FJP Final Presentation - 5-24-2023
(א) כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִ֛ישׁ אִשָּׁ֖ה וּבְעָלָ֑הּ וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־לֹ֧א תִמְצָא־חֵ֣ן בְּעֵינָ֗יו כִּי־מָ֤צָא בָהּ֙ עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙ וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּיתֽוֹ׃ (ב) וְיָצְאָ֖ה מִבֵּית֑וֹ וְהָלְכָ֖ה וְהָיְתָ֥ה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵֽר׃ (ג) וּשְׂנֵאָהּ֮ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן֒ וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙ וְנָתַ֣ן בְּיָדָ֔הּ וְשִׁלְּחָ֖הּ מִבֵּית֑וֹ א֣וֹ כִ֤י יָמוּת֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָאַחֲר֔וֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָ֥הּ ל֖וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ (ד) לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל בַּעְלָ֣הּ הָרִאשׁ֣וֹן אֲשֶֽׁר־שִׁ֠לְּחָ֠הּ לָשׁ֨וּב לְקַחְתָּ֜הּ לִהְי֧וֹת ל֣וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֗ה אַחֲרֵי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֻטַּמָּ֔אָה כִּֽי־תוֹעֵבָ֥ה הִ֖וא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה וְלֹ֤א תַחֲטִיא֙ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ נַחֲלָֽה׃ {ס}
(1) A man takes a woman [into his household as his wife] and becomes her husband. She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house; (2) she leaves his household and becomes [the wife] of another man ; (3) then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his household; or the man dies who had last taken her as his wife. (4) Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her [into his household] to become his wife again, since she has been defiled —for that would be abhorrent to יהוה. You must not bring sin upon the land that your God יהוה is giving you as a heritage.
וּמַאי פִּירְכָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַקִּישׁ קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה לְקוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מָה קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה דְּלָא אֲגִידָא בְּאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא אַף קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה דְּלָא אֲגִידָא בְּאִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא
The Gemara asks: And what is Rabbi Yehoshua’s refutation? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua said that the passage: “When a man takes a wife, and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; and she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2), juxtaposes the woman’s status before the second marriage to her status before the first marriage. It should be derived from here that just as before the first marriage she is not bound to another man, so too, before the second marriage she is not bound to another man. Therefore, a woman cannot remarry if she is still bound to her ex-husband due to a qualification that prohibits her from marrying a certain man.
מַתְנִי׳ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָּהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר
MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו
Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
זוֹ מִצְוָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה לְגָרְשָׁהּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת וְגוֹ׳ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר הַכָּתוּב קְרָאוֹ אַחֵר לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין זֶה בֶּן זוּגוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹן זֶה הוֹצִיא רְשָׁעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְזֶה הִכְנִיס רְשָׁעָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ
The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי אָמַר קְרָא סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ
The Gemara asks: And perhaps one should say that so too, this is the case, i.e., a married woman can be released from marriage through ḥalitza. The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to divorce: “A scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:3), which teaches: A scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.
וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי דְּאַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהַאי קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֲרִינָא שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בְּכֶסֶף מְנָא לֵיהּ אָמַר קְרָא סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives a different exposition from this verse, from where does he derive that a woman cannot be divorced through money? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “A scroll of severance,” which teaches: A scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband, and nothing else severs her from him.
וּבְבִיאָה מְנָא לַן אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר קְרָא בְּעֻלַת בַּעַל מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה לָהּ בַּעַל עַל יְדֵי בְעִילָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּעוּרָה זוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי וּבְעָלָהּ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה
§ The mishna teaches that a woman can be betrothed through sexual intercourse. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “If a man be found lying with a married woman [beulat ba’al]” (Deuteronomy 22:22). This teaches that he becomes her husband [ba’al] by means of sexual intercourse [be’ila]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu, and some say it was Reish Lakish who said this to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Is this other proof, taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, unacceptable: “When a man takes a woman and engages in sexual intercourse with her” (Deuteronomy 24:1)? This verse teaches that she can be acquired through intercourse.
וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבַּעַל בִּשְׁלָמָא גֵּט דִּכְתִיב וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת
§ The mishna teaches: And a woman acquires herself through a bill of divorce or through the death of the husband. The Gemara asks: Granted, this is the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, as it is written explicitly in the Torah: “And he writes for her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; and she departs out of his house and she goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). This indicates that a bill of divorce enables a woman to marry whomever she wishes after the divorce.
וּתְהֵא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ יוֹצְאָה בַּחֲלִיצָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר וּמָה יְבָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט יוֹצְאָה בַּחֲלִיצָה זוֹ שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה בַּחֲלִיצָה אָמַר קְרָא סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת סֵפֶר כּוֹרְתָהּ וְאֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר כּוֹרְתָהּ
The Gemara asks: And let a married woman leave a marriage through ḥalitza, as derived by an a fortiori inference: If a yevama, who cannot leave through a bill of divorce, can leave through ḥalitza, is it not logical that this married woman, who can leave through a bill of divorce, can likewise leave through ḥalitza? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a married woman: “A scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:3), which indicates that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him. While the husband is alive only a bill of divorce can dissolve a marriage.

Bava Batra 168a:4

§ The mishna teaches that the husband gives the scribe’s wages for writing a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, he shall write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1). It is therefore the husband’s responsibility to have the bill of divorce written. The Gemara adds: But today, the reason that we do not do so, but instead have the woman pay the scribe, is that the Sages placed the burden upon the woman, so that the husband should not delay the divorce by refusing to pay the scribe.

Sifrei Devarim 269:1

(Devarim 24:1) "and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, for he found in her a thing of nakedness, (then he shall write her a scroll of divorce.") Beth Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find in her a thing of nakedness (i.e., that she had fornicated). And Beth Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his meal, it being written "for he found in her a thing of nakedness."

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol I, Part I, CHAPTER VII Marriage, Divorce and Personal Status 4

The marriage bond, in particular, must remain inviolate if legitimacy of birth is to be preserved and the continued manifestation of the Divine Presence to be assured. A marriage can be terminated only by death or by means of a get, a properly executed bill of divorce. This realm of Halakhah is singled out for the most stringent safeguards. Lest the ignorant wreak untold havoc, the Sages admonish that one who is not proficient in the laws of marriage and divorce should have no traffic with the performance of marriage or, most emphatically, with the execution of a bill of divorce. The bill of divorce must be drawn up by the husband, or his proxy, and delivered to the wife (Deut. 24:1). Jewish law is quite specific with regard to the formula to be employed in this instrument and with regard to its mode of execution. A woman who remarries without benefit of a get (religious divorce) is guilty of adultery. Children born of such a union bear the stigma of bastardy,

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol I, Part I, CHAPTER VII Marriage, Divorce and Personal Status 24

An intriguing and unprecedented argument forbidding the woman to remarry was forwarded by R. Mordecai Jaffe, the author of the Levush. Scripture states, "and if it come to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes … and he should write her a bill of divorce and give it into her hand and send her out of his house. And she shall go out of his house and became a wife to another man …" (Deut. 24:1–2). R. Mordecai Jaffe contended that a woman may "become a wife of another man" only if she has been divorced by her husband because "she does not find favor in his eyes." A bill of divorce whose presentation is not motivated by a loss of "favor" but by other considerations—a "divorce of love" is the term coined by R. Mordecai Jaffe—is not effective as an instrument empowering marriage to another.

Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol I, Part I, CHAPTER VII Marriage, Divorce and Personal Status 49

Professor Silberg's views are carefully analyzed and refuted by Rabbi Judah Dick in the Tishri 5732 issue of Ha-Pardes. Rabbi Dick is a member of the staff of the corporation counsel of New York City and an officer of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA). In his article, Rabbi Dick points out that Silberg's thesis contains an inherent self-contradiction. Rambam indeed maintains that cohabitation with a mamzer outside of marriage does not constitute an infraction of the prohibition against entry by a bastard into the "assembly of God." Yet it is Rambam himself, Hilkhot Melakhim 4:4, who maintains that concubinage is a royal prerogative and is forbidden to commoners. Moreover, Rabbi Dick notes that, according to Rambam, any form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is biblically forbidden. There is some question as to whether the basis for this ban is the prohibition "There shall be no harlot among the daughters of Israel" since Leḥem Mishneh, Hilkhot Melakhim 4:4, maintains that this prohibition is limited to intercourse with a promiscuous woman who dispenses her favors indiscriminately. In any event, the verse "When a man takes a wife" (Deut. 24:1) is understood by Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 1:1, as constituting a positive commandment regarding marriage and as a prohibition against fornication outside of matrimony. On the other hand, those authorities who disagree with Rambam and permit concubinage nevertheless maintain that all forms of sexual intercourse between a mamzer and a person of legitimate birth are forbidden.

Mishneh Torah, Divorce 1:2

What are the sources that indicate that these ten requirements stem from Scripture itself? [They are derived from Deuteronomy 24:1, which] states: "And if it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand and send her from his home."
"If... she does not find favor in his eyes" - this indicates that he divorces her only on his own initiative. If a woman is divorced against her husband's will, the divorce is invalid. A woman may, however, be divorced either voluntarily or against her will.

Mishneh Torah, Divorce 10:21

[A man] should not marry a woman if he intends to divorce her. Nor should he maintain her as a wife and live with her, if he intends to divorce her.
A man should not divorce his first wife unless he discovers an incident of sexual misconduct,, as [Deuteronomy 24:1] states: "When he finds evidence of sexual misconduct...." One should not hurry to divorce one's first wife. With regard to a second wife, by contrast, if one hates her, one may send her away.

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 49:5

It may happen that husband and wife do not agree, live without love and peace, and do not enjoy the benefit of a home; in that case he is permitted to send her away. If he had been allowed to divorce her by a mere word, or by turning her out of his house, the wife would wait for some negligence [on the part of the husband], and then come out and say that she was divorced; or having committed adultery, she and the adulterer would contend that she had then been divorced. Therefore the law is that divorce can only take place by means of a document which can serve as evidence, “He shall write her a bill of divorcement” (Deut. 24:1).

Jewish Women in Time and Torah, iv Contemporary Halakhic Issues Regarding Women 76

In the case of giving a get to one’s wife, the Torah commands: “He [the husband] shall write her a divorce document and give it into her hands.”43 Of course, it is hardly possible for every husband to write the get himself. The writing of a get requires a special technique of which most husbands are incapable. Therefore our teachers interpreted the word ve-katab, “and he shall write,” as meaning that the husband has to pay the fee of the sofer (professional scribe). The law is stated clearly in a mishnah.44 Nevertheless, after some time, the custom changed. Instead of the husband, it was the wife who usually paid the fee. The Talmud explains that the rabbis gave this duty to the wife so that her divorce would not be unduly delayed.45 Apparently husbands who did not wish to pay a sofer to write a get would simply leave home without divorcing their wives. Having no get, the wife would become an agunah, a woman who had no husband but was still legally married, and thus was unable to marry another man. In order to avoid such injustices, the rabbis ruled that the wife should pay for the writing of the get.

What is the Talmud, I What is the Talmud?, 1 Bible and Talmud 8

This can be shown clearly by the following discussion. Moses was undoubtedly the first reader of the Bible in the world. When he reached the place in the Torah where it directs that in the case of a divorce, “He shall write her a bill of divorcement,” (Deut. 24:1) he must have asked: What is a bill of divorcement? How is it written? What should its contents be? The question must have been answered, because the Bible’s rules were to be valid laws. Moses could not just teach the text of the law; at the same time he had to provide the explanation of the law, the “implementing regulations.” But who taught Moses the explanation; who provided him with the implementing regulations? The same authority which gave him the Law, God himself. The “Halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai” — the Oral Teachings (the Oral Law or Torah Shb’al Peh) transmitted to Moses at the source of Sinai — is not a dogma, but historical necessity, that is, historic truth. Oral Teachings must have been provided together with the Written Teachings. Moses taught the law, and consequently he had also to teach its explanation and application. Moses was the first Talmudist.

