Halacha
הלכה א
אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ עוֹמֵד כְּגוֹן דְּיוֹ וְסִקְרָא וְקוֹמוֹס וְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֲבָל אִם כְּתָבוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד כְּגוֹן מַשְׁקִין וּמֵי פֵּרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֵינוֹ גֵּט. כְּתָבוֹ בַּאֲבַר בְּשָׁחוֹר וּבְשִׁיחוֹר כָּשֵׁר. וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בָּהֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה:
כסף משנה
1.
A get may be written only with a substance that leaves a permanent impression - e.g., ink,1In Hilchot Tefillin 1:4, the Rambam describes the process by which ink is made as follows:One collects the vapor of oils, of tar, of wax or the like, [causes it to condense,] and kneads it together with sap from a tree and a drop of honey. It is moistened extensively, crushed until it is formed into flat cakes, dried and then stored.
When one desires to write with it, one soaks [the cakes of ink] in gallnut juice or the like and writes with it. Thus, if one attempts to rub it out, he would be able to.
sikra, kumus, kankantum2In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Gittin 2:3, the Rambam mentions three Arabic terms for these words. Rav Kapach explains the meaning as follows: sikra refers to red clay that is used for painting. Kumus and kankantum are two similar substances, yellow and green powders, which when mixed with gallnut juice produce a black substance. Other commentaries offer different interpretations. or the like. If, however, [a get] is written with a substance that does not leave a permanent impression - e.g., beverages, fruit juices or the like - the get is void.
If [a get] is written with lead, a stylus or charcoal,3Our translation of these terms is based on the Aruch, as quoted by the Ramah (Even HaEzer 125:2). it is acceptable. At the outset, however, these substances should not be used.
הלכה ב
כּוֹתְבִין בְּמֵי עַפְּצָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַל גַּב הַנְּיָר וְהָעוֹר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֲבָל לֹא עַל גַּבֵּי מְגִלָּה עֲפוּצָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכָּר. וְאִם כָּתַב אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. עַל הַכּל כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל אִסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה. וְכוֹתְבִין עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף וְהוּא שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לָהּ בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:
כסף משנה
2.
A priori, we may write with gallnut juice on paper, on a hide or the like. We may not use it to write on parchment that has been treated with gallnut juice, for it will not be distinct. If such a get is written, it is void. The same applies in all similar situations.A get may be written on any substance, even a substance from which one is forbidden to benefit.4The Beit Shmuel 124:1 explains that, a priori, the Rambam allows a get to be written on a substance from which we are forbidden to benefit. The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 124:1) differs and follows the opinion of Tosafot, which states that it is only after the fact that such a get is acceptable. The Ramah adds that if we are obligated to destroy the substance on which the get was written, the get is void. We may write [a get] on a substance on which an erasure would not be noticed, provided it is given [to the woman] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer.5The Rambam rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is valid even when it was given without witnesses' observing the transfer (Chapter 1, Halachah 16). In this instance, however, even he maintains that witnesses must observe the transfer, for it is possible that the signatures of the witnesses on the get could be forged (Chelkat Mechokek 124:2).
הלכה ג
כֵּיצַד כּוֹתֵב (אוֹתוֹ). עַל הַנְּיָר הַמָּחוּק וְעַל הַדִּפְתְּרָא וְעַל הַחֶרֶס וְעַל הֶעָלִין וְעַל יָדוֹ שֶׁל עֶבֶד וְעַל קֶרֶן שֶׁל פָּרָה. וּמוֹסֵר לָהּ הָעֶבֶד וְהַפָּרָה אוֹ הַנְּיָר הַמָּחוּק וְהַדִּפְתְּרָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים:
כסף משנה
3.
What is implied? If a get is written on paper with erasures,6The difficulty with a get written on a parchment with erasures is that the text can be erased again and additions or deletions made without making a noticeable difference in the final product. Thus, stipulations could be added to the get, or the signatures of the witnesses altered. Similarly, changes could be made to a get written on any of the other substances that follow.Another type of legal document written on such parchment would not be acceptable. The laws pertaining to a get are different, for in this instance the purpose of the document is not to serve as proof of the divorce, but instead to effect the dissolution of the marriage bond. The purpose of other legal documents, by contrast, is to serve as an account of the transactions they record. on parchment that has not been fully processed, on a shard, on leaves, on the arm of a servant or on the horn of a cow,7As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, one may not detach the horn from the cow after the get was written on it, before giving the cow to the woman. [it is acceptable, provided the husband] gives [his wife] the servant, the cow,8Normally mesirah, transferring the reigns of an animal, is not an acceptable means of acquiring a cow, as stated in Hilchot Mechirah 3:5. Nevertheless, an exception is made in this instance, because the fundamental purpose of this transaction is not to transfer the cow, but to transfer the get (Hafla'ah; see also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 9, Halachah 3). the paper, the parchment or the like in the presence of witnesses.
