💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Divor… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:28:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 [1] [The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* from one place to another in *Eretz Yisrael*. Although [the agent] did not witness the writing of the *get* and does not know who the witnesses are, but rather the *get* was given to him by the husband, who instructed him to give it to his wife, [the agent] may give [the woman the *get*] in the presence of witnesses. Although the identity of the witnesses [who signed the *get*] is unknown to us, [the woman] is considered divorced, and she may remarry on this basis. [2] If the husband came and protested, saying: "I never divorced her. The *get* she was given is a forgery," the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified. If this is impossible, and the witnesses are not known at all, she must leave [her second husband], and [any children born to them] are considered illegitimate, for [we assume that] she has not been divorced. If the *get* has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt.
For this reason, women who we presume hate each other are not trusted to bring a *get* to one another in *Eretz Yisrael*. [We suspect that] it might be a forgery, because one desires that the other remarry and be forbidden to her husband[s]. [3] These are the women who we presume hate each other: A mother-in-law, the daughter of a mother-in-law, another woman married to the same man - this applies even if this woman has since remarried - her *yevamah* - this applies even if she was her sister - and her husband's daughter [from another marriage]. All other women are acceptable [to act in this capacity]. [4] When a man brings a *get* from one place to another place in *Eretz Yisrael* and becomes sick or is prevented from fulfilling his agency because of factors beyond his control, he may send the *get* via a second agent. Similarly, if the second agent becomes sick, he may send it via another agent. Indeed, even 100 agents [may be appointed in this manner].
There is no need for the agent to appoint the second agent in the presence of witnesses. The final agent to whom the *get* is given should give it to the woman in the presence of two witnesses, and the divorce is effective. [This applies] even when the first agent dies [before the divorce takes effect]. [5] [The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* from one place to another in the diaspora, from *Eretz Yisrael* to the diaspora or from the diaspora to *Eretz Yisrael*. If the agent was present at the time of the composition and signature of the *get*, he should say, in the presence of two witnesses, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence."
Afterwards, it should be given in her presence, and the divorce takes effect, even though the identity of the witnesses is not known to us. Even if the witnesses' names resemble the names of gentiles, we do not suspect [that there is any difficulty]. [6] If [afterwards,] the husband came and protested [that the *get* is a forgery], his words are of no consequence. Therefore, even women who we presume hate each other are relied upon to bring a *get* in such a situation and state that it was written and signed in their presence. [7] Similarly, when an agent who brings a *get* in *Eretz Yisrael* says: "It was written and signed in my presence," although he is not required to do so, if the husband comes and protests [that the *get* was forged], [the husband's] words are of no consequence.
[With regard to a *get* sent to or from the diaspora,] if the agent was not present at the time of the writing or signing of the *get*, it may not be given to the woman unless the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified. The agent himself may serve as [one of] the three [judges] who verify the signatures of the witnesses.
If [the signatures] were not verified, and the *get* was given to the woman, the divorce is unacceptable until [the signatures] are verified. If the husband comes and protests, and the signatures are not verified, we consider her not to be divorced. If the *get* has been lost, the status of the divorce is in doubt. [8] Why did [our Sages] require [the agent] to say: "It was written and signed in my presence" in the diaspora? So that the woman would not have to have [the signatures] verified if the husband comes and protests. [Our Sages did not desire that she be faced with such a predicament,] because witnesses are often not available to verify signatures [on a document that has been taken] from one place to another in the diaspora. [9] When a husband brought explicit proof that a *get* concerning which [an agent] said: "It was written and signed in my presence" is a forgery, [the *get*] is void. For [our Sages] accepted the statements of one person only in the face of a protest raised by a husband that was not accompanied by substantial proof. When, however, this person's statements are contradicted by witnesses, [his statements] are not accepted. [10] The rivers in *Eretz Yisrael* and the islands in the Mediterranean Sea that are within the boundaries of *Eretz Yisrael* are bound by the rules pertaining to *Eretz Yisrael*. [The islands] that are outside these boundaries are bound by the rules pertaining to the diaspora. The boundaries of *Eretz Yisrael* are described in *Hilchot Terumot*.
With regard to *gittin*, [the rules pertaining to] *Eretz Yisrael* also pertain to Babylonia. [11] When a *get* was written in *Eretz Yisrael* and signed in the diaspora, [the agent] is required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If it was written in the diaspora and signed in *Eretz Yisrael*, [the agent] is not required to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." [12] When a portion of the *get* is written in [the agent's] presence, and all the signatures were executed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence," provided it was the initial portion - even one line - [that was written in his presence].
[Moreover,] even if he merely heard the noise [made by the scribe's] pen [writing], and the witnesses signed in his presence, he may say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Similarly, even if the scribe went out to the marketplace and then returned and completed the *get*, [the agent] does not fear that another [man] found [the scribe] and told him [to write a *get* for him], and he [completed] writing the *get* for another person. Instead, [the agent] may say: "It was written and signed in my presence." [13] If [the agent] said: "It was written in my presence," but did not say, "It was signed in my presence," [if he said,] "It was signed in my presence," but did not say, "It was written in my presence," or [if he said,] "The entire [*get*] was written in my presence, and one witness signed [in my presence], but not the other witness," even if he himself was the other witness, the signature of the witnesses must be verified. Only then, may [the *get*] be given to her.