Likutei Moharan, Part II 32:3:2

This is why the divorce document is called “a sefer of separation” (Deuteronomy 24:1), because it is produced by the sefer (book) upon which the spirit of Mashiach, the spirit of jealousy, resides. Alternatively, he makes her drink the “bitter waters,” which examine “if she has become defiled…” (Numbers 5:27). But if not, then, on the contrary, “she shall be proven innocent and she will bear seed…” (ibid. :28).

Shenei Luchot HaBerit, Torah Shebikhtav, Ki Teitzei, Torah Ohr 11

Remember that union is not only physical, i.e. not only the flesh becomes one, but also the souls unite in the Higher Regions. When that occurs one's wife has truly become "בת זוגו." On the rare occasions when such union fails to be achieved the husband terminates the marriage through a decree of divorce, and the wife becomes someone else's marriage partner, for she was obviously not destined to complement her first husband's spiritual needs. It is customary to write the גט, divorce document, in 12 lines in order to make the dissolution of this marriage similar to the way it was contracted, i.e. that union was to be achieved within 12 months. Our sages, in lamenting the sadness of such an occasion, did not refer to the numerically "first" marriage when they said that when one divorces one's "first" wife the altar sheds tears. [This comment applies to someone who has found his בת זוג, something called זווג ראשון, the match approved by heaven, see chapter 45 in Rabbi Moshe Alshich's commentary on Psalms at length on this subject. This editor's translation page 323. Ed.] The marriage in question is not one in which people are involved whose souls are already experiencing the second or third re-incarnation. The terrestrial altar which corresponds to the Celestial Altar (known to Kabbalists as אשת חיל), is truly saddened. The Rekanati comments on the reason why the Torah describes the divorce document as ספר כריתות, literally a "book of separation." The union of the souls of the pair in question took place in Heaven long before their respective bodies joined on earth. Therefore, when separation between the pair occurs a "book of separation" is needed in order to effect this total separation. This so-called "book" is to be understood as an allusion to the emanations "ספירות." What had been joined in Heaven has been torn asunder by a husband who was too insensitive to his good fortune of having found his true בת זוג on earth. The Torah instructs the husband (24,1) that if he divorces his wife וכתב לה ספר כריתות, that the divorce decree in question must be especially written לשמה, "for her name," i.e. for this particular couple. It must contain both the husband's and the wife's name as well as the city in which they reside to show that the separation is only between them and does not affect the דו-פרציפות in the emanations of חכמה and בינה. Thus far the Rekanati.

פְּתַח אִידַּךְ וַאֲמַר מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ וְהָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה מָה עָשָׂה הָלַךְ וְזִימֵּן אֶת שׁוֹשְׁבִינָיו וְהֶאֱכִילָן וְהִשְׁקָן שִׁיכְּרָן וְהִשְׁכִּיבָן עַל מִיטָּה אַחַת וְהֵבִיא לוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה וְהִטִּיל בֵּינֵיהֶן וְהֶעֱמִיד לָהֶן עֵדִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן וּבָבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא שְׁמוֹ אָמַר לָהֶן כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִשַּׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן לוֹבֶן בֵּיצָה סוֹלֵד מִן הָאוּר וְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע דּוֹחָה מִן הָאוּר בָּדְקוּ וּמָצְאוּ כִּדְבָרָיו וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהִלְקוּהוּ וְהִגְבּוּהוּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ
Yet another Sage began his remarks and said: There was an incident there involving a man who set his eyes upon his wife to divorce her, but her marriage contract was large and he wished to avoid having to pay it. What did he do? He went and invited his friends, gave them food and drink, made them drunk, and lay his friends and his wife in one bed. He then brought the white of an egg, which has the appearance of semen, and placed it on the sheet between them. He then stood witnesses over them so that they could offer testimony, and went to court claiming that his wife had committed adultery. A certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name. He said to them: This is the tradition that I received from Shammai the Elder: Egg white on a bedsheet contracts and hardens when heated by fire, whereas semen is absorbed into the sheet by the fire. They checked the matter and found in accordance with his statement that the substance on the sheet was not semen but egg white. They then brought the husband to court, administered lashes to him, and made him pay his wife’s marriage contract in full.
כְּתַנָּאֵי אָכְלָה בַּשּׁוּק גִּירְגְּרָה בַּשּׁוּק הֵנִיקָה בַּשּׁוּק בְּכוּלָּן רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר תֵּצֵא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁיִּשְּׂאוּ וְיִתְּנוּ בָּהּ מוֹזְרוֹת בַּלְּבָנָה אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אִם כֵּן לֹא הִנַּחְתָּ בַּת לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחַת בַּעֲלָהּ וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר בָּרוּר אַף כָּאן דָּבָר בָּרוּר
This statement is parallel to one side of a dispute among the tanna’im: If a woman ate in the marketplace, walked with her neck stretched forward in an arrogant manner in the marketplace, or nursed in the marketplace, with regard to all of these cases Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband, since all of these behaviors are considered licentious behavior. Rabbi Akiva says that she must leave him only once the women who spin [mozerot] by the moonlight converse about her having engaged in promiscuous sexual intercourse, as this indicates that the matter is well known and accepted as fact. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: If so, you have not allowed any daughter of Abraham our forefather to remain with her husband, i.e., all wives will be forced to leave their husbands, as it is common for women to slander their peers. And the Torah said: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and it says over there: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Just as there, the word “matter” is referring to a clear matter, as it is established through witnesses, so too here, the unseemly matter that is considered a cause for divorce is also referring to a clear matter that was not established merely through a rumor. Rava’s statement is in accordance with this opinion.
כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם שְׂנֵאתָהּ שַׁלַּח רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר שָׂנאוּי הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ וְלָא פְּלִיגִי הָא בְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן הָא בְּזוּג שֵׁנִי דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כׇּל הַמְגָרֵשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה אֲפִילּוּ מִזְבֵּחַ מוֹרִיד עָלָיו דְּמָעוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֹאת שֵׁנִית תַּעֲשׂוּ כַּסּוֹת דִּמְעָה אֶת מִזְבַּח ה׳ בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה מֵאֵין עוֹד פְּנוֹת אֶל הַמִּנְחָה וְלָקַחַת רָצוֹן מִיֶּדְכֶם וַאֲמַרְתֶּם עַל מָה עַל כִּי ה׳ הֵעִיד בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין אֵשֶׁת נְעוּרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָּגַדְתָּה בָּהּ וְהִיא חֲבֶרְתְּךָ וְאֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶךָ
§ The prophet Malachi states in rebuke of those who divorce their wives: “For I hate sending away, says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse means that if you hate your wife, send her away. Do not continue living with a woman whom you hate. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse means that one who sends his wife away is hated by God. And the Gemara explains that they do not disagree. This statement is with regard to a first marriage, i.e., one should tolerate his first wife and not divorce her, and that statement is with regard to a second marriage, in which case the husband should divorce his wife if he hates her. As Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears over him, as it is stated: “And this further you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He does not regard the offering anymore, nor does He receive it with goodwill from your hand. Yet you say: What for? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:13–14). Clearly one should not divorce the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife, as one who does so is hated by God for divorcing the woman to whom he was bound in companionship and covenant.
דְּרַב מְנַגֵּיד עַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּשׁוּקָא וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּבִיאָה וְעַל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּלָא שִׁידּוּכֵי וְעַל דִּמְבַטֵּיל גִּיטָּא וְעַל דְּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא אַגִּיטָּא וְעַל דִּמְצַעַר שְׁלוּחָא דְרַבָּנַן וְעַל דְּחָלָה שַׁמְתָּא עִילָּוֵיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין
The Gemara explains that Rav would flog a man for betrothing a woman in the marketplace, because this is disrespectful and crude, and for betrothing a woman through sexual intercourse, as it is unsavory to invite witnesses to observe a man and woman enter a room to engage in intercourse. And he would also flog a man for betrothing a woman without an arrangement [shiddukhei], i.e., if he did not discuss betrothal with the woman before betrothing her. Each of these acts is considered indecent behavior. And likewise, Rav would flog a man for nullifying a bill of divorce he has already sent to his wife, and for issuing a declaration preemptively invalidating a bill of divorce. The latter case is referring to one who announces before giving a bill of divorce that he is divorcing his wife against his will, thereby rendering the document ineffective. This behavior might lead to a grave sin if the wife marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. And similarly, Rav would flog anyone for tormenting a messenger of the Sages, as this indicates a lack of regard for the Sages. And Rav would flog one who had an excommunication take effect on him for thirty days and yet does not repent or appeal to the Sages to annul his censure.
ורבי חייא מהיכא גמיר לה מרבי מאיר דתניא מעשה באשה אחת שבאתה לבית מדרשו של ר"מ אמרה לו רבי אחד מכם קדשני בביאה עמד רבי מאיר וכתב לה גט כריתות ונתן לה עמדו כתבו כולם ונתנו לה
And from where did Rabbi Ḥiyya learn that characteristic of being willing to implicate himself in order to save someone else from being embarrassed? He learned it from Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain woman who came to the study hall of Rabbi Meir. She said to him: My teacher, one of you, i.e., one of the men studying in this study hall, betrothed me through intercourse. The woman came to Rabbi Meir to appeal for help in identifying the man, so that he would either marry her or grant her a divorce. As he himself was also among those who studied in the study hall, Rabbi Meir arose and wrote her a bill of divorce, and he gave it to her. Following his example, all those in the study hall arose and wrote bills of divorce and gave them to her. In this manner, the right man also gave her a divorce, freeing her to marry someone else.

