009 - הִלְכוֹת גֵּרוּשִׁין פֵּרֶק ט

Laws of Divorce, Chapter 9

1. If a man divorces his wife to take effect after a set time, she is divorced when that set time arrives. This is similar to a condition, but it is not a condition. It is similar to a condition in that she becomes divorced when the set time arrives; but it is not a condition, because one who divorces on a condition, the divorce takes effect immediately, whereas here, the divorce does not take effect until that time arrives. Therefore, one who divorces on a condition must double his condition, but in this case, he does not need to double his words or follow the other rules of conditions that we have explained.

2. How so? If a man says to his wife, "This is your get, but you will not be divorced by it until after thirty days," she is not divorced by it until after thirty days. If the husband dies, or the get is lost or burned within those thirty days, she is not divorced.

3. If he placed the get at the side of a public domain, and it was stolen or lost from there after thirty days, she is divorced, since the get existed on the day she becomes divorced by it. The same applies if he designated a place for it that is not a public domain, for the sides of a public domain are not considered like the public domain itself.

4. Similarly, if he made the divorce dependent on an action, its law is like that of one who divorces after a set time. How so? For example, if he said to the woman, "This is your get, but you will not be divorced by it until you give me two hundred zuz," she is divorced after she gives it. He does not need to double his condition or follow the other rules of conditions that we have explained, for he did not divorce on a condition, but rather, he has not yet divorced her; rather, he made the divorce dependent on the performance of a certain act, and after that, she will be divorced.

5. What is the difference between one who divorces on a condition and one who sets a time for the divorce or makes it dependent on an action? One who divorces on a condition—there is a divorce, but it is not complete until the condition is fulfilled. Therefore, when the condition is fulfilled, she is divorced if the get still exists, even if it is not in her possession; and she does not need to take it again or have it in her possession after the condition is fulfilled, since it originally came into her hand as a get. And if she married before the condition was fulfilled, she does not need to leave her new husband, as we have explained. But one who makes the divorce dependent on a time or on an action—the get has not yet come into her hand as a get, but only as a deposit until the set time arrives or until she performs the act. Therefore, when the time arrives, the get must be in her possession, or she must take it again, or it must be in a place that he designated for it, even if it is not her domain, as we have explained; and only after that does she become divorced by it. And if she married before the set time arrived, or before she performed the act upon which the divorce was made dependent, she must leave her new husband, and the child is a mamzer, for she is still fully a married woman, and there is no divorce here.

6. If a man gives a get to his wife and says to her, "If you do not give me two hundred zuz, this is not a get," or "You are not divorced," he has not divorced her at all, and there is no get here—not as a condition and not dependent on an action. The same applies to all similar cases.

7. If one wishes to divorce on a condition, and the matter of his condition is that she will not be divorced until a certain time, he should express this matter in the language of a condition, and make the condition dependent on his arrival at a set time or his journey. How so? For example, if he says to her, "If I do not return from here within thirty days, this is a get; but if I return within thirty days, it will not be a get," and he gives her the get; or he says to her, "This is your get from now, if I do not return from here within thirty days," or "This is your get, on the condition that I do not come to this city within thirty days." And so with all similar cases.

Laws of Divorce, Chapter 9

8. If he made a condition with her that the get would take effect if he did not come to this country within thirty days, and he was on the way within those thirty days, but became ill or was delayed by a river and did not arrive until after thirty days—this is a valid get, even if he stands and protests, saying, "I am under duress," for there is no concept of duress in matters of divorce. Even though he has revealed his intention that he does not wish to divorce, the get is valid.

9. If he made a condition with her that she would be divorced when he passes before her for thirty days, and he was going and coming, going and coming, but did not seclude himself with her—when he goes and remains away for thirty days, she is divorced. Even though he was going and coming within the thirty days, since he did not seclude himself with her, the get is valid. In what case does this apply? When he made the condition and said, "She is believed by me to say that I did not appease her." But if he did not believe her, we are concerned that perhaps he appeased her while going and coming, and she forgave the condition, thereby nullifying the get when he appeased her. Because of this concern, the get is invalid after the thirty days. Similarly, if one says to a woman, "This is your get after twelve months," and he was with her in the same country, we are concerned that perhaps he appeased her, unless he says, "She is believed by me to say that I did not appease her."

10. Likewise, all conditions that depend on her will, and if she wishes she can nullify them, the get is suspect, for we are concerned that perhaps he appeased her, unless he says, "She is believed by me." In what case does this apply? When she is being divorced from marriage, for his heart is familiar with her. But if she is being divorced from betrothal, we are not concerned that perhaps he appeased her.

11. If he said to her, "This is your get from now if I do not return from here within twelve months," we are not concerned that perhaps he came in secret, for it is not the way of people to come in hiding. If the set time passed and he did not come, she is divorced. If he died within the twelve months—even though it is impossible for him to come, and she is divorced—she should not marry in a place where there is a yavam until after twelve months, when the condition is fulfilled.

