## Mishneh Torah, Divorce Chapter 7

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

שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט וְלֹא יָדַע מִי הֵם עֵדָיו אֶלָּא נָתַן לוֹ הַבַּעַל גֵּט וְאָמַר לוֹ תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי זֶה נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדָיו יְדוּעִין אֶצְלֵנוּ וְתִהְיֶה מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* from one place to another in *Eretz Yisrael*.¹ is singled out because Jewish courts frequently held sessions there, and it was feasible to verify the signatures of the witnesses to the *get*. In contrast, the courts in the diaspora held sessions less frequently, and verifying the signature of witnesses was a far more formidable task. Therefore, different laws apply, as stated in Halachah 5. In the present age, the laws applying to sending *gittin* in the diaspora are also followed in *Eretz Yisrael*. (See *Shulchan Aruch* and Ramah, *Even HaEzer* 142:1.) Although [the agent] did not witness the writing of the *get* and does not know who the witnesses are, but rather the *get* was given to him by the husband, who instructed him to give it to his wife, [the agent] may give [the woman the *get*] in the presence of witnesses.² Although the identity of the witnesses [who signed the *get*] is unknown to us, [the woman] is considered divorced, and she may remarry on this basis.

footnotes:
¹ Eretz Yisrael
² More particularly, according to the Rambam, only one witness is necessary, because the agent himself may serve as the second witness.


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

בָּא הַבַּעַל וְעִרְעֵר וְאָמַר לֹא גֵּרַשְׁתִּיהָ מֵעוֹלָם וְגֵט שֶׁהוּבָא לָהּ מְזֻיָּף הוּא יִתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וְאִם לֹא נִתְקַיֵּם וְלֹא נוֹדְעוּ עֵדָיו כְּלָל תֵּצֵא וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. [אָבַד הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת]. לְפִיכָךְ נָשִׁים שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁהֵן שׂוֹנְאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ אֵין נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל זוֹ לָזוֹ שֶׁמָּא מְזֻיָּף הוּא וְתִתְכַּוֵּן לְקַלְקֵל אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּנָּשֵׂא וְתֵאָסֵר עַל בַּעְלָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the husband came and protested, saying: "I never divorced her. The *get* she was given is a forgery," the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified.³, it is considered as if they have testified in court, and the husband's statements are of no avail. If this is impossible, and the witnesses are not known at all, she must leave [her second husband], and [any children born to them] are considered illegitimate,⁴ 142:5, which quotes a difference of opinion among the commentaries whether or not the Rambam maintains that the husband's protest causes the *get* to be considered void. The consequence of this difference of opinion is the status of the children born out of a second marriage. Are they definitely considered to be illegitimate, or is this a point of doubt? for [we assume that] she has not been divorced.⁵ explains that the Rambam considers the *get* to be unacceptable because the fact that the husband protests the authenticity of the *get* and the woman is unable to verify the signatures causes us to question the matter. Since the woman was regarded as married, her status cannot be changed until she receives a *get* that is not open to doubt.
The *Beit Yosef* (*Even HaEzer* 141) explains that although we assume that the woman has not been divorced, we do not know this with absolutely certainty. Hence, if she is consecrated by another man after receiving this *get*, she must be divorced by this second husband. Similarly, there are other authorities who maintain that the status of the divorce is doubtful. If the *get* has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt.⁶
For this reason, women who we presume hate each other are not trusted to bring a *get* to one another in *Eretz Yisrael*. [We suspect that] it might be a forgery, because one desires that the other remarry and be forbidden to her husband[s].⁷

footnotes:
³ If the signatures of the witnesses can be verified, the husband's protests are ignored. Once the witnesses sign the get
⁴ See the Beit Shmuel
⁵ The Maggid Mishneh
⁶ For in this instance there is no way to verify the signature of the witnesses.
⁷ I.e., if the woman remarries, she will be committing adultery, and hence, she will be forbidden to remain married to her first husband. Nor will she be permitted to remain married to her second husband. Since they were involved in an adulterous relationship, they are forbidden to marry.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:3
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:3)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שׂוֹנְאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הַצָּרָה נְשׂוּאָה לְאַחֵר. וִיבִמְתָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה אֲחוֹתָהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. אֲבָל שְׁאָר כָּל הַנָּשִׁים כְּשֵׁרוֹת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
These are the women who we presume hate each other:⁸ for her daughter-in-law, a daughter-in-law may not bring a *get* for her mother-in-law. A mother-in-law, the daughter of a mother-in-law, another woman married to the same man - this applies even if this woman has since remarried⁹ - her *yevamah*¹⁰. Thus, the two women could ultimately become married to the same man. - this applies even if she was her sister¹¹ would not apply because the two sisters are forbidden to marry the same man, our Sages did not differentiate when imposing this restriction. - and her husband's daughter [from another marriage]. All other women are acceptable [to act in this capacity].

