Gerushin - Chapter Four

In 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.

In his Commentary to 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.

Our translation of these terms is based on the Aruch, as quoted by the Rama (Even HaEzer 125:2).

The 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 Rama adds that if we are obligated to destroy the substance on which the get was written, the get is void.

The 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).

The 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 bring about 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.

As 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.

Normally 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).

As 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 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.

In this instance, the situation parallels the law described in Chapter 1, Halachah 16, which rules that a get signed by acceptable witnesses is valid when there are no witnesses to its transfer.

See 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.

See Hilchot To’en V’Nit’an 10:1.

Although 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.

We 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.

I.e., he hewed out the lines that would normally be written.

I.e., the letter is formed by working around the letter and not on the form of the letter itself.

Without writing.

In this instance, the writing will not remain permanently, but instead will be rubbed out in a short time.

See 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.

I.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 universal custom at present, however, is to use the Assyrian script with which Torah scrolls are written [Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 126:1)].

I.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.

In 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).

Gittin 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).

This 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 (Rama, Even HaEzer 126:1).

See Halachah 13 for examples of wording that could create such doubt.

See 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.

See Halachah 13 for examples of steps taken to prevent such confusion from arising.

This 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.

This refers to the years dating back to the beginning of Alexander the Great’s kingdom, as mentioned in Chapter 1.

I.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.’’

The Ashkenazi custom is not to employ this phrase and instead to specify all the names by which a person is called (Rama, Even HaEzer 129:1).

The concepts mentioned in the notes above with regard to the husband’s place and names also apply with regard to his wife’s.

Chapter 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.

Some 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.’’ Diagram

The 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.) Diagram

See Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 27:8.

The 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).

The 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.

As 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.

I.e., the disqualifications mentioned in the previous two halachot.

This represents a difference between gittin and other legal documents, as reflected in Halachah 3 and notes (Maggid Mishneh).

The 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.

The 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.)

I.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.

For hers is an acceptable get, signed by witnesses. We are not concerned with the fact that the scroll contains other gittin above it.

The 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.)

If the get is given to both women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, both are divorced (Maggid Mishneh).

Even when there are no witnesses who observe the transfer.

I.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.’’ Diagram

I.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 Rama, Even HaEzer 130:8.)

These 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. Diagram

When 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.

The fact that the witnesses did not sign in the proper place does not make the get invalid.

And 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).

The 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.)

The word ‘‘and’’ (in Hebrew, the letter vav) establishes a connection between the two, and the greeting is not considered to be a separate entity.

In 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. Diagram