If he and another person testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, who did not sign in his presence, [the *get*] is acceptable and may be given to her. Needless to say, if two other [witnesses] testify with regard to [the signature of] the second witness, [the *get*] is acceptable. [14] When two agents bring a *get* from the diaspora, they may give it to [the woman], causing the divorce to be effective, even though it was not written and signed in their presence. Since the husband gave it to them to give to his wife, his protests regarding this *get* are of no consequence. Although [the signatures of the witnesses] have not been verified, the agents he [appointed] serve as witnesses [to its authenticity]. For if these witnesses said, "She was divorced in our presence," the divorce would be effective, even though there is no *get* present. [15] When does the above apply? When the *get* is in the possession of both of them. If, however, the *get* is not in the possession of both of them, they must say: "It was written and signed in our presence."
Accordingly, if one agent says, "It was written in my presence," and the second says, "It was signed in my presence," or they both say, "It was written in our presence," and one says: "It was signed in my presence," since it is not in the possession of both of them, it should not be given to the woman unless the authenticity of the signatures has been verified. [16] If one person said: "It was written in my presence," and two people say: "It was signed in our presence," [the *get*] is acceptable. [This applies] even when they are not in possession [of the *get*], because the signatures [of the witnesses] have been verified. [17] [The following rules apply when] an agent brings a *get* in the diaspora and gives it to the woman in private, or gives it to her in the presence of two witnesses, but does not tell her: "It was written and signed in my presence." Even if she has married, he should take the *get* back from her and then give it to her in the presence of two witnesses and say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If he does not take it back from her, the divorce is unacceptable until the signatures [of the witnesses] are verified. [18] If [the agent] gave a woman a *get* and did not suffice to say: "It was written and signed in my presence," before he lost the power of speech, the signatures [of the witnesses] should be verified. Afterwards, he may give it to her. [19] A blind person may not bring a *get* from the diaspora, because he is unable to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Accordingly, if [the *get*] was written and signed in his presence while he possessed the power of sight, and he became blind afterwards, he may say in the presence of three [men]: "It was written and signed in my presence," and give [the *get*] to her.
Similarly, when a woman brings a *get* from the diaspora, she must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," in the presence of three [men]. The provision to make these statements in the presence of two men applies only when the agent is acceptable to serve as a witness. In such an instance, he joins the other two and serves as one of the three who verify the *get*, based on his statements. For a witness may serve as a judge in matters of Rabbinic law. [20] When an agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should approach a Jewish court and tell them: "This *get* was written and signed in my presence." [The court, then, appoints] another agent and sends [the *get* to the woman] with him.
The second agent does not have to say: "It was written and signed in my presence." Instead, he says: "I am an agent of the court," and then he gives [the *get* to the woman] in the presence of witnesses. [21] If the second agent becomes ill or is prevented from carrying out his agency by forces beyond his control, he should appoint another agent in the presence of the court. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner].
[Before transferring the *get*,] the final agent says: "I am an agent of the court." He should then give the woman [the *get*]. [The *get* can be given] even if the first agent died.
Why must [the appointment be made] in court? Because [the first agent] must say: "It was written and signed in my presence." If, however, the signatures [of the witnesses] were verified, although one agent gives it to another in private - even if 100 agents are appointed in this way - the *get* is acceptable when it reaches the woman.
Although the husband did not explicitly tell the agent: "Send [the *get*] via another person if you are hindered by forces beyond your control," the agent may [appoint another agent] if he becomes ill or is hindered by forces beyond his control. [22] Whenever a person appoints an agent, the agent does not have to be present in court with him. Even if the agent is not present, he may tell [the court]: "So and so is my agent." Similarly, an agent may appoint an agent when the latter is not present. [Indeed,] even 100 [agents can be appointed in this manner]. [23] A husband [may appoint] his wife [as an agent to transport her *get* to another place]. After having it written and signed in her presence, he gives her the *get* and tells her: "You are an agent to bring it to the court of so and so. They will appoint an agent, who will give you this *get* and thus effect the divorce."
Should the woman say: "It was written and signed in my presence," [when delivering the *get* to the court], her statements are accepted. [The court] should take the *get* from her and give it to the agent so that he can give it to her as the husband instructed. [24] When does the above apply? When the husband [explicitly] made this stipulation. But if this stipulation is not made, but instead the husband [merely] gave her the *get* and it is in her possession, she is not required to make any statements [to the court]. We assume that she is divorced, for she is in possession of a *get* that is written according to law and that is signed by witnesses.
Although we do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, and [their authenticity] has not been verified, we do not suspect that [the woman] forged them, for she would not cause her own ruin.
Moreover, it is considered as if the witnesses who signed the *get* had testified in court, until a protest is raised. Therefore, we assume that the *get* was written according to law and [grant the woman permission to] marry, as we assume that a *get* brought by an agent [in *Eretz Yisrael*] is acceptable until the husband raises a protest or until he brings proof that it is a forgery or that it is void.
For if we had suspicions concerning these matters and the like, we would have to suspect that perhaps when a husband gave a *get* in our presence, he nullified it before he gave it; perhaps the witnesses who sign it are unacceptable, causing it to be regarded as a forgery; or perhaps it was not written for the sake [of the man or the woman being divorced]. Just as we do not entertain suspicions concerning these factors and assume that the *get* [is acceptable] until it is discovered that it is void, so too, we do not entertain suspicions concerning an agent or a woman when a *get* is in their possession. [The rationale is] that the laws governing prohibitions differ from those governing financial transactions.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC