is that the witnesses who sign the *get* also observe its transfer (Ramah, *Even HaEzer* 130:1). [In such an instance,] the *get* she possesses is no more than a shard, for there are no witnesses [to testify to its authenticity]. [To prevent such a situation, our Sages] ordained that the testimony [regarding the authenticity of the *get* should be contained] within it.
Although witnesses [have signed] within, [the husband] must give [the *get*] to [his wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] - whether the same witnesses who signed it or two others. For in essence, divorce is established by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the *get*].

footnotes:
³² Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:16
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:16)

חָתְמוּ בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְעָבַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ עֵדֵי מְסִירָה פְּסוּלִין הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר הוֹאִיל וְעֵדִים שֶׁבּוֹ כְּשֵׁרִין וַהֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁהוֹרָה מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When two witnesses sign [the *get*], and [the husband] transgresses and gives [the *get*] to [his wife] in private, or if it is discovered that the witnesses [who observed] the transfer [of the *get*] were unsuitable,³³, Chapters 9-16). the divorce is effected.³⁴, he does not negate the effect of the signature of the *get* by witnesses. For the witnesses [who signed the *get*] are acceptable, and the *get* exists in the woman's possession. Some of the *geonim* have ruled that [the *get*] is unacceptable.³⁵ 133:3 notes that *Tosafot* and Rabbenu Asher maintain that such a *get* is utterly void. He questions why the Rambam states that this opinion considers it unacceptable merely according to Rabbinic decree. If Rabbi Eliezer does not accept the signature of witnesses as sufficient, seemingly the *get* would be of no consequence whatsoever, not merely disqualified by the Sages.

footnotes:
³³ I.e., they were deemed unworthy of serving as witnesses because of family ties to the couple, their violation of Scriptural law or other reasons, as detailed in Hilchot Edut
³⁴ This ruling indicates that although Rabbi Eliezer places an emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get
³⁵ The Beit Shmuel


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:17
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:17)

הָיוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ פְּסוּלִין אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד פָּסוּל וְאֶחָד כָּשֵׁר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל שֶׁנִּמְצָא כִּמְזֻיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the witnesses [who signed the *get*] are unsuitable - or even if one was unsuitable and one was acceptable - and [the husband] gave it to her in the presence of two acceptable witnesses, [the *get*] is unacceptable. It is as if it were a forgery.³⁶ 4a explains that even Rabbi Eliezer, who puts the emphasis on the witnesses who observe the transfer of the *get*, would disqualify such a *get*. Although - as stated in the following halachah, a *get* that was not signed by any witnesses is acceptable - when it is signed by unsuitable witnesses, it is not.

footnotes:
³⁶ Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:18
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:18)

הִרְחִיק אֶת הָעֵדִים מִן הַכְּתָב מְלֹא שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין פָּסוּל. וְכַמָּה יַרְחִיק אֶת הָעֵדִים מִן הַכְּתָב פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. אֲבָל אִם מְסָרוֹ לָהּ בְּעֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מְרֻחָקִין הַרְבֵּה וְאֵין נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חָתוּם עָלָיו עֵד כְּלָל הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the witnesses signed [the *get* at a position] more than two lines away from the text [of the *get*], it is unacceptable.
How far may the witnesses sign away from the text? Less than two lines, so that their [names] will be read together with [the text].
When does the [disqualification] mentioned above apply? When the *get* is in the woman's possession, and there are no witnesses [who observed its] transfer. If, however, [the husband] gave [his wife the *get*] in the presence of witnesses, [the *get*] is acceptable even if the witnesses'[signatures] are far removed from the text.³⁷ were given, it would be unacceptable despite the fact that witnesses observed its transfer. Many authorities, however, follow the Rambam's view. (See Ramah, *Even HaEzer* 130:1.)
The *Beit Shmuel* 130:3 questions the Rambam's decision, noting that in *Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh* 27:5, the Rambam states that a contract of loan is invalid if the witnesses sign more than two lines away from the text, and he does not mention the option of making it acceptable by giving it in the presence of witnesses. He explains that laws regarding business contracts differ, because they must serve as proof over an extended period of time.
*Kin'at Eliyahu* explains that this explanation is supported by the distinction between the role of witnesses with regard to marriage and divorce, and their role with regard to business agreements mentioned in the notes on Halachah 13. Since the role of witnesses in business agreements is to clarify the terms of the agreement, such a document is not acceptable, because particulars can be added. With regard to marriage and divorce, by contrast, the witnesses' function is merely to notarize the event, and this is accomplished by the witnesses who observe the transfer of the *get*. [Moreover, this ruling applies] even when there were not any witnesses who signed [the *get*]. For in essence, divorce is effected by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the *get*].

