Halacha
הלכה א
זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ". אֶחָד הַכּוֹתֵב בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחֵר לִכְתֹּב לוֹ. וְאֶחָד הַנּוֹתֵן בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחֵר לִתֵּן לָהּ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר וְכָתַב אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁאֵין מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב. וְנָתַן שֶׁלֹּא תִּקַּח מֵעַצְמָהּ:
כסף משנה
1.
The Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 24:1], "And he will write a bill of divorce for her and place it in her hand," refers both to [a husband] who writes [the get] with his own hand and to one who tells [another person] to write it for him. Similarly, [the husband] may place it in her hand or tell an agent to give it to her.1In most matters of Torah law, a person is able to charge an agent to act on his behalf. From the Rambam's wording, Terumat HaDeshen (Responsum 228) and the Kovetz deduce that the Rambam requires that not only the person who gives the get, but also the scribe, must be appointed as agents. This decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 120:1). Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that in addition, the scribe must write the get with paper and ink belonging to the husband.There are, however, other opinions, which maintain that the scribe need not be appointed as an agent. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 16 and notes.)
The verse states, "And he will write," only to teach that divorce is effective only through the medium of a written document. "And [he will] place it" teaches that the woman may not take [the get] herself.
הלכה ב
אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְחוֹתְמִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ וְהֵן הֵן שְׁלוּחָיו וְהֵן הֵן עֵדָיו. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתֹב לִי גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאָמַר לָעֵדִים לַחְתֹּם כּוֹתְבִים וְחוֹתְמִים וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ וְהוּא מְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה:
כסף משנה
2.
When [a husband] tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get, sign it, and give it to my wife," the two may write it, sign it,2There is a difficulty in this instance, for the scribe must also act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. Tosafot and many other authorities rule that a get signed by a scribe is unacceptable. In the Beit Yosef (Even HaEzer 130), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam agrees that a priori, the scribe should not act as one of the witnesses who sign the get. When there is no alternative, however, it is acceptable. (See Lechem Mishneh.) and give it to her. They are [the husband's] agents [for the divorce], and they are the witnesses [to it].3In this instance, the act the agent effects does not concern him. Therefore, there is no difficulty in his serving as a witness to it. (See also Hilchot Ishut 3:16.)Similarly, if [the husband] tells a scribe: "Write a get for my wife for me," and he tells the witnesses to sign, the get may be written, signed and given to [the husband]. He may use it to divorce his wife whenever he desires.4There are two points of clarification that must be made with regard to this ruling: First, if the husband enters into privacy with his wife after having the get written, the get is nullified, for we assume that the couple engaged in sexual relations, as reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 5.
Second, there is the problem that the get is predated - i.e., although it was dated on the day it was written, it is the giving of the get and not the writing of the get that effects the divorce. Thus, the date on which the get was given and the date of the divorce are not the same.
With regard to that issue, we are forced to say that the Rambam does not consider it to be problematic. Indeed, when discussing the issue of predated gittin (Chapter 1, Halachah 25), the Rambam makes no mention of this matter at all. Other authorities differ, and it is their view that is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 127:5), which states that if a get is not given on the day on which it was written, it is acceptable only when given by an agent. (See Beit Shmuel 127:7.)
הלכה ג
וְכוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים וְהַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ בּוֹ מַכִּירִין וְיוֹדְעִים שֶׁזֶּה הוּא פְּלוֹנִי וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא פְּלוֹנִית. וְאִם הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶם שָׁוִים וּשְׁמוֹת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם שָׁוִים אֵין מְגָרֵשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶם אֶלָּא בְּמַעֲמַד חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב גֵּט וְיוֹלִיכוֹ לְאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ וְיַאַסְרֶנָּה עָלָיו:
כסף משנה
3.
We may write a get for a man even when he is not accompanied by his wife, provided the witnesses and the scribe who wrote and signed [the get] know the identity of the man and his wife.5See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 24:3-4. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that there are several points to be derived from an analysis of the Rambam's choice of wording in the present halachah and in that source:a) Even if the man is accompanied by a woman he claims to be his wife, the witnesses may not sign a get for her until this fact is established.
b) It is not significant whether or not the scribe knows the identity of the man and his wife. When the scribe does not sign the get (see the notes to the previous halachah), it is the witnesses alone who must be aware of the identity of the husband and wife.
c) As long as a person's name has been established in a city for thirty days - even if it is only according to his own statements - this is sufficient.
d) The witnesses must also know the names of the father of the husband and of the wife.
e) The person's father's name can also be established on the basis of his own statements.