(א) אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לָהּ וּכְתָב זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא גֵּט. וַעֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים הֵן עִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) שֶׁלֹּא יְגָרֵשׁ הָאִישׁ אֶלָּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. ב) וְשֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ בִּכְתָב וְלֹא בְּדָבָר אַחֵר. ג) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיַן הַכְּתָב שֶׁגֵּרְשָׁהּ וֶהֱסִירָהּ מִקִּנְיָנוֹ. ד) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיָנוֹ דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. ה) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה נִכְתָּב לִשְׁמָהּ. ו) וְשֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחֻסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה אַחַר כְּתִיבָתוֹ אֶלָּא נְתִינָתוֹ לָהּ [בִּלְבַד]. ז) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ. ח) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים. ט) וְשֶׁיִּתְּנֵהוּ לָהּ בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין. י) וְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַבַּעַל אוֹ שְׁלוּחוֹ הוּא שֶׁנּוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ. וּשְׁאָר הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּגֵּט כְּגוֹן הַזְּמַן וַחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הַכּל מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים:

(ב) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁעֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ". אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְגָרֵשׁ אֶלָּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. וְאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אֲבָל הָאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת בִּרְצוֹנָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹנָהּ:

(ג) (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא בִּכְתָב. (דברים כד א) "לָהּ". לִשְׁמָהּ. (דברים כד א) "סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת". דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ עָלֶיהָ רְשׁוּת. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִכְרַת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיִּנָּתֵן הַגֵּט בְּיָדָהּ אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחָה שֶׁהוּא כְּיָדָהּ אוֹ לַחֲצֵרָהּ שֶׁהַכּל כְּיָדָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ". שֶׁיִּהְיֶה עִנְיַן הַגֵּט שֶׁהוּא הַמְשַׁלֵּחַ אוֹתָהּ. לֹא שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח עַצְמוֹ מִמֶּנָּה:

(ד) כֵּיצַד. כָּתַב לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְשֻׁלַּחַת הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת הֲרֵי אַתְּ לְעַצְמֵךְ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וְגוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב לָהּ אֵינִי בַּעְלֵךְ אֵינִי אֲרוּסֵךְ אֵינִי אִישֵׁךְ אֵין זֶה גֵּט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ" וְלֹא שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

(ה) זֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים כד א) "וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ" אֵין עִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִגָּמְרוּ גֵּרוּשֶׁיהָ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ גָּמְרוּ גֵּרוּשֶׁיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא בְּבֵיתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר וְשִׁלְּחָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם גֵּרֵשׁ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁגֵּרֵשׁ וְהֶחֱזִיר גְּרוּשָׁתוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

(ו) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה מְחֻסַּר מַעֲשֶׂה אַחַר כְּתִיבָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְכָתַב" (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן" מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחֻסָּר אֶלָּא כְּתִיבָה וּנְתִינָה הוּא הַגֵּט הַכָּשֵׁר. יָצָא דָּבָר שֶׁמְּחֻסַּר קְצִיצָה אַחַר הַכְּתִיבָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם כָּתַב גֵּט עַל קֶרֶן הַפָּרָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ הַפָּרָה. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַקֶּרֶן אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בִּמְחֻבָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתְמוּ בּוֹ הָעֵדִים אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

(ז) אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחֻבָּר אֲפִלּוּ טֹפֶס הַגֵּט. כָּתַב הַטֹּפֶס בִּמְחֻבָּר וּתְלָשׁוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּתַב שֵׁם הָאִישׁ וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה וְהַזְּמַן וַהֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ כָּשֵׁר:

(ח) כָּתַב כָּל הַגֵּט עַל הֶעָלֶה הַזָּרוּעַ בְּעָצִיץ נָקוּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּתַן לָהּ הֶעָצִיץ כֻּלּוֹ הַגֵּט פָּסוּל גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִקְטֹם. אֲבָל כּוֹתֵב הוּא עַל חַרְסוֹ שֶׁל עָצִיץ וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ:

(ט) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ אֶלָּא בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת" וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ שֶׁיִּתֵּן אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹרַת סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת. אֲבָל אִם נְתָנוֹ לָהּ בְּתוֹרַת שֶׁהוּא שְׁטַר חוֹב אוֹ מְזוּזָה אוֹ שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וְהִיא יְשֵׁנָה וְנֵעוֹרָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ אַחַר כָּךְ הֲרֵי הוּא גִּטֵּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט:

(י) אָמַר לְעֵדִים רְאוּ גֵּט שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוֹדִיעַ אֶת הָעֵדִים שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ בְּתוֹרַת גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ שְׁטַר חוֹב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּכְלַם מִמֶּנָּה:

(יא) הַמְגָרֵשׁ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהּ כְּשֶׁיִּתֵּן לָהּ הַגֵּט הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ אוֹ הוּא גִּטֵּךְ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם נָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עִמָּהּ עַל עִסְקֵי גִּטָּהּ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עַל עִסְקֵי גִּטָּהּ וְנָטַל הַגֵּט וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְלֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

(יב) גֵּט שֶׁהָיָה מֻנָּח עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָמַר לָהּ טְלִי גִּטֵּךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע וּנְטָלַתּוּ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קָשׁוּר עַל יָדוֹ אוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ וּשְׁלָפַתּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר לָהּ אַחַר שֶׁבָּא לְיָדָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ אֵינוֹ גֵּט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד א) "וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ" לֹא שֶׁתִּקַּח הִיא מֵעַצְמָהּ וַהֲרֵי לֹא נָתַן לָהּ לֹא הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלוּחוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הִרְכִּין לָהּ בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ הִטָּה יָדוֹ עַד שֶׁשָּׁלְפָה הַגֵּט מֵעָלָיו וְאָמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גִּטֵּךְ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט:

(יג) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁיִּתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יט טו) "עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר". וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זוֹ הַיּוֹם עֶרְוָה וְהַבָּא עָלֶיהָ בְּמִיתַת בֵּית דִּין וּלְמָחָר תִּהְיֶה מֻתֶּרֶת בְּלֹא עֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נָתַן לָהּ גֵּט בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד אֵינוֹ גֵּט כְּלָל:

(יד) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט בִּכְתַב יַד סוֹפֵר. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב הַבַּעַל הַגֵּט בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְחָתַם עָלָיו עֵד אֶחָד וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל [וּפוֹסֵל לִכְהֻנָּה]:

(טו) תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט. שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לָהּ גֵּט בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְיָמוּתוּ וְנִמְצָא הַגֵּט שֶׁבְּיָדָהּ כְּחֶרֶס מֵחַרְסֵי אֲדָמָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בּוֹ עֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיָּעִידוּ מִתּוֹכוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעֵדִים בְּתוֹכוֹ נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם בֵּין בִּפְנֵי אוֹתָן הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עָלָיו בֵּין בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

(טז) חָתְמוּ בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם וְעָבַר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ עֵדֵי מְסִירָה פְּסוּלִין הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר הוֹאִיל וְעֵדִים שֶׁבּוֹ כְּשֵׁרִין וַהֲרֵי הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁהוֹרָה מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל:

(יז) הָיוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ פְּסוּלִין אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד פָּסוּל וְאֶחָד כָּשֵׁר וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל שֶׁנִּמְצָא כִּמְזֻיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ:

(יח) הִרְחִיק אֶת הָעֵדִים מִן הַכְּתָב מְלֹא שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין פָּסוּל. וְכַמָּה יַרְחִיק אֶת הָעֵדִים מִן הַכְּתָב פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה הַגֵּט יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדֶיהָ וְלֹא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדֵי מְסִירָה. אֲבָל אִם מְסָרוֹ לָהּ בְּעֵדִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מְרֻחָקִין הַרְבֵּה וְאֵין נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חָתוּם עָלָיו עֵד כְּלָל הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁעִקַּר הַגֵּרוּשִׁין בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה:

(יט) הָעֵדִים שֶׁנּוֹתֵן אֶת הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם צְרִיכִין לִקְרוֹתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ. וְאִם נְתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם תְּחִלָּה חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ. קְרָאוּהוּ וְהוּא בְּיַד הַבַּעַל אוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוּהוּ לוֹ. וְחָזַר הוּא וְהִכְנִיסוֹ לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ חוֹזְרִין וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתוֹ:

(כ) לֹא קְרָאוּהוּ אֶלָּא נָטְלָתוֹ וּזְרָקַתּוּ לַיָּם אוֹ לָאֵשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. הוֹאִיל וּקְרָאוּהוּ תְּחִלָּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁים לוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱלִיפוֹ. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַבַּעַל שְׁטָר אַחֵר הָיָה וְלֹא הָיָה הַגֵּט שֶׁקְּרָאתֶם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן וַהֲרֵי הִיא מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

(כא) הֲרֵי שֶׁלֹּא קָרְאוּ הַגֵּט בַּתְּחִלָּה וְנָתַן לָהּ הַגֵּט בִּפְנֵיהֶם וּזְרָקַתּוּ לָאוּר אוֹ לַיָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבַּעַל אוֹמֵר גֵּט כָּשֵׁר הָיָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

(כב) זָרַק לָהּ הַגֵּט לַחֲצֵרָהּ לְבֵין הֶחָבִיּוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וּבִקְּשׁוּ וּמָצְאוּ מְזוּזָה אוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנִּמְצָא הוּא שֶׁזָּרַק. נִמְצְאוּ שָׁם שְׁתַּיִם שָׁלֹשׁ מְזוּזוֹת אוֹ שְׁטָרוֹת חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא גֵּט שֶׁזָּרַק גְּרָרוּהוּ עַכְבָּרִים וַהֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת:

(כג) הָעֵדִים שֶׁחוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט צְרִיכִים לִהְיוֹתָם יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתֹּם. וְאִם אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת קוֹרְאִים בִּפְנֵיהֶם וְחוֹתְמִים. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּכִּירוּ לְשׁוֹן הַגֵּט. וְאִם אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים לַחְתֹּם רוֹשְׁמִין לָהֶם הַנְּיָר בְּרֹק וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין רִשּׁוּמוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם וְהֵן כּוֹתְבִין עַל הָרשֶׁם. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין כָּךְ בִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת. קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲגוּנוֹת הוֹאִיל וַחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

(כד) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲתִימַת הָעֵדִים בְּגֵט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים מְפָרְשִׁין שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בַּגֵּט. וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ בְּעֵדֵי הַגֵּט שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְמִין אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְאִם חָתְמוּ זֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל. וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב זְמַן בַּגֵּט וּמְקוֹם כְּתִיבָתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. שֶׁמָּא תִּהְיֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ קְרוֹבָתוֹ וְתִזְנֶה כְּשֶׁהִיא תַּחְתָּיו וְיִכְתֹּב לָהּ גֵּט אַחַר הַזְּנוּת וְיִתֵּן לָהּ. וְאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה בּוֹ זְמַן יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר קֹדֶם הַזְּנוּת נִתְגָּרַשְׁתִּי. וּלְפִיכָךְ תִּקְּנוּ זְמַן בְּגִטִּין:

(כה) גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מֻקְדָּם אוֹ מְאֻחָר אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ הָעִנְיָן. אוֹ כָּתַב אֶת הַגֵּט בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְטָעָה וְכָתַב בְּלוּד. כָּל אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין עַד שֶׁיַּחְתְּמוּ בּוֹ בִּזְמַן כְּתִיבָתוֹ וּבִמְקוֹם כְּתִיבָתוֹ:

(כו) חָתַךְ מִמֶּנּוּ הַזְּמַן וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב שֵׁם הַיּוֹם אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּת רִאשׁוֹנָה אוֹ שְׁנִיָּה מֵחֹדֶשׁ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ בְּחֹדֶשׁ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ בְּשָׁנָה פְּלוֹנִית וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר הַחֹדֶשׁ אֲפִלּוּ כָּתַב בְּשָׁבוּעַ פְּלוֹנִי כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב בּוֹ הַיּוֹם גֵּרַשְׁתִּיהָ כָּשֵׁר שֶׁמַּשְׁמָעוֹ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה שֶׁיָּצָא בּוֹ הַגֵּט:

(כז) וְכֵן תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מוֹנִין בְּגִטִּין לְמַלְכוּת אוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן מִשּׁוּם שְׁלוֹם מַלְכוּת. כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַלְכוּת אוֹתָהּ הַמְּדִינָה אוֹ לְבִנְיַן הַבַּיִת אוֹ לְחֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת אִם דֶּרֶךְ אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם לִמְנוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר וְאִם אֵין דַּרְכָּן לִמְנוֹת בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. וּכְבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִמְנוֹת בְּגִטִּין אוֹ לִיצִירָה אוֹ לַמַּלְכוּת אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרוֹס מַקְדוֹן שֶׁהוּא מִנְיַן שְׁטָרוֹת. וְאִם כָּתַב לְשֵׁם מַלְכוּת אוֹתוֹ זְמַן בִּמְדִינָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ רְשׁוּת אוֹתָהּ מַלְכוּת הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:

(כח) הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁנַיִם כִּתְבוּ וְחִתְמוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי וְנִתְאַחֵר הַדָּבָר יָמִים אוֹ שָׁנִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַגֵּט בָּטֵל וְהֻצְרְכוּ לִכְתֹּב לָהּ גֵּט אַחֵר כָּשֵׁר אַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַן הַכְּתִיבָה וּמְקוֹם הַכְּתִיבָה, לֹא הַזְּמַן שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן הַבַּעַל בּוֹ כִּתְבוּ וְלֹא אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן וְהָיוּ עוֹמְדִין בְּתִשְׁרֵי וְנִתְאַחֲרוּ עַד נִיסָן וַהֲרֵי הֵן בְּלוּד כּוֹתְבִין זְמַן הַגֵּט מִנִּיסָן וּבְלוּד שֶׁשָּׁם נִכְתַּב הַגֵּט כִּשְׁאָר שְׁטָרוֹת:

(1) A woman may be divorced only by receiving a bill [of divorce]. This bill is called a get.
The Torah establishes ten principles as fundamental [for a divorce to be effective]. They are:
a) That a man must voluntarily initiate the divorce;
b) That he must effect the divorce by means of a written document and through no other means;
c) That this document must communicate that he is divorcing [his wife] and releasing her from his domain;
d) That it should utterly sever the connection between the husband and his wife;
e) That [the get] should be written for the sake [of the woman being divorced];
f) That once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer to the woman;
g) That he should actually transfer [the get] to her;
h) That he should transfer [the get] to her in the presence of witnesses;
i) That he should actually transfer it to her for the sake of divorce;
j) That the husband or his agent should be the one who gives it to her.
The other requirements of a get - e.g., dating it, having it signed by witnesses and the like - are all Rabbinic institutions.

