## Mishneh Torah, Divorce Chapter 2

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

זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ". אֶחָד הַכּוֹתֵב בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחֵר לִכְתֹּב לוֹ. וְאֶחָד הַנּוֹתֵן בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחֵר לִתֵּן לָהּ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר וְכָתַב אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁאֵין מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב. וְנָתַן שֶׁלֹּא תִּקַּח מֵעַצְמָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 24:1], "And he will write a bill of divorce for her and place it in her hand," refers both to [a husband] who writes [the *get*] with his own hand and to one who tells [another person] to write it for him. Similarly, [the husband] may place it in her hand or tell an agent to give it to her.¹ (Responsum 228) and the *Kovetz* deduce that the Rambam requires that not only the person who gives the *get*, but also the scribe, must be appointed as agents. This decision is quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 120:1). Moreover, the *Shulchan Aruch* continues, stating that in addition, the scribe must write the *get* with paper and ink belonging to the husband.
There are, however, other opinions, which maintain that the scribe need not be appointed as an agent. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 16 and notes.)
The verse states, "And he will write," only to teach that divorce is effective only through the medium of a written document. "And [he will] place it" teaches that the woman may not take [the *get*] herself.

footnotes:
¹ In most matters of Torah law, a person is able to charge an agent to act on his behalf. From the Rambam's wording, Terumat HaDeshen


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

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְחוֹתְמִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ וְהֵן הֵן שְׁלוּחָיו וְהֵן הֵן עֵדָיו. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתֹב לִי גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאָמַר לָעֵדִים לַחְתֹּם כּוֹתְבִים וְחוֹתְמִים וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ וְהוּא מְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When [a husband] tells two [colleagues]: "Write a *get*, sign it, and give it to my wife," the two may write it, sign it,². *Tosafot* and many other authorities rule that a *get* signed by a scribe is unacceptable. In the *Beit Yosef* (*Even HaEzer* 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam agrees that *a priori*, the scribe should not act as one of the witnesses who sign the *get*. When there is no alternative, however, it is acceptable. (See *Lechem Mishneh*.) and give it to her. They are [the husband's] agents [for the divorce], and they are the witnesses [to it].³ 3:16.)
Similarly, if [the husband] tells a scribe: "Write a *get* for my wife for me," and he tells the witnesses to sign, the *get* may be written, signed and given to [the husband]. He may use it to divorce his wife whenever he desires.⁴ written, the *get* is nullified, for we assume that the couple engaged in sexual relations, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
Second, there is the problem that the *get* is predated - i.e., although it was dated on the day it was written, it is the giving of the *get* and not the writing of the *get* that effects the divorce. Thus, the date on which the *get* was given and the date of the divorce are not the same.
With regard to that issue, we are forced to say that the Rambam does not consider it to be problematic. Indeed, when discussing the issue of predated *gittin* (Chapter 1, Halachah 25), the Rambam makes no mention of this matter at all. Other authorities differ, and it is their view that is accepted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 127:5), which states that if a *get* is not given on the day on which it was written, it is acceptable only when given by an agent. (See *Beit Shmuel* 127:7.)

footnotes:
² There is a difficulty in this instance, for the scribe must also act as one of the witnesses who sign the get
³ In this instance, the act the agent effects does not concern him. Therefore, there is no difficulty in his serving as a witness to it. (See also Hilchot Ishut
⁴ There are two points of clarification that must be made with regard to this ruling: First, if the husband enters into privacy with his wife after having the get


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

וְכוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ בּוֹ מַכִּירִין וְיוֹדְעִים שֶׁזֶּה הוּא פְּלוֹנִי וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא פְּלוֹנִית. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶם שָׁוִים וּשְׁמוֹת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם שָׁוִים אֵין מְגָרֵשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם אֶלָּא בְּמַעֲמַד חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב גֵּט וְיוֹלִיכוֹ לְאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ וְיַאַסְרֶנָּה עָלָיו:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
We may write a *get* for a man even when he is not accompanied by his wife, provided the witnesses and the scribe who wrote and signed [the *get*] know the identity of the man and his wife.⁵ 24:3-4. The *Kessef Mishneh* emphasizes that there are several points to be derived from an analysis of the Rambam's choice of wording in the present halachah and in that source:
a) Even if the man is accompanied by a woman he claims to be his wife, the witnesses may not sign a *get* for her until this fact is established.
b) It is not significant whether or not the scribe knows the identity of the man and his wife. When the scribe does not sign the *get* (see the notes to the previous halachah), it is the witnesses alone who must be aware of the identity of the husband and wife.
c) As long as a person's name has been established in a city for thirty days - even if it is only according to his own statements - this is sufficient.
d) The witnesses must also know the names of the father of the husband and of the wife.
e) The person's father's name can also be established on the basis of his own statements.
If there are two men in a city whose names are the same and whose wives' names are the same, one may divorce his wife only in the presence of the other. [This safeguard was enacted] lest one [of the men] have a *get* written and give it to the wife of the other man, causing her to [be considered] to be divorced from [her husband].⁶ 10:3), it appears that the intent is to prevent the woman receiving the *get* from engineering such an act of deception.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the *Mishneh Torah*. The standard printed text states "causing her to be forbidden to him," i.e., she will think that she has been divorced, and on that basis, she will marry another man, and thus become forbidden to her first husband.

footnotes:
⁵ See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh
⁶ From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra


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

וּבִשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִים. וְהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר בְּכָל מָקוֹם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
In a time of danger,⁷ written for his wife, so that she will not have to undergo the rites of either *yibbum* or *chalitzah* (*Gittin* 66a). we may write a *get* [on behalf of a husband] and give it [to his wife], even though we are not aware of [their identities].
It is the woman who always pays the scribe's fee.⁸ (for it is his responsibility), *Bava Batra* 168a explains that our Sages transferred this obligation to the woman, lest the husband lack the financial resources and cause the woman to wait unnecessarily for her *get*.

footnotes:
⁷ A time of danger means an instance when the husband is in danger of dying and asks to have a get
⁸ Although according to Scriptural law it is the husband who should pay for the writing of the get


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

וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַבַּעַל עַצְמוֹ לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתֹמוּ. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ בֵּית דִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ וְאָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְכָתְבוּ הֵן עַצְמָן וְחָתְמוּ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ הֵם לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַבַּעַל וְחָזַר וְנָתַן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתָבוֹ מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל לְכָתְבוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The husband himself must tell the scribe to write [the *get*] and the witnesses to sign [it]. When a court of law⁹ or two [colleagues] ask a man: "Shall we write a *get* for your wife?" and he tells them to write [it and sign it],¹⁰. it is acceptable if they themselves write [the *get*] and sign it.
If, however, they tell a scribe [to write] and he does, and they tell witnesses [to sign] and they do, the *get* is void, because it was written by someone who was not told to write it by the husband himself.¹¹. They do not have the authority to convey this responsibility to someone else.
In other instances, an agent can transfer his agency to another person, but here the scribe and the witness were charged with only a verbal command, and a verbal command cannot be transferred to another agent (*Gittin* 66b). [This ruling applies] even when they give [the *get*] to the husband, who in turn gives it to his wife in the presence of witnesses.¹² itself.

footnotes:
⁹ The Rambam mentions a court of law to indicate that in this instance, their authority is no greater than that of an ordinary person.
¹⁰ The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh
¹¹ The husband charged these individuals with the composition and the signing of the get
¹² For the difficulty is with the composition of the get


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

אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה אִמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְיִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאִמְרוּ לָעֵדִים וְיַחְתֹּמוּ וְאָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם אִמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְיִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאַתֶּם חֲתֹמוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וּמִתְיַשְּׁבִין בְּדָבָר זֶה הַרְבֵּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת גֵּט בָּטֵל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When [a man] tells two or three [colleagues]: "Tell a scribe to write a *get* for my wife and tell the witnesses to sign," and they convey these instructions, the *get* is unacceptable.¹³ is deemed void, here the Rambam rules that it is unacceptable. This more lenient ruling is given because in this instance, the husband's colleagues carried out his instructions.
The Ra'avad and many other authorities also consider this *get* to be void, for they maintain that the scribe must hear his appointment from the husband directly. The Rambam, however, maintains that the divorce is acceptable according to Scriptural law. As a safeguard, the Rabbis did not accept it, lest a woman hire agents who will tell the scribe and witnesses to compose a *get* in the husband's name, even though he did not convey such instructions (*Gittin* 67a). [The same ruling applies if the husband] tells two [colleagues] to tell a scribe to write a *get* and tells them to sign it.¹⁴
This matter should be deliberated upon at length, because the *get* is close to being considered void.¹⁵ that are unacceptable, and the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt. This is also the ruling of the Ramah. Rav Moshe Alshacar, however, differs and maintains that there is no difference between this instance and others in which the *get* is deemed unacceptable.