הלכה ד
הָיָה הַגֵּט חָקוּק עַל יָדוֹ שֶׁל עֶבֶד בִּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע וְהָיָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ וְהָיוּ הָעֵדִים חֲקוּקִים עַל יָדוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף. אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מֻחְזָקִין בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלּוֹ וְגֵט חָקוּק עַל יָדוֹ וְהוּא יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת בְּעֵדִים נִמְסַר לִי הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא מֵעַצְמוֹ נִכְנַס לָהּ שֶׁהַגּוֹדְרוֹת אֵין לָהֶן חֲזָקָה:
כסף משנה
4.
When the get is tattooed on the hand of a servant,9As reflected by a comparison to the second clause, this law applies when it is known that the servant belonged to the woman (Beit Shmuel 124:17). (See the notes on the following halachah.) the signature of the witnesses is also tattooed there,10The commentaries question why the signature of the witnesses is significant, for by tattooing the servant they have committed a transgression that disqualifies them from serving as witnesses. and he is in the possession of [the wife], the divorce is effective, even though there are no witnesses to [the servant's] transfer,11In this instance, the situation parallels the law described in Chapter 1, Halachah 16, which rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is acceptable, even when there are no witnesses to its transfer. for [the tattoo] cannot be forged.Even when it is known to us that the servant [previously] belonged to the husband, the get is tattooed on his hand, and he is in the possession of the woman, and she says: "He was given to me in the presence of witnesses," the status of the divorce is in doubt.12See the Chelkat Mechokek 124:19, which states that if there are witnesses to the transfer of the servant, or the husband admits that the servant was given to the woman, the divorce is effective. For the possession of living beings that can move independently is not considered proof of their ownership.13See Hilchot To'en V'Nit'an 10:1.
הלכה ה
הָיָה הַגֵּט חָקוּק עַל הַטַּבְלָא וְהָעֵדִים עָלָיו וְהוּא יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מֻחְזָקִין בְּטַבְלָא שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ כּוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּטָּהּ. שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְּחוֹתְמָיו אִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה:
כסף משנה
5.
If a get is engraved on a tablet [with a stylus], and it is signed by witnesses, and [the tablet] is in [the woman's] possession, the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when it is known to us that the tablet [had previously] belonged to [the wife].14Although the article on which the husband has the get written must belong to him, there is no difficulty in this instance, as will be explained. For a woman is allowed to write her get herself. The verification of a get is dependent on [the witnesses who] signed it, if there are no witnesses to its transfer.15We assume that the witnesses who signed the get would have signed it only after verifying that the woman gave the tablet to her husband for the purpose of the divorce.הלכה ו
חָקַק הַגֵּט עַל הַלּוּחַ אוֹ עַל הָאֶבֶן אוֹ עַל טַס שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת אִם חָפַר יַרְכֵי הָאוֹתִיּוֹת כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁזֶּה כְּתָב הוּא. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ירמיה יז א) "כְּתוּבָה בְּעֵט בַּרְזֶל" כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא חֲפָרוֹ. וְכֵן אִם חָקַק הַיְרֵכוֹת מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַטַּס עַד שֶׁבָּלְטוּ בִּפְנֵי הַטַּס. אֲבָל אִם חָפַר תּוֹךְ הָאוֹת עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאוּ הַיְרֵכוֹת גְּבוֹהוֹת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן כִּכְתַב דִּינַר זָהָב שֶׁהַכְּתָב בּוֹלֵט אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁאֵין זֶה כְּתָב:
כסף משנה
6.
[The following laws apply when] a get is engraved on a board, on a stone or on a metal plate: If the scribe engraved the form of the letters,16I.e., he hewed out the lines that would normally be written. it is acceptable. This is considered writing, as [reflected by] the verse, [Jeremiah 17:1]: "Written with a pen of iron" - i.e., hewed out. Similarly, if one engraved the letters from the back of the plate until they projected from the front of the plate [the get is acceptable].If, however, one hewed out the inside of the letter, [and the area around it,] until the form of the letter protruded on both sides, like the protruding writing on golden dinarim, the get is void, because this is not considered writing.17I.e., the letter is formed by working around the letter, and not on the form of the letter itself. This law has a corollary that is applicable to contemporary halachah. If ink spills near a letter, the shape of the letter may not be formed by scratching out the ink blotch (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 125:8).
הלכה ז
הַמְקָרֵעַ עַל הָעוֹר תַּבְנִית כְּתָב אוֹ שֶׁרָשַׁם עַל הָעוֹר תַּבְנִית כְּתָב הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַגֵּט בְּכָל כְּתָב וּבְכָל לָשׁוֹן. גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּכְתָב מִן הַלְּשׁוֹנוֹת וְעֵדָיו חֲתוּמִין בִּכְתָב אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ הָעֵדִים מַכִּירִין לְשׁוֹן הַכְּתָב וְהַכְּתִיבָה
כסף משנה
7.
