גט וגירושין

(1) That one who wants to divorce his wife divorce her with a bill (get): That we were commanded that if we want to divorce our wives, [it is required] to divorce them in writing. And about this writing the verse states, "a book of cutting" - and it is what our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, called a bill (get); and so too the Translator, translated it as a book of get (Onkelos Deuteronomy 24:1). And about this does it state (Deuteronomy 24:1), "and he writes her a book of cutting, gives it to her, and sends her away from his house."

(2) It is from the roots of the commandment [that] since woman was created to help man and she is like a beloved vessel for him - and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 22b), "A woman only makes a covenant with the one who makes her into a vessel" - since that is the case, it was from His will, blessed be He, that anytime his soul be sick of this vessel, that he should put her out of his house. And for this reason, there are some of our Rabbis that say in the gemara (Gittin 90a) that he can divorce her even if she burnt his cooked food - meaning to say, even for a small thing - since she is only like a valuable vessel in the home. And there are some of them that say that since this vessel is in His image and His likeness, and God granted to her - for his need and his honor - eyes to see, ears to hear and an intelligent soul, it is only fit for him to put her out and send her away from him for a large claim, and as the matter that is stated in the verse, "because he finds something lewd about her." However, according to everyone, if he finds a big thing, it is fit for him to divorce her for the reason that I mentioned - since she was only created for his sake. And since she is a bitter spirit for him and his soul despises her, he is under no compulsion to be with her in any case (as do some of the nations, who make a covenant with a woman [that is] a strong covenant until [one of them reaches] the grave below; and [so] she does not fear separation if she is licentious in his eyes and destroys everything in the house and burns everything that he has with fire - from the heaps to the standing grain to the olive grove). Nonetheless, the Torah commanded us that when we send her away, that he not send her away with speech alone, lest this be a stumbling block for us and it become a snare - that there be licentiousness among our nation, such that the adulterer claim that her husband divorced her; and also that divorce be very prevalent. Accordingly, now that we have been obligated to write the words in a book and to have witnesses testify, any [woman] that claims to be divorced, must show a deed [to that effect]. And there is also [another] benefit in the matter - as through this, sometimes the man will calm down and regret from [wanting to] divorce her. And 'great is peace.'

(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 41a) [about] this get that we mentioned, [that] the man must give it into the hand of the woman or into the hand of her messenger (agent); since the messenger of a person is [considered to be] like him. And [also] that he can give it into her courtyard, and she is divorced with that. And that is if she is standing in the midst of her domain, as the get is disadvantageous to her; and we have someone incur a disadvantage only in their presence. And that which they also said (see Mishneh Torah, Divorce 2:1-2) that that which it states in the Torah, "and he writes her a book of cutting" - the intention is not that he writes it with his hand. Rather it is one, whether he writes with his hand or he tells another to write and give it to her. And it is one whether he gives it into her hand or he says to another to give it to her. It is only written, "he writes," to let us know that she is only divorced by writing. And it is only written, "he gives," to say that she not take it on her own. And one who says to two [others], "Write a get and sign it and give it to my wife," behold these can write and sign and give [it] to her - and behold, they are his messengers and they themselves are the witnesses. And it is impossible for there to be a giving of a get without witnesses; as it states, 'according to the mouth of two witnesses shall the matter stand.' And it is impossible for her to be a sexual prohibition today - [such] that one who has sexual relations with her is [subject to] death by the court - and tomorrow be permissible, without witnesses. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said that if he gave her a get between himself and herself - and even with one witness - it is not a get at all. And to what do these words apply? To the script of a scribe. But if the husband wrote it in his own script and one witness signed it, behold, this is an invalid get. And further ahead, we will elucidate what the difference is between an invalid get and one which is not a get at all.

(4) And there are ten things (see Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:1) that are called the fundamentals of divorce from the Torah, and these are they: 1) that a man can only divorce from his [own] will - and among them is the one who is coerced by Israelites until he says, "I want"; 2) that the divorce should be in writing and in nothing else; 3) that the matter of that which is written be that he is divorcing her and removing her from his acquisition; 4) that its matter should be something that cuts (separates) between him and her; 5) that it be written for that purpose; 6) that the get not lack another action after its writing, besides its giving; 7) that he gives it to her; 8) that he gives it to her in front of witnesses; 9) that he give it to her for the institution of divorce; 10) that the husband or his messenger be the one giving it to her. And all of these are elucidated in the meaning of the verses. And the rest of the things with a get - for example, the signing of the witnesses, and similar to it - are all from the words of the scribes. And the essence of a get is that (Gittin 85a) the man says to his wife, "I, x, divorce you, y, and behold, you are permitted to any man. And nonetheless, all of Israel have become accustomed to writing it in Aramaic, even though it is permissible to write it, a priori, in any language. And this is the text of the get that everyone is accustomed to in our land.

(5) On x day of the week, that is the so and so [date] in the month x (and if Rosh Chodesh is two days, we say, in such and such day of the first month or the second month, since a postdated get is invalid, which is not the case with other contracts), which is in such and such a year from the creation of the world, according to the counting that is accustomed to count with in the place x, how I, x the son of y, from place x - and any other name and the like that I or my fathers or my place or the places of my fathers have - determined from my own will [such] that I was not under duress, that I released and left and divorced you: you, x the daughter of y from place x - and any other name and the like that you or your fathers or your place or the places of your fathers have - that you were my wife from before now. And now, I released and left and divorced you, [such] that you be endowed and in charge of yourself to go and marry any man you determine. And no one should protest against you from my name [for that] from this day and forever. And behold, you are permitted to any man; and this is from me for you a book of divorce and a get of release and a letter of dissolution, like the law of Moshe and Israel.

(6) And the witnesses sign below. And the people have become accustomed to writing it with twelve rows, like the number [of the numerical equivalent of the letters in the word,] get (Tosafot on Gittin 2a:1, s.v. hamevi). And we only write, 'like the law of Moshe and Israel' on the last line.

(7) And so too do we write a get of emancipation (from slavery) with twelve lines. And the text of the get of emancipation is like the text mentioned [above], except for the language of emancipation that we change in it. And this is it:

(8) On such day of the week, that is the so and so [date] in the month x, which is in year x from the creation of the world, according to the counting that we count in the place x, which is situated on river x or on the shore of the sea, how it is that I, x the son of y, from place x - and any other name and the like that I or my fathers or my place or the places of my fathers have - determined from my own will [such] that I was not under duress, that I released and emancipated and left you, you, x who now lives in place x - and any other name and the like that you or your place have - that you were my slave from before now. And now, I released and left and emancipated you, [such] that you be endowed and in charge of yourself. And no one should protest against you from my name [for that] from this day and forever. And behold, you are to yourself, and behold, you are a free man, and you and your seed are permitted to enter the congregation of Israel. And no man has authority over you or your seed; and this is from me for you a book of emancipation and a letter of dissolution and a get of release, like the law of Moshe and Israel.

(9) And we write, 'like the law of Moshe and Israel' on the last line, and the witnesses sign.

(10) And the universal custom is to warn the man divorcing to nullify any [future] objection or objection of an objection (see Mishneh Torah, Divorce 6:20). And we say to him that he should say, "Write this get for the sake of my wife x." And we place him there next to the scribe. And nonetheless, if he has gone after he ordered to write the get and to sign and to give it, we give it and we do not concern ourselves with [his possible death], as we place him under the assumption of [someone still] alive. And they, may their memory be blessed, warned us, that we should not write in the get, veden, with [a] letter, yod, lest the reader read [it as] vedin (and the law), and its understanding would be to say, the statute will be between you and me; and a get requires clear language [that is] void of doubt. And so too, they said not write eegeret with [a] letter, yod, lest the reader read [it as] ee gart (if you became a stranger), which would be to say, if you were unfaithful; and he should not write lemechach with [a] letter, yod, lest the reader read [it as] lee michach (it is laughable to me), which would be to say, it is laughter to me; and he should not write tehavian and tetsavian ('shall be' and 'determine' in the singular) with two letters, yod, lest the reader read [it as] tehavyena and tetsavyena (in the plural), which would be to say, that he is speaking to two women, and it comes out that that he is not divorcing this one, but rather two others. And so too, he should lengthen the [shape of the letter] vav in tarukhin and shevukin ('divorce' and 'left' in masculine), lest it resemble a yod and its understanding would be tarikhin and shevikin (in the feminine), meaning to say, that she left him. And in this manner, we must be careful with every expression and every [word] that is written in the get, such that it not be ambiguous (see Mishneh Torah, Divorce 4:13). And so too, the writer must be careful in the writing that the script be a lucid one, such that children who are not foolish but not wise can read it (see Mishneh Torah, Divorce 4:10). And he can write in any language and in any script, so long as the language and script are clear in the manner that we have mentioned. And Israel has already become accustomed to writing in the Aramaic language and the Ashuri (standard Hebrew) script (see Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 126:2).

(11) And behold, my son, I will write a little of the text of general contracts. And even though this is not included in this commandment and its subject, the word, get that we have spoken about is a general word for all contracts, and [so] this is included in the word. Before anything, I will say that it is fitting for all proper witnesses to investigate and to understand the essence of the things to which they will testify, whatever the matter may be; and that they inform the involved parties to inform them of all the stipulations between them in a clear language, and to review all of the things in front of them until they comprehend them well. And [they should not act] like the foolish witnesses, who strip people of their cloaks and their possessions and their properties 'by the tail of their cloaks.' [The parties] whisper a little into the ears of the silly masses and, before they inform them [properly - such] that they understand the essence of the stipulations - they go and write and sign according to what is good in their eyes about them, until they [strip] them clean of their possessions. And the Lord, our God, did not give us, the holy people, this [way] to do anything that is not the way of truth. And therefore the prohibition against deceptions is repeated in the Torah three times, as it is written in three places (Leviticus 19:33, 25:14, 17), "a man shall not wrong his people."

(12) And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, also informed us in several places in the Gemara to establish every thing according to the truth of the matter, and according to the thought of the sellers and the buyers; and that we not fashion the judgement entirely according to their words, but rather according to the intention of the people, when their intention is clear to us. And [it is] like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said in Ketuvot 97a in the chapter [entitled] Almanah Nizunet, [that] if one sold and [subsequently] did not need the [liquid cash], the sale goes back; and that is [in the case] when he revealed his thought, that it was because he needed the money to do such and such with it that he made the sale. And we also say in Kiddushin 50a in the chapter [entitled] Haeesh HaMekadesh Bo Ubeshlucho, "A certain man sold his possessions with the intention of going up to the Land of Israel; he went up but he did not settle [there]. Rava said [about this], 'Anyone who goes up has the intention of settling, and he did not settle'" - which is to say [that] the sale goes back. Behold, their opinion was to say that all actions should be concluded according to the truth and the intentions of the doers. And this is a straight path that a person should choose for himself and [so] be successful in all of his deeds.

(13) The customary text among us for contracts of sales, of gifts, of behests and of giving over rights is this: We, the undersigned witnesses, know clear testimony that x the son of y told us, "Be witnesses for me and acquire [this testimony] from me and give it to Rabbi b the son of c, that it be a proof and a benefit for him, because I have taken and received from his hand such and such money and sold him for it, x vineyard (or field or house), as is indicated and marked off by its indications and its borders, and these are the borders of that place: on side x, such, and on side y, etc." - until he marks it off from its four sides. "Everything that is within these borders have I, x, sold with a complete sale and acquisition, from now, for the money mentioned, etc." And afterwards, he specifically mentions [the various] aspects of that place - for example, trees, stones, beams, walls, roofs. And all of this is for the embellishment of the contract. And he needs to mention its height and depth (Bava Batra 63a). And so [too] have they become accustomed now to write on loan contracts, "On condition that the seventh year not remove it." As, if not, the seventh year would remove it; since we hold that the removal of money [debts on the seventh year] is practiced outside the land rabbinically, as I have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 477).

(14) And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Bava Batra 167a) about this matter of contracts that a person should not write the sum of three to ten at the end of a line, lest [the one holding it] forge it and write thirty instead of three or forty instead of four or fifty instead of five (which in Hebrew only requires the addition of more letters at the end of the word), etc. And if it came out at the end of a line, we go back [and write it again] two or three times, and [then] it is possible that it will come out in the middle of the line. And they likewise said (Bava Batra 165b) that if 'one hundred' is written at the top, and 'two hundred' at the bottom - or the opposite - that it always goes according to [what is written at] the bottom. And they likewise said (Bava Batra 167b) that we write a contract for the seller or the borrower, even if the purchaser or the creditor is not with him. But we only write contracts for sharecropping or contractual work or arbitration - or any act of court - with the knowledge of them, both. And Rabbi Yitschak bar Yosef said in the chapter [entitled] Get Pashut (Bava Batra 161b) that a person must write down the existence of all erasures, entirely. And he also needs to review the subject of the contract on the last line, since we do not learn from the last line (and the review is not essential). And because of that, if the witnesses spaced their signatures one [extra blank] line below the writing, [the contract is still] fit. And that which they have become accustomed to writing 'everything is firm and valid' (Tosafot on Bava Batra 162a:1, s.v. lefi) is because the expression does not invalidate a contract and - even if we did learn from it - there is nothing [harmful] in this. And Rava said there (Bava Batra 163a) that a contract wherein he and his witnesses [write] on top of the erasure is fit. And Rav Shisha, the son of Rav Eedee said in the chapter [entitled] HaZahav (Bava Metzia 47a) that we write in the contracts, "And I acquired from him, with a vessel with which it is fitting to acquire." "With a vessel" is to exclude that of Rav Sheshet, who said that we can acquire with cows; "which it is fitting" is to exclude that of Shmuel, who said that we can acquire with a dung vessel (maroka); "to acquire" is to exclude that of Levi, who said with the vessels of the one who is making the acquisition - and Rav, and [perhaps] Rav Ashi said that that "which it is fitting" is to exclude that from which it is forbidden to derive benefit.

(15) And the text of a contract of occupancy is like this: In front of us, the undersigned witnesses, x gave to y the keys of place x that he sold to him, as is written and signed in the sale contract that he made for him, and whose witnesses were b and c. And in front of us witnesses, x said to y, "Go and possess and acquire [it]." And the [afore]mentioned Rabbi y opened and locked [it] in front of us and occupied it with complete occupancy, and that which happened at [that] time.

(16) The text of a contract of selling an obligation: I, x, sell you, y, the contract of the debt of z, in as z is in debt to me, as he is holding such and such; and you will acquire [the obligation] and all that is liened to it, by the force of this contract and the delivery of the contract. And if the contract is not in their hands, he gives over his possession of it, by way of its attachment to four ells of land. And [about] any oral contract, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 48a and see Tosafot on Bava Batra 77b:1, s.v. Rav Pappa) that it can only be acquired in the presence of the three of them (the creditor, the borrower and the purchaser of the obligation). And this is from the three things that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 14a) that they are traditional laws without an explanation.

(17) The text of a will: We, the undersigned witnesses, went into Rabbi x, to visit him and found him ill and stuck in bed; and his words were lucid in his mouth, and his mind was clear to answer yes to [what was] yes, and no to [what was] no. And he said to us, "Behold, I am ill and I am worried lest I will die from this illness. I request from you to be the witnesses for my will, and behold, I command in front of you because of death to give to my son, y, such and such and to my other son, such and such, and to z such and such." And after all of his words, they write, "The [afore]mentioned Rabbi x commanded all of this in front of us because of death, and we know clearly that he departed (died) from this illness to the House of his World and left us and all of Israel alive."

(18) The text of a contract of court validation (notarization): In the sitting of three as one, have we now made valid this contract that is before us, we the undersigned [members of the] court. And it has become clear to us that the signatures of these witnesses signed above in this contract are the signature of their hands, and we have permitted and validated them as is fit. And behold, it is approved and established. And they sign their names.

(19) And the rest of the details that come out of the matters of a get and other contracts are elucidated in the tractate that is built on it, and that is Tractate Gittin and in Bava Batra in the chapter [entitled] Get Pashut and in a few scattered places in the Talmud.

(20) And this commandment of divorce bills is practiced in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and divorces (sends away) his wife and does not write her a get - like the commandment of the Torah, and in the manner that our Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained - has violated this positive commandment. And his punishment is very great, since her legal status is that of a married woman, and [yet] he treats her as if she is divorced [which will lead her to act accordingly]. And the punishment of [having sexual relations with] a married woman is well-known, as it is from the most severe sins in the Torah.

(10) Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1).

(1) With regard to a deaf-mute who married a halakhically competent woman, and a halakhically competent man who married a deaf-mute: If either man wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. The reason why a deaf-mute man can divorce his wife is that just as he marries her by intimation, i.e., his marriage is not performed by explicit speech, as deaf-mutes rely on gestures, so too, he divorces her by intimation. Likewise, in the case of a halakhically competent man who married a halakhically competent woman, and she later became a deaf-mute: If he wants to divorce his wife, he may divorce her, as a wife does not have to have intellectual capacity to receive a bill of divorce, and if he wants to maintain her as his wife, he may maintain her. If she became an imbecile, he may not divorce her, i.e., a bill of divorce is ineffective in this case. If he became a deaf-mute or an imbecile after they were married, he may never divorce her, as he does not have the legal competence to give a bill of divorce. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: For what reason is the halakha that in the case of the woman who becomes a deaf-mute, her husband may divorce her, but in the case of the man who becomes a deaf-mute, he may not divorce his wife? If the bill of divorce written by someone who formerly possessed all his senses and later became a deaf-mute is invalid, it stands to reason that it should not be valid when she becomes a deaf-mute either. They said to him: The man who divorces his wife is not similar to the woman who is divorced, as the woman is divorced whether she is willing or unwilling. Since the woman’s consent is not required, she may be divorced even if she is a deaf-mute. And, conversely, the man divorces his wife only willingly, and therefore the bill of divorce of a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent, is ineffective.