הזורק. הרי זו מגורשת – As it is written (Deuteronomy 24:1): “…[and he writes her a bill of divorcement], hands it to her...,” and since it is not written, “and in her hand he should give it,” implying nevertheless, “and he gives,” whether in her court or in her garden or in her enclosure. And [it means] that she is standing at the side of her house or at the side of her courtyard.

קלתה – a utensil in which women place yarn and needles/pins.

הרי זו מגורשת – and even if she is inside his house, for the place of her lap and vase-shaped basket is acquired by her, for a man (i.e., husband) is not stringent regarding the place of her lap or on the place of her vase-shaped basket.

או שמצאתו מאחוריו – the Jewish bill of divorce was on his back and he curved his back towards her so that she could take it.

אינו גט עד שיאמר טלי גטך – and he said [to her]: “take your Jewish bill of divorce,” however, it is a Jewish bill of divorce. But if the Jewish bill of divorce was on the ground, or on his back or or his body and he did not curve his back nor presented his body to her in order that she could take it, even if he said: “take your Jewish bill of divorce,” it is not a Jewish bill of divorce.

קוראה והרי היא גיטה – and when she reads through it, he sees that it is her Jewish bill of divorce.

קרוב לה מגורשת, קרוב לו אינה מגורשת – All the while that she is able to guard it, and he is unable to guard it, this is what is “close to her,” and all that she is unable to guard, but he is able to guard, it is “close to him.” Both of them are able to guard it or both of them are unable to guard it, this is half-and-half, and regarding a Halakhic decision, she is not divorced until the Jewish bill of divorce reaches her hand or her domain.

אמר לו בעל חובו: זרוק לי חובי – In the Gemara we establish it for when the creditor says, throw me my debt (the monies owed by the debtor) in the [manner similar to the] nature of Jewish divorce, and since he [i.e., the creditor] said this to him [i.e., the borrower], this obligation of indebtedness has the same [format] as the law the law of Jewish divorce, for if the borrower threw it closer to the creditor, and it [became] lost , the borrower is acquitted and he is not liable to pay [again], but if it landed closer to the borrower, he is liable to pay. But if the creditor said to him: throw me my debt and it shall be dismissed, since he threw it to him in any matter, he is exempt.

לאויר הגג – wherever there is a gap of less than three handbreadths near the bottom of the roof, it isd considered a “Lavud” – the legal fiction of considering separated parts as united.

מרשות הגג – if it left the divided off space of the roof and entered into the partition of the space where it is standing (serving as a legal fiction – as if one of its broadside were prolonged to form a partition).

או נשרף הרי זו מגורשת – the throwing of the Jewish bill of divorce into the courtyard preceded its being burned in the airspace of the courtyard, for if it had been burned in the courtyard first, in principle, from the beginning, it was being tossed into the fire, and she is not divorced.

בגט ישן – He [i.e., the husband] wrote to divorce his wife and after the Jewish bill of divorce had been written, he was [found to be] alone with her. The School of Shammai holds that we do not say that there is a decree lest people would say that her Jewish bill of divorce came before her children [arrived] lest the [delivery of the Jewish bill of divorce] is delayed a year or two [years] between the writing and the delivery, and she will have had children from him in the midst of that time and afterwards, will divorce her with it; and when people will see the date of the Jewish bill of divorce which is prior to the birth of her son, people would think that he [i.e., the husband] gave her the Jewish bill of divorce at the time it was written, and there would be a discredit [to her] as [people] would say that the children were born from a “free” (i.e., unmarried) woman, and the Halakhic decision is that a person should not divorce his wife with an “old Jewish bill of divorce.” But if the husband divorced her and then went to another country, she may ab initio, remarry through this.

כתב לשם מלכות שאינה הוגנת – If he was in Babylonia and wrote “for Heshbon in the years of the kingdom of Edom” where there is no such kingdom in the place where the Jewish bill of divorce is written, she should go free [with a corresponding Jewish bill of divorce, if she married on account of the “Jewish bill of divorce” that she received from the first one] from this one and that one, and it is called “The Kingdom of Edom,” a kingdom which is not corresponding to/befitting it, which lacks a form of writing and a language.

אי שכתב מלכות מדי – since it is necessary to write the name of the kingdom of the state in which the Jewish bill of divorce is written , out of concern for the peace of the kingdom, so that they will say, “we are important in their eyes where they write their documents in our names.

תצא מזה ומזה – if she married via the Jewish bill of divorce [that she had received], she should go free from the first [marriage] as well as from the second [marriage].

ואין לה לא פירות ולא בלאות וכו' – Our entire Mishnah is explained in the Tractate Yevamot in the chapter “The Great Wife” (Chapter 10, Mishnah 1).

והולד ממזר מזה ומזה – Our Mishnah [is according to] Rabbi Meir, who said that he who deviates from the coinage that the Sages formulated in [the realm of] Gittin/Jewish bills of divorce, the offspring are illegitimate/Mamzerim but this is not the Halakha.

כל העריות שאמרו צרותיהן מותרות – fifteen rival wives (see Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1) that the Sages say that [married severally to the brother of a man with whom marriage is forbidden] cause the exemption from levirate marriage [and from the removal of the shoe] (of their associates and eventually the associates of their associates] to marry in the market place without the removal of the shoe.

הלכו הצרות – of women forbidden to a man on account of consanguinity

ונשאו – in the marketplace

ונמצאו – these women forbidden to a man on account of consanguinity אילוניות – And the matter was discovered that they were betrothed in error to the dead man, and it was found that these were not their associates and that these women forbidden to a man on account of consanguinity were not exempted from the ceremony of her removing the shoe of her dead-husband’s brother who refused to marry her.

תצא מזה – from the husband that she had been married to and from the Yabam (the brother of the dead-husband, since she had had no issue from her husband). -

וכל הדברים האלו בה – And in [Tractate] Yevamot, we establish it according to Rabbi Akiba who said that there is are illegitimate children from the violation of negative commandments, but it is not the Halakha.

ונשאת לאחר – since we establish for us that the sexual act of the one exempts her associate co-wife.

ונמצאת זו – who had been married by the dead-husband’s brother was found to be incapable of bearing children, her act of marrying her dead-husband’s brother is not effective, and she did not exempt her associate wives and went to the marketplace to get married without the ceremony of the removal of the shoe of her dead-husband’s brother [who refused to marry her].

תצא מזה ומזה – [she should leave] this husband and from her first brother-in-law.

כתב סופר גט לאיש – [in order to] divorce his wife with it [the Jewish bill of divorce]

ושובר לאשה – [the receipt] that she will deliver to her husband when he has paid off her Ketubah.

וטעה הסופר – when he delivered the documents to them

ונתן גט לאשה ושובר לאיש – and they (i.e., the now-supposedly former husband and supposedly former wife) delivered [the appropriate documents] each to the other, and she went and married [someone else] thinking that this was the Jewish bill of divorce that her husband delivered to her and this one (i.e., the husband) thought that his wife had delivered him the receipt. And Maimonides has the reading: “and he (i.e., the scribe) gave the Jewish bill of divorce to the man and the receipt to the woman, and he explains [the word] “ונתן /and he gave” that he (i.e., the scribe) thought that he gave the Jewish bill of divorce to the man and the receipt to the woman but [in reality] he did the exact opposite, and this is [a] forced [interpretation].

אם לאלתר – all the while that she did not marry, the Jewish bill of divorce left the hands of the husband

אינו גט – and she requires a new Jewish bill of divorce

ואם לאחר שנשאת – behold, this is a [legitimate] Jewish bill of divorce

לא כל הימנו – Everything is not according to the words of the first husband to believe him.

לאבד זכותו של שני – [of the second husband] that she married, for we say that there was a conspiracy between them and they switched the documents after she had married. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer

ולנה עמו בפונדקי – and there are witnesses testifying of the privacy between a man and a woman there but there are no witnesses there for the actual sexual act. The School of Hillel holds that the witnesses testifying to the privacy between a man and a woman are the very same individuals who testify about the actual sexual act, for the presumption is that nobody wants to make his intercourse with a woman one of prostitution (but wants to make her his wife thereby –see Talmud Ketubot 73a), for he has betrothed her with his sexual act. And the School of Shammai holds that they don’t say that the witnesses testifying the privacy between a man and a woman are not the very same individuals who testify about the actual sexual act, until she demonstrates that she has engaged in sexual relations.

גט קרח – [a Jewish bill of divorce that lacks signatures on each of its folds] – that its folds are greater than its witnesses (see the next Mishnah for this definition), for the Rabbis decreed a folded [bill of divorce] document because of impetuous Kohanim who would suddenly write a Jewish bill of divorce for their wives and then regret it and they would not be able to restore them [as their wives] (since Kohanim are prohibited, according to the Torah, to marry a divorcee), and they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed for them a folded Jewish bill of divorce, which is not easy to write quickly, lest while it is [being written], he becomes appeased. Hence, they write one or two lines and wrap them on the blank part and sew it/fasten it and one witness affixes his signature on the outside part of the fold, and then he returns and writes two or more lines from inside and folds them on the blank part, and the other witnesses affixes his signature on the outside part of the fold, and similarly [for] the third witness. But if there is a fold that is binding them without the signature of a witness from the back, it is a Jewish bill of divorce lacking signatures on each of its fold and is invalid. For by definition, for the number of folds should be the number of witnesses, ab initio, for we are concerned that perhaps the husband said to them: “you will all affix your signatures,” but one witness did not affix his signature, and if the woman married with this Jewish bill of divorce, she should leave both this one (i.e., her new husband) as well as that one {i.e., her former husband). And all of these foregoing conditions apply to her. And our Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir who said that whomever changes from the formula that our Sages established (see Talmud Gittin 5b), In Jewish bills of divorce, the offspring are illegitimate. But this is not the Halakha.

הכל משלימין עליו – and even a slave, and even someone who is ineligible to provide testimony on account of sin.

אלא קרוב שהוא ראוי להעיד בעדות אחרת – for he doesn’t have disqualification to give testimony other than for those near. But a slave or a thief cannot. A slave, - perhaps he will come to bring up genealogical connections; and a thief, perhaps he will come to say that he effectuated repentance; but someone related, everyone knows concerning him that he is a relative, and the Halakah is according to Ben Nanas that anyone may complete it. Nevertheless, only one ineligible witness may affix his signature upon it, and all the rest, require that all of them are valid [witnesses].