footnotes:
¹³ In contrast to the previous halachah, in which the get
¹⁴ For the husband did not convey the instructions to the scribe himself.
¹⁵ Rav David HaCohen interprets this to mean that this case is judged more severely than other gittin


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

וּמַה בֵּין פָּסוּל לְבָטֵל. שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּחִבּוּר זֶה בְּגֵט שֶׁהוּא בָּטֵל הוּא בָּטֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר פָּסוּל הוּא פָּסוּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
What is the difference between the terms "unacceptable" (*pasul*) and "void" (*bateil*)? Whenever this text refers to a *get* as "void," that means that according to Scriptural law it is void. Whenever the term "unacceptable" is used, it refers to a *get* deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.¹⁶ is void, the woman's first marriage is not annulled, and she must leave her second husband if she has remarried. Any children she bears the second husband are considered to be *mamzerim*. When the *get* is deemed unacceptable by our Rabbis, by contrast, the woman should not remarry, but if she does remarry she is allowed to remain married to her second husband.

footnotes:
¹⁶ The practical difference between these two terms is explained in Chapter 10, Halachot 1 and 2. When a get


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

הַבַּעַל שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט בְּיָדוֹ חָתוּם וְאָמַר תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִתְּנוּ לָהּ. אָמַר לַאֲחֵרִים לִכְתֹּב גֵּט וְלַחְתֹּם בּוֹ וְלִתְּנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל אוֹ פָּסוּל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט אַחֵר אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a husband brings a *get* that has been signed in his hand and tells [two colleagues]: "Give this *get* to my wife," they should give it to her [and it is acceptable].¹⁷ composed and gave it to his wife to cause her difficulties (*Kessef Mishneh*).
If he tells others to write a *get*, sign it and give to his wife, and they write it, sign it and give it to her, and then it is discovered that the *get* is void or unacceptable, they may write another *get* - or even 100 other *gittin* - until the woman receives an acceptable *get*.¹⁸, and that they must receive a new charge from the husband before writing another one.
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 122:1) states that if the *get* is not unacceptable, but does not conform with the standard demanded by the local Rav, the scribe does not have the right to write a second *get*, for the agency with which he was charged by the husband has already been discharged. Therefore, it is customary for a husband to tell the scribe and the witnesses to write as many *gittin* as necessary, until one finds favor in the eyes of the Rav arranging the divorce.

footnotes:
¹⁷ We do not suspect that the husband had a void or unacceptable get
¹⁸ We do not say that the agency with which they were entrusted involved only the composition of one get


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

אָמַר לָהֶם הַבַּעַל כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלִיךְ לָהּ וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל אוֹ פָּסוּל אֵין כּוֹתְבִים אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּמָּלְכוּ בַּבַּעַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָן שְׁלוּחִים לְגֵרוּשִׁין וְשֶׁמָּא לֹא רָצָה אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ בִּלְבַד וְלֹא יִשָּׁאֵר לָהֶם בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אַחֵר וַהֲרֵי כָּתְבוּ וְנָתְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִכְתְּבוּ אַחֵר. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ (וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ) הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the husband tells [two colleagues]: Write and sign [a *get*] and give it to an agent to bring to her, and they do as they were charged, but it was discovered that the *get* was void or unacceptable, they may not write another [*get*] until they consult the husband.
[The rationale is] that [the husband] did not charge them with [effecting the divorce]. Perhaps he wanted merely that they write [the *get*] and give it to the agent. [If so, their agency was completed,] and nothing remains for them to do, for they have written it and given it [to the agent]. Therefore, they should not write another [*get*].¹⁹ written, they would no longer be acting in the agency of the husband, but rather on their own initiative.
Rav Moshe HaCohen differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that since they did not write an acceptable *get*, their agency was not completed. For the husband did not charge them with writing a worthless piece of paper; he wanted them to write a *get*. Note the *Beit Shmuel* 122:7, who interprets the disqualifying factor mentioned by the Rambam as referring to a disqualification that occurred after the *get* was given to the agent. He maintains that if a *get* that was void or unacceptable was given to the agent, even the Rambam would allow the writing of another *get*.
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 122:2) quotes the ruling of the Rambam, while the Ramah follows the opinion of Rav Moshe HaCohen.
If they do write another *get* that is acceptable and give it to the agent - who in turn gives it to the wife - the status of the divorce is in doubt.²⁰

footnotes:
¹⁹ If the husband had in fact given them only such a limited agency, were they to have another get
²⁰ We are not certain that their agency was limited in scope. Perhaps the husband's intent was that they effect the divorce.