If one etches out the shape of letters on a hide,18Without writing. or one sketches the form of letters on a hide19In this instance, the writing will not remain permanently, but instead will be rubbed out in a short time. For this reason, the Rambam rules in Hilchot Shabbat 11:16 that sketching on a hide is not considered writing. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there is nothing lacking in the writing itself, the Rambam deems the get acceptable. [the get is acceptable].20See the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:5), which mentions that there are some authorities who rule that etching is acceptable and sketching unacceptable, and others who accept sketching and disqualify etching.A get may be written with any letters21I.e., one may use Rashi script, rather than ordinary Hebrew writing (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 126:1). Indeed, in one of his responsa, the Rambam writes that his teacher, Rav Yosef Migash, preferred having a get written in Rashi script rather than using the letters used in writing a Torah scroll. The univeral custom at present, however, is to use the Assyrian script with which Torah scrolls are written [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:1)]. and in any language.22I.e., there is no requirement to write it in Hebrew or Aramaic. Nevertheless, for centuries, it has been customary to use the standard Aramaic text quoted by the Rambam later on in this chapter. A get that is written with the letters of one language and whose witnesses sign with the letters of another language is acceptable, provided the witnesses comprehend the language and the letters used.23In Chapter 1, Halachah 23, the Rambam allows a get to be read for the witnesses. Nevertheless, in this instance the Rambam requires the witnesses to read the get themselves. Since signing in another language is already a departure from the norm, no further leniency is granted (Ma'aseh Rokeach).
הלכה ח
אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים חָתַם בִּכְתָב (לָשׁוֹן אַחַת) וְהָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי בִּכְתַב לָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת כָּשֵׁר. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מִקְצָת הַגֵּט כָּתוּב בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחַת וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת פָּסוּל:
כסף משנה
8.
If one of the witnesses signed the get with letters [from one language], and the other signed with letters of another language, the get is acceptable.24Gittin 9:7 gives an example of one witness signing in Greek and the other in Hebrew. Even though the two languages use different characters, and even require writing in different directions, the get is acceptable.Each of the witnesses' signatures is a separate and independent statement. Therefore, there is no need for the two signatures to be in the same language. The get, by contrast, is a single unit and must be written in one language (Kessef Mishneh).
If, however, a portion of the get is written in one language, and another portion is written in another language, it is unacceptable.25This ruling is accepted by all authorities. Although the standard text of the get that is universally employed uses both Aramaic and Hebrew, this does not represent a contradiction. Our Sages explain that since both these languages were used at Mount Sinai, they are considered to be a single tongue (Ramah, Even HaEzer 126:1).
הלכה ט
כָּל לָשׁוֹן שֶׁיִּכָּתֵב בָּהּ הַגֵּט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּזָהֵר הַסּוֹפֵר בְּדִבְרֵי הַגֵּט שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מַשְׁמָעָן שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַקּוֹרֵא אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא לְכָךְ וּלְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁמָעוֹ לְשׁוֹן גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לְעִנְיָן זֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ לְשׁוֹן גֵּרוּשִׁין. אֶלָּא יִהְיוּ הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן סָפֵק בְּאוֹתוֹ הַלָּשׁוֹן אֶלָּא מַשְׁמָעָן עִנְיָן אֶחָד שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ וְשָׁלַח פְּלוֹנִי אֶת פְּלוֹנִית:
כסף משנה
9.
Regardless of the language in which a get is written, the scribe must be careful that the wording of the get does not allow for two meanings. It should not [leave] the reader [in doubt, wondering]: "Perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., something other than divorce - "or perhaps this was his intention" - i.e., divorce.26See Halachah 13 for examples of wording that could create such doubt. Instead, [whatever] the language [of the get], the wording should unequivocally state one concept: that so and so divorces so and so.הלכה י
וְכֵן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אוֹתוֹ הַכְּתָב מְבֹאָר הֵיטֵב בְּאוֹתוֹ הַכְּתָב שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ הַקְּטַנִּים לִקְרוֹתוֹ שֶׁמַּכִּירִים אוֹתוֹ כְּתָב שֶׁאֵינָן לֹא נְבוֹנִים וְלֹא סְכָלִים (וְלֹא בִּקְטַנִּים) אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹנִים. וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כְּתָב מְעֻקָּם וּמְבֻלְבָּל שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה אוֹת לְאוֹת וְנִמְצָא הָעִנְיָן מִשְׁתַּנֶּה:
כסף משנה
10.
Similarly, regardless of the letters used, the penmanship [of the scribe] must be clear, so that children who know those letters would be able to read it. [The intent is] children who are not overly bright, nor those who are overly slow, but rather those of average intelligence.27See Hilchot Tefillin 1:19, which states that when a question arises concerning the writing for the parchments of the tefillin, a determination may be made on the basis of the reading of such a child.The writing should not be crooked, nor incoherent, lest one letter be confused with another, changing the meaning of the text.28See Halachah 13 for examples of steps taken to prevent such confusion from arising.
הלכה יא
הָיָה בּוֹ מַשְׁמָעוּת שְׁנֵי עִנְיָנִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְתָבוֹ עִקּוּם אוֹ בִּלְבּוּל עַד שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּקְרָא מִמֶּנּוּ עִנְיָן אַחֵר. הוֹאִיל וְנִקְרָא לְעִנְיַן הַגֵּרוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע גֵּרוּשִׁין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. כְּבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל לִכְתֹּב הַגֵּט לְשׁוֹן אֲרָמִי וּכְנֹסַח זֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְכָתְבוֹ בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן לְכַתְּחִלָּה:
כסף משנה
11.
If [the wording of a get] has two implications, or its writing is crooked or incoherent to the extent that it is possible to understand a different concept from it, it is unacceptable. [It is not void,] because it may be read as referring to a divorce and its meaning involves divorce.Although a priori it is permissible to write a get in any language, it has already become universal Jewish practice to write gittin in Aramaic, using the following text.29This basic text was already employed during the Talmudic era. At present, the later authorities in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities have suggested minor emendations to the text quoted by the Rambam. As such, there are two standard gittin employed in Eretz Yisrael today.
הלכה יב
וזה הוא נוסח הגטבְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ לְיֶרַח פְּלוֹנִי בִּשְׁנַת כָּךְ וְכָךְ לַיְצִירָה אוֹ לַשְּׁטָרוֹת לְמִנְיָנָא דְּרָגִילְנָא לְמִימְנֵי בָּהּ הָכָא בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אֵיךְ אֲנָא פְּלוֹנִי בַּר פְּלוֹנִי דְּמִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שׁוּם אָחֳרָן וַחֲנִיכָה דְּאִית לִי וְלַאֲבָהָתִי וּלְאַתְרִי וּלְאַתְרֵיהוֹן דַּאֲבָהָתִי צָבִיתִי בִּרְעוּת נַפְשִׁי בִּדְלָא אֲנִיסְנָא וּפַטְרִית וְשַׁבְקִית וּתְרוּכִית יָתִיכִי לֵיכִי אַנְתְּ פְּלוֹנִית בַּת פְּלוֹנִי דְּמִמָּתָא פְּלוֹנִית וְכָל שׁוּם אָחֳרָן וַחֲנִיכָה דְּאִית לֵיכִי וְלַאֲבָהָתִיכִי וּלְאַתְרִיכִי וּלְאַתְרֵיהוֹן דַּאֲבָהָתִיכִי דִּי הֲוִית אִנְתָּתִי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא. וּכְדוֹ פַּטְרִית וְשַׁבְקִית וּתְרוּכִית יָתִיכִי לֵיכִי דְּיִתְהַוְיָין רַשָּׁאָה וְשַׁלְטָאָה בְּנַפְשִׁיכִי לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנַסְבָּא לְכָל גְּבַר דְּיִתְצַבְיָין וְאִינַשׁ לֹא יִמְחֶה בְּיָדִיכִי (מִן שְׁמִי) מִן יוֹמָא דְּנָן וּלְעָלַם וַהֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וְדֵן דִּי יֶהֱוֵי לֵיכִי מִנָּאִי סֵפֶר תֵּרוּכִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבוּקִין כְּדַת משֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִים לְמַטָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי עֵד. פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי עֵד:
כסף משנה
12.
This is the text of the get:On this day of the week, on this day of the month, in this year from creation - or according to the chronology employed for legal documents30This refers to the years dating back to the beginning of Alexander the Great's kingdom, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 27. - according to the reckoning that we keep here in [the name of the place where the get is being given], in the following way, I [the husband's name,] the son of [his father's name], from [the name of his city]31I.e., the city in which he dwells, not the city in which he was born (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 128:2). The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating "At present, when we are constantly being exiled and must wander, our place of residence is not defined." Instead, if the man is present at the composition of the get, it is written "who is located at present in this and this place." or by whatever names or nicknames32The Ashkenazi custom is not to employ this phrase and instead to specify all the names by which a person is called (Ramah, Even HaEzer 129:1). by which I, my father, my place or his place are called, desire out of independent will without anyone forcing me, to dismiss, to release, to divorce you, [the woman's name,] the daughter of [her father's name], from [the name of her city] or by whatever names or nicknames you, your father, your place or his place is known.33The concepts mentioned in the notes above with regard to the husband's place and names also apply with regard to his wife's.
[Although] previously, you were my wife, now I am dismissing, releasing and divorcing you, so that you have the license and the authority to go and marry any man whom you desire. No one will protest [your actions] from the present day onward. You are free [to marry] any man. This will serve you as a bill of divorce, a get dismissing you, and a letter releasing you, from me, according to the faith of Moses and Israel.
The witnesses sign below, as we explained:34Chapter 1, Hilchot 15, 18, et al. In many manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah, the phrases that follow are omitted, leading some to consider them to be the additions of a printer. [The witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness, [the witness's name] the son of [his father's name], a witness.
הלכה יג
כְּשֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַגֵּט בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה וּבְנֹסַח זֶה לֹא יִכְתֹּב וְדֵין בְּיוּ״ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא וְדִין כְּלוֹמַר מִשְׁפָּט יִהְיֶה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ. וְלֹא יִכְתֹּב וְאִגֶּרֶת בְּיוּ״ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא וְאִי גָרַת כְּלוֹמַר אִם זָנִית. לֹא יִכְתֹּב לִימְהָךְ בְּיוּ״ד שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא לִי מֵהַךְ [וְכֵן יַרְחִיק רֶגֶל הַהֵ״א מִגַּגָּהּ שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא לִמְחַךְ] כְּלוֹמַר לִשְׂחוֹק. וְלֹא יִכְתֹּב תֶּהֱוְיָן וְתִצְבְּיָן בִּשְׁתֵּי יוּדִי״ן שֶׁמָּא יִקְרָא הַקּוֹרֵא תֶּהֱוְיָין וְתִצְבְּיָין כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא מְדַבֵּר עִם שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ לָזוֹ אֶלָּא לִשְׁתַּיִם אֲחֵרוֹת. וְכֵן יַאֲרִיךְ לְוָי״ו דְּוּכְדוֹ שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה לְיוּ״ד וְיִהְיֶה מַשְׁמָעוֹ וּכְדִי כְּלוֹמַר בִּתְנַאי זֶה אֶפְטֹר אוֹתָךְ. וְכֵן יַאֲרִיךְ לְוָי״ו דְּתֵרוּכִין וְשִׁבוּקִין שֶׁמָּא תִּדְמֶה לְיוּ״ד וְיִהְיֶה מַשְׁמָע תְּרִיכִין וּשְׁבִיקִין כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ שֶׁהִיא שָׁבְקָה וְגֵרְשָׁה אוֹתוֹ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה צָרִיךְ לְהִזָּהֵר בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן וּבְכָל כְּתָב שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מַשְׁמַע שְׁתֵּי עִנְיָנוֹת:
כסף משנה
13.
When a get is written using the above text and wording, [the following rules should be adhered to:] The word ודן should not be written with a yud, so that it might be read as ודין, which might be interpreted as meaning: "There will be a judgment between me and you."The word ואגרת should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as ואי גרת, meaning "If you commit adultery."
The word למהך should not be written with a yud, lest it be read as לי מהך - i.e., that it is a joke for me.35Some texts of the Mishneh Torah also include the statement that space should be left between the leg of the heh and its roof. According to that text, לי מהך "for me, from now on."
The words תהוייין and תצבייין should not be written with only two yuddin, lest a reader get the impression that the man is speaking with two women, and rather than divorce the one, he is divorcing two others.
Similarly, he should elongate the [latter] vav in the word וכדו lest it resemble a yud, which would cause the word to be read as uch'dei, in which instance, it would mean that "I am divorcing you on this condition." By the same token, he should elongate the vav in the words תרוכין and שבוקין, lest they resemble yuddin, in which instance it would mean that he is telling her that she is releasing and divorcing him.
In a similar fashion, care must be taken in every language and with every form of lettering to make certain that [the wording of the get] does not leave the possibility for two implications.
הלכה יד
הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב בְּנֹסַח זֶה וְלֹא הֶאֱרִיךְ וָוִי״ן אֵלּוּ אוֹ לֹא כָּתַב הַיּוּדִי״ן הַיְתֵרוֹת אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַיּוּדִי״ן שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּתְבוּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה בְּכָל לָשׁוֹן פָּסוּל:
כסף משנה
14.
If [a scribe] wrote [a get] using this text and did not elongate the vavin mentioned, did not write the extra yuddin, or wrote the yuddin that we said should not be written, the get is unacceptable.36The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that the get is unacceptable only when the husband protests and maintains that he intentionally had the scribe make such a mistake. If he does not issue such a protest, the get is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh also mentions that there is a difference if the woman subsequently married on the basis of the get or not, and the Tur states that the get may be disqualified on this basis only if the husband writes it himself, or the scribe writes it in response to his explicit instructions.The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:22) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also mentions that of the Ra'avad and the Tur. An exception, however, is made with regard to writing the three yuddin in the words תצבייין and תהוייין. If only two yuddin are written, the get is acceptable. (See also the Beit Shmuel 126:32.) Similarly, [if a get is written] in another language, and imprecise wording or writing is used, it is unacceptable.
הלכה טו
גֵּט שֶׁמָּחַק בּוֹ אוֹת אוֹ תֵּבָה אוֹ שֶׁתָּלָה בֵּין הַשִּׁיטִין. אִם מִטֹּפֶס הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְאִם מִן הַתֹּרֶף אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם חָזַר וּפֵרֵשׁ בְּסוֹף הַגֵּט שֶׁאוֹת פְּלוֹנִית תְּלוּיָה אוֹ עַל מַחַק אֲפִלּוּ מִתֹּרֶף הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר כִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת. וְכֵן גֵּט שֶׁנִּמְצָא קָרוּעַ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב שֶׁהוּא קֶרַע שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. אֲבָל אִם נִקְרַע וְאֵינוֹ קֶרַע שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין כָּשֵׁר:
כסף משנה
15.
[The following rules apply if] a letter or a word of a get was rubbed out or written between the lines. If it is from the standard portion of the get, it is acceptable. If it is from the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance, the get is void. If, however, at the conclusion of the get, it is stated that the particular letter has been written between the lines or has been rubbed out, the get is acceptable, as other legal documents would be,37See Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh 27:8. even if [the difficulty] concerns the portions of the get that are of fundamental importance.38The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:19) states that at present it is customary to discard a get with a portion that has been rubbed out, instead of adding this line at the conclusion of the get. If, however, there is no alternative, a get is acceptable with an erasure, even if there is no explanation at the end, for we rely on the witnesses who observe the transfer (Beit Shmuel 125:35).Similarly, if a get was discovered to be torn [both] horizontally and vertically, as is customary for a court [to tear a legal document], the get is void, as would be other legal documents.39The Ra'avad states that if the get had been certified by the court, it is acceptable even if it is torn in the above manner. The rationale is that we assume that the get was torn so that the woman would not be able to use it to demand payment of her ketubah a second time. The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:20), and the Ra'avad's clarification is mentioned by the Chelkat Mechokek 125:41. If, however, it is torn in a way other than the manner customary for a court [to tear a legal document], it is acceptable.
הלכה טז
נִמֹּק אוֹ שֶׁהִרְקִיב אוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה כִּכְבָרָה כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִטַּשְׁטֵשׁ וּבָבוּאָה שֶׁלּוֹ קַיֶּמֶת אִם יָכוֹל לִקְרוֹת כָּשֵׁר וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ גֵּט:
כסף משנה
16.
If [the get] has faded, rotted or become [filled with holes like] a sieve, it is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] it has been rubbed out or the letters have become blurred, but their form remains. If it can be read, it is acceptable;40As reflected by the following halachah, this refers to an instance in which the get was given when it was acceptable, and its condition deteriorated afterwards. if not, it is void.הלכה יז
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ בְּעֵדֵי חֲתִימָה וְאֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁנִּמְסַר לָהּ הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְהָיָה כָּשֵׁר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה תֹּרֶף הַגֵּט עַל הַמַּחַק אוֹ בֵּין הַשִּׁיטִין אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קָרוּעַ שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב כְּשֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם:
כסף משנה
17.
When does the above41I.e., the disqualifications mentioned in the previous two halachot. apply? When the woman is in possession of a get that has been signed by witnesses, and there are no witnesses to its transfer. If, however, there are witnesses who testify that the get was transferred in their presence, and at that time it was acceptable, the divorce is binding.42This represents a difference between gittin and other legal documents, as reflected in Halachah 3 and notes (Maggid Mishneh).[This applies] even if the fundamental portions of the get were written on erased parchment or between the lines, or [the get] was torn [both] horizontally and vertically when it was given to [the woman] in their presence.43The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that if the get is faded to the point that it cannot be read at the time it is transferred, the fact that the transfer is observed by witnesses is to no avail, and the divorce is void.
He also mentions the opinion of the Rashba, who states that a get that is torn vertically and horizontally before it is given to the woman is not acceptable. He does not, however, accept that decision. His rulings are paralleled by those of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 125:21), which mentions both the Rambam's and the Rashba's views, but appears to favor that of the Rambam.
הלכה יח
חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ גֵּט אֶחָד לַחֲמֵשׁ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן. אִם כְּתָבוּהוּ בַּכְּלָל כְּגוֹן שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְכֵן אָמַר כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאִשְׁתּוֹ לֵיכִי דִּי תֶּהֱוְיָן וְכָל טֹפֶס הַגֵּט וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין מִלְּמַטָּה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כְּלָל כָּל מִי שֶׁתֵּצֵא מְגִלָּה זוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט וְהִתְחִיל תַּחְתָּיו גֵּט אַחֵר בְּאוֹתָהּ מְגִלָּה וְכָתַב וּבְיוֹם זֶה אוֹ בְּכָךְ בְּשַׁבָּת גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט הַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַגִּטִּין וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה. אִם נִתְּנָה מְגִלָּה זוֹ לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מְגֹרָשׁוֹת. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה וְהָיְתָה מְגִלָּה זוֹ יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יַד אַחַת מֵהֶן. אִם הָיְתָה זוֹ שֶׁגִּטָּהּ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם הָיְתָה הַמְּגִלָּה יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יַד אַחַת מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:
כסף משנה
18.
[The following rules apply when] five men write a single get to divorce their five wives. The get is acceptable if the wording they use is inclusive - i.e., they wrote "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so, and so and so divorced so and so..." - every husband making a statement to his wife. Similarly, each of them told his wife: "so that you have the license to...," including the entire standard portion of the get. Two witnesses must sign below.[This get] must be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe its transfer. If no witnesses observe its transfer at all, the woman who is in possession of the get is considered to be divorced.44The others, by contrast, are not considered to be divorced, for we have no proof that the woman's husband in fact gave her this get. (See Gittin 86b.)
[Different rules apply if,] by contrast, [the scribe] wrote: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," completing the entire text of the get and then began writing a second get directly under it in the same scroll. [He continued] writing: "On the day of the week, so and so divorced so and so...," and so completed the entire text of the second get and similarly completed all the gittin in this manner [on the same scroll], and the witnesses signed below [the final get].
If this scroll was given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, all their divorces are effective.45I.e., no attention is paid to the witnesses who signed the get. Each of the women received a get that was written in acceptable manner, and whose transfer was observed by witnesses. This is sufficient for a divorce to be acceptable. [More stringent rules apply] if there are no witnesses who observed the transfer, and the scroll is in the possession of one of the women: If hers was the last get written on the scroll and the signatures of the witnesses are read together with [that statement], her divorce is effective.46For hers is an acceptable get, signed by witnesses. We are not concerned with the fact that the scroll contains other gittin above it. If the scroll is in the possession of one of the women whose gittin precede the last one, the status of her divorce is in doubt.
הלכה יט
כָּתַב אָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּרַשְׁנוּ נְשׁוֹתֵינוּ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית וְהִשְׁלִים הַגֵּט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְסַר לְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁאֵין שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים מִתְגָּרְשׁוֹת בְּגֵט אֶחָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב לָהּ" וְלֹא לָהּ וְלַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. חָזַר וּפְרָטָן בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט וְכָתַב פְּלוֹנִי גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי גֵּרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית בִּזְמַן פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
כסף משנה
19.
If [the scribe] writes: "We, so and so and so and so, divorce our wives, so and so and so and so,..." and then completes the get, the get is void, even though it was given to each one of them in the presence of witnesses who observed its transfer. [The rationale:] two women cannot be divorced with the same get, as [we can infer from Deuteronomy 24:1]: "And he shall write for her," [implied is:] for her and not for her and her colleague.If after [writing the text as above], he continued and wrote individual statements for each one within the get, stating, "So and so is divorcing so and so, and so and so is divorcing so and so on this date,"47The get is acceptable only if the date that is stated in the beginning of the get is restated in the individual statement written for each woman. (See Beit Shmuel 130:13.) the divorces are acceptable.
הלכה כ
כָּתַב שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין בִּשְׁנֵי דַּפִּין בִּמְגִלָּה אַחַת זֶה בְּצַד זֶה. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים נִקְרָאִים בְּסוֹף גֵּט זֶה וּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְּסוֹף גֵּט זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. וְכָל שֶׁתֵּצֵא מְגִלָּה זוֹ מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:
כסף משנה
20.
[The following rules apply when a scribe] wrote two gittin in two columns on one scroll side by side. If there are two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] one get, and two witnesses [whose signatures] are read [as a continuation of] the other get, the get is acceptable.48If the get is given to both women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, both are divorced (Maggid Mishneh). Whichever woman is in possession of the get is divorced.49Even when there are no witnesses who observe the transfer.הלכה כא
הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁנֵי עֵדִים בִּלְבַד בָּאִים מִתַּחַת גֵּט זֶה לְתַחַת גֵּט זֶה. אִם יָצָא מִתַּחַת יָד זוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִים עִם גִּטָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם יָצָא מִתַּחַת יָד שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִים עִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיִּמְסֹר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים:
כסף משנה
21.
[In the above instance, if the gittin] were signed by only two witnesses, who signed across the width of both gittin, the divorce is valid only when the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear.50I.e., under the first column, the witness signed "Ya'akov, the son of," and in the second column he continued "Yitzchak, a witness." The second witness did the same. In this instance, the witnesses have signed under the first get. If the witnesses signed their first names under one column, and signed "the son of so and so" in the second column, both gittin would be acceptable. For "the son of Ya'akov" is an acceptable signature."This interpretation is based on the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Gittin 9:6). The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:8) offers a slightly different interpretation.
If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures of the witnesses do not appear, the get is not acceptable unless it is given to her in the presence of witnesses [who observe the transfer].51I.e., the fact that the names of the fathers of the witnesses are located under the woman's get does not cause it to be considered a get with false signatures. (See Ramah, Even HaEzer 130:8.)
הלכה כב
כָּתַב שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין בִּשְׁנֵי דַּפִּין זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה וְהָעֵדִים בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַגִּטִּין שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּסוֹף הָרִאשׁוֹן וּלְמַעְלָה מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. אִם הָיָה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָד זוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין בְּסוֹף גִּטָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְזוֹ שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרָאִין בְּרֹאשׁ גִּטָּהּ מִלְּמַעְלָה אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הָעֵדִים שֶׁחָתְמוּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף שֶׁל גֵּט אוֹ מִצִּדּוֹ אוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם נִמְסַר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים כָּשֵׁר:
כסף משנה
22.
[The following rules apply if a scribe] writes two gittin, one above the other, and the witnesses sign between the two gittin - their signatures thus being below the first get and above the second get. If the scroll is in the possession of the woman under whose get the signatures appear, her divorce is valid, and the woman above whose get the signatures appear is not divorced.52These laws apply even when there are no witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll. If there are witnesses who observed the transfer of the scroll to the second woman, even the second get is acceptable.If the scroll is in the possession of the woman above whose get the witnesses sign, both the gittin are unacceptable unless there are witnesses who observed their transfer.
If the witnesses signed at the top of a get, at its side or on its overside, it is not a get.53When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:4) states that the get is pasul, unacceptable. That term implies that it is the Rabbis who disqualified the use of such a get, while according to Scriptural law it is acceptable. If it was given to [the woman] in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable.54The fact that the witnesses did not sign in the proper place does not make the get invalid.
הלכה כג
הִקִּיף רֹאשׁ הַדַּף זֶה לְרֹאשׁ דַּף זֶה וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הָעֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ שְׁנֵי הַגִּטִּין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּטֵלִין. וְאִם נִמְסְרוּ לָהֶן בְּעֵדִים שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים:
כסף משנה
23.
If two gittin [were written in an arc,] with the beginning of one get facing the beginning of the other get, and the signature of the witnesses is located between the tops of both gittin, both are void. If they are transferred in the presence of witnesses, both are acceptable.הלכה כד
שִׁיֵּר מִקְצָת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בַּדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה בְּסוֹף הַדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכָּר בַּמְּגִלָּה שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְתַּךְ וְשֶׁלְּכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּן הַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁיַּשְׁלִים בַּדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְסַר בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁמָּא שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין הָיוּ וְנֶחְתַּךְ מִקְצָת זֶה מִסּוֹף הַדַּף וּמִקְצָת הַשֵּׁנִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַדַּף:
כסף משנה
24.
[The following rules apply if the scribe did not complete the text of the get in one column,] left a portion unwritten and wrote it at the top of a second column. If the witnesses signed below, at the end of the second column, it is acceptable, provided it is obvious that the scroll was not cut off, and it was the scribe's intent to complete the get in the second column.If, however, this is not apparent, the status of the divorce is in doubt, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses. [The rationale is that] perhaps there were two gittin, and the portion below the get in the first column and a portion above the get in the second column were cut off.55And thus a portion of the get that the woman receives would not have been written for her sake. For this reason, even if the get was given in the presence of witnesses who observed the transfer, it is not acceptable unless the witnesses testify that the get was originally written in two columns (Maggid Mishneh).
הלכה כה
הֲרֵי שֶׁכָּתַב הַגֵּט וְאַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר כָּתַב שַׁאֲלוּ בִּשְׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ שָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ פְּלוֹנִי רֵעִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה וְחָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה וַהֲרֵי גֵּט זֶה יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. שֶׁמָּא לֹא חָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא עַל שְׁאִילַת שָׁלוֹם. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב וְשַׁאֲלוּ בִּשְׁלוֹם פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ וְשָׁלוֹם עָלֶיךָ רֵעִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה שֶׁהֲרֵי לִוָּה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי הַגֵּט וְעַל שְׁנֵיהֶם חָתְמוּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְאִם נִמְסַר לָהּ בְּעֵדִים בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:
כסף משנה
25.
If, after writing the get and completing it, [the scribe] wrote: "Give regards to so and so," "Greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, and afterwards the witnesses signed beneath the greeting, the status of the divorce is doubtful,56The Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 130:3) uses the term pasul, "unacceptable," meaning that the get was disqualified by Rabbinic decree alone. (See Beit Shmuel 130:4.) despite the fact that the woman is in possession of the get. [The rationale is] perhaps the witnesses signed only for the greeting [without paying attention to the get].If, however, the scribe wrote: "And give regards to so and so," "And greetings to you, so and so, my friend," or the like, the get is acceptable. Since [the greeting] accompanies the get,57The word "and" (in Hebrew, the letter vav) establishes a connection between the two, and the greeting is not considered to be a separate entity. [we presume that the witnesses] signed with both these thoughts in mind.
If [the get] was given to her in the presence of witnesses, it is acceptable in either instance.58In the first instance, even if we were to assume that the intent of the witnesses was to sign on the greeting, that does not disqualify the get. It is acceptable when given in the presence of witnesses.