(2) What are the sources that indicate that these ten requirements stem from Scripture itself? [They are derived from Deuteronomy 24:1, which] states: "And if it comes to pass that she does not find favor in his eyes, and he will write a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand and send her from his home."
"If... she does not find favor in his eyes" - this indicates that he divorces her only on his own initiative. If a woman is divorced against her husband's will, the divorce is invalid. A woman may, however, be divorced either voluntarily or against her will.

(3) "And he will write" - this teaches that a woman can be divorced only by means of a written document.
"For her" - that it should be written for her sake.
"A bill of divorce" - i.e., a deed that severs the relationship between [the husband and his wife], without leaving him any jurisdiction over her. If [the relationship] between them is not entirely severed, the divorce is not effective, as will be explained.
"He will... place it in her hand" - this teaches that she is not divorced until the bill of divorce is placed in her hand, in the hand of her agent - which is considered to be her hand - or in her domain - which is considered to be her hand - as will be explained.
"And he will... send her" - [the wording of] the get should indicate that he is sending her away and not that he is sending himself away from her.

(4) What is implied? If he writes to her: "Behold you are sent away," "Behold you are divorced," "You are [now] independent," "You are now permitted [to marry] any man," or the like, the divorce is effective. The essence [of the text] of a get is the statement: "You are now permitted to [marry] any man."
If, by contrast, he writes to her: "I am no longer your husband," "I am no longer the one who consecrates you," or "I am no longer your man," the divorce is not effective. For "and he will... send her" implies that he should not send himself away from her.
Similarly, if a man writes to his wife: "Behold you are free," the divorce is not effective.

(5) The Torah's expression, "And he will... send her from his home," does not mean that the divorce does not become effective until she leaves his home. Instead, the divorce becomes effective when the get reaches [a woman's] hand, even though she still is in her husband's home, as will be explained. "And he will... send her" teaches that if he divorces her, but does not send her away from his home, it is as if he divorced her and then remarried [her]. Therefore, she requires another get, as will be explained.

(6) What is the source that teaches that once [the get] is written, there should be no action [necessary] except its transfer? The [sequence of the verbs] "And he will write..., [and] place," indicating that a get is acceptable only when [the only things] lacking are writing and transfer. This excludes an article that must be detached after it has been written.
Therefore, if a man writes a get on the horn of a cow, he must give [his wife] the cow [for the divorce to be effective]. If he cut off the horn after he wrote [the get] on it, it is not effective. Similarly, if he wrote [a get] on a plant that was still attached to its source of nurture, the divorce is not effective. [This applies] even if the witnesses signed after it was detached.

(7) We may not even write the standard text of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture.
If [a scribe] writes the standard text of [a get] on an article that is attached to its source of nurture, and detaches it and afterwards writes the names of the husband and the wife, the date and the words, "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man," and the witnesses signed and it was given to her, it is acceptable.

(8) If the husband writes the get on a leaf growing in a flowerpot with a hole at the bottom, the get is unacceptable, even if he gives her the entire flowerpot. [This is] a decree, [lest] one detach [the leaf]. He may, however, write [the get] on the pottery of the flowerpot and give it to her.

(9) What is the source that teaches that [the get] must be given to her for the sake of divorce? It is written: "... a bill of divorce for her, place it in her hand," [implying that] he must place [it in her hand] for the sake of divorce. If, however, he gave it to her as a promissory note or as a mezuzah, or he placed it in her hand while she was sleeping, and she awoke and [discovered] it in her hand, the get is void. If, however, he told her afterwards, "Behold this is your get, the divorce is effective.

(10) [The above principle must be clarified in the context of the following law.] A man tells witnesses, "See the get I am giving her," and then he tells [his wife]: "Take this promissory note," [the get] is effective. For he has told the witnesses that he was giving it to her for the sake of divorce. He told her that it was a promissory note only because he was embarrassed [to face] her.

(11) At the time he gives the get, [a man who] divorces [his wife] must tell her: "Behold, your get," or "This is your get," or the like. If he places the get in her hand without saying anything, the get is not acceptable.
When does the above apply? When the husband was not speaking to her about divorce [immediately beforehand]. If, however, he had been speaking to her about divorce [at the time], and he takes the get and places it in her hand without saying anything, the divorce is acceptable.

(12) [The following rules apply when] a get has been placed on the ground, and [the husband] tells [his wife], "Pick your get up from the ground," or it was tied to his hand or to his thigh, and she takes it from him. Even if after it reaches her possession, he tells her, "Behold this is your get," it is void.
[The rationale is] that it is written: "And he will... place it in her hand," [implying] that she may not take it on her own accord. And [in these instances,] neither [the husband] nor his agent gave it to her.
If, however, he bends his body toward her, or tilts his hand until she takes the get from him and says, "Behold this is your get," the get is [effective].

(13) What is the source that teaches that [a get] must be given in the presence of witnesses? [Deuteronomy 19:15] states: "According to the words of two witnesses or those of three witnesses will the matter be established."
It is impossible that on one day a woman will be considered to be forbidden and sexual relations with her punishable by execution, and on the next day she should be permitted [to any man] unless [the divorce is observed by] witnesses.
Therefore, if [a husband] gives [his wife] a get in private, or even if the exchange is observed by one witness, the divorce is utterly void.

(14) When does the above apply? When the get is written by a scribe. When, however, the husband writes the get himself, one witness signs it, and [the husband] gives it to her, the get is unacceptable [only by Rabbinic decree,] {and the woman is forbidden to marry a priest}.

(15) It is an ordinance [enacted] by our Sages that witnesses should sign a get, lest a [husband] give [his wife] a get in the presence of two [witnesses], and they die. [In such an instance,] the get she possesses is no more than a shard, for there are no witnesses [to testify to its authenticity]. [To prevent such a situation, our Sages] ordained that the testimony [regarding the authenticity of the get should be contained] within it.
Although witnesses [have signed] within, [the husband] must give [the get] to [his wife] in the presence of two [witnesses] - whether the same witnesses who signed it or two others. For in essence, divorce is established by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].

(16) When two witnesses sign [the get], and [the husband] transgresses and gives [the get] to [his wife] in private, or if it is discovered that the witnesses [who observed] the transfer [of the get] were unsuitable, the divorce is effected. For the witnesses [who signed the get] are acceptable, and the get exists in the woman's possession. Some of the geonim have ruled that [the get] is unacceptable.

(17) If the witnesses [who signed the get] are unsuitable - or even if one was unsuitable and one was acceptable - and [the husband] gave it to her in the presence of two acceptable witnesses, [the get] is unacceptable. It is as if it were a forgery.

(18) If the witnesses signed [the get at a position] more than two lines away from the text [of the get], it is unacceptable.
How far may the witnesses sign away from the text? Less than two lines, so that their [names] will be read together with [the text].
When does the [disqualification] mentioned above apply? When the get is in the woman's possession, and there are no witnesses [who observed its] transfer. If, however, [the husband] gave [his wife the get] in the presence of witnesses, [the get] is acceptable even if the witnesses'[signatures] are far removed from the text. [Moreover, this ruling applies] even when there were not any witnesses who signed [the get]. For in essence, divorce is effected by virtue of the witnesses [who observe] the transfer [of the get].

(19) It is required to read the get [aloud] in the presence of the witnesses who observe its transfer. Afterwards, it should be given to her. If it was given to her in their presence first, it should be taken from her and read [aloud] after it was given to her.
[The following rule applies when the witnesses] read [the get] while it is the possession of the husband or his agent, and they return it to him. If he encloses it within his hand, [obscuring it from the witnesses' view] and then gives it to her, they should read it again.

(20) [In the latter instance,] if they did not read it, and it is taken and thrown into the sea or into a fire, the divorce is effective. Since [the witnesses] read it first, we do not suspect that it was exchanged [for another document]. Moreover, even if the husband said, "It was another document [that I gave her] and not the get that you read," his word is not accepted and the divorce is effective.

(21) [If, however,] they did not read the get beforehand, the husband gives it to [his wife] in their presence, and then it is thrown into a fire or into the sea, the status of the divorce is doubtful. [This applies] even if the husband says that it was an acceptable get.

(22) If he threw the get into [the woman's] courtyard, among barrels in the presence of witnesses, and when they looked for it they found a mezuzah or another document, we do not suspect that she [has been divorced]. [We assume that] the article that was found was the one that was thrown.
If two or three mezuzot or documents were discovered there, and we suspect that perhaps he threw a get and it was dragged away by mice, the status of the woman's divorce is in doubt.

(23) The witnesses who sign the get must know how to read and sign [their names]. If they do not know how to read, we read [the get] in their presence, and they sign, provided they understand the wording of the get.
If they do not know how to sign [their names], we write out their signatures for them on the paper with spittle or with other substances that will not leave a permanent mark, and they sign [their names] over these markings.
This practice is not followed with regard to other legal documents. It is a leniency adopted with regard to bills of divorce, so that Jewish women will not be forced to live without a marriage partner. [This leniency is granted] because the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution, as we have explained.

(24) Although the signature of witnesses on a bill of divorce is a Rabbinic institution, our Sages ordained that the witnesses state their names in the get.
Similarly, they ordained that the witnesses to the get must sign in the presence of each other. If either signed without the other, [the get] is unacceptable.
Similarly, our Sages ordained that the date of a get and the place where it was written be recorded [within it], as is required with regard to other legal documents. [This was required] lest one's wife also be one's relative and she commit adultery. [Because of the husband's feelings for his wife,] he [might conceivably] write her a get after she had committed adultery and give it to her. If the get was not dated, she could say: "I was divorced before I committed adultery." [To prevent this from happening, our Sages] ordained that gittin be dated.

(25) In all the following instances, [the get] is unacceptable: a) a get signed by witnesses that is not dated, b) one that is predated, or postdated, c) one that was written during the day and signed on the following night; this applies even if they remained involved with the matter [of the divorce until the get was signed], d) the get was written in Jerusalem and [the scribe] erred and wrote [that it was written] in Lod.
[For a get to be acceptable,] it is necessary that it be signed at the time it was written and in the place where it was written.

(26) A get is acceptable if [the husband] cut off [the portion of the get that contained] the date and gave it to her, or did not write the date, merely [the week - i.e.,] the first or the second week of a given month, or he specified merely the month or [merely] the year without mentioning the month, or even if he specified merely the seven-year cycle [in which the get was composed].
Similarly, a get is acceptable if [the husband] writes within it: "Today I divorced her." This implies the day on which the get was released.

(27) Similarly, [our Sages] ordained that the year of the ruling kingdom of that time should be mentioned in a get to gain the favor of the ruling authorities.
[The following rules apply if] a person writes a get and dated it according to the years of a kingdom other [than that of his locale] or according to the years beginning from the Temple's construction or destruction. If it is customary for people in that locale to date [their documents] in this manner, it is acceptable. If this is not the local custom, it is unacceptable.
It has already become the universal Jewish custom to date gittin from the time of creation, or from the crowning of Alexander the Great, which is [the accepted means of dating] for legal documents. If one dates [a get] according to the years of a contemporary kingdom, it is acceptable only in the country over which that kingdom rules.

(28) [The following rules apply when] a person tells two [colleagues]: "Write a get for my wife, sign it and give it to her," and the matter was delayed several days or years, or the get was [discovered to contain an imperfection causing it] to be [considered] void, and it was necessary to write a new get that was acceptable, as will be explained. In such an instance, the date and the place when and where the get was written are recorded, and not the date and place when and where the husband told them to compose the get.
What is implied? If the husband told them [to write the get] in Jerusalem, in [the month of] Tishrei, and [the agents] delayed and did not write it until Nisan, at which time they were located in Lod, the get should be dated in Nisan, and Lod [should be recorded as its place], for this is where the get was written. [This is also the practice] with regard to other legal documents.