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

הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ לְיֶתֶר מִשְּׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי גַּרְשׁוּהָ שַׁלְּחוּהָ שִׁבְקוּהָ תַּרְכוּהָ כִּתְבוּ אִגֶּרֶת וּתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ גֵּט כָּשֵׁר וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶם פִּטְרוּהָ פַּרְנְסוּהָ עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כַּדָּת עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כַּנִּימוּס עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כָּרָאוּי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person tells two or more [colleagues]: "Write a *get* and give to my wife," "Divorce her," "Send her away," "Release her,"²¹ "Discharge her," or "Write a letter and give it to her," [the colleagues] should write an acceptable *get* and give it to her.
If, however, he tells them: "Dismiss her," "Give her what she needs," "Do as our faith requires to her," "Do as the law requires to her," "Do unto her as she deserves," his statements are of no consequence.²² If [these individuals] write a *get* and give it to the woman, the *get* is void.²³ 141:21, who quotes authorities who maintain that even in such instances the status of the divorce should be considered doubtful.

footnotes:
²¹ This and the following term are acceptable, because they are Aramaic equivalents of the word "divorce."
²² These expressions do not convey adequately enough the intent that the husband desires to divorce his wife for them to be considered effective in bringing about the appointment of the agents for this purpose.
²³ Note the Beit Shmuel


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

אָמַר לָהֶם הוֹצִיאוּהָ עִזְבוּהָ הַתִּירוּהָ הַנִּיחוּהָ הוֹעִילוּהָ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם מַשְׁמָע מִלּוֹת אֵלּוּ גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ עִנְיָן אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If he tells them: "Get her out," "Let her go," "Permit her [to remarry]," "Let her be," "Assist her," there is doubt whether or not these terms imply that she should be divorced or whether they have another meaning. Therefore, [these individuals] should not write [a *get*] for her. If they write a *get* and give it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.


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

הָאוֹמֵר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְחוֹתְמִין וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶם לִתֵּן לָהּ. וְאִם נָתְנוּ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָרִיא אֲבָל בִּמְסֻכָּן וְהוּא אָדָם שֶׁקָּפַץ עָלָיו הַחלִי בִּמְהֵרָה וְהִכְבִּיד עָלָיו חָלְיוֹ מִיָּד וְהַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר אֲפִלּוּ עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן וְהַמְפָרֵשׁ בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא בְּשַׁיָּרָא וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיַחְתְּמוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן זֶה אֶלָּא לִכְתֹּב וְלִתֵּן לָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When [a man] says: "Write a *get* for my wife," [the people he addresses] should write the *get*, sign it and give it to him. They should not give it to the woman unless he tells them to. If they do give it to the woman, the *get* is not [effective].²⁴
When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy man. If, however, a man is dangerously ill - i.e., he suddenly falls sick and his illness rapidly becomes very severe - or if he is being led away in chains,²⁵ 6:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a person taken from jail in chains to be judged by a gentile magistrate. even for financial matters, or he departs on an ocean journey, or he departs with a caravan [on a desert journey] and he says, "Write a *get* for my wife," they should write it, sign it and give it to her. For it is clear that his intent was that they should write the *get* and give it to her.²⁶ or *chalitzah*. Alternatively, he knew that he was entering a dangerous situation, and feared that he might die, without there being any witnesses of his death. In order to prevent his wife from being forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her life, he charges witnesses with the composition of a *get*.
He surely wanted to tell the witnesses to give the *get*, and it was only because of his concern with his personal situation that he forgot to do so (*op. cit.*). (See *Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah* 8:24, which relates similar concepts with regard to a person's division of his estate.)

footnotes:
²⁴ For the husband has not charged them with effecting the divorce.
²⁵ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin
²⁶ We assume that, in all these instances, his intent was to divorce his wife, lest he die and she be required to undergo the rite of either yibbum


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

בָּרִיא שֶׁאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ וְהָרַג עַצְמוֹ מִיָּד כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִשְׁלִיךְ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַגַּג אוֹ הִפִּיל עַצְמוֹ לַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר. עָלָה לַגַּג וּדְחָפַתּוּ הָרוּחַ וְנָפַל וּמֵת אֵינוֹ גֵּט. סָפֵק הִפִּיל עַצְמוֹ סָפֵק דְּחָפַתּוּ הָרוּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהָרוּחַ דְּחָפַתּוּ. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיָה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּבּוֹר וְאָמַר כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ קוֹלִי יִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּדְעוּ אוֹתוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעֱלוּהוּ וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁזֶּה כִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה הוּא שֶׁכּוֹתְבִים וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנָּפְלוּ בּוֹ מַכּוֹת רָעוֹת שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטוּ בּוֹ רֹב סִימָנִין וְרָמַז וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי עַתָּה חַי הוּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לָמוּת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a healthy person says: "Compose a *get* for my wife," and [his listeners] write a *get*, sign it and give it to her. If he commits suicide immediately thereafter - e.g., he throws himself down from a roof or jumps into the sea - the *get* is acceptable.²⁷ should be given, but failed to mention the point because of his preoccupation with his own concerns.
If, however, he climbs up onto a [high] roof, and he is buffeted by the wind until he falls and dies, the *get* is void.²⁸ given. If there is doubt whether he threw himself down [from the roof] or was buffeted by the wind, the *get* is valid unless it becomes known with certainty that he was buffeted by the wind.²⁹ would be considered valid, in light of the doubt that exists. Indeed, there are commentaries that suggest that the text before us is a printing error and that the Rambam considers the status of the divorce to be in doubt. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:18) rules that if the husband falls immediately afterwards, the *get* is acceptable. If not, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Similarly, if a man was cast into a pit and he said, "Whoever hears my voice should write a *get* for my wife," [his listeners] should write a *get* and give it to her, provided they recognize his identity.³⁰ (*loc. cit.*:19) states that the man must state his name, the name of his wife, the name of the city in which he lives and the name of the city in which she lives. Even if [afterwards,] they took him out of the pit and could not identify him,³¹ [the divorce] is acceptable. For in time of danger, [a *get*] can be written and given to [a man's wife] even if they do not know his identity.
Similarly, when a person suffers many severe blows, to the extent that it is impossible for him to survive - or even if the majority of [his windpipe and gullet]³² have been cut - and he makes motions³³ 121:11 interprets this to mean that the man shakes his head in response to questions (see Halachah 16) and thus indicates that he desires to divorce his wife. and says: "Write a *get* for my wife," [his listeners] should write [a *get*] and give it [to her]. Although he will eventually die, he is alive at this time.³⁴ is not considered to have been given after the man died, and his wife is not required to undergo the rites of *yibbum* or *chalitzah*. See Chapter 6, Halachah 28.

footnotes:
²⁷ In this instance as well, we assume that the person intended to say that the get
²⁸ For his intent is not clear, and it is possible that he wanted to deliberate before having the get
²⁹ The Rambam's ruling is debated by the commentaries, for it is questionable why the get
³⁰ The Shulchan Aruch
³¹ E.g., his face had been cut to the point where his identity was no longer recognizable.
³² The slitting of these organs are the two signs that determine whether or not ritual slaughter is acceptable.
³³ The Beit Shmuel
³⁴ The get


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

מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה רוּחַ רָעָה מְבַעֶתֶת אוֹתוֹ וְאָמַר כְּשֶׁהִתְחִיל בּוֹ הַחלִי כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וּמְיֻשֶּׁבֶת. וְכֵן שִׁכּוֹר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְשִׁכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט. וְאִם לֹא הִגִּיעַ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a person is troubled by an evil spirit, and at the time when his infirmity begins to take hold of him says: "Write a *get* for my wife." His statements are of no consequence, because his thoughts are not organized and settled.³⁵ The same ruling applies to a person who has become as drunk as Lot.³⁶ If a drunkard has not reached that level [of incapacity], [the status of the divorce] is in doubt.³⁷ that he orders to be given is of doubtful status.
The commentaries question this understanding, noting that in *Hilchot Ishut* 4:18, the Rambam rules that *kiddushin* given by a drunk are viable, unless he reaches Lot's state. Similarly, with regard to the entire Torah, a drunk is considered responsible for his conduct. If he commits a transgression punishable by death while drunk, he is executed. Despite these questions, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 121:1) quotes the Rambam's wording. On this basis, the *Beit Shmuel* states that both a husband and a wife should not drink alcoholic beverages on the day of their divorce.

footnotes:
³⁵ For a person's actions to have halachic significance, he must be mentally competent at the time he performs them.
³⁶ Whom Genesis, Chapter 19, describes as having become so drunk that he was not aware of having sex with his daughters.
³⁷ The Rambam appears to be saying that if we are certain that the person is drunk, but see that he is conscious enough to have some control over his behavior, a get


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

אָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא בָּרִיא כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִבְעַת מַמְתִּינִין עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא וְכוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וּלְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִבְרִיא. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְנָתְנוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבָּרֵא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when a] healthy [man] says: "Write a *get* for my wife and give it to her," and afterwards he becomes mentally disturbed. We wait until he becomes healthy again, and then we write the *get* and give it to her. There is no need to consult with him about the matter again when he regains his heath.³⁸ should not be written until he regains his health. Nevertheless, once he regains his health, the agency that he originally gave is unaffected, and the *get* should be written and delivered.
If a *get* is written and given before he regains his health, it is unacceptable.³⁹, Rav Yosef Karo questions why the Rambam uses the term "unacceptable" (*pasul*). Seemingly, based on *Gittin* 70b, this ruling should apply only when we have a means of healing the afflicted person. Otherwise, the *get* should be void. Indeed, in the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 121:2), Rav Yosef Karo rules accordingly. Note, however, the *Beit Shmuel* 121:2, who justifies the Rambam's ruling.
[The difference between these two opinions revolves around the fundamental conception of an agent's authority. Is he acting independently of the principal (in which case the principal's state is not of concern to us) or is he considered to be an extension of the principal (in which case, if the principal is unable to perform an act, neither is his agent). See *Lekach Tov*, Section 1.]
Based on the above, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 121:4) writes that we should check that a person who is giving a *get* when terminally ill is sound of mind.

footnotes:
³⁸ While the husband (the principal) is incapacitated, his agent (the scribe) cannot act on his behalf. Therefore, the get
³⁹ In the Kessef Mishneh


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

מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק וַהֲרֵי דַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּסֵרוּגִין אִם אָמַר לָהֶם עַל לָאו לָאו וְעַל הֵן הֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. וּצְרִיכִין לְבָדְקוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה שֶׁמָּא נִטְרְפָה דַּעְתּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בְּיָדוֹ כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ אִם הָיְתָה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין דִּין מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק כְּדִין הַחֵרֵשׁ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a person loses his ability to speak, but is of sound mind. We ask him: "Should we write a *get* for your wife?" If he nods his head affirmatively, we test him with three [questions with different answers].⁴⁰, the intent is three questions in which at least one of the answers differs from the other two. There are other authorities who require two sets of three questions. Also, based on *Gittin* 70b, the Ramah (*Even HaEzer* 121:5) suggests that the person should be asked questions about fruit - e.g., would he desire a summer fruit in winter? His ability to discern with regard to these matters will serve as an indicator of whether or not he is of sound mind. If he answers those [questions] to be answered affirmatively in the affirmative and those to be answered negatively in the negative, they should write [a *get*] and give it [to her]. His mental state must be checked thoroughly, lest he not be of sound mind.
Similarly, if he writes by hand: "Write a *get* and give it to my wife," they should write it and give it to her, if [it appears] that he is of sound mind. For the laws governing a person who loses his ability to speak differ from those governing a deaf-mute.⁴¹

footnotes:
⁴⁰ According to the Kessef Mishneh
⁴¹ A deaf-mute is not considered to be of sound mind and is not held responsible for his conduct.


