Gittin 9

הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ, הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לִפְלוֹנִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ וְיֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. וְאִם כְּתָבוֹ בְתוֹכוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּמְחָקוֹ, פָּסוּל:

If one divorced his wife, saying to her: "You are permitted to all men except this one" — R. Eliezer permits it, and the sages forbid it. [The rationale of R. Eliezer (Leviticus 21:7): "And a woman divorced from her husband they (Cohanim) shall not take" — Even if she were divorced only from her husband, as when he told her: "You are divorced from me, but not permitted to other men," she is forbidden to (marry into) the priesthood. We see, then, that it is a get; so that here, where he permits her to all men except this one, she is permitted to others. The rationale of the sages: They say that what is forbidden to the priesthood is different, Scripture having prescribed additional mitzvoth for Cohanim. So that even though it is a get to forbid her to the priesthood, it is not a get to permit her to others. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] What does he do? He takes it from her and gives it to her again, telling her: "You are permitted to all men." But if he had written it ("…except this one") in the get, even though he later erased it, it is void. [And the sages forbid it only when he tells her: "You are permitted to all men except this one," but if he says to her: "This is your get on condition that you not wed that man," the rabbis concede that it is a get. For he permitted her to all men in giving her the get. It is just that he stipulated that she not wed a particular man, which is like any other condition. And the rabbis forbade him to say: "This is your get on condition that you marry that man," so that their wives not be regarded as gifts to be given to one another. And any condition that one attaches to the get before he writes it, though it not be written in the get, invalidates it. But after he places the get in her hand, he may make any condition he desires.]

הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לְאַבָּא וּלְאָבִיךְ, לְאָחִי וּלְאָחִיךְ, לְעֶבֶד וּלְנָכְרִי, וּלְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו קִדּוּשִׁין, כָּשֵׁר. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם, אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין, וּלְכָל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ עָלָיו קִדּוּשִׁין אֲפִלּוּ בַעֲבֵרָה, פָּסוּל:

(If he said:) You are permitted to all men except my father and your father, my brother and your brother, a bondsman and a gentile, and to all others with whom marriage does not obtain, the get is valid. (If he said:) You are permitted to all men, except a widow to a high-priest, a divorcée and a chalutzah to a regular priest, a mamzereth and a Nethinah to an Israelite, the daughter of an Israelite to a mamzer and a Nathin, and to all others with whom marriage does obtain, even (marriage) in transgression, the get is void. [Since marriage obtains with those interdicted by negative commandment, but not with this one because of the stipulated interdict, it emerges that the get is not all-inclusive.]

גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט, הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, וְדֵין דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִנַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּרוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִין, לִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכָל גְּבַר דְּתִצְבַּיִן. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר, הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין, הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמֵךְ:

The basic text of the get: "You are permitted to all men." R. Yehudah says: "And this shall be to you from me a writ of divorce, a letter of leaving, a get of dismissal (wherewith) to go and marry any man you desire." [For it must be manifest that he divorces her with this writ; and if he does not write it thus, they might come to say that he divorced her by speech alone, of which the writ is only confirmation. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] The basic text of a writ of manumission: "You are free." "You belong to yourself."

שְׁלֹשָׁה גִטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת, הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן, יֶשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִטִּין פְּסוּלִין. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת, הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים, כָּשֵׁר וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

Three gittin are invalid, but if she married (through one of them) the child is kasher: a get written in his hand, but without witnesses [According to R. Meir, who says that the witnesses of the signing effect the divorce, his handwriting is equivalent to a hundred witnesses. According to R. Elazar, who says that the witnesses to the delivery effect the divorce, since it is in his handwriting, it satisfies (Deuteronomy 24:3): "And he shall write … and he shall give." And even though there are no witnesses to the delivery, it is valid according to Scripture. And the sages ruled it invalid lest a get come to be validated with the writing of the scribe alone.]; a get with witnesses but without a date [the date being a rabbinic ordinance, either because of fruits or because of the possibility of his shielding his sister's daughter (See 2:2)]; a get with a date but with only one witness. [According to one view, this refers to (a get) written in his hand, the first instance (of the Mishnah) apprising us that even without a witness the child is kasher, and this instance, that even if there were one witness, it should not be done ab initio. And according to another view, this refers to (a get) written in the scribe's hand, notwithstanding which the child is kasher, the scribe standing in place of a second witness.] These are the three gittin which, (though) invalid, if she marries (thereby) the child is kasher. R. Eliezer says: Even if there are no witnesses (signed) on it, but he gives it to her in the presence of witnesses, the get is valid and she collects (her kethubah) from bound property, for witnesses sign on a get only for "the general good" [lest the witnesses to the delivery die and the husband come and protest, saying: "I did not divorce her." The halachah is in accordance with R. Elazar.]