If there are two men in a city whose names are the same and whose wives' names are the same, one may divorce his wife only in the presence of the other. [This safeguard was enacted] lest one [of the men] have a get written and give it to the wife of the other man, causing her to [be considered] to be divorced from [her husband].6From the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 10:3), it appears that the intent is to prevent the woman receiving the get from engineering such an act of deception.
Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text states "causing her to be forbidden to him," i.e., she will think that she has been divorced, and on that basis, she will marry another man, and thus become forbidden to her first husband.
הלכה ד
וּבִשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִים. וְהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר בְּכָל מָקוֹם:
כסף משנה
4.
In a time of danger,7A time of danger means an instance when the husband is in danger of dying and asks to have a get written for his wife, so that she will not have to undergo the rites of either yibbum or chalitzah (Gittin 66a). we may write a get [on behalf of a husband] and give it [to his wife], even though we are not aware of [their identities].It is the woman who always pays the scribe's fee.8Although according to Scriptural law it is the husband who should pay for the writing of the get (for it is his responsibility), Bava Batra 168a explains that our Sages transferred this obligation to the woman, lest the husband lack the financial resources and cause the woman to wait unnecessarily for her get.
הלכה ה
וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַבַּעַל עַצְמוֹ לַסּוֹפֵר כְּתֹב וְלָעֵדִים חֲתֹמוּ. הֲרֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ בֵּית דִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ וְאָמַר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ וְכָתְבוּ הֵן עַצְמָן וְחָתְמוּ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ הֵם לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַבַּעַל וְחָזַר וְנָתַן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתָבוֹ מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל לְכָתְבוֹ:
כסף משנה
5.
The husband himself must tell the scribe to write [the get] and the witnesses to sign [it]. When a court of law9The Rambam mentions a court of law to indicate that in this instance, their authority is no greater than that of an ordinary person. or two [colleagues] ask a man: "Shall we write a get for your wife?" and he tells them to write [it and sign it],10The bracketed addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. it is acceptable if they themselves write [the get] and sign it.If, however, they tell a scribe [to write] and he does, and they tell witnesses [to sign] and they do, the get is void, because it was written by someone who was not told to write it by the husband himself.11The husband charged these individuals with the composition and the signing of the get. They do not have the authority to convey this responsibility to someone else.
In other instances, an agent can transfer his agency to another person, but here the scribe and the witness were charged with only a verbal command, and a verbal command cannot be transferred to another agent (Gittin 66b). [This ruling applies] even when they give [the get] to the husband, who in turn gives it to his wife in the presence of witnesses.12For the difficulty is with the composition of the get itself.
הלכה ו
אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה אִמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְיִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאִמְרוּ לָעֵדִים וְיַחְתֹּמוּ וְאָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְלָעֵדִים וְחָתְמוּ, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם אִמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְיִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאַתֶּם חֲתֹמוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וּמִתְיַשְּׁבִין בְּדָבָר זֶה הַרְבֵּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִהְיוֹת גֵּט בָּטֵל:
כסף משנה
6.
When [a man] tells two or three [colleagues]: "Tell a scribe to write a get for my wife and tell the witnesses to sign," and they convey these instructions, the get is unacceptable.13In contrast to the previous halachah, in which the get is deemed void, here the Rambam rules that it is unacceptable. This more lenient ruling is given because in this instance, the husband's colleagues carried out his instructions.The Ra'avad and many other authorities also consider this get to be void, for they maintain that the scribe must hear his appointment from the husband directly. The Rambam, however, maintains that the divorce is acceptable according to Scriptural law. As a safeguard, the Rabbis did not accept it, lest a woman hire agents who will tell the scribe and witnesses to compose a get in the husband's name, even though he did not convey such instructions (Gittin 67a). [The same ruling applies if the husband] tells two [colleagues] to tell a scribe to write a get and tells them to sign it.14For the husband did not convey the instructions to the scribe himself.
This matter should be deliberated upon at length, because the get is close to being considered void.15Rav David HaCohen interprets this to mean that this case is judged more severely than other gittin that are unacceptable, and the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt. This is also the ruling of the Ramah. Rav Moshe Alshacar, however, differs and maintains that there is no difference between this instance and others in which the get is deemed unacceptable.
הלכה ז
וּמַה בֵּין פָּסוּל לְבָטֵל. שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּחִבּוּר זֶה בְּגֵט שֶׁהוּא בָּטֵל הוּא בָּטֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר פָּסוּל הוּא פָּסוּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:
כסף משנה
7.