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

מִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר נִשְׁתַּטָּה אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא. וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל רְמִיזַת הַחֵרֵשׁ וְלֹא עַל כְּתָבוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וּמְיֻשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה כְּשֶׁהוּא חֵרֵשׁ מְגָרֵשׁ בִּרְמִיזָה שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנֵס בִּרְמִיזָה כָּךְ מוֹצִיא בִּרְמִיזָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person married while sound of mind and became a deaf-mute, he cannot divorce his wife until he regains his mental health.⁴² Needless to say, this applies to a person who loses his mental stability.⁴³ 9:9, where the Rambam defines the term *shoteh* as including not only maniacs whose behavior is totally beyond control, but also those who are confused and lack the stability to function normally. We do not rely on the motions of a deaf-mute or on his writing, even if he is of sound mind.
If, however, a deaf-mute married a woman while he was in that state, he may divorce her by making motions, for his consecration of her is not valid according to Scriptural law, as has been explained.⁴⁴ 4:9. Just as he married her by making motions, he may divorce her by making motions.

footnotes:
⁴² For the marriage bond he established is binding according to Scriptural law, and he is not capable of initiating divorce proceedings that have that power.
⁴³ See Hilchot Edut
⁴⁴ Hilchot Ishut


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

הַמְקַדֵּשׁ קְטַנָּה עַל יְדֵי אָבִיהָ וְגֵרְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה אָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל גִּטָּהּ וּמִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיַד הָאָב נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. גֵּרְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה אִם הִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד אָבִיהָ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וְאֵין עוֹשָׂה נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל הָאָב עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל הַגֵּט לְבִתּוֹ הַמְאֹרָסָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין נַעֲרָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a man consecrates a minor via her father's agency and [seeks to] divorce her while she is a minor, her father should accept her *get*.⁴⁵ 47a).
This applies, however, only before the marriage bond is consummated. After *nisu'in*, the consummation of the marriage, the father no longer has any authority over his daughter even though she is below the age of majority. (See *Hilchot Ishut* 3:12.)
We may conclude that, before *nisu'in*, the Rambam does not consider the girl as having the authority to receive her own *get*. This opinion is accepted by most authorities and is quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:4). The *Shulchan Aruch*, however, also mentions the opinion of *Tosafot*, who maintain that the girl possesses this authority. When the *get* reaches her father's possession, she is divorced.
If [the husband seeks to] divorce [his *arusah*] when she is a *na'arah*,⁴⁶ 2:1, 3:11.) the divorce is effective when the *get* reaches her possession or her father's possession. A *na'arah* who is consecrated may not appoint an agent to receive her *get* from her husband during her father's lifetime.⁴⁷ even if her father dies or her marriage has been consummated (*Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 141:3.) A father, by contrast, may appoint an agent to receive a *get* for his daughter who has been consecrated, whether she is a minor or a *na'arah*.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ Just as the Torah gives him authority to consecrate her, he is responsible for taking part in the divorce, for Deuteronomy 24:2 establishes an association between the forging of the marriage bond and its dissolution (Ketubot
⁴⁶ I.e., a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half, who has manifested signs of physical maturity. She is already considered to be past majority with regard to certain dimensions of Torah law. Nevertheless, her father is still granted authority over her in certain contexts. (See Hilchot Ishut
⁴⁷ A married girl below the age of majority, by contrast, may not appoint an agent to receive her get


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

קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וּמֵת. אִם מַבְחֶנֶת בֵּין גִּטָּהּ לְדָבָר אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת מִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁתַּבְחִין וְאִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a girl's father consecrates her⁴⁸ are effective according to Scriptural law, and a divorce is required. If, by contrast, the girl's father died, and her mother, her brother or she herself established a marriage bond, it is not binding according to Scriptural law and a *get* is not required. Instead, this marriage can be dissolved through the rite of *mi'un*, as described in *Hilchot Ishut* 4:7. when she is a minor and then [the father] dies. If [the girl] can differentiate between a *get* and another object,⁴⁹ 141:6) states that this refers to a girl of six or seven, depending on her intellectual capacities. the divorce is effective after the *get* reaches her possession. If [she is] incapable [of making such a distinction], she cannot be divorced until she becomes capable of making such distinctions.⁵⁰ on her behalf regardless of her age or degree of understanding. Rashi (*Gittin* 64b) differs and maintains that if she is unable to make distinctions, she cannot be divorced even via her father. Although the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:6) quotes both opinions, it appears to favor that of the Rambam. If such a divorce is carried out, it is of no consequence.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ If the girl's father consecrates her, the kiddushin
⁴⁹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
⁵⁰ If, however, a minor's father is alive, he can accept a get


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

מִי שֶׁהַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְגָרֵשׁ. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי וְיִכְתֹּב הַגֵּט וְהוּא גֵּט כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם הִכּוּהוּ עַכּוּ"ם וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִין לְךָ וְלָחֲצוּ אוֹתוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד הָעַכּוּ"ם עַד שֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם הָעַכּוּ"ם מֵעַצְמָן אֲנָסוּהוּ עַד שֶׁכָּתַב הוֹאִיל וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְלָמָּה לֹא בִּטֵּל גֵּט זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אָנוּס בֵּין בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם בֵּין בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין אָנוּס אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁנִּלְחַץ וְנִדְחַק לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב בּוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ כְּגוֹן מִי שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ עַד שֶׁנָּתַן. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ יִצְרוֹ הָרַע לְבַטֵּל מִצְוָה אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עֲבֵרָה וְהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁעָשָׂה דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּב לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּתְרַחֵק מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אֵין זֶה אָנוּס מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא הוּא אָנַס עַצְמוֹ בְּדַעְתּוֹ הָרָעָה. לְפִיכָךְ זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְגָרֵשׁ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְרוֹצֶה הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת וּלְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת וְיִצְרוֹ הוּא שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ יִצְרוֹ וְאָמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי כְּבָר גֵּרֵשׁ לִרְצוֹנוֹ. לֹא הָיָה הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ וְטָעוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ הֶדְיוֹטוֹת וַאֲנָסוּהוּ עַד שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל הוֹאִיל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנָסוּהוּ יִגְמֹר וִיגָרֵשׁ. וְאִם הָעַכּוּ"ם, אֲנָסוּהוּ לְגָרֵשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין אֵינוֹ גֵּט. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר בְּעַכּוּ"ם רוֹצֶה אֲנִי וְאָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַדִּין מְחַיְּבוֹ לְהוֹצִיא וְהָעַכּוּ"ם אֲנָסוּהוּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife⁵¹ 14:8), a man who was married to a woman for ten years without her bearing a child (*Hilchot Ishut* 15:7), a man who becomes afflicted by [constant] bad breath or an odor from his nose, one who becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper or a tanner or one who becomes a leper (*Hilchot Ishut* 25:11-12) or a priest who marries a divorcee (*Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah* 17:7). does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a *get* written. The *get* is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places.⁵² or to the era when the *Sanhedrin* (the High Court of Law) was in power.
Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a *get*] on their own initiative, the *get* is [merely] unacceptable.⁵³ unacceptable, lest women become accustomed to hiring gentiles for this purpose (*Bava Batra* 48a). In the *Kessef Mishneh*, Rav Yosef Karo notes that *Gittin* 88b appears to reject Rav Mesharshia's view and states that a *get* that was forced on a man by gentiles is void entirely. (This indeed is the ruling of Rashi, Rabbenu Nissim and Rabbenu Asher.) In his *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 134:5), Rav Yosef Karo's wording is not specific when dealing with this issue. The *Beit Shmuel* 134:10 states that such a *get* is void. The rationale is that the law requires him to give a divorce.
Why is this *get* not void? For he is being compelled - either by Jews or by gentiles - [to divorce] against his will [and a *get* must be given voluntarily].
Because the concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale,⁵⁴ 10:1, which states that such a sale is acceptable, after the fact. Nevertheless, if the seller notifies the witnesses that he was compelled to sell against his will, the sale is nullified. or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].⁵⁵
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.
[Different laws apply when] the law does not require him to divorce his wife, and a Jewish court or simple people compel him to divorce her. This *get* is deemed unacceptable. Since, however, it was Jews who compelled him, he [is advised] to complete the divorce [in a proper manner]. If, by contrast, gentiles compel him to divorce when it was not required, the divorce is void. Even though he tells the gentiles that he consented and tells the Jews to write and sign [a *get*], since the law does not require him to divorce, and he was compelled to do so by gentiles, the *get* is void.

footnotes:
⁵¹ E.g., a man whose wife says she is repulsed by him (Hilchot Ishut
⁵² The application of this law is not confined to Eretz Yisrael
⁵³ Rav Mesharshia states that the Rabbis deemed the get
⁵⁴ See Hilchot Mechirah
⁵⁵ The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.