footnotes:
³⁷ The Ra'avad states that if such a get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:19
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:19)

הָעֵדִים שֶׁנּוֹתֵן אֶת הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם צְרִיכִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ. וְאִם נְתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם תְּחִלָּה חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. קְרָאוּהוּ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַבַּעַל אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוּהוּ לוֹ. וְחָזַר הוּא וְהִכְנִיסוֹ לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
It is required to read the *get* [aloud] in the presence of the witnesses who observe its transfer.³⁸ are essential for the divorce to be effective, they must know that the document transferred is in fact a *get* (*Beit Shmuel* 135:1). Afterwards, it should be given to her. If it was given to her in their presence first, it should be taken from her and read [aloud] after it was given to her.³⁹ 135:1) states that it is customary to read the *get* aloud both before and after it is given.
[The following rule applies when the witnesses] read [the *get*] while it is the possession of the husband or his agent, and they return it to him. If he encloses it within his hand, [obscuring it from the witnesses' view] and then gives it to her, they should read it again.⁴⁰ (*Even HaEzer* 135:2) states that if the husband manifests possession of the *get* after giving a document of unknown contents to the woman, his word is accepted if she has not remarried already. If, however, she has remarried, his word is not accepted.

footnotes:
³⁸ Since the witnesses who observe the transfer of the get
³⁹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
⁴⁰ After quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:20
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:20)

לֹא קְרָאוּהוּ אֶלָּא נָטְלָתוֹ וּזְרָקַתּוּ לַיָּם אוֹ לָאֵשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הוֹאִיל וּקְרָאוּהוּ תְּחִלָּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁים לוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱלִיפוֹ. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַבַּעַל שְׁטָר אַחֵר הָיָה וְלֹא הָיָה הַגֵּט שֶׁקְּרָאתֶם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וַהֲרֵי הִיא מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[In the latter instance,] if they did not read it, and it is taken and thrown into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is effective. Since [the witnesses] read it first, we do not suspect that it was exchanged [for another document]. Moreover, even if the husband said, "It was another document [that I gave her] and not the *get* that you read," his word is not accepted and the divorce is effective.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:21
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:21)

הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא קָרְאוּ הַגֵּט בַּתְּחִלָּה וְנָתַן לָהּ הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם וּזְרָקַתּוּ לָאוּר אוֹ לַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּעַל אוֹמֵר גֵּט כָּשֵׁר הָיָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[If, however,] they did not read the *get* beforehand, the husband gives it to [his wife] in their presence, and then it is thrown into a fire or into the sea, the status of the divorce is doubtful.⁴¹ is necessary. Even if the woman remarries, she must leave her second husband, as explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 3. [This applies] even if the husband says that it was an acceptable *get*.⁴² 19b states: "Just as his statements are not acceptable to cause her to be forbidden, they are not acceptable to cause her to be permitted."

footnotes:
⁴¹ A second get
⁴² With regard to this, Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:22
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:22)

זָרַק לָהּ הַגֵּט לַחֲצֵרָהּ לְבֵין הֶחָבִיּוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וּבִקְּשׁוּ וּמָצְאוּ מְזוּזָה אוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנִּמְצָא הוּא שֶׁזָּרַק. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁם שְׁתַּיִם שָׁלֹשׁ מְזוּזוֹת אוֹ שְׁטָרוֹת חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵּט שֶׁזָּרַק גְּרָרוּהוּ עַכְבָּרִים וַהֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If he threw the *get* into [the woman's] courtyard,⁴³ in a domain belonging to the woman is equivalent to placing it in her hand. among barrels in the presence of witnesses,⁴⁴. If they have read the *get*, the woman's status is in doubt, and we suspect that she has been divorced (*Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 135:5). and when they looked for it they found a *mezuzah* or another document, we do not suspect that she [has been divorced]. [We assume that] the article that was found was the one that was thrown.
If two or three *mezuzot* or documents were discovered there, and we suspect that perhaps he threw a *get* and it was dragged away by mice, the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt.⁴⁵

footnotes:
⁴³ Placing the get
⁴⁴ This instance also describes a situation in which the witnesses have not read the get
⁴⁵ Since he threw only one document and others were discovered, we cannot say with assurance that the article discovered was the one thrown.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:23
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:23)

