## Mishneh Torah, Divorce Chapter 6

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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
An agent who is appointed by a woman to receive her *get* from her husband is called a receiving agent (*sh'liach kabbalah*). When the *get* reaches this agent's hand, the divorce is completed,¹ as if it has reached the hands of the woman herself.
[The agent] must be appointed in the presence of two witnesses, and two witnesses must be present when the *get* is conveyed to the agent. Even if the second pair of witnesses is the same as the first pair, or one of them is from the first pair, they are acceptable as witnesses.

footnotes:
¹ And from that time onward, the husband cannot recant.


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above² apply? When the *get* is lost or torn. If, however, the *get* is in the possession of the *sh'liach kabbalah*, there is no need for witnesses. This applies whether the *get* was given by the husband in private, or it was given in the presence of witnesses. The presence of the *get* in the possession of the agent is equivalent to its presence in the possession of the woman.³ Nevertheless, *a priori*, the *get* should be given only in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer, as is the case with regard to [a *get* given to] the woman herself.⁴

footnotes:
² That is, when does the requirement for witnesses apply?
³ See Chapter 1, Halachah 16.
⁴ See Chapter 1, Halachah 15.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:3
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:3)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A husband may not appoint an agent to receive a *get* for his wife.⁵ 62b). He may, however, appoint an agent to deliver a *get* to his wife. Such an agent is referred to as a delivery agent (*sh'liach holachah*).

footnotes:
⁵ A divorce is considered to be undesirable and detrimental for a woman. Therefore, an agent cannot be appointed for her without her consent. For an activity that is detrimental to a person cannot be performed on his or her behalf without his will (Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:4
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:4)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Similarly, a woman may appoint an agent to fetch her *get* for her from her husband. Such an agent is referred to as an agent who fetches (*sh'liach hava'ah*). Neither a *sh'liach holachah* nor a *sh'liach hava'ah* need [be appointed in the presence of] witnesses.⁶ 3:15, where the Rambam states: "For the only purpose witnesses would serve with regard to the agency... is to make known the truth of the matter."
According to the Rambam, the distinction between these agents and a *sh'liach kabbalah* appointed by the woman is that through the acceptance of the *get* the marriage bonds are annulled, and "no matters involving forbidden sexual relations [are established if] fewer than two witnesses are present (*Yevamot* 88a)." Since the *sh'liach kabbalah* is concerned only with receiving the *get*, his agency involves nothing else but the actual divorce. Hence, witnesses must be present to acknowledge the appointment of this agent. In contrast, the agency of a *sh'liach holachah* and a *sh'liach hava'ah* also involves transporting the *get*, an activity that is merely a preparatory step for the divorce. Hence, witnesses are not required for his appointment.
It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and others offer a far more straightforward rationale clarifying the distinction between these agents. A *sh'liach holachah* and a *sh'liach hava'ah* each carry the *get* with them. Hence, they need no further proof of their agency. A *sh'liach kabbalah*, by contrast, does not have possession of the *get* before the divorce. Hence, his position must be strengthened by having his appointment observed by witnesses.
In practice, it has already become customary for the appointment of a *sh'liach holachah* to be certified by a written document. There are opinions that differ and require that the appointment of a *sh'liach holachah* also be observed by witnesses. (See *Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 141:11, 30, 40.)

footnotes:
⁶ See Hilchot Ishut


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:5
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:5)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A woman is not divorced through the medium of a *get* sent by her husband or brought by a *sh'liach hava'ah* [whom she appointed] until the *get* reaches her hand.
Whenever the term agent is used with regard to a *get* without any further explanation, the intent is a *sh'liach holachah* or a *sh'liach hava'ah*.


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Anyone is acceptable to act as an agent with regard to a divorce, whether as a *sh'liach kabbalah*, a *sh'liach holachah* or a *sh'liach hava'ah*,⁷. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:31) quotes both views, but appears to favor the Rambam's view. with the exception of five individuals: a gentile, a servant, a deaf mute, a mentally incompetent individual and a minor.⁸ 3:17. If one of these individuals brings or receives [a *get*], the divorce is not effective.

footnotes:
⁷ The Rambam's statements are intended to negate the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosef Migash, who maintains that a servant may serve as a sh'liach holachah
⁸ See Chapter 3, Halachah 15, and Hilchot Ishut


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:7
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:7)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Even women, relatives⁹ 141:33) states that *a priori*, it is proper that the agent not share any family ties with the husband, his wife, or the judges executing the divorce. and individuals who are disqualified [from serving as witnesses] because of the violation of Rabbinic law are acceptable to serve as agents for a divorce.¹⁰ depends on the agents' statements, these individuals may serve as agents. Individuals who are disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, by contrast, are not acceptable [to serve as agents] to deliver a *get*. If they bring it, the divorce is unacceptable.
When does the above¹¹ apply? When the signatures on the *get* have been verified.¹² 2:6), the Rambam changed his opinion regarding the acceptance of these individuals as agents when the veracity of the signature on a *get* has been established. The standard text of the Commentary on the Mishnah states that if the witnesses' signatures have been verified, the *get* is acceptable unless the person worships false gods or violates the Sabbath in public. This is also the view of other authorities and is the ruling favored by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:33). If, however, we must rely only on the words of an individual who is disqualified because of the violation of Scriptural law, the divorce is void entirely.¹³ modifies the Rambam's ruling slightly, explaining that the intent is that the woman may not remarry, and not that the *get* is void. If, however, she does remarry, her second husband is also required to divorce her.
The *get* she received from her first husband is not void, because it is possible that witnesses will come and verify the signatures on the *get*. In such an event, the divorce will be effective retroactively. Nevertheless, since those signatures have not been verified as of yet, her second husband must divorce her.
Rav David Arameah explains that the Rambam's intent is that the *get* is still viable, but it should be given to another agent to effect the divorce. Note the *Maggid Mishneh* and others, who question the source for the Rambam's ruling.

footnotes:
⁹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
¹⁰ It would appear that even if the signatures of the witnesses have not been verified, and the acceptability of a get
¹¹ That the divorce is unacceptable, but not void.
¹² As can be seen in the various manuscript copies of the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin
¹³ See also Chapter 12, Halachah 17. Based on the objections of the Ra'avad, the Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:8
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:8)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the agent was a minor when he was given the *get*, and he attained majority when he brought it [to the woman], [or he was a] deaf mute and gained the ability to hear and speak, [or he was] mentally incompetent and gained competence, [or he was] a gentile and converted, or a servant and was freed, the divorce is void.¹⁴
If, however, the husband gives [an agent] a *get* while [the agent] is able to hear and speak, [or the agent then] becomes a deaf mute and afterwards regains his ability to hear and speak, or [the agent] was mentally competent, he lost his competence and then regained it when he brought it to the woman, the *get* is acceptable, for at the outset and at the conclusion, [the agent] was of sound mind.¹⁵, who on this basis questions what the law would be if the husband negates the agency and then desires to reestablish it. Must he reappoint the agent or not?

footnotes:
¹⁴ In all these instances, since the agent was not fit to serve in that capacity at the time the agency was delegated to him, it is as if the agency had never been conveyed upon him.
¹⁵ The fact that, in the interim, he was unfit to serve as an agent is of no significance. Note the Or Sameach


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:9
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:9)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a woman appoints an agent in the presence of witnesses and tells him: "Take my *get* and keep it for me in your possession," the person is a *sh'liach kabbalah*. It is as if she told him: "Receive my *get* for me."
A woman may appoint a *sh'liach kabbalah* to receive her *get* for her from an agent appointed by her husband.¹⁶ 63b states that our Sages entertained a hypothesis that this involves a disregard for the honor of the husband, and therefore the divorce should be void, but they did not accept this theory.
A girl below the age of majority may not appoint a *sh'liach kabbalah*. Although she may acquire property by virtue of her courtyard in the same manner as an adult woman¹⁷ were placed in her courtyard, the divorce would be acceptable. Moreover, the effectiveness of a courtyard in the acceptance of a *get* is associated with the concept of agency. (See *Bava Metzia* 10b and the gloss of the *Maggid Mishneh* on Chapter 5, Halachah 2.) [she does not have the privilege of appointing an agent]. The rationale is that [the appointment of] a *sh'liach kabbalah* requires witnesses, and witnesses may not testify with regard to a minor, because she is not of complete mental competence.¹⁸ either. It must be noted that in *Hilchot Sh'luchin V'Shutafin* 2:2, the Rambam indeed states that in no instance may a minor appoint an agent. See the *Lechem Mishneh* and Rav Kapach, who emphasize that a special law applies with regard to an agent to receive a *get*, for he is considered to be the extension of the woman's hand. Note the Rambam's wording in Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Gittin
¹⁷ And thus, if a get
¹⁸ The Ra'avad disagrees with the Rambam and maintains that the rationale is that a minor is never empowered to appoint an agent. And thus, a woman below majority may not appoint a sh'liach hava'ah


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:10
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:10)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following laws apply] when a woman has appointed a *sh'liach kabbalah* and her husband told him: "I do not want you to receive the *get* for her. Instead, here is her *get*. Bring it to her." The husband has this prerogative, and the person becomes a *sh'liach holachah*, rather than a *sh'liach kabbalah*.¹⁹. It is only when the *get* reaches the woman's hand that the divorce takes effect.
If, however, the husband tells [the woman's agent]: "Receive the *get* for her," "Here it is," or "Acquire it for her," he has not revoked the agency [with which] the *sh'liach kabbalah* [was charged]. But if [the husband] tells [the agent]: "Bring it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the *sh'liach kabbalah* [was charged] and has made him the agent of the husband.²⁰ in his original capacity, but that he is willing to charge him with a different agency - bringing the woman the *get* as agent of the husband.
This ruling is not accepted by all authorities. The Rashba and Rabbenu Nissim differ, maintaining that in such an instance, the status of the divorce is in doubt. The Rambam's opinion is quoted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 140:6), while the other views are cited by the Ramah. Similarly, if the husband said: "Bring it and give it to her," he has revoked the agency [with which] the *sh'liach kabbalah* [was charged].²¹ 4:4), because the husband said "Bring it to her" it is clear that he desired the agent to serve in the capacity of a *sh'liach holachah*.

footnotes:
¹⁹ Hence, the divorce does not become final when the agent receives the get
²⁰ I.e., the husband's statements imply that he is unwilling to give the agent the get
²¹ Although with regard to the transfer of a present the Rambam maintains that the expression "Give it to him" is equivalent to saying "Acquire it on his behalf" (Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:11
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:11)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[In the following situation, although the *get* reaches the woman's hand, the divorce is not effective because of the confusion in the delegation of agency.] An agent appointed by a woman came to receive her *get* from her husband. The agent told the husband: "I am a *sh'liach kabbalah*."
The husband responded: "Bring the *get* [in the capacity] in which she appointed you"²² (*Even HaEzer* 140:8) explains that the phrase "in the capacity in which she appointed you" is of primary significance here. If the husband does not add that phrase and says merely: "Bring the *get* to her," he is appointing the agent to be a *sh'liach holachah*, and by taking the *get* the agent is accepting this appointment. Therefore, if the agent delivers the *get* to the woman, the divorce is effective. - i.e., he did not revoke his agency. Instead, it is as if he had said: "Whether she appointed you to be a *sh'liach kabbalah* or a *sh'liach hava'ah*, you remain in that capacity."
The agent brought [the woman] the *get*, but she told him: "I did not appoint you to be a *sh'liach kabbalah*, but rather to be a *sh'liach hava'ah*." Even if the agent gives her the *get*, the divorce is not effective, for in speaking to the husband, the agent revoked the agency that he was granted. It is as if he had told him: "I was never appointed a *sh'liach hava'ah* on her behalf."

footnotes:
²² The Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:12
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:12)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[A different ruling applies in the following instance.] The agent told the husband, "I am a *sh'liach hava'ah*," and the husband told him, "Bring [the *get* in the capacity] in which she appointed you."
The agent brought [the woman] the *get*, but she told him: "I appointed you to be a *sh'liach kabbalah*." When the *get* is delivered to the woman, the divorce is effective, for he did not revoke the agency that he was granted. He merely reduced [her dependence on him]. For she appointed him [as an agent] to receive [the *get*], and he said: "I will merely bring it."²³, the agent accepts far more responsibility and difficulty than by serving as a *sh'liach kabbalah*. If he served as a *sh'liach kabbalah*, the divorce would be completed after he received the *get*. As a *sh'liach hava'ah*, the agent must trouble himself to bring the *get* to the woman. As such, we assume that since the woman was willing to accept the agent as a *sh'liach kabbalah*, she is certainly willing to accept him as a *sh'liach hava'ah*.
Note the *Lechem Mishneh* and Rabbenu Nissim, who explain that it is possible that the husband relied on the words of the agent, or it is possible that he was concerned with the words of his wife. Indeed, with regard to questions of commercial law, there is an unresolved question in *Bava Metzia* 76a regarding this matter. Following this rationale, even if the *get* never reached the woman, as long as it reached the agent the status of the divorce is in doubt. This ruling is also cited by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 140:9).

footnotes:
²³ By serving as a sh'liach hava'ah


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:13
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:13)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] a husband sends a *get* to his wife, and when the agent attempts to give it to her, she refuses to take it and tells him in the presence of witnesses, "Hold the *get* in safekeeping,"²⁴ for her. For keeping the *get* as an entrusted article violates the instructions that her husband gave him (Rabbenu Nissim). or "You are an agent to receive it for me." Until the *get* is given to the woman, the status of the divorce is in doubt.²⁵ 63b). Once it reaches her possession, the divorce is definitely binding.

footnotes:
²⁴ With this expression, the woman's intent is that the agent should begin acting as her agent and hold the get
²⁵ The doubt is whether an agent can begin acting in the capacity of the woman's agent before he has completed executing the agency with which he was charged by the husband (Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:14
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:14)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When an agent brings a *get*, he must give it to the woman in the presence of two [witnesses].²⁶ These two [witnesses] must read [the *get*] and then have it given in their presence.²⁷ For the laws applying to the exchange between the agent and the woman are the same as those applying to her exchange with her husband, for the agent is taking his place.
Accordingly, if the agent gave [the *get*] to her without having it read by the witnesses who observed its transfer, and the woman took it and threw it into the ocean, the status of the divorce is in doubt.²⁸

footnotes:
²⁶ See Chapter 1, Halachah 16.
²⁷ See Chapter 1, Halachah 19.
²⁸ See Chapter 1, Halachah 21.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:15
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:15)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When an agent transgresses and gives [a woman her] *get* in private, he should take it back from her and give it to her in the presence of two [witnesses].²⁹ given in private is acceptable. There are, however, *geonim* who hold that such a *get* is unacceptable (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). Since the status of an agent is weaker than that of the husband himself, a second transfer of the *get* is required in this instance *a priori* (*Maggid Mishneh*). If he dies [and thus this is no longer possible], and the signatures of the witnesses on the *get* that the woman possesses have been verified, the divorce is acceptable.

footnotes:
²⁹ The Rambam rules that after the fact, a get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:16
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:16)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Even when a *get* is delivered to the woman [for whom it is intended], it can be nullified [in the following instances]: The agent took the *get*, but the husband changed his mind before it reached the woman and told him or her: "The *get* that I sent you is void," he sent another agent to nullify [the *get*], or he told others, "The *get* that I sent to my wife is void."³⁰ (*Even HaEzer* 141:59) rules that at the outset, a husband should not nullify a *get* unless either the agent he appointed or his wife is present. Otherwise, it is possible that the woman may receive the *get* - and marry another man - before receiving notice that her *get* was nullified.
When [a husband] nullifies the *get* in the presence of other people,³¹ in the presence of the agent, no one else need be present. there must be at least two people present.³² 141:59), who cites an opinion that allows the husband to nullify the *get* by speaking to two people, one outside the presence of the other. If the *get* has already been delivered to the woman or to a *sh'liach kabbalah*, the husband can no longer nullify it.³³ [This applies] even if he nullifies the *get* within a very brief time³⁴ has a very specific meaning: the amount of time necessary to say "*Shalom alecha, rabbi umori*." [after appointing the agent];³⁵ 7:22, *Hilchot Avodah Zarah* 2:9 and *Hilchot Sh'vuot* 2:17.) since [the *get*] was nullified after being delivered to the woman, to [her] *sh'liach kabbalah* or to her courtyard, it is not void, and the divorce is effective.

footnotes:
³⁰ See Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch
³¹ I.e., people other than the agent. If he nullifies the get
³² Note the Ramah (Even HaEzer
³³ For the divorce has already taken effect.
³⁴ In this context, the words "a very brief time" are a loose translation. The Hebrew term toch k'dei dibbur
³⁵ The rationale is that divorcing a wife is a very serious matter, and a man would not make such a decision unless he were resolute. Therefore, his change of mind is not considered to be a clarification of his original position (as in certain other instances - e.g., a retraction of a business commitment), but rather an entirely new decision. (Note the parallels to Hilchot Ishut


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:17
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:17)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Although [a husband] was seeking to appoint an agent to nullify [a *get*], or he was seeking two individuals so that he could nullify [the *get*] in their presence, and during the time he was searching for these individuals the *get* reached the woman's hand, and afterwards he nullified it, it is not void.³⁶, since he was not able to take binding action the divorce is valid. (See also Halachah 25.) Despite the fact that he was trying to nullify it before it reached her hand [the divorce is effective].

footnotes:
³⁶ The fundamental principle involved is that Torah law depends on a person's acts and statements, not his feelings. Although it is obvious that the husband desired to nullify the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:18
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:18)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the husband] told ten men: "Write a *get* and give it to my wife,"³⁷ he may nullify [the *get*] in the presence of one of the ten, although the others are not present. And he may nullify it in the presence of two other people [who were not involved originally].
If he sent the *get* via two [agents], he may negate one of the agents although the other is not present. Even when there are ten agents, when he negates [the agency] in the presence of one of them, the *get* is void.³⁸, the divorce is effective. Although the Rambam's opinion is also mentioned, it is that of the Ra'avad that is favored by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 149:61).

footnotes:
³⁷ See Chapter 9, Halachah 27.
³⁸ The Ra'avad differs with Rambam and maintains that although a person may nullify the agency of one of the two (or ten), doing so does not nullify the agency of the other(s), and if they give the woman the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:19
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:19)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Similarly, when a person tells two [witnesses],³⁹ 134:1) states that even when the husband makes statements to two witnesses individually, the objection is binding. "The *get* that I [am intending to] write for my wife is nullified," although he has a *get* written afterwards and gives it to her in the presence of two other [witnesses], the divorce is void. This is referred to as lodging an objection with regard to a *get*.⁴⁰, Chapter 6, the Rambam explains the details of lodging an objection with regard to a sale. There he explains that when a person is compelled to make a sale against his will, he can nullify the transaction by issuing an objection stating that he was compelled to make this sale. With regard to an objection to a *get*, other authorities (see *Tur* and *Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer*, Chapter 134) also mention the concept of compulsion. The Rambam, however, omits mention of the subject entirely.
As reflected in Halachah 27, our Sages considered lodging an objection to a *get* in a very negative light.
Similarly, if [the husband] were to tell two [witnesses]: "Any *get* that so and so will write for me is nullified," "Any *get* that I will have written in the court of so and so is nullified," or "Any *get* that I will have written in the next twenty years is nullified," the *get* is nullified.
Similarly, if he told two [witnesses]: "Any *get* that I write for so and so, my wife, is nullified. And any statements that I make to nullify this objection are nullified," the *get* is void, although he had it written and given to her, despite the fact that he nullified his objection before having the *get* written.

footnotes:
³⁹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer
⁴⁰ In Hilchot Mechirah


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

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
How can the latter situation be corrected?⁴¹ nullified so that their marriage could continue. Similarly, apostates and men whose feelings toward their wives have soured have sought to nullify their divorces in order to cause their wives difficulties. The witnesses should tell [the husband] before the composition of the *get*: "Affirm in our presence that any statements that you have made that when verified would cause [this] *get* to be nullified, are themselves nullified."⁴² is not nullified, the husband must also disqualify the testimony of any witness who heard his objections.
Others - e.g., Rabbenu Asher - are more lenient and maintain that all that is necessary is for the husband to say that all objections to the *get* are nullified. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 134:3) rules according to the Rashba. The Ramah maintains that Rabbenu Asher's ruling is halachically acceptable; however, he counsels following the Rashba's ruling to eliminate all doubts. [The husband] must answer "Yes."
Afterwards, he should instruct them to write the *get*, sign it and give it to his wife. We do not let [the husband] leave until the *get* is delivered [to his wife], lest he go out and nullify [the *get*].⁴³ afterwards, his statements would be effective and the divorce void (*Maggid Mishneh*).
Neither a person who lodges an objection [to a *get*], nor one who seeks to nullify such an objection needs [to have his statements affirmed by] an act of contract.

footnotes:
⁴¹ The situation mentioned by the Rambam in the previous halachah is not merely a theoretical question. In many instances, a husband who was compelled to divorce his wife would seek to have the get
⁴² Many of the other commentaries differ with the Rambam concerning this point. Some - e.g., the Rashba - are more stringent, for they maintain that the husband can word his objection to nullify even such a statement. They explain that to insure that the get
⁴³ Despite the statements that he had made previously, if the husband nullified the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:21
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:21)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a person has sent a *get* via an agent and [later] nullifies [the giving of] the *get*, he may divorce the woman with [this *get*] whenever he desires. He did not nullify the *get* as a *get*; he merely nullified the agency.
Therefore, if the *get* was in the possession of the husband and he nullified it - e.g., he said: "This *get* is nullified" - he may never use it for a divorce. It is like a broken shard, and if it is used for a divorce, the divorce is not effective.⁴⁴ 32b. According to these authorities, since the *get* was written according to law, it is always able to be used for a divorce and can never be nullified by the husband. In consideration of the opinion of these authorities, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:66), when quoting this law, rules that the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Similarly, if the *get* was entrusted to the agent, but the husband made an explicit statement, saying: "The *get* that I sent is nullified [and may not] serve as a *get*," he may never use it to effect a divorce.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ There are authorities who differ with the Rambam on this point, based on their version of Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:22
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:22)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Which wording can be used to nullify a *get*? [The husband] says: "It is nullified," "I cannot abide by it," "May this *get* not be effective," "[May it] not permit [her]," "[May it] not release [her], "[May it] not send [her] forth," "[May it] not divorce [her]," "May it be a shard," "May it be like a shard," or "Behold it is like a shard" - If he used any of these expressions or a similar one, he has negated it.⁴⁵ to divorce his wife.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ The point is that these expressions all indicate that the husband no longer desires to use this get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:23
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:23)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If, however, [the husband] says: "This *get* is not a *get*," "It is unacceptable," "It is not effective," "It does not permit [her]," "It does not release [her], "It does not send [her] forth," "It does not divorce [her]," "It is a shard," his statements are not effective. This wording does not [indicate his desire to] nullify [the *get*]. Instead, they are statements of fact, and in this instance, statements of incorrect fact.⁴⁶ is effective; it is the husband who no longer desires to use it. It is as if someone said that a forbidden entity were permitted or that an impure object were pure.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ For all the statements quoted above are false. The get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:24
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:24)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If he says, "This *get* is nullified," [it is possible that] the implication is the use of the past tense, as in the phrase [Song of Songs 5:6]: "He turned away and was gone." Thus, there is a question concerning the matter.⁴⁷ - in which instance the divorce would not be effective. Or whether it implies the past tense, in which case, as in the previous halachah, the husband would be giving us incorrect information.
Rashi offers a slightly different interpretation of the passage in *Gittin* 32b that serves as the source for this halachah. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 141:63) quotes both opinions. Therefore, if [a woman] has been divorced with this *get* [after such statements were made], the status of the divorce is in doubt.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ The Rambam implies that the question is whether the word לטב implies a future tense - i.e., that his intent is to nullify the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:25
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:25)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[As reflected in the following instance, an explicit statement must be made to nullify the *get*: A man] sent a *get* to his wife [via an agent]. The agent returned to him and said: "I could not find her," or "She did not want to receive it." Although the husband answered: "Blessed be He who is good and does good," or made other statements that imply that he no longer wants to divorce her, and that he is happy that the *get* was not delivered, the *get* is not nullified. Instead, he may give it to her and the divorce will be effective. [For the *get* to be nullified,] he must explicitly say "Do not give it to her," or he should explicitly nullify it [using one of the above expressions].


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:26
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:26)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A person who sent a *get* to his wife [via an agent] and then nullified [the *get*] in the presence of two other people,⁴⁸ in the presence of the agent or in the presence of his wife, there is no difficulty. and similarly, a person who issued an objection [nullifying] a *get*, should be given stripes for rebelliousness, because he makes it possible for illegitimate children to be conceived.
Since a *get* reached [the woman], [it is possible that] she will marry on this basis. [Only] afterwards, when the witnesses in whose presence the husband nullified the *get* or issued an objection before the *get* was written appear [will she realize the difficulty]. Thus, a child [conceived in her second marriage] will be illegitimate.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ If, however, the man nullifies the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:27
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:27)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When an agent brings a *get* and gives it to a woman, we do not suspect that the husband nullified it. Instead, he should give it to the woman under the presumption that it is acceptable, and the woman may marry on this basis. If it is discovered afterwards that [the husband] negated it, [the woman] must leave [her second husband], and any children conceived are illegitimate.
Similarly, when [a husband] has a *get* written and gives it to his wife, we do not suspect that perhaps he lodged an objection regarding this *get*. Instead, we operate under the conception that the *get* is acceptable, and the woman is allowed to marry on this basis.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:28
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:28)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Similarly, when an agent brings a *get* [that was sent by] a man who was sick or elderly, he may give it to the woman under the presumption that the husband is still alive. If, however, the husband was in his death throes when [the agent left], even when he gives the *get* to the woman the status of the divorce is in doubt. For the majority of those in their death throes will die, and a *get* given after death is not effective.⁴⁹ - for the marriage is terminated with the husband's death regardless - is to free a childless woman from the obligations of *yibbum* and *chalitzah*. If the *get* was given before the husband's death, these rites are not necessary. Otherwise, they are. With the current advances in record keeping and communication, it is usually possible to eliminate the doubt mentioned in this halachah.
Similarly, when a city is surrounded by an army⁵⁰ (*Even HaEzer* 141:69) states that this law applies only when a city is surrounded by the army of the ruling authority. If it is surrounded by an army from another country, we no longer operate under the presumption that the husband is alive. and held under siege, a ship is in distress at sea,⁵¹ 3:4), the Rambam defines a ship in distress as follows: "One that faces a tempest-torn sea that threatens to sink it. The sailors are unable to control its path as they desire.... Nevertheless, all the oars and the other instruments remain intact." or a person is taken out to be judged [with regard to a capital case],⁵² we presume that any person in such a situation is alive. If a person in such a situation has sent a *get* [to his wife] via an agent, he may give it to her, and the presumption will be that the divorce is effective.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ The primary reason for giving such a get
⁵⁰ The Shulchan Aruch
⁵¹ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin
⁵² This applies regardless of whether the person is being tried by a Jewish court or a gentile court.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:29
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:29)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When, by contrast, a city has been conquered by an attacking army and [its wall] broken, a ship is lost at sea,⁵³), the Rambam defines this as referring to a ship whose oars, steering mechanism and other navigational tools have been broken, and it is totally at the mercy of the waters.
The laws that apply when a ship has sunk are described in Chapter 13, Halachah 16. a person is being taken out to be executed by a gentile court,⁵⁴ 9:2.) In contrast, there is a possibility that a gentile court will accept a bribe. or he is being dragged by a beast of prey, swept away by a river or an avalanche has fallen upon him, the stringencies applying to both the living and the dead, are followed.
If [a person in one of these situations gave] a *get* to an agent, the agent should not give it to the husband's wife.⁵⁵ If, however, he gives it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.⁵⁶. If it is known that the husband died before the *get* reached his wife, the divorce is void.

footnotes:
⁵³ In his Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.
⁵⁴ The implication is that if the person was sentenced to death by a Jewish court, we presume that the sentence was carried out. (See Hilchot Terumot
⁵⁵ Lest the husband have died already.
⁵⁶ For we do not know which came first, the husband's death or the giving of the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:30
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/6:30)

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

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a husband sends his wife a *get*, he is obligated to provide her with support and fulfill the other stipulations of the marriage contract, until the *get* reaches [his wife] or a *sh'liach kabbalah* she has appointed.⁵⁷ reaches her. Therefore, the husband remains obligated by the marriage contract.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ Although the husband desires to divorce her, she remains his wife until the get