footnotes:
⁸ I.e., just as a mother-in-law may not bring a get
⁹ Despite the fact that this woman has been divorced and remarried, we assume that she still harbors bad feelings towards the woman with whom she shared her previous husband and might desire to create difficulties for her.
¹⁰ I.e., a woman who is married to her husband's brother. If the woman's husband died without children, her husband's brother would be obligated to marry her to fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum
¹¹ Although in this instance the mitzvah of yibbum


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:4
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:4)

הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְחָלָה אוֹ נֶאֱנַס מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וְכֵן הַשֵּׁנִי אִם חָלָה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ עֵדִים לַחֲזֹר וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלִיחַ בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וְהָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּת הָרִאשׁוֹן:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a man brings a *get* from one place to another place in *Eretz Yisrael* and becomes sick or is prevented from fulfilling his agency because of factors beyond his control, he may send the *get* via a second agent.¹² 29a). Similarly, if the second agent becomes sick, he may send it via another agent. Indeed, even 100 agents [may be appointed in this manner].
There is no need for the agent to appoint the second agent in the presence of witnesses.¹³ (*Even HaEzer* 141:11) favors the Rambam's view with regard to the appointment of the agent himself, the *Shulchan Aruch* (*loc. cit.*:40) follows the other opinions with regard to the agent's appointment of a second agent. In practice, the present custom is to have the appointment witnessed. The final agent to whom the *get* is given should give it to the woman in the presence of two witnesses, and the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when the first agent dies [before the divorce takes effect].¹⁴

footnotes:
¹² If, however, there is nothing preventing the agent from carrying out his agency, he may not appoint another agent. For we assume that a husband would object to the substitution (Gittin
¹³ As mentioned in the notes on Chapter 6, Halachah 4, there are opinions that differ and require the appointment of an agent to be observed by witnesses. Although the Shulchan Aruch
¹⁴ For the husband, and not the previous agent, is the source of empowerment for the final agent.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:5
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:5)

שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ. אִם הָיָה הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁעַת כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט וַחֲתִימָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתֵּן לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ בּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדָיו יְדוּעִין אֶצְלֵנוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ שְׁמוֹת עֵדָיו כִּשְׁמוֹת הָעַכּוּ״‎ם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* from one place to another in the diaspora, from *Eretz Yisrael* to the diaspora or from the diaspora to *Eretz Yisrael*. If the agent was present at the time of the composition and signature of the *get*, he should say, in the presence of two witnesses, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence."¹⁵ 3a).
The Ramah (*Even HaEzer* 142:7) quotes opinions that rule that the phrase "It was written and signed in my presence" must be recited in its Hebrew original, *B'fanai nichtav uv'fanai nechtam*; a translation is not sufficient.
Afterwards, it should be given in her presence, and the divorce takes effect, even though the identity of the witnesses is not known to us. Even if the witnesses' names resemble the names of gentiles, we do not suspect [that there is any difficulty].¹⁶ is void. For it has been customary for Jews living in the diaspora to adopt gentile names (*Tosafot, Gittin* 11b).
If, however, the probability is small that a Jew would use such a name, e.g., Nickolas or Patrick, there are authorities who are more stringent. See *Beit Shmuel* 130:30.

footnotes:
¹⁵ Generally, the verification of the signature of witnesses on a legal document requires two witnesses. In this instance, however, an exception was made, and the statements of one individual are accepted.The rationale for this exception can be explained as follows: According to Scriptural law, there is no need for the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document to be verified. This requirement was instituted by our Sages. And in order to prevent a woman from having difficulties in obtaining a divorce, they relaxed that requirement and accepted the statements of the agent (Gittin
¹⁶ I.e., we do not suspect that the witnesses were gentiles and that the get


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

בָּא הַבַּעַל וְעָמַד וְעִרְעֵר אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁשּׂוֹנְאוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא גֵּט זֶה וְלוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [afterwards,] the husband came and protested [that the *get* is a forgery], his words are of no consequence.¹⁷ 9a). If, however, the husband brings two witnesses who testify that the *get* is a forgery, their word - and not that of the agent - is accepted (Halachah 9). Therefore, even women who we presume hate each other are relied upon to bring a *get* in such a situation and state that it was written and signed in their presence.¹⁸ to cause the wife to be forbidden to remained married to both husbands, and that the forgery will be easily discovered, because her first husband will protest the legitimacy of the *get*. When the agent herself must say "The get was written and signed in my presence," the first husband's protest will not be accepted, and the woman will be allowed to remain married to her second husband. As such, the forgery will not achieve its desired result.

footnotes:
¹⁷ Once the statements of the agent are accepted by the court, they are given the same weight as if they had been made by two witnesses. Therefore, the protest of the husband is of no consequence (Gittin
¹⁸ Our suspicion is that these women would forge a get


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

וְכֵן שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ אִם יָבֹא הַבַּעַל וִיעַרְעֵר אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בּוֹ. וְאִם אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹמֵד בִּשְׁעַת כְּתִיבָה וַחֲתִימָה לֹא יִנָּתֵן לָהּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וְיֵשׁ לַשָּׁלִיחַ לִהְיוֹת מִכְּלַל הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ אוֹתָן בְּחוֹתְמָיו. וְאִם לֹא נִתְקַיֵּם וְנָתַן לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַיֵּם. וְאִם בָּא הַבַּעַל וְעִרְעֵר וְלֹא נִתְקַיֵּם אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אָבַד הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Similarly, when an agent who brings a *get* in *Eretz Yisrael* says: "It was written and signed in my presence," although he is not required to do so, if the husband comes and protests [that the *get* was forged], [the husband's] words are of no consequence.¹⁹ 6b). Note the comments of the *Maggid Mishneh*, who questions whether this also applies with regard to questions of monetary law - e.g., the payment of the woman's marriage contract.
[With regard to a *get* sent to or from the diaspora,] if the agent was not present at the time of the writing or signing of the *get*, it may not be given to the woman unless the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified.²⁰ and may remarry, without being aware of the difficulties involved. The agent himself may serve as [one of] the three [judges] who verify the signatures of the witnesses.²¹, 2) as a witness to verify the signatures of the witnesses, and 3) as a judge declaring that the signatures have been verified. This is possible because, as explained above, the verification of witnesses is a requirement of Rabbinic law. In matters of Scriptural law, a witness may not serve as a judge. (See also Halachah 19.)
If [the signatures] were not verified, and the *get* was given to the woman, the divorce is unacceptable²²). According to the general principles mentioned by the Rambam (Chapter 10, Halachah 2), if the woman remarries in such an instance, she is not obligated to leave her second husband. The *Tur* (*Even HaEzer* 142) quotes opinions that differ and require her to leave her second husband, even if her first husband does not protest. The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 142:1) follows the Rambam's ruling. until [the signatures] are verified. If the husband comes and protests, and the signatures are not verified, we consider her not to be divorced.²³ If the *get* has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt.

footnotes:
¹⁹ Our Sages accepted the statements of the agent as equivalent to those of two witnesses even when he was not required to have made them (Gittin
²⁰ The woman might think that the divorce is effective upon receipt of the get
²¹ More particularly, in this matter the agent can serve in three capacities: 1) as the agent to give the get
²² I.e., disqualified by the Rabbis. It is not, however, void according to Scriptural law (Maggid Mishneh
²³ See the notes on Halachah 1.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:8
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:8)

וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הִצְרִיכוּ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּהְיֶה הָאִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה לְקַיְּמוֹ אִם יָבוֹא הַבַּעַל וִיעַרְעֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין לְקַיְּמוֹ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Why did [our Sages] require [the agent] to say: "It was written and signed in my presence" in the diaspora? So that the woman would not have to have [the signatures] verified if the husband comes and protests. [Our Sages did not desire that she be faced with such a predicament,] because witnesses are often not available to verify signatures [on a document that has been taken] from one place to another in the diaspora.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:9
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:9)

בַּעַל שֶׁהֵבִיא רְאָיָה בְּרוּרָה שֶׁגֵּט זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם מְזֻיָּף הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱמִינוּ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא לִדְחוֹת עִרְעוּר הַבַּעַל שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ רְאָיָה. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם עֵדִים שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּהוּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a husband brought explicit proof²⁴ is a forgery. that a *get* concerning which [an agent] said: "It was written and signed in my presence" is a forgery, [the *get*] is void. For [our Sages] accepted the statements of one person only in the face of a protest raised by a husband that was not accompanied by substantial proof. When, however, this person's statements are contradicted by witnesses, [his statements] are not accepted.

footnotes:
²⁴ E.g., two witnesses who testify that the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:10
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:10)

הַנְּהָרוֹת שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַנִּסִּין שֶׁבַּיָּם הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי הֵן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְשֶׁחוּץ לַתְּחוּם כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וּבְהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמוֹת יִתְבָּאֲרוּ תְּחוּמֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּבָבֶל כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגִטִּין:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
The rivers in *Eretz Yisrael* and the islands in the Mediterranean Sea that are within the boundaries of *Eretz Yisrael*²⁵ 1:7, the northern boundary of *Eretz Yisrael* was the Amanon Mountains, a range in Northern Lebanon, far above the position of contemporary Beirut. The southern boundary was the Nile river. All islands within the imaginary line drawn from one point on the Mediterranean to the other are considered to be part of *Eretz Yisrael*. are bound by the rules pertaining to *Eretz Yisrael*. [The islands] that are outside these boundaries are bound by the rules pertaining to the diaspora. The boundaries of *Eretz Yisrael* are described in *Hilchot Terumot*.
With regard to *gittin*, [the rules pertaining to] *Eretz Yisrael* also pertain to Babylonia.²⁶ (*Gittin* 6a).

footnotes:
²⁵ As stated in Hilchot Terumot
²⁶ In the Talmudic era, Babylonia was a center of Torah study and there would be students traveling from all the cities to and from the central yeshivot in Sura, Neharde'a and Pumbedita. Hence, it was possible to find witnesses to verify the authenticity of the signatures on a get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:11
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:11)

גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. כְּתָבוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וַחֲתָמוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a *get* was written in *Eretz Yisrael* and signed in the diaspora, [the agent] is required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence."²⁷ was given in another place in the diaspora or in *Eretz Yisrael*, the signature of the witnesses cannot be easily verified, and hence the agent is required to make these statements. If it was written in the diaspora and signed in *Eretz Yisrael*, [the agent] is not required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence."²⁸ is given in *Eretz Yisrael*, the signatures of the witnesses can be verified, and hence the agent is not required to make these statements.

footnotes:
²⁷ Regardless of whether the get
²⁸ If the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:12
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:12)

נִכְתַּב מִקְצָת הַגֵּט בְּפָנָיו וְנֶחְתַּם כֻּלּוֹ בְּפָנָיו. אִם מִקְצָתוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִכְתַּב בּוֹ אֶלָּא שִׁיטָה אַחַת בְּפָנָיו וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁמַע קוֹל הַקֻּלְמוֹס כּוֹתֵב וְחָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים בְּפָנָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. וְכֵן אִם יָצָא הַסּוֹפֵר לַשּׁוּק וְחָזַר וְהִשְׁלִים אֶת הַגֵּט אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא אַחֵר מְצָאוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ וּלְשֵׁם אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת כְּתָבוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When a portion of the *get* is written in [the agent's] presence, and all the signatures were executed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence,"²⁹ by the witnesses. For as long as the scribe wrote a portion of the *get lishmah*, for the sake of the man and the woman getting divorced, it is sufficient (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, *Gittin* 2:1).
Note the *Yadav Shel Moshe*, who questions why the Rambam concerns himself with the issue of *lishmah*. On the difference of opinion between Rabbah and Ravva regarding the reason for the agent having to say: "It was written and signed in my presence," the Rambam follows the opinion of Ravva, who states that the problem is not *lishmah*, but rather the verification of the signatures of the witnesses. provided it was the initial portion - even one line³⁰ 15a, interprets this as referring to the line that contains the man's name, the woman's name and the date. *Tosafot* interprets it as referring to the first line of the *get*. The *Beit Shmuel* 142:28 explains that the Rambam accepts neither of these opinions, but means any given line of the *get*. - [that was written in his presence].
[Moreover,] even if he merely heard the noise [made by the scribe's] pen [writing], and the witnesses signed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Similarly, even if the scribe went out to the marketplace and then returned and completed the *get*, [the agent] does not fear that another [man] found [the scribe] and told him [to write a *get* for him], and he [completed] writing the *get* for another person.³¹ would not be written *lishmah*. Instead, [the agent] may say: "It was written and signed in my presence."

footnotes:
²⁹ The fundamental element to be observed by the agent is the signature of the get
³⁰ Rashi, Gittin
³¹ If that were the case, the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:13
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:13)

אָמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב. בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כֻּלּוֹ וְחָתַם עֵד אֶחָד אֲבָל לֹא הָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הוּא הָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי הֲרֵי זֶה יִתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִנָּתֵן לָהּ. וְאִם הֵעִיד הוּא וְאַחֵר עַל הָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁלֹּא חָתַם בְּפָנָיו הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר וְיִנָּתֵן לָהּ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הֵעִידוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים עַל כְּתַב הָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁזֶּה כָּשֵׁר:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the agent] said: "It was written in my presence," but did not say, "It was signed in my presence," [if he said,] "It was signed in my presence," but did not say, "It was written in my presence," or [if he said,] "The entire [*get*] was written in my presence, and one witness signed [in my presence], but not the other witness," even if he himself was the other witness,³² must follow the directives outlined by our Sages in their entirety or rely on the verification of the signatures of the witnesses (*Tosafot, Gittin* 15b). the signature of the witnesses must be verified.³³ Only then, may [the *get*] be given to her.
If he and another person testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, who did not sign in his presence,³⁴ was written, and one signed in his presence, and he and another person verify the signature of the second witness. [the *get*] is acceptable and may be given to her. Needless to say, if two other [witnesses] testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, [the *get*] is acceptable.

footnotes:
³² For the confirmation of the get
³³ Since the decree of our Sages was not fulfilled, the only alternative is to verify the signatures of the witnesses.
³⁴ I.e., the agent says that the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:14
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:14)

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ גֵּט בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב וְנֶחְתַּם בִּפְנֵיהֶם הוֹאִיל וּנְתָנוֹ לָהֶם הַבַּעַל לִתְּנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נוֹתְנִין לָהּ וְתִהְיֶה מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין הַבַּעַל יָכוֹל לְעַרְעֵר בְּגֵט זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקֻיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלוּחָיו הֵם עֵדָיו. שֶׁאִלּוּ אָמְרוּ הַשְּׁנַיִם בְּפָנֵינוּ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם גֵּט:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When two agents bring a *get* from the diaspora, they may give it to [the woman], causing the divorce to be effective, even though it was not written and signed in their presence. Since the husband gave it to them to give to his wife, his protests regarding this *get* are of no consequence.³⁵ (*Even HaEzer* 142) differs with this ruling. He agrees that in contrast to a *get* brought by one agent, a *get* brought by two agents may be given to the woman without their saying, "It was written and signed in our presence." Nevertheless, the *Tur* maintains that if the husband protests the authenticity of the *get*, the signatures of the witnesses must be verified.
The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 142:18) follows the Rambam's ruling, while the Ramah quotes that of the *Tur*. Although [the signatures of the witnesses] have not been verified, the agents he [appointed] serve as witnesses [to its authenticity].³⁶ For if these witnesses said, "She was divorced in our presence," the divorce would be effective, even though there is no *get* present.

footnotes:
³⁵ The Tur
³⁶ This law applies only when the agents are able to serve as witnesses in court. If, however, they are related to the husband or the wife, or would be disqualified for other reasons, they are required to say, "It was written and signed in our presence."


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:15
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:15)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲבָל אִם אֵין הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר אֶחָד בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וְהָאַחֵר אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתַּם הוֹאִיל וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם לֹא יִנָּתֵן לָהּ עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above apply? When the *get* is in the possession of both of them.³⁷ 16b) appears to imply that both agents must be physically holding the *get* together. The Rashba differs [and this opinion is accepted by the *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 142:18)] and states all that is necessary is for the agents to state that they were both appointed by the husband and given the *get*. The Rashba extends this leniency and states that even if only one agent was appointed by the husband, if another person witnessed his appointment and traveled with him, it is not necessary for the agent to say "It was written and signed in my presence." If, however, the *get* is not in the possession of both of them, they must say: "It was written and signed in our presence."
Accordingly, if one agent says, "It was written in my presence," and the second³⁸, we are not speaking about a second agent, but another person who accompanied the agent. says, "It was signed in my presence," or they both say, "It was written in our presence," and one³⁹ says: "It was signed in my presence," since it is not in the possession of both of them, it should not be given to the woman unless the authenticity of the signatures has been verified.

footnotes:
³⁷ Rashi (Gittin
³⁸ As mentioned above, according to the interpretation accepted by the Shulchan Aruch
³⁹ This is referring to a third individual, and not one of the agents.


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:16
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:16)

אָמַר אֶחָד בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָם שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If one person said: "It was written in my presence,"⁴⁰ states that the statement, "It was written in my presence," is unnecessary. Since two witnesses testify that they observed the signing of the *get*, they have verified the signatures of the witnesses. The Rambam mentions this instance, only because he is quoting the wording of the Mishnah (*Gittin* 2:1). And the Mishnah mentions this only as a literary device, so that the wording in its different clauses are parallel. and two people say: "It was signed in our presence," [the *get*] is acceptable. [This applies] even when they are not in possession [of the *get*], because the signatures [of the witnesses] have been verified.⁴¹ are not agents, their statements verify the authenticity of the signatures, making it a valid legal document.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ The Maggid Mishneh
⁴¹ Even if the two individuals who speak with regard to the signing of the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:17
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:17)

שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְלֹא אָמַר לָהּ בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת נוֹטְלוֹ מִמֶּנָּה וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְאוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. וְאִם לֹא נְטָלוֹ מִמֶּנָּה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
[The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* in the diaspora and gives it to the woman in private, or gives it to her in the presence of two witnesses, but does not tell her: "It was written and signed in my presence." Even if she has married, he should take the *get* back from her and then give it to her in the presence of two witnesses and say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If he does not take it back from her, the divorce is unacceptable⁴² until the signatures [of the witnesses] are verified.⁴³ should be taken from the woman and returned to her in the presence of witnesses, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 15.

footnotes:
⁴² This wording implies that if the woman remarried after this divorce, she may remain married to her second husband. Rabbenu Asher and others rule more stringently, and maintain that in such a situation, the woman must be divorced by her second husband.
⁴³ Even after the signatures of the witnesses have been verified, the get


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:18
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:18)

נְתָנוֹ לָהּ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם עַד שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק הֲרֵי זֶה יִתְקַיֵּם בְּחוֹתְמָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִנָּתֵן לָהּ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If [the agent] gave a woman a *get* and did not suffice to say: "It was written and signed in my presence," before he lost the power of speech, the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified.⁴⁴). Afterwards, he may give it to her.

footnotes:
⁴⁴ From the Rambam's wording, it appears that it is not sufficient for the witness to write these words out. Although a person who cannot speak and who witnessed the death of a woman's husband is allowed to write out his testimony (Chapter 13, Halachah 28), there is no alternative in that situation. In these circumstances, there is an alternative: to have the signatures of the witnesses verified (Kessef Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:19
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:19)

הַסּוּמָא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָבִיא גֵּט זֶה שֶׁל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִכְתַּב וְנֶחְתַּם בְּפָנָיו כְּשֶׁהוּא פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמָא הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וְנוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ. וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה גֵּט זֶה שֶׁל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ צְרִיכָה שְׁלֹשָׁה לוֹמַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁלִיחַ כָּשֵׁר לְעֵדוּת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא מִצְטָרֵף עִם הַשְּׁנַיִם וְנִמְצָא מִכְּלַל הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁקִּיְּמוּ גֵּט זֶה בִּדְבָרָיו. שֶׁהָעֵד נַעֲשָׂה דַּיָּן בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A blind person may not bring a *get* from the diaspora, because he is unable to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Accordingly, if [the *get*] was written and signed in his presence while he possessed the power of sight, and he became blind afterwards, he may say in the presence of three [men]: "It was written and signed in my presence," and give [the *get*] to her.⁴⁵ 23a states that when an agent is blind, he must be able to recognize the woman by the sound of her voice. It is not sufficient for others to identify her for him. When an agent can see, however, he need not know the woman's identity and may rely on the statements of others (*Maggid Mishneh*; *Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 142:11).
Similarly, when a woman brings a *get* from the diaspora, she must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," in the presence of three [men]. The provision to make these statements in the presence of two men applies only when the agent is acceptable to serve as a witness.⁴⁶ 9:12 states that a blind person may not serve as a witness, and *Hilchot Sanhedrin* 2:9 states that such a person may not serve as a judge. *Hilchot Edut* 9:2 states that a woman may not serve in these capacities. Similarly, if the agent is related to the man or the woman, he is incapable of serving as a judge and three witnesses are necessary (*Shulchan Aruch*, *Even HaEzer* 142:4). In such an instance, he joins the other two and serves as one of the three who verify the *get*, based on his statements.⁴⁷ For a witness may serve as a judge in matters of Rabbinic law.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ Gittin
⁴⁶ Hilchot Edut
⁴⁷ See Halachot 5 and 7 and notes.


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

חָלָה הַשָּׁלִיחַ אוֹ נֶאֱנַס בָּא לְבֵית דִּין וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם גֵּט זֶה בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיַד שָׁלִיחַ אַחֵר. וְאֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When an agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should approach a Jewish court⁴⁸ 142:9). and tell them: "This *get* was written and signed in my presence."⁴⁹ was written and signed in his presence. [The court,⁵⁰ is performed. (See Rivash, Responsum 318.) then, appoints] another agent and sends [the *get* to the woman] with him.
The second agent does not have to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Instead, he says: "I am an agent of the court," and then he gives [the *get* to the woman] in the presence of witnesses.⁵¹ 142:9) quotes the Rivash as ruling that, if sending a second *get* would be difficult, it is acceptable for the second agent to bring the *get*, even though he was not appointed in court, provided he brings a writ of authorization from the first agent.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ It is sufficient for him to appear before two judges, because he can serve as the third judge himself (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer
⁴⁹ As opposed to the situation described in Halachah 4, the agent cannot appoint a second agent himself, because he is required to state in a court of law that the get
⁵⁰ The wording of the Rambam might be understood as implying that the agency is entrusted to the second agent by the court. This, however, is an incorrect inference, for it is the first agent who appoints the subsequent agent. This appointment must, however, be performed in a court to ensure that everything necessary to validate the get
⁵¹ The Ramah (Even HaEzer


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:21
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:21)

חָלָה הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹ נֶאֱנַס עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ אַחֵר בְּבֵית דִּין אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹן אוֹמֵר שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי וְנוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּת הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה צָרִיךְ בֵּית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. אֲבָל אִם נִתְקַיֵּם הַגֵּט בְּחוֹתְמָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ שָׁלִיחַ לְשָׁלִיחַ אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה בֵּינָם לְבֵין עַצְמָם עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ הַבַּעַל וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ שַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר אִם תֵּאָנֵס אִם חָלָה אוֹ נֶאֱנַס הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
If the second agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should appoint another agent in the presence of the court. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner].
[Before transferring the *get*,] the final agent says: "I am an agent of the court." He should then give the woman [the *get*]. [The *get* can be given] even if the first agent died.
Why must [the appointment be made] in court? Because [the first agent] must say: "It was written and signed in my presence."⁵². If, however, the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified, although one agent gives it to another in private - even if 100 agents are appointed in this way - the *get* is acceptable when it reaches the woman.
Although the husband did not explicitly tell the agent: "Send [the *get*] via another person if you are hindered by forces beyond your control," the agent may [appoint another agent] if he becomes ill or is hindered by forces beyond his control.⁵³).

footnotes:
⁵² The reason the appointment of the latter agents must be made in a court is that the signatures of the witnesses have not been verified. By stating that his appointment was made in a court of law, every agent assures the court that the correct process has been followed regarding this get
⁵³ If, however, there are no factors preventing the agent from discharging his agency, he may not appoint another agent unless the husband explicitly gave him the authority to do so (Maggid Mishneh


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:22
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:22)

כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא הַשָּׁלִיחַ עִמּוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הֲרֵי פְּלוֹנִי שְׁלוּחִי וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. וְכֵן הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו אֲפִלּוּ הֵן מֵאָה:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
Whenever a person appoints an agent, the agent does not have to be present in court with him. Even if the agent is not present, he may tell [the court]: "So and so is my agent."⁵⁴ (*Even HaEzer* 142:10) quotes the Rambam's ruling - and indeed expands upon it, allowing the agent to give the court the authority to appoint any agent they desire. The Ramah quotes the ruling of the Rivash. Similarly, an agent may appoint an agent when the latter is not present. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner].

footnotes:
⁵⁴ The Rivash (Responsum 53) differs with this ruling and maintains that if the second agent does not hear the first agent say: "It was written and signed in my presence," he must be given a writ of appointment. Otherwise, he may not serve in this capacity. The Shulchan Aruch


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:23
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:23)

הָאִישׁ שֶׁנָּתַן גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִכְתַּב וְנֶחְתַּם בְּפָנֶיהָ וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ שְׁלוּחָתִי לְהוֹלָכָה עַד בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וְהֵם יַעֲמִידוּ שָׁלִיחַ וְיִתְּנוּ לִיךְ גֵּט זֶה וְתִתְגָּרְשִׁי בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ נֶאֱמֶנֶת לוֹמַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם וְהֵם נוֹטְלִין אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתוֹ לְשָׁלִיחַ לִתְּנוֹ לָהּ כְּמַאֲמַר הַבַּעַל:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
A husband [may appoint] his wife [as an agent to transport her *get* to another place]. After having it written and signed in her presence, he gives her the *get* and tells her: "You are an agent to bring it to the court of so and so. They will appoint an agent, who will give you this *get* and thus effect the divorce."
Should the woman say: "It was written and signed in my presence," [when delivering the *get* to the court], her statements are accepted.⁵⁵ 24a). [The court] should take the *get* from her and give it to the agent so that he can give it to her as the husband instructed.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ She must, however, make these statements for the divorce to be effective. Our Sages made this requirement in order not to differentiate between one agency and another (Rashba, commenting on Gittin


###### Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:24
[Mishneh Torah, Divorce 7:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divorce/r/7:24)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהִתְנָה עָלֶיהָ הַבַּעַל תְּנַאי זֶה אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִתְנָה עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא נָתַן לָהּ גִּטָּהּ וַהֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הוֹאִיל וְגֵט שֶׁבְּיָדָהּ כָּתוּב כְּהִלְכָתוֹ וְהָעֵדִים חֲתוּמִים עָלָיו. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַכִּירִין כְּתַב אוֹתָן הָעֵדִים וְלֹא נִתְקַיֵּם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא זִיְּפָה אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מְקַלְקֶלֶת עַל עַצְמָהּ. וְעוֹד שֶׁהָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִים עַל הַגֵּט הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם מְעַרְעֵר. לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲמִיד הַגֵּט בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ וְתִנָּשֵׂא. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא יִמָּצֵא מְזֻיָּף. כְּמוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲמִיד הַגֵּט בְּחֶזְקַת כָּשֵׁר כְּשֶׁיָּבִיא אוֹתוֹ הַשָּׁלִיחַ עַד שֶׁיְּעַרְעֵר הַבַּעַל אוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא מְזֻיָּף אוֹ בָּטֵל. שֶׁאִם נָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כָּךְ הָיָה לָנוּ לָחוּשׁ לְגֵט שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַבַּעַל בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁמָּא בִּטְּלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נְתָנוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵדִים פְּסוּלִין חָתְמוּ בּוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כִּמְזֻיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ נִכְתַּב. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָזֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אֶלָּא נַעֲמִידֶנּוּ עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע שֶׁהוּא בָּטֵל כָּךְ לֹא נָחוּשׁ לֹא לַשָּׁלִיחַ וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁהַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ. שֶׁאֵין דִּינֵי הָאִסּוּרִין כְּדִינֵי הַמָּמוֹנוֹת:

**Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007:**
When does the above apply? When the husband [explicitly] made this stipulation. But if this stipulation is not made, but instead the husband [merely] gave her the *get* and it is in her possession, she is not required to make any statements [to the court]. We assume that she is divorced, for she is in possession of a *get* that is written according to law and that is signed by witnesses.
Although we do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, and [their authenticity] has not been verified, we do not suspect that [the woman] forged them, for she would not cause her own ruin.⁵⁶ draws a connection between this halachah and Chapter 12, Halachah 2, which states that the statements of a woman who produces a *get* are accepted, even though the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to the *get* has not been verified. The Ra'avad in his gloss on *Hilchot Avadim* 6:7 differs (see also his gloss to Chapter 12, Halachah 2). The *Shulchan Aruch* (*Even HaEzer* 142:13-14) quotes the opinions of both the Rambam and the Ra'avad. See the Rivash (Responsum 385).
Moreover, it is considered as if the witnesses who signed the *get* had testified in court, until a protest is raised. Therefore, we assume that the *get* was written according to law and [grant the woman permission to] marry, as we assume that a *get* brought by an agent [in *Eretz Yisrael*] is acceptable until the husband raises a protest or until he brings proof that it is a forgery or that it is void.
For if we had suspicions concerning these matters and the like, we would have to suspect that perhaps when a husband gave a *get* in our presence, he nullified it before he gave it; perhaps the witnesses who sign it are unacceptable, causing it to be regarded as a forgery; or perhaps it was not written for the sake [of the man or the woman being divorced]. Just as we do not entertain suspicions concerning these factors and assume that the *get* [is acceptable] until it is discovered that it is void, so too, we do not entertain suspicions concerning an agent or a woman when a *get* is in their possession. [The rationale is] that the laws governing prohibitions differ from those governing financial transactions.⁵⁷ 7:2).

footnotes:
⁵⁶ It is likely that a forgery would ultimately be discovered, and she would then be forbidden to remain married to her second husband, nor would she be permitted to return to her first husband.The Maggid Mishneh
⁵⁷ With regard to financial transactions, a person's statements are not accepted if he has an interest in the matter, unless he substantiates them with proof. Therefore, if a person gives a servant a deed of release that states that he has been freed and has been granted his master's possessions, his word is accepted with regard to his freedom. With regard to the possessions, however, he is required to substantiate his statements by verifying the authenticity of the witnesses to the deed (Hilchot Avadim