הָעֵדִים שֶׁחוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹתָם יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתֹּם. וְאִם אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת קוֹרְאִים בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְחוֹתְמִים. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּירוּ לְשׁוֹן הַגֵּט. וְאִם אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים לַחְתֹּם רוֹשְׁמִין לָהֶם הַנְּיָר בְּרֹק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין רִשּׁוּמוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם וְהֵן כּוֹתְבִין עַל הָרשֶׁם. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין כָּךְ בִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת. קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲגוּנוֹת הוֹאִיל וַחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The witnesses who sign the *get* must know how to read and sign [their names]. If they do not know how to read, we read [the *get*] in their presence,⁴⁶ (*Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 154; *Seder HaGet* 66). and they sign, provided they understand the wording of the *get*.⁴⁷ and the *Beit Yosef* (*Even HaEzer* 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam maintains that if the witnesses do not understand the wording of the *get*, the divorce is not effective. There is no option of translating it for them, for a witness must have first-hand experience of the matter concerning which he testifies. Hearing its translation from another person would be considered second-hand experience. The *Beit Shmuel* 130:27, however, quotes other opinions that do not accept this understanding.
If they do not know how to sign [their names], we write out their signatures for them on the paper with spittle or with other substances that will not leave a permanent mark,⁴⁸ and they sign [their names] over these markings.⁴⁹ 130:16) states that this is not acceptable, and instead stencils for the witnesses' signature should be made.
This practice is not followed with regard to other legal documents. It is a leniency adopted with regard to bills of divorce, so that Jewish women will not be forced to live without a marriage partner.⁵⁰ or *chalitzah* (*Gittin* 19a). [This leniency is granted] because the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution, as we have explained.⁵¹

footnotes:
⁴⁶ The present custom is that both of the witnesses and the Rabbi arranging the divorce read the get
⁴⁷ In the Kessef Mishneh
⁴⁸ If, however, a permanent mark would be left, it is forbidden, for writing that covers an existing text is inadmissible.
⁴⁹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
⁵⁰ We fear that the woman's husband will leave for a foreign country without giving her a divorce, or that he will die and she will be forced to perform either yibbum
⁵¹ Halachah 15 above. I.e., if the matter were a point of Scriptural law, there would not be room for such leniency.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:24
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:24)

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים מְפָרְשִׁין שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בַּגֵּט. וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ בְּעֵדֵי הַגֵּט שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְמִין אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְאִם חָתְמוּ זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב זְמַן בַּגֵּט וּמְקוֹם כְּתִיבָתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. שֶׁמָּא תִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ קְרוֹבָתוֹ וְתִזְנֶה כְּשֶׁהִיא תַּחְתָּיו וְיִכְתֹּב לָהּ גֵּט אַחַר הַזְּנוּת וְיִתֵּן לָהּ. וְאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ זְמַן יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר קֹדֶם הַזְּנוּת נִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי. וּלְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ זְמַן בְּגִטִּין:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Although the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution,⁵² is itself Rabbinic in origin, several safeguards were attached to facilitate the divorce laws. our Sages ordained that the witnesses state their names in the *get*.⁵³ 36a).
Similarly, they ordained that the witnesses to the *get* must sign in the presence of each other. If either signed without the other, [the *get*] is unacceptable.⁵⁴ 10b, that this decree was instituted lest a husband tell a group of people that they should all act as witnesses, in which case each of them would be obligated to sign the *get*. Such a *get* would look acceptable if signed by only two witnesses, but in fact would not be acceptable. To prevent such a circumstance from arising, our Sages required that all the witnesses sign in the presence of each other.
Similarly, our Sages ordained that the date of a *get* and the place where it was written be recorded [within it], as is required with regard to other legal documents.⁵⁵ 23:6. [This was required] lest one's wife also be one's relative and she commit adultery. [Because of the husband's feelings for his wife,] he [might conceivably] write her a *get* after she had committed adultery and give it to her. If the *get* was not dated, she could say: "I was divorced before I committed adultery."⁵⁶ 4:3) records that such an incident did in fact take place. [To prevent this from happening, our Sages] ordained that *gittin* be dated.

footnotes:
⁵² Generally, we follow the principle אין גוזרין גזרה לגזרה - i.e., a second Rabbinic safeguard is never attached to the first one. In these instances, however, an exception is made. Although the requirement for witnesses to sign a get
⁵³ I.e., originally the witnesses would sign, "I sign as a witness," without mentioning their names. This made the verification of their signatures a very difficult process. Therefore, our Sages required that they mention their names (Rashi, Gittin
⁵⁴ Chapter 9, Halachah 29 explains, based on Gittin
⁵⁵ See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh
⁵⁶ This would enable her to avoid receiving the death penalty. The Jerusalem Talmud (Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:25
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:25)

גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מֻקְדָּם אוֹ מְאֻחָר אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ הָעִנְיָן. אוֹ כָּתַב אֶת הַגֵּט בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְטָעָה וְכָתַב בְּלוּד. כָּל אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְתְּמוּ בּוֹ בִּזְמַן כְּתִיבָתוֹ וּבִמְקוֹם כְּתִיבָתוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
In all the following instances, [the *get*] is unacceptable: a) a *get* signed by witnesses that is not dated, b) one that is predated,⁵⁷ was written in Kislev and dated in Marcheshvan. This would allow for the difficulty mentioned in the previous halachah and notes.
According to Rabbenu Asher, despite the fact that the requirement is Rabbinic in origin, a *get* that is predated is void entirely (*bateil*), not merely unacceptable (*pasul*). The Ramah (*Even HaEzer* 127:2) quotes a third opinion, which states that even though the *get* is *pasul*, the second husband is required to divorce her, but she is forbidden to remarry her first husband.
The Rambam does not consider predated a *get* that was not given to the woman on the day it was written, as reflected in Chapter 2, Halachah 2. Other authorities differ, and their opinion is accepted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 127:5), which states that a *get* that was not given on the day it was written is acceptable only when given by an agent. or postdated,⁵⁸ was written in Kislev and dated in Tevet.
In this instance, the Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that a postdated *get* is acceptable. There are two reasons given by Rav Yosef Karo in the *Kessef Mishneh* to justify the Rambam's decision:
a) This could also be used as a cover-up, as explained in the previous halachah. For if we see that the date of the *get* is incorrect, we would disregard the date and consider the *get* as if it had no date at all.
b) The woman would not receive the rights to her property when due her. As long as she is married, her husband is entitled to the benefits from her property, but not after divorce. Postdating the *get* would entitle him to benefits beyond what is due him.
*Tosafot* agree with the Ra'avad that a postdated *get* is acceptable, but unlike the Ra'avad, maintain that the *get* is not effective until the date mentioned within. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 127:9) mentions both the views of *Tosafot* and of the Rambam, but appears to favor that of *Tosafot*. c) one that was written during the day and signed on the following night;⁵⁹ (*Even HaEzer* 127:2) mentions an opinion that states that in extenuating situations - e.g., when the woman has already remarried, or her husband has gone overseas - such a *get* is acceptable. The *Beit Shmuel* states that under such circumstances a *get* is acceptable, even if it is signed several days after it was written. this applies even if they remained involved with the matter [of the divorce until the *get* was signed],⁶⁰ 127:3). d) the *get* was written in Jerusalem and [the scribe] erred and wrote [that it was written] in Lod.⁶¹ (*Even HaEzer* 128:1) differs and states that what is of fundamental importance is the place where the *get* was signed, and not the place where it was written. It is, however, customary for it to be written and signed in the same place. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 11.
Our translation of the paragraph to follow is based on the interpretation of the *Lechem Mishneh*. The *Maggid Mishneh* follows a slightly different perspective.
[For a *get* to be acceptable,] it is necessary that it be signed at the time it was written and in the place where it was written.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ I.e., the get
⁵⁸ E.g., the get
⁵⁹ The Shulchan Aruch
⁶⁰ Other legal documents, by contrast, are acceptable if the principals were involved in the discussion of the matter that extended from the afternoon until after nightfall. For from the time the contract was written, it was a matter of public knowledge (Beit Shmuel
⁶¹ The Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:26
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:26)

חָתַךְ מִמֶּנּוּ הַזְּמַן וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב שֵׁם הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ שְׁנִיָּה מֵחֹדֶשׁ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ בְּחֹדֶשׁ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ בְּשָׁנָה פְּלוֹנִית וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר הַחֹדֶשׁ אֲפִלּוּ כָּתַב בְּשָׁבוּעַ פְּלוֹנִי כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בּוֹ הַיּוֹם גֵּרַשְׁתִּיהָ כָּשֵׁר שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה שֶׁיָּצָא בּוֹ הַגֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A *get* is acceptable if [the husband] cut off [the portion of the *get* that contained] the date and gave it to her,⁶² 17b, that our Sages did not suspect that a person would attempt a deception of such a scale to deceive the court. Therefore, the *get* is acceptable. Rashi and others explain that when saying "our Sages did not suspect that a person would not attempt such large scale deception," the Talmud explains why this instance is not mentioned in the *mishnah* discussed beforehand. It should not be interpreted to mean that the *get* is acceptable.
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 127:8) mentions both views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam. The *Beit Shmuel* 127:14, however, states that most authorities accept Rashi's view. or did not write the date, merely [the week - i.e.,] the first or the second week of a given month, or he specified merely the month or [merely] the year without mentioning the month, or even if he specified merely the seven-year cycle⁶³ 17b explains that even in this instance, the date of the *get* - though imprecise - is somewhat useful: it excludes the time before or after the time period mentioned. Even when the date of the month is mentioned, the time is not pinpointed exactly, because the woman could have committed adultery in the morning and received the *get* in the afternoon. Therefore, even these less precise dates are also acceptable.
The *Beit Shmuel* 127:12 explains that a *get* that was predated or postdated is unacceptable because the date is false, not merely imprecise. In the former instances, although there is imprecision, there is no falsehood. [in which the *get* was composed].
Similarly, a *get* is acceptable if [the husband] writes within it: "Today I divorced her." This implies the day on which the *get* was released.