What is the difference between the terms "unacceptable" (pasul) and "void" (bateil)? Whenever this text refers to a get as "void," that means that according to Scriptural law it is void. Whenever the term "unacceptable" is used, it refers to a get deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.16The practical difference between these two terms is explained in Chapter 10, Halachot 1 and 2. When a get is void, the woman's first marriage is not annulled, and she must leave her second husband if she has remarried. Any children she bears the second husband are considered to be mamzerim. When the get is deemed unacceptable by our Rabbis, by contrast, the woman should not remarry, but if she does remarry she is allowed to remain married to her second husband.הלכה ח
הַבַּעַל שֶׁהֵבִיא גֵּט בְּיָדוֹ חָתוּם וְאָמַר תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִתְּנוּ לָהּ. אָמַר לַאֲחֵרִים לִכְתֹּב גֵּט וְלַחְתֹּם בּוֹ וְלִתְּנוֹ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל אוֹ פָּסוּל הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט אַחֵר אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:
כסף משנה
8.
When a husband brings a get that has been signed in his hand and tells [two colleagues]: "Give this get to my wife," they should give it to her [and it is acceptable].17We do not suspect that the husband had a void or unacceptable get composed and gave it to his wife to cause her difficulties (Kessef Mishneh).If he tells others to write a get, sign it and give to his wife, and they write it, sign it and give it to her, and then it is discovered that the get is void or unacceptable, they may write another get - or even 100 other gittin - until the woman receives an acceptable get.18We do not say that the agency with which they were entrusted involved only the composition of one get, and that they must receive a new charge from the husband before writing another one.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:1) states that if the get is not unacceptable, but does not conform with the standard demanded by the local Rav, the scribe does not have the right to write a second get, for the agency with which he was charged by the husband has already been discharged. Therefore, it is customary for a husband to tell the scribe and the witnesses to write as many gittin as necessary, until one finds favor in the eyes of the Rav arranging the divorce.
הלכה ט
אָמַר לָהֶם הַבַּעַל כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלִיךְ לָהּ וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל אוֹ פָּסוּל אֵין כּוֹתְבִים אַחֵר עַד שֶׁיִּמָּלְכוּ בַּבַּעַל. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה אוֹתָן שְׁלוּחִים לְגֵרוּשִׁין וְשֶׁמָּא לֹא רָצָה אֶלָּא שֶׁיִּכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ בִּלְבַד וְלֹא יִשָּׁאֵר לָהֶם בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אַחֵר וַהֲרֵי כָּתְבוּ וְנָתְנוּ. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יִכְתְּבוּ אַחֵר. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ (וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ) הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:
כסף משנה
9.
If the husband tells [two colleagues]: Write and sign [a get] and give it to an agent to bring to her, and they do as they were charged, but it was discovered that the get was void or unacceptable, they may not write another [get] until they consult the husband.[The rationale is] that [the husband] did not charge them with [effecting the divorce]. Perhaps he wanted merely that they write [the get] and give it to the agent. [If so, their agency was completed,] and nothing remains for them to do, for they have written it and given it [to the agent]. Therefore, they should not write another [get].19If the husband had in fact given them only such a limited agency, were they to have another get written, they would no longer be acting in the agency of the husband, but rather on their own initiative.
Rav Moshe HaCohen differs with the Rambam on this point, maintaining that since they did not write an acceptable get, their agency was not completed. For the husband did not charge them with writing a worthless piece of paper; he wanted them to write a get. Note the Beit Shmuel 122:7, who interprets the disqualifying factor mentioned by the Rambam as referring to a disqualification that occurred after the get was given to the agent. He maintains that if a get that was void or unacceptable was given to the agent, even the Rambam would allow the writing of another get.
The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 122:2) quotes the ruling of the Rambam, while the Ramah follows the opinion of Rav Moshe HaCohen.
If they do write another get that is acceptable and give it to the agent - who in turn gives it to the wife - the status of the divorce is in doubt.20We are not certain that their agency was limited in scope. Perhaps the husband's intent was that they effect the divorce.
הלכה י
הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם אוֹ לְיֶתֶר מִשְּׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי גַּרְשׁוּהָ שַׁלְּחוּהָ שִׁבְקוּהָ תַּרְכוּהָ כִּתְבוּ אִגֶּרֶת וּתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ גֵּט כָּשֵׁר וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶם פִּטְרוּהָ פַּרְנְסוּהָ עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כַּדָּת עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כַּנִּימוּס עֲשׂוּ לָהּ כָּרָאוּי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל:
כסף משנה
10.
When a person tells two or more [colleagues]: "Write a get and give to my wife," "Divorce her," "Send her away," "Release her,"21This and the following term are acceptable, because they are Aramaic equivalents of the word "divorce." "Discharge her," or "Write a letter and give it to her," [the colleagues] should write an acceptable get and give it to her.If, however, he tells them: "Dismiss her," "Give her what she needs," "Do as our faith requires to her," "Do as the law requires to her," "Do unto her as she deserves," his statements are of no consequence.22These expressions do not convey adequately enough the intent that the husband desires to divorce his wife for them to be considered effective in bringing about the appointment of the agents for this purpose. If [these individuals] write a get and give it to the woman, the get is void.23Note the Beit Shmuel 141:21, who quotes authorities who maintain that even in such instances the status of the divorce should be considered doubtful.
הלכה יא
אָמַר לָהֶם הוֹצִיאוּהָ עִזְבוּהָ הַתִּירוּהָ הַנִּיחוּהָ הוֹעִילוּהָ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם מַשְׁמָע מִלּוֹת אֵלּוּ גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ עִנְיָן אַחֵר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לָהּ. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ גֵּט וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:
כסף משנה
11.
If he tells them: "Get her out," "Let her go," "Permit her [to remarry]," "Let her be," "Assist her," there is doubt whether or not these terms imply that she should be divorced or whether they have another meaning. Therefore, [these individuals] should not write [a get] for her. If they write a get and give it to her, the status of the divorce is in doubt.הלכה יב
הָאוֹמֵר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְחוֹתְמִין וְנוֹתְנִין לַבַּעַל בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶם לִתֵּן לָהּ. וְאִם נָתְנוּ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּבָרִיא אֲבָל בִּמְסֻכָּן וְהוּא אָדָם שֶׁקָּפַץ עָלָיו הַחלִי בִּמְהֵרָה וְהִכְבִּיד עָלָיו חָלְיוֹ מִיָּד וְהַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר אֲפִלּוּ עַל עִסְקֵי מָמוֹן וְהַמְפָרֵשׁ בַּיָּם וְהַיּוֹצֵא בְּשַׁיָּרָא וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיַחְתְּמוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן זֶה אֶלָּא לִכְתֹּב וְלִתֵּן לָהּ:
כסף משנה
12.
When [a man] says: "Write a get for my wife," [the people he addresses] should write the get, sign it and give it to him. They should not give it to the woman unless he tells them to. If they do give it to the woman, the get is not [effective].24For the husband has not charged them with effecting the divorce.When does the above apply? With regard to a healthy man. If, however, a man is dangerously ill - i.e., he suddenly falls sick and his illness rapidly becomes very severe - or if he is being led away in chains,25In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 6:5), the Rambam interprets this as referring to a person taken from jail in chains to be judged by a gentile magistrate. even for financial matters, or he departs on an ocean journey, or he departs with a caravan [on a desert journey] and he says, "Write a get for my wife," they should write it, sign it and give it to her. For it is clear that his intent was that they should write the get and give it to her.26We assume that, in all these instances, his intent was to divorce his wife, lest he die and she be required to undergo the rite of either yibbum or chalitzah. Alternatively, he knew that he was entering a dangerous situation, and feared that he might die, without there being any witnesses of his death. In order to prevent his wife from being forced to remain unmarried for the rest of her life, he charges witnesses with the composition of a get.
He surely wanted to tell the witnesses to give the get, and it was only because of his concern with his personal situation that he forgot to do so (op. cit.). (See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 8:24, which relates similar concepts with regard to a person's division of his estate.)
הלכה יג
בָּרִיא שֶׁאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְכָתְבוּ וְחָתְמוּ וְנָתְנוּ לָהּ וְהָרַג עַצְמוֹ מִיָּד כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִשְׁלִיךְ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַגַּג אוֹ הִפִּיל עַצְמוֹ לַיָּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר. עָלָה לַגַּג וּדְחָפַתּוּ הָרוּחַ וְנָפַל וּמֵת אֵינוֹ גֵּט. סָפֵק הִפִּיל עַצְמוֹ סָפֵק דְּחָפַתּוּ הָרוּחַ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁהָרוּחַ דְּחָפַתּוּ. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיָה מֻשְׁלָךְ בַּבּוֹר וְאָמַר כָּל הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ קוֹלִי יִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּדְעוּ אוֹתוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעֱלוּהוּ וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁזֶּה כִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה הוּא שֶׁכּוֹתְבִים וְנוֹתְנִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנָּפְלוּ בּוֹ מַכּוֹת רָעוֹת שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטוּ בּוֹ רֹב סִימָנִין וְרָמַז וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי עַתָּה חַי הוּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לָמוּת:
כסף משנה
13.
[The following rules apply when] a healthy person says: "Compose a get for my wife," and [his listeners] write a get, sign it and give it to her. If he commits suicide immediately thereafter - e.g., he throws himself down from a roof or jumps into the sea - the get is acceptable.27In this instance as well, we assume that the person intended to say that the get should be given, but failed to mention the point because of his preoccupation with his own concerns.If, however, he climbs up onto a [high] roof, and he is buffeted by the wind until he falls and dies, the get is void.28For his intent is not clear, and it is possible that he wanted to deliberate before having the get given. If there is doubt whether he threw himself down [from the roof] or was buffeted by the wind, the get is valid unless it becomes known with certainty that he was buffeted by the wind.29The Rambam's ruling is debated by the commentaries, for it is questionable why the get would be considered valid, in light of the doubt that exists. Indeed, there are commentaries that suggest that the text before us is a printing error and that the Rambam considers the status of the divorce to be in doubt. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:18) rules that if the husband falls immediately afterwards, the get is acceptable. If not, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
Similarly, if a man was cast into a pit and he said, "Whoever hears my voice should write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write a get and give it to her, provided they recognize his identity.30The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:19) states that the man must state his name, the name of his wife, the name of the city in which he lives and the name of the city in which she lives. Even if [afterwards,] they took him out of the pit and could not identify him,31E.g., his face had been cut to the point where his identity was no longer recognizable. [the divorce] is acceptable. For in time of danger, [a get] can be written and given to [a man's wife] even if they do not know his identity.
Similarly, when a person suffers many severe blows, to the extent that it is impossible for him to survive - or even if the majority of [his windpipe and gullet]32The slitting of these organs are the two signs that determine whether or not ritual slaughter is acceptable. have been cut - and he makes motions33The Beit Shmuel 121:11 interprets this to mean that the man shakes his head in response to questions (see Halachah 16) and thus indicates that he desires to divorce his wife. and says: "Write a get for my wife," [his listeners] should write [a get] and give it [to her]. Although he will eventually die, he is alive at this time.34The get is not considered to have been given after the man died, and his wife is not required to undergo the rites of yibbum or chalitzah. See Chapter 6, Halachah 28.
הלכה יד
מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה רוּחַ רָעָה מְבַעֶתֶת אוֹתוֹ וְאָמַר כְּשֶׁהִתְחִיל בּוֹ הַחלִי כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וּמְיֻשֶּׁבֶת. וְכֵן שִׁכּוֹר שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְשִׁכְרוּתוֹ שֶׁל לוֹט. וְאִם לֹא הִגִּיעַ הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק:
כסף משנה
14.
[The following rules apply when] a person is troubled by an evil spirit, and at the time when his infirmity begins to take hold of him says: "Write a get for my wife." His statements are of no consequence, because his thoughts are not organized and settled.35For a person's actions to have halachic significance, he must be mentally competent at the time he performs them. The same ruling applies to a person who has become as drunk as Lot.36Whom Genesis, Chapter 19, describes as having become so drunk that he was not aware of having sex with his daughters. If a drunkard has not reached that level [of incapacity], [the status of the divorce] is in doubt.37The Rambam appears to be saying that if we are certain that the person is drunk, but see that he is conscious enough to have some control over his behavior, a get that he orders to be given is of doubtful status.The commentaries question this understanding, noting that in Hilchot Ishut 4:18, the Rambam rules that kiddushin given by a drunk are viable, unless he reaches Lot's state. Similarly, with regard to the entire Torah, a drunk is considered responsible for his conduct. If he commits a transgression punishable by death while drunk, he is executed. Despite these questions, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:1) quotes the Rambam's wording. On this basis, the Beit Shmuel states that both a husband and a wife should not drink alcoholic beverages on the day of their divorce.
הלכה טו
אָמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא בָּרִיא כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִבְעַת מַמְתִּינִין עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא וְכוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וּלְהִמָּלֵךְ בּוֹ אַחַר שֶׁהִבְרִיא. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְנָתְנוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבָּרֵא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל:
כסף משנה
15.
[The following rules apply when a] healthy [man] says: "Write a get for my wife and give it to her," and afterwards he becomes mentally disturbed. We wait until he becomes healthy again, and then we write the get and give it to her. There is no need to consult with him about the matter again when he regains his heath.38While the husband (the principal) is incapacitated, his agent (the scribe) cannot act on his behalf. Therefore, the get should not be written until he regains his health. Nevertheless, once he regains his health, the agency that he originally gave is unaffected, and the get should be written and delivered.If a get is written and given before he regains his health, it is unacceptable.39In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo questions why the Rambam uses the term "unacceptable" (pasul). Seemingly, based on Gittin 70b, this ruling should apply only when we have a means of healing the afflicted person. Otherwise, the get should be void. Indeed, in the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:2), Rav Yosef Karo rules accordingly. Note, however, the Beit Shmuel 121:2, who justifies the Rambam's ruling.
[The difference between these two opinions revolves around the fundamental conception of an agent's authority. Is he acting independently of the principal (in which case the principal's state is not of concern to us) or is he considered to be an extension of the principal (in which case, if the principal is unable to perform an act, neither is his agent). See Lekach Tov, Section 1.]
Based on the above, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 121:4) writes that we should check that a person who is giving a get when terminally ill is sound of mind.
הלכה טז
מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק וַהֲרֵי דַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ נִכְתֹּב גֵּט לְאִשְׁתְּךָ וְהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּסֵרוּגִין אִם אָמַר לָהֶם עַל לָאו לָאו וְעַל הֵן הֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. וּצְרִיכִין לְבָדְקוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה שֶׁמָּא נִטְרְפָה דַּעְתּוֹ. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בְּיָדוֹ כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ אִם הָיְתָה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו. שֶׁאֵין דִּין מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתֵּק כְּדִין הַחֵרֵשׁ:
כסף משנה
16.
[The following rules apply when] a person loses his ability to speak, but is of sound mind. We ask him: "Should we write a get for your wife?" If he nods his head affirmatively, we test him with three [questions with different answers].40According to the Kessef Mishneh, the intent is three questions in which at least one of the answers differs from the other two. There are other authorities who require two sets of three questions. Also, based on Gittin 70b, the Ramah (Even HaEzer 121:5) suggests that the person should be asked questions about fruit - e.g., would he desire a summer fruit in winter? His ability to discern with regard to these matters will serve as an indicator of whether or not he is of sound mind. If he answers those [questions] to be answered affirmatively in the affirmative and those to be answered negatively in the negative, they should write [a get] and give it [to her]. His mental state must be checked thoroughly, lest he not be of sound mind.Similarly, if he writes by hand: "Write a get and give it to my wife," they should write it and give it to her, if [it appears] that he is of sound mind. For the laws governing a person who loses his ability to speak differ from those governing a deaf-mute.41A deaf-mute is not considered to be of sound mind and is not held responsible for his conduct.
הלכה יז
מִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא כְּשֶׁהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר נִשְׁתַּטָּה אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לְעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁיַּבְרִיא. וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל רְמִיזַת הַחֵרֵשׁ וְלֹא עַל כְּתָבוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה וּמְיֻשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה כְּשֶׁהוּא חֵרֵשׁ מְגָרֵשׁ בִּרְמִיזָה שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשָׁיו קִדּוּשִׁין מִן הַתּוֹרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁכּוֹנֵס בִּרְמִיזָה כָּךְ מוֹצִיא בִּרְמִיזָה:
כסף משנה
17.
When a person married while sound of mind and became a deaf-mute, he cannot divorce his wife until he regains his mental health.42For the marriage bond he established is binding according to Scriptural law, and he is not capable of initiating divorce proceedings that have that power. Needless to say, this applies to a person who loses his mental stability.43See Hilchot Edut 9:9, where the Rambam defines the term shoteh as including not only maniacs whose behavior is totally beyond control, but also those who are confused and lack the stability to function normally. We do not rely on the motions of a deaf-mute or on his writing, even if he is of sound mind.If, however, a deaf-mute married a woman while he was in that state, he may divorce her by making motions, for his consecration of her is not valid according to Scriptural law, as has been explained.44Hilchot Ishut 4:9. Just as he married her by making motions, he may divorce her by making motions.
הלכה יח
הַמְקַדֵּשׁ קְטַנָּה עַל יְדֵי אָבִיהָ וְגֵרְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה אָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל גִּטָּהּ וּמִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיַד הָאָב נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. גֵּרְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה אִם הִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ אוֹ לְיַד אָבִיהָ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה. וְאֵין עוֹשָׂה נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיהָ. אֲבָל הָאָב עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל הַגֵּט לְבִתּוֹ הַמְאֹרָסָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין נַעֲרָה:
כסף משנה
18.
When a man consecrates a minor via her father's agency and [seeks to] divorce her while she is a minor, her father should accept her get.45Just as the Torah gives him authority to consecrate her, he is responsible for taking part in the divorce, for Deuteronomy 24:2 establishes an association between the forging of the marriage bond and its dissolution (Ketubot 47a).This applies, however, only before the marriage bond is consummated. After nisu'in, the consummation of the marriage, the father no longer has any authority over his daughter even though she is below the age of majority. (See Hilchot Ishut 3:12.)
We may conclude that, before nisu'in, the Rambam does not consider the girl as having the authority to receive her own get. This opinion is accepted by most authorities and is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:4). The Shulchan Aruch, however, also mentions the opinion of Tosafot, who maintain that the girl possesses this authority. When the get reaches her father's possession, she is divorced.
If [the husband seeks to] divorce [his arusah] when she is a na'arah,46I.e., a girl between the age of twelve and twelve and a half, who has manifested signs of physical maturity. She is already considered to be past majority with regard to certain dimensions of Torah law. Nevertheless, her father is still granted authority over her in certain contexts. (See Hilchot Ishut 2:1, 3:11.) the divorce is effective when the get reaches her possession or her father's possession. A na'arah who is consecrated may not appoint an agent to receive her get from her husband during her father's lifetime.47A married girl below the age of majority, by contrast, may not appoint an agent to receive her get even if her father dies or her marriage has been consummated (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 141:3.) A father, by contrast, may appoint an agent to receive a get for his daughter who has been consecrated, whether she is a minor or a na'arah.
הלכה יט
קִדְּשָׁהּ אָבִיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וּמֵת. אִם מַבְחֶנֶת בֵּין גִּטָּהּ לְדָבָר אַחֵר הֲרֵי זוֹ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת מִשֶּׁיַגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ. וְאִם לָאו אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁתַּבְחִין וְאִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:
כסף משנה
19.
[The following rules apply when] a girl's father consecrates her48If the girl's father consecrates her, the kiddushin are effective according to Scriptural law, and a divorce is required. If, by contrast, the girl's father died, and her mother, her brother or she herself established a marriage bond, it is not binding according to Scriptural law and a get is not required. Instead, this marriage can be dissolved through the rite of mi'un, as described in Hilchot Ishut 4:7. when she is a minor and then [the father] dies. If [the girl] can differentiate between a get and another object,49The Ramah (Even HaEzer 141:6) states that this refers to a girl of six or seven, depending on her intellectual capacities. the divorce is effective after the get reaches her possession. If [she is] incapable [of making such a distinction], she cannot be divorced until she becomes capable of making such distinctions.50If, however, a minor's father is alive, he can accept a get on her behalf regardless of her age or degree of understanding. Rashi (Gittin 64b) differs and maintains that if she is unable to make distinctions, she cannot be divorced even via her father. Although the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 141:6) quotes both opinions, it appears to favor that of the Rambam. If such a divorce is carried out, it is of no consequence.הלכה כ
מִי שֶׁהַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא רָצָה לְגָרֵשׁ. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי וְיִכְתֹּב הַגֵּט וְהוּא גֵּט כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם הִכּוּהוּ עַכּוּ''ם וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִין לְךָ וְלָחֲצוּ אוֹתוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד הָעַכּוּ''ם עַד שֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם הָעַכּוּ''ם מֵעַצְמָן אֲנָסוּהוּ עַד שֶׁכָּתַב הוֹאִיל וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְלָמָּה לֹא בִּטֵּל גֵּט זֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אָנוּס בֵּין בְּיַד עַכּוּ''ם בֵּין בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁאֵין אוֹמְרִין אָנוּס אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁנִּלְחַץ וְנִדְחַק לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻיָּב בּוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ כְּגוֹן מִי שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ עַד שֶׁנָּתַן. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ יִצְרוֹ הָרַע לְבַטֵּל מִצְוָה אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת עֲבֵרָה וְהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁעָשָׂה דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּב לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּתְרַחֵק מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ אֵין זֶה אָנוּס מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא הוּא אָנַס עַצְמוֹ בְּדַעְתּוֹ הָרָעָה. לְפִיכָךְ זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְגָרֵשׁ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִהְיוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְרוֹצֶה הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת וּלְהִתְרַחֵק מִן הָעֲבֵרוֹת וְיִצְרוֹ הוּא שֶׁתְּקָפוֹ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהֻכָּה עַד שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ יִצְרוֹ וְאָמַר רוֹצֶה אֲנִי כְּבָר גֵּרֵשׁ לִרְצוֹנוֹ. לֹא הָיָה הַדִּין נוֹתֵן שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ וְטָעוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ הֶדְיוֹטוֹת וַאֲנָסוּהוּ עַד שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל הוֹאִיל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנָסוּהוּ יִגְמֹר וִיגָרֵשׁ. וְאִם הָעַכּוּ''ם, אֲנָסוּהוּ לְגָרֵשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין אֵינוֹ גֵּט. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר בְּעַכּוּ''ם רוֹצֶה אֲנִי וְאָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַדִּין מְחַיְּבוֹ לְהוֹצִיא וְהָעַכּוּ''ם אֲנָסוּהוּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:
כסף משנה
20.
When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife51E.g., a man whose wife says she is repulsed by him (Hilchot Ishut 14:8), a man who was married to a woman for ten years without her bearing a child (Hilchot Ishut 15:7), a man who becomes afflicted by [constant] bad breath or an odor from his nose, one who becomes a collector of dog feces, a miner of copper or a tanner or one who becomes a leper (Hilchot Ishut 25:11-12) or a priest who marries a divorcee (Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:7). does not desire to divorce her, the court should have him beaten until he consents, at which time they should have a get written. The get is acceptable. This applies at all times and in all places.52The application of this law is not confined to Eretz Yisrael or to the era when the Sanhedrin (the High Court of Law) was in power.Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. If, however, the gentiles compel him to write [a get] on their own initiative, the get is [merely] unacceptable.53Rav Mesharshia states that the Rabbis deemed the get unacceptable, lest women become accustomed to hiring gentiles for this purpose (Bava Batra 48a). In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo notes that Gittin 88b appears to reject Rav Mesharshia's view and states that a get that was forced on a man by gentiles is void entirely. (This indeed is the ruling of Rashi, Rabbenu Nissim and Rabbenu Asher.) In his Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 134:5), Rav Yosef Karo's wording is not specific when dealing with this issue. The Beit Shmuel 134:10 states that such a get is void. The rationale is that the law requires him to give a divorce.
Why is this get not void? For he is being compelled - either by Jews or by gentiles - [to divorce] against his will [and a get must be given voluntarily].
Because the concept of being compelled against one's will applies only when speaking about a person who is being compelled and forced to do something that the Torah does not obligate him to do - e.g., a person who was beaten until he consented to a sale,54See Hilchot Mechirah 10:1, which states that such a sale is acceptable, after the fact. Nevertheless, if the seller notifies the witnesses that he was compelled to sell against his will, the sale is nullified. or to give a present. If, however, a person's evil inclination presses him to negate [the observance of] a mitzvah or to commit a transgression, and he was beaten until he performed the action he was obligated to perform, or he dissociated himself from the forbidden action, he is not considered to have been forced against his will. On the contrary, it is he himself who is forcing [his own conduct to become debased].55The Rambam's statements have implications far beyond their immediate halachic context. The Rambam is saying that the fundamental desire of every Jew is to affirm his Jewishness and observe the Torah and its mitzvot. Even when a person's conscious mind does not necessarily consent to this inner motivation, it is at work, molding his character without his knowledge. And at times, either because of undesirable circumstances - being compelled against his will as above - or because of desirable ones - an expression of Divine favor - this inner drive will surface.
With regard to this person who [outwardly] refuses to divorce [his wife] - he wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the mitzvot and eschew all the transgressions; it is only his evil inclination that presses him. Therefore, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he consents [to the divorce], he is considered to have performed the divorce willfully.
[Different laws apply when] the law does not require him to divorce his wife, and a Jewish court or simple people compel him to divorce her. This get is deemed unacceptable. Since, however, it was Jews who compelled him, he [is advised] to complete the divorce [in a proper manner]. If, by contrast, gentiles compel him to divorce when it was not required, the divorce is void. Even though he tells the gentiles that he consented and tells the Jews to write and sign [a get], since the law does not require him to divorce, and he was compelled to do so by gentiles, the get is void.