12. If a healthy man made a condition that this would be a get if he died, or a sick man made a condition that this would be a get if he died from this illness—he has said nothing, for it implies "if I die," meaning after death, but its implication is from now. Therefore, if he said, "If I die," it is as if he said, "after my death," and there is no get after death.

13. If he said to her, "This is your get from now if I die," or "from today if I die," this is a valid get, and when he dies, she is divorced.

14. If he said to her, "This is your get from now," or "from today, after my death," and then died—she is in a state of doubtful divorce, for perhaps after saying "from now" he retracted and intended it to take effect after death, and there is no get after death.

15. If he said, "This is your get when the sun rises," and he died during the night—it is not a get. If he said, "On condition that the sun rises," and he died during the night—she is divorced, and when the sun rises, the condition is fulfilled. If he made a condition with her that if the sun rises it will be a get, and if not, it will not be a get, and he died during the night—it is not a get, for the condition was not fulfilled until after he died, and there is no get after death.

16. If a deathly ill person wrote a get for his wife and divorced her, and then recovered—he cannot retract it, for his get is not like his gift: for if you say he can retract it, people will say that a get can take effect after death, just as his gift is acquired only after death.

17. If he said, "This is your get from today if I die from this illness," and a house collapsed on him, or he was bitten by a snake, or mauled by a lion, or the like, and he died—it is not a get.

18. If he said to her, "If I do not recover from this illness," and a house collapsed on him, or he was bitten by a snake, or mauled by a lion—she is in a state of doubtful divorce. If he said, "This is your get from now if I die from this illness," and he recovered and went out to the marketplace, and then became ill again and died—we assess him: if he died from the first illness, this is a get; if not, it is not a get. If he went from one illness to another and did not go out to the marketplace, this is a get and does not require assessment.

Laws of Divorce, Chapter 9

19. In all these conditions, throughout all the days from the giving of the get until the condition is fulfilled or until he dies, she is considered divorced in every respect, provided that he does not seclude himself with her, as we have explained.

20. If a sick man wishes to divorce his wife on condition that when he dies, she will not fall before a yavam, and if he recovers she will not be divorced, but he does not want to divorce her from now, so that his mind will not be unsettled—he writes in the get, after the essential text, or says to her when giving her the get: "If I do not die, it will not be a get; and if I die, it will be a get; and if I do not die, it will not be a get"—so that the condition is doubled, the affirmative precedes the negative, and he does not begin with a statement of misfortune. If he dies, she is divorced when he dies—provided that the get reaches her hand before his death.

21. If a husband gave a get to someone and said to him, "Acquire this get for my wife so that she will not fall before a yavam," and the husband died before the get reached her hand—this is a case of doubtful divorce: for most women, it is a benefit for them not to fall before a yavam; therefore, she is considered doubtfully divorced, even though the get did not reach her hand, since another acquired it for her.

22. If he said to the witnesses, "After twelve months, write a get and give it to my wife," or he said to them, "Write and give a get to my wife after twelve months"—they write it after the time he set, and give it to her. But if they wrote it within the set time, even if they gave it to her after the time he said—it is not a get. If they wrote it after the time as he said, and he died before it was given to her—it is not a get; but if it is not known whether death preceded the giving of the get, or the giving of the get preceded death—this is a case of doubtful divorce.

23. If he said to them, "Write and give it to her after the week," they write it only after a year from the end of the week. If he said to them, "After the year," they write it after a month from the second year. If he said to them, "After the month," they write it after the Shabbos from the second month. If he said to them, "After the Shabbos," they write it from after Shabbos until the end of Tuesday. If he said to them, "Write and give it to her before Shabbos," they write it from Wednesday until the end of Friday, and give it to her.

24. If they delayed beyond the time he said, and afterwards wrote and gave it to her—for example, he said to them, "After the month," and they wrote and gave it to her after two weeks from the second month—this is invalid.

25. If he secluded himself with her after he told them to write, sign, and give it to her, they should not write it. And all the more so: if a get that was given to her after he secluded himself with her is invalid because perhaps he had relations with her, then certainly if it was not yet written. And if they wrote and gave it to her after he secluded himself with her, it is not a get.

26. If he said to ten people, "Write a get for my wife," one writes it, with the consent of all of them. If he said, "All of you write," one of them writes it in the presence of all of them. If he said, "Deliver this get to my wife," one of them delivers it, with the consent of all of them. If he said, "All of you deliver this get to my wife," one of them delivers it in the presence of all of them.

Laws of Divorce, Chapter 9

27. If a man said to ten people, "Write a get and sign it and give it to my wife," one of them writes, two of them sign, and one of them gives it to her. Even if the one who wrote it is one of the two witnesses who signed it, and he is also the agent who gave it to her, it is valid. If he said to them, "All of you sign," then all of them must sign. And if he counted them—whether he counted all of them or only some of them—and said to them, "Sign," this is like saying, "All of you sign." Of those who sign first, two serve as witnesses, and the rest sign as a condition.

28. Therefore, if the rest are disqualified, or if one signed today and another signed the next day, even after many days, it is valid. If one of them died before signing, the get is void. If one of the first two was disqualified, the get is invalid—lest people say that a disqualified witness is valid for testimony in other documents when there are many witnesses. They only validated a get with many witnesses because the witnesses to the delivery are the main ones.

29. The Sages instituted that one who says to many people to write a get, or to sign, or to deliver a get to his wife—if for writing, he should say to them, "Each one of you write a get for my wife." Similarly, for delivery, he should say, "Each one of you deliver." And if for signing, he should say to them, "Any two of you sign this get and give it to my wife."

30. Why did the Sages say that the witnesses of a get may only sign in each other's presence? It is a decree, lest he say to many people, "All of you sign." If you say that they may sign not in each other's presence, perhaps two will testify, and she will take the get in her hand and think that it has already been testified to, when in fact the condition has not yet been fulfilled.

31. If a man said to three people, "Two of you write a get for my wife and sign and give it to her," and among them were a father and his son—whether the father signed with another or the son signed with another—it is valid, for a person may appoint his son as an agent in place of the father.

32. If a man said to two people, "Write and sign and give to so-and-so, who will deliver it to my wife," or "Give it to an agent who will deliver it to her," one of them writes, and both sign and give it to the agent. If they themselves delivered it and gave it to her, it is not a get, for he did not appoint them as agents for divorce. What should they do? They should take it from her and give it to the agent, and he should then give it to her in their presence or in the presence of others. My teachers ruled in this case of a get in a way that does not seem correct, because of a confusion that occurred in their versions.

33. If a man said to a scribe, "Write a get for my wife," and he wrote it and gave it to the husband without witnesses, and the husband took it and gave it to an agent and said to him, "Give this get to my wife in the presence of witnesses," and the agent went and gave it to her in the presence of witnesses—she is in doubt whether she is divorced, because an agent is not believed to permit a forbidden relationship, even though he is a single witness—only because of the writing of the witnesses who signed the get, who are as if their testimony has been examined, unless there is a protest, as we have explained. But if there were two witnesses who testify that this get, the husband gave it to the agent to divorce her with it—she is divorced.

34. If a man said to an agent, "Give this get to my wife in such-and-such a place," and he gave it to her in another place, it is not a get. But if she was in the specified place and he gave it to her in another place, it is valid, because he was only indicating a place to him. If he said, "Do not give it to her except in the house," and he gave it to her in the attic; or, "Do not give it to her except on the right," and he gave it to her on the left; or, "Give it to her on such-and-such a day," and he gave it to her within that time—it is not a get. If he said, "Do not give it to her except on such-and-such a day," and he gave it to her before or after that day—it is not a get, for he was particular about the day itself. And so with all similar cases.

35. Similarly, if a woman said to her agent, "Receive my get for me in such-and-such a place," and he received it for her in another place, it is not a get. If she said, "Bring me my get to such-and-such a place," and he brought it to her in another place, it is valid.

Laws of Divorce, Chapter 9

35. If a man says to his agent, "Take this get to my wife," whether he said "take" or "you take," and the agent became ill or was prevented from fulfilling the mission, the agent may send it with another. But if he said to him, "Take such-and-such an item from her for me, and give her this get," then he may not send it with another; and if he did send it with another, and the woman went out to meet the agent and first gave him the item, and afterwards he gave her the get, she is divorced.

36. If he gave her the get, and afterwards she gave the item—even if it was from the hand of the first agent—it is not a valid get, because he transgressed the husband's instructions in a matter about which people are generally particular. For the husband said to him, "Take the item and give her [the get]," and he gave [the get] and only afterwards took [the item].

37. If he said to him, "Give her the get, and take such-and-such an item from her," he may not send it with another, because the husband does not want his deposit to be in the hands of another. But if he did send it with another, it is a valid get, whether she gave the item first or only at the end.

38. If he gave the get to the agent and said to him, "Do not give it to her except you yourself," and the agent gave it to another, and that other gave it to her—it is not a valid get. Similarly, if he said to him, "Do not give it to her yourself, but give it to so-and-so, and he will give it to her," and the first agent gave it to her—it is not a valid get, because he did not make him an agent for the divorce.

39. If he gave him the get and said to him, "Take this get to my wife," and the agent said, "I do not recognize her," and the husband said to him, "Give it to so-and-so, he recognizes her"—this is an agent who was not appointed for the divorce, and he may only give the get to the person the husband specified. That person is the agent for the divorce, and he may take it to her, or send it with another if he became ill or was prevented from fulfilling the mission.

40. If he gave the get to the agent and said to him, "Do not give it to her until thirty days have passed," and the agent became ill or was prevented from fulfilling the mission within the thirty days, he may send it with another. For even though he is not now an agent for the divorce, since after thirty days he will become an agent for the divorce, he may appoint another agent within the thirty days.

41. In what case are these words said? When her husband was not with her in the same province, or when she was being divorced from betrothal. But if she is being divorced from marriage and her husband is with her in the same province, we are concerned that perhaps he appeased her, and he may not appoint an agent within the thirty days unless he says, "She is believed by me that I did not appease her." But he may give her the get after the thirty days, and we are concerned for her as we have explained, until he says, "She is believed by me that I did not appease her."