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שָׁוִין וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, אָבַד אַחַד מֵהֶן, הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָטֵל. חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה כָתוּב טֹפֶס לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר:

If two men sent two gittin that were identical [in their names] and they got mixed up, both are given to each woman. Therefore, if one of them were lost, the second is void, [for we do not know whose it is.] If five men wrote a common [time] in one get, viz.: ["On this day of the week] this man divorces this woman; this man, this woman, etc." and the witnesses (signed) below, they are all valid, and the get is to be given to each woman. If a separate text were written for each one, [i.e., a separate time for each one, viz.: "On this day of the week this man divorces this woman," followed by the text of the get; then: "On this day of the week this man divorces this woman," followed by the text of the get; and so with all], and the witnesses below, the get that the witnesses are read together with (i.e., the last one) is valid.

שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שֶׁכְּתָבָן זֶה בְצַד זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים עִבְרִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יְוָנִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי בָּאִין מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה, שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין:

Two gittin written [on two pages], one beside the other, and two Hebrew witnesses, extending from under one (get) to under the other, [i.e., two Hebrews signed under one get, (their signatures extending) under the second; the name of the witness under the first get, and the name of his father under the second. Likewise, a second (Hebrew) witness under him] and two Greek witnesses [two Israelites, natives of Greece, who then signed in Greek script, which goes from left to right, so that the name of the witness is under the second get, and the name of his father under the first], the get that the witnesses are read together with is valid. [If the Hebrews are signed above, so that, Hebrew script going from right to left, the name of the witness is under the right hand get, and the name of his father under the left, the right hand get is valid. And if the Greeks are signed above, the left is valid; for the names of the witnesses are under the left. The rationale: We suspect that the latter witnesses might have adapted their script to the order employed by the first witnesses. So that if the Hebrews were signed above, from right to left, on the right hand get, when the two Greeks came to sign under them (on the left hand get), they might also have followed the order of the Hebrews, so that all four would have signed on the right hand get. Similarly, if the Greeks were signed above (on the left hand get), the Hebrews who came after them might have reversed the order of the Hebrew script and gone from left to right, so that all four would have signed on the left hand get.] One witness a Hebrew, one witness a Greek; one witness a Hebrew, one witness a Greek, extending from under one (get) to under the other — both are void. [The rationale: We suspect that the first Hebrew witness might have signed on the right hand get, from right to left, in the order of Hebrew script, and the second, Greek witness, on the left hand get, in the order of Greek script, from left to right; and that the third witness, a Hebrew, reversed the Hebrew order and also began from the left, like the Greek before him, so that he, too, is signed on the left hand get; and that the last, Greek witness, signed in his customary way, from left to right, so that he, too, is signed on the left hand get — so that there are three witnesses signed on the left hand get, and only one on the right hand get. Or, the opposite: that the second, Greek witness, reversed his script to conform to the order of the Hebrew script and began from right to left, in the manner of the first, Hebrew witness; that the third Hebrew witness, signed in his customary manner, from the right — so that all three are signed on the right hand get; and that the second Greek witness alone signed in his customary way, on the left hand get. And since we do not know on which get three were signed, and on which, only one, both are void.]

שִׁיֵּר מִקְצַת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בַדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כָּשֵׁר. חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף, מִן הַצַּד, אוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו בְּגֵט פָּשׁוּט, פָּסוּל. הִקִּיף רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין בְּסוֹפוֹ, כָּשֵׁר:

If he left over part of the get and wrote it on the second page [opposite it on the breadth of the scroll], and the witnesses (signed) beneath it, it is valid. If the witnesses signed on the top of the page, on the side [of the page, to the right of the get or to the left], or on the back in a plain get, [whose witnesses are signed in it (as opposed to a get mekishar - See 8:9)], it is void. If he aligned the top of one (get) with the top of another, with the witnesses in the middle, both are void, [for the signatures are read with neither get.] (If he aligned) the bottom of one with the bottom of the other, with the witnesses in the middle, the get that the witnesses are read together with [i.e., the get whose end is followed by the beginning of the signatures (and not that whose beginning is preceded by the end of the signatures)] is valid.

גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָנִית, יְוָנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְלֹא כָתַב עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. וְכָךְ הָיוּ נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין. כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. גֵּט מְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר. וּבְגוֹיִם, פָּסוּל. וּבְגוֹיִם, חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְךָ, וְכָשֵׁר:

If the get were written in Hebrew, and the witnesses (signed) in Greek; (if the get were written) in Greek, and the witnesses (signed) in Hebrew; if one witness (signed) in Hebrew, and the other in Greek; if the scribe and a witness signed — it is valid. [For there are two witnesses. The Mishnah apprises us that we do not suspect that the husband did not instruct the scribe to sign, but that he charged two men to tell the scribe to write the get and two witnesses to sign, and that these, feeling that the scribe might be offended (viz.: "I am not fit to be a witness in his eyes") instructed the scribe to sign without the husband's permission. We do not entertain this suspicion.] (If he signed:) "so and so, witness," it is valid; "the son of so and so, witness," it is valid; "so and so, the son of so and so," without "witness," it is valid. And this (the last) is what the "clean-minded men of Jerusalem" did. If he wrote his family epithet and her family epithet (instead of their actual names), it is valid. A get given under coercion — (If the coercion were) by Israelites [i.e., if they coerced him by law, as in all of those instances where one is coerced to divorce his wife, or if she were forbidden to him], it is valid. [And if they coerced him unlawfully, the get is void, but it forbids her to the priesthood because of "the odor of a get."] And (if the coercion were) by gentiles, it is void. [If lawfully, it is void, but forbids her to the priesthood. If unlawfully, there is not even "the odor of a get."] And by gentiles, if he is beaten and told: "Do what the Israelites tell you," it is valid. [If one is required to give a get by law and the Israelite judges lack the power to force him to do so, he may be beaten by gentiles, who say: "Do what the Israelites tell you," and he gives the get at the behest of the Israelite judges.]

יָצָא שְׁמָהּ בָּעִיר מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם אֲמַתְלָא. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲמַתְלָא. גֵּרַשׁ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל תְּנַאי, זָרַק לָהּ קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ, סָפֵק קָרוֹב לָהּ סָפֵק קָרוֹב לוֹ, זוֹ הִיא אֲמַתְלָא:

If her name went out in the city as betrothed, [If a report were circulated about a single girl: "This girl was betrothed to this man today" (not where there was a mere rumor, but where lamps were lit and beds were spread, and people went in and out saying: "She was betrothed today"], she is [assumed to be] betrothed. (If a report went out that) she were divorced, she is (assumed to be) divorced. [This refers to the beginning, viz.: This woman about whom a report went out that she was betrothed, which report we entertain, forbidding her to marry any man but that one — if there then went out about her a report that she were divorced, that the man who had married her had divorced her], she is (assumed to be) divorced [and is permitted to all men; for the report that we entertained in the beginning — "its receipt has come with it"]. This, so long as there be no attenuation (amathla) to it [i.e., that there not be with the report of betrothal or of divorce an amathla, a consideration which breaks the power of the report]. What is (an instance of) an amathla? "That man divorced his wife on condition"; "He threw her her (instrument of) betrothal, possibly near her (in which instance she is betrothed); possibly near him" (in which instance she is not betrothed). This is an amathla.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו:

Beth Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find her to be unchaste, viz. (Deuteronomy 24:1): "…for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And Beth Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his meal, ["burning it" by fire or by salt, Beth Hillel expounding "a thing of nakedness," as either "nakedness" or "a thing"; that is, any foul thing, aside from nakedness.] R. Akiva says: Even if he find one more beautiful than she, viz. (Ibid.): "And it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes." [He expounds the verse thus: If she does not find favor (of beauty) in his eyes, or if he find nakedness in her, or a foul thing — for any one of these three, he may divorce her. The halachah is in accordance with Beth Hillel.]