Siman 125

The sages taught in the Mishnah (19a): One may write with anything: with deyo, with sam, with sikra, with kumos, with kankantum, and with anything that is lasting. One may not write with liquids, nor with fruit juices, nor with anything that is not lasting; see there. Deyo is "kieg-ros" and in Arabic "al-midar." Sam: Rashi explained as "orpiment," and some explained as "apermant," and some explained as a type of earth found on the island of Samos in the Icarian Sea in the land of Greece. Sikra: Rashi explained as a red dye called "minium," and some explained as "rothel mennig." The Bartenura explained sam as the root of a herb called "sama," and sikra as a stone with which they dye red. Kumos is a type of resin called "gum." Kankantum: they explained in the Gemara as "blacking of the shoemakers," and Rashi explained as "adrament," and the Tosafot and Rashbam explained that it is a green earth called "vitriol," and so wrote the Bartenura, and in Arabic "zag," and some explained as "copper-wasser," and it is all one.

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 4: One may only write the get with something whose mark is lasting, such as ink, red lead, gum, vitriol, and the like. But if he wrote it with something that is not lasting, such as liquids, fruit juice, and the like, it is not a get. Thus far his words. And he omitted "sam" which we learned in the Mishnah, and I do not know why; it appears that in the Mishnah before him the version did not include "sam," and so it is in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi, see there. There is no practical legal difference, for anything whose mark is lasting is valid. And the Tosefta (chapter 2) added walnut shells, pomegranate shells, congealed blood, and congealed milk, see there. And it appears to me that there is some scribal error in the Tosefta, for it appears that congealed blood and congealed milk are not lasting things; and besides this, according to the context of the Tosefta there, there is necessarily some error, see there. And regarding walnut shells, it appears that it is the outer shell which is green and soft, for the hard inner shell is not fit for writing. And although in Tosefta Shabbat (chapter 12) the version is also like the Tosefta of Gittin, nevertheless even there it is proven that it is a scribal error, see there (for it concludes with this rule: if one wrote with something that is not lasting, etc., and according to our version it does not list at all things that are not lasting in writing, and why—regarding what he writes—is it considered there, see there; rather, certainly the shells are lasting, and blood and milk are not lasting, and delve into this).

The wording of the Rambam is that one requires something whose impression lasts, as he wrote, and such is the wording of the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Tur wrote: One writes the get with anything whose impression is discernible, etc. Thus far his words. And some say that they differ in the law, for according to the Tur it does not need to be lasting and enduring for a long time, but rather anything whose impression is discernible for the moment is kosher (Bach, Beit Shmuel). And it is a great wonder to say so, for the Mishnah required something that endures; and furthermore, is it not discernible with fruit juice? Rather, the disqualification is because it does not endure. Therefore, it is clear that the Tur also requires something that endures (Pri Chadash and Ginnat Veradim). And that which he wrote, "its impression is discernible," on the contrary, his intention is that even for a long time we require that its impression be discernible; meaning, that certainly over the course of time the writing is not as good as at the time of writing, and nevertheless we require that the impression be discernible even after a time. And similar to this is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 11 of Shabbat, law 15, who wrote: The writer is not liable until he writes with something that is impressed and lasts, etc., see there. And one can further say regarding his intention that we require it to be enduring and discernible, for there are things that endure but are not discernible, such as gallnut water on gallnut-treated parchment, as will be explained, and similarly gallnut water where the writing is absorbed into the paper and is not discernible from the outside, and this writing is not effective (ibid.).

It was taught (ibid.): If one wrote it with lead, with black, or with soot, it is kosher. The Rif and the Rambam, of blessed memory, transcribed this same wording there, and he wrote that one may not write with them ab initio. The Tur disagrees, for even ab initio one may write with them. The Tur wrote that lead means lead filings mixed with water, meaning that one rubbed the lead in water and blackened it (Rashi), and it became like ink. However, if one wrote with the lead itself, which is called bleifeder, the get is void according to the Torah (Beit Shmuel, subsection 2). Black refers to charcoal, and this also means that one crushed the charcoal in water and mixed it with water and made ink from this; but if one wrote with the charcoal itself, it is not a get. Soot is atrament. This is according to the Tur and according to the sugya of the Shas there and as Rashi explained; see there.

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, left the matter undefined and did not distinguish between lead and lead-water. Some say that his opinion is the opposite: that with lead it is kosher and with lead-water it is invalid, and similarly with black (Bach and Lechem Mishneh), for he interprets the Gemara's distinction between lead and lead-water in the opposite manner of the interpretation of Rashi and the Tur; and on the contrary, lead is considered writing and lead-water is not considered writing. But this is not a logical reasoning at all; rather, the Rambam holds that with both of them it is kosher, and that which the Gemara distinguishes is not according to the halakha (as Rav disagrees with Shmuel, see there) (Beit Yosef, the Gra, and the Pri Chadash). And it is similarly explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 2: Some say that where lead is kosher, it refers to pieces of lead mixed in water, but if one wrote with the lead itself it is invalid, and one should be concerned for this ab initio. Thus far his words. And since he wrote that only ab initio should one be concerned for this, it implies that he holds that ex post facto both are kosher. And for us, in practice, we must be concerned for all opinions, for whether with lead or with lead-water, and similarly with charcoal, it is a doubtful get. And know that the Aruch explained another interpretation for "shachor," that it is an iron tool with which they mark, and "shichor" he explained as charcoal; and according to the Aruch, with this tool it is kosher at least ex post facto. But in practice it is a doubtful get, for according to Rashi and the Tur the intention is not regarding the tool, but as I have written.

According to what has been explained, all types of ink are kosher for the writing of a get, provided only that the writing endures for a long time; and there is no difference between black ink and red or green. However, white ink certainly should not be validated, for white ink on white paper is certainly not well-recognized. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that ab initio it is the custom to write it with good ink such as is used for writing scrolls, and one should not deviate. Thus far his words. However, in a case of iggun or pressing need, one may write with any type of ink. There is one who expresses doubt regarding a very good type of ink, namely ink that shines, which is called "glanz," and he wrote that its nature is such that when the writing dries well after a day or two, the letters peel and jump off the paper, and it is like something that does not endure; see there. But it is not so, for behold, its impression is certainly always recognizable, and furthermore, it never passes away on its own but only due to an external cause, and this is not relevant to "not enduring." We have never heard this, and on the contrary, the scribes seek out such ink even for the writing of Sifrei Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, and we have seen Sifrei Torah from many years ago and the ink still shines, and we do not know the reason for the one who doubts this.

He further wrote in the name of Seder HaGet that there are those who are even more stringent, saying that the scribe should read each letter first before he writes, as with scrolls. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote to read each letter is an excessive stringency and there is no reason for such reading; for even in a Sefer Torah one need not read the letters, but only read each word, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 274. And perhaps this is a scribal error and it should say "each word," and so it is in the Seder HaGet of the Rabbi, R. Michel R. Josephs, which is printed in the Shulchan Aruch after the conclusion of the laws; see there in letter 78. And in Yoreh Deah there it was explained that even when one writes from another book placed before him, he nevertheless must read each word before he writes it. However, in Orach Chaim siman 32 regarding tefillin, it is explained that when one writes by heart he must read each word beforehand, but not when he writes from a text, and the reason is because he is fluent in them (Magen Avraham subsection 42). According to this, in gittin, which they write from another get, one should also be lenient, for certainly the scribe is fluent in the text of the get. But in a get, this entire law is merely a stringency, for the witnesses read the get before their signing, and also the Rabbi reads it beforehand and after the giving, and if there were any omission they would notice it. And since this is not by the letter of the law but only due to stringency, it is certainly proper to be stringent ab initio that the scribe read each word before its writing, even when he writes from another get, and such is the custom.

One writes it with gallnut water, provided that the parchment is not treated with gallnuts, because the gallnut water is not discernible upon it, and if one wrote it, it is not a get. So too with anything similar to this; thus wrote the poskim. And the explanation of the matter is that behold, the ink that the scribes make is from gallnut water, and from vitriol, which is copper-water, and from resin, which is gum, and they boil them well. And some also add the soot that adheres to vessels, which they call "russ," and this is the standard ink in the Mishnah as I wrote in section 1, which in the German language is "kieg-russ," as is written in the Seder HaGet of the Ram that we brought. And it is known that the primary factor in the permanence of the writing is the gallnut water, which they call "galls." However, it is not black in itself, and when they write with it on a white object, the writing will not be discernible. Therefore, if the parchment is treated with gallnuts, it is white and it is not writing with gallnut water alone; but when it is not treated with gallnuts, it is black and the writing is discernible. And so too with anything similar to these matters. And in the Gemara there, it considers "tria" water, and Rashi explained: rainwater; and another version: water in which they soak a fruit that is similar to gallnuts. Thus far his words.

It appears clear to me that on our paper, it is not considered writing at all with gallnut water alone, for our paper is white and gallnut water alone is not discernible upon it as it is upon gall-treated parchment. And one should not say that specifically on gall-treated parchment it is not discernible because gall-treatment does not add upon gall-treatment—and seemingly the language of the Gemara also indicates this, as it says there that one cannot put gallnut water upon gallnut water, and the language of the Tur indicates this as well—nevertheless, go after the reasoning, and the senses testify to this; and it requires further study as a matter of law. And know that in the Seder Get of Maharam that we mentioned, sign 32, he wrote that when one writes the get with gallnut water, the parchment should not be gall-treated even if they also mix in the other mentioned things. Thus far his words. And these are nothing but words of wonder, for behold, the senses testify that when one mixes the gum and the copperas it becomes very black and is discernible even on the whitest of white parchment. And behold, our parchments are better and more processed than gall-treatment, and nevertheless we write a Sefer Torah with such ink and it is well discerned. And so I found one of the great authorities who wrote this with simplicity (Noda BiYehudah, end of siman 85; and the words of the R.S. can be explained according to Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot Gittin 19a, but we do not rule accordingly, see there and examine carefully):

We learn in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 3): "And he shall write" and not "and he shall engrave"; "and he shall write" and not "the dripper"; "and he shall write" and not "the pourer." Now, engraving will be explained before us. "Dripper" is called one who made dots in the form of the letters, and there is a dispute there, for one says that when he joined the dots—meaning that he passed the quill over them and they became complete letters—it is kosher; and one says that even in such a case they are invalid, for this is not writing since at the outset he did not write in the actual form of the letter. And "pourer" is explained there as one who pours the writing and it is absorbed into the paper and the letters are not recognizable from the outside. Now, the poskim wrote the law of engraving, and likewise the law of "pourer," for they wrote several laws of this sort, that the writing must be recognizable. But the law of "dripper" they did not mention at all, and I am wonderstruck, for there is no explicit disputant in our Shas regarding this. And perhaps they hold that since the Shas brings the Baraita of "and he shall write" and not "and he shall engrave" (20a) and did not bring that of "dripper," which in the Yerushalmi is in the same Baraita, it implies that the Shas does not hold so. And as for not bringing "pourer," it is superfluous, for previously the Shas explained this law there, see there. And there is further proof from that which we establish regarding a get when they do not know how to sign, that they tear a blank paper for them and fill the tears with ink, as is written in siman 130; and all the more so in such a case it is called writing. And even though in a get they permitted this because of agunah, nevertheless, at any rate it is proven that in such a case it is kosher post facto at least, for "dripper" is better than this. And the Yerushalmi indeed, regarding the law of tearing blank paper for them, challenges this: "Is this not the first writing?" and answers: "When they widen the tears for them and the witnesses do not fill the entire width of the tear," see there (Tosafot 9b brings this, see there). Therefore, it rightly invalidates "dripper." But our Shas, which validates even without widening, all the more so "dripper" is kosher. And it requires further study for the halacha; and certainly if such writing occurred, it would be a doubtful get when he gave it to her.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 4, law 7: One who tears into leather the form of writing, or who marked upon leather the form of writing, behold this is kosher. Thus far his words. And in the Yerushalmi there, the version is: One who tears into leather like the form of writing is kosher; one who marks upon leather like the form of writing is pasul. And the Rambam himself in the laws of Shabbat, chapter 11, also wrote so: One who tears is liable and one who marks is exempt. And the Rashba and the Ran, of blessed memory, already wondered about him regarding that which he validates in a get when he marked upon the leather. And in the Tosefta, the version is the opposite, that tearing is pasul and marking is kosher, and certainly it is corrupted. And all that they wrote regarding the words of the Rambam does not emerge well. And in my humble opinion, it appears clearly from the words of the Tur that an error fell into the books of the Rambam, for behold, the Tur brought in his name: One who tears into