footnotes:
⁶² The Rambam appears to follow Rabbenu Chanan'el's interpretation of Gittin
⁶³ In this context, Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:27
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:27)

וְכֵן תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹנִין בְּגִטִּין לְמַלְכוּת אוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת. כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַלְכוּת אוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה אוֹ לְבִנְיַן הַבַּיִת אוֹ לְחֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת אִם דֶּרֶךְ אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם לִמְנוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר וְאִם אֵין דַּרְכָּן לִמְנוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. וּכְבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִמְנוֹת בְּגִטִּין אוֹ לִיצִירָה אוֹ לַמַּלְכוּת אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרוֹס מַקְדוֹן שֶׁהוּא מִנְיַן שְׁטָרוֹת. וְאִם כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת אוֹתוֹ זְמַן בִּמְדִינָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ רְשׁוּת אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Similarly, [our Sages] ordained that the year of the ruling kingdom of that time should be mentioned in a *get* to gain the favor of the ruling authorities.⁶⁴ 80a).
[The following rules apply if] a person writes a *get* and dated it according to the years of a kingdom other [than that of his locale] or according to the years beginning from the Temple's construction or destruction. If it is customary for people in that locale to date [their documents] in this manner, it is acceptable. If this is not the local custom, it is unacceptable.
It has already become the universal Jewish custom to date *gittin* from the time of creation,⁶⁵ or from the crowning of Alexander the Great, which is [the accepted means of dating] for legal documents.⁶⁶ If one dates [a *get*] according to the years of a contemporary kingdom, it is acceptable only in the country over which that kingdom rules.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ I.e., dating our legal documents according to the rulers' years indicates the rulers' importance (Rashi, Gittin
⁶⁵ This is the present custom. The practice of dating documents according to the years of the gentile rulers was discontinued because those rulers ceased to attach importance to the matter.
⁶⁶ Alexander's kingdom began 3450 years after creation. Since it encompassed the entire Western world, it provided a uniform dating pattern for people throughout the world. It is, however, no longer customary to date legal documents in this manner.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:28
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/1:28)

הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְנִתְאַחֵר הַדָּבָר יָמִים אוֹ שָׁנִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל וְהֻצְרְכוּ לִכְתֹּב לָהּ גֵּט אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַן הַכְּתִיבָה וּמְקוֹם הַכְּתִיבָה, לֹא הַזְּמַן שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַבַּעַל בּוֹ כִּתְבוּ וְלֹא אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן וְהָיוּ עוֹמְדִין בְּתִשְׁרֵי וְנִתְאַחֲרוּ עַד נִיסָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּלוּד כּוֹתְבִין זְמַן הַגֵּט מִנִּיסָן וּבְלוּד שֶׁשָּׁם נִכְתַּב הַגֵּט כִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a person tells two [colleagues]: "Write a *get* for my wife, sign it and give it to her," and the matter was delayed several days or years, or the *get* was [discovered to contain an imperfection causing it] to be [considered] void, and it was necessary to write a new *get* that was acceptable, as will be explained.⁶⁷ In such an instance, the date and the place when and where the *get* was written are recorded, and not the date and place when and where the husband told them to compose the *get*.
What is implied? If the husband told them [to write the *get*] in Jerusalem, in [the month of] Tishrei, and [the agents] delayed and did not write it until Nisan, at which time they were located in Lod, the *get* should be dated in Nisan, and Lod [should be recorded as its place], for this is where the *get* was written. [This is also the practice] with regard to other legal documents.⁶⁸ 23:6.

footnotes:
⁶⁷ See Chapter 2, Halachah 8.
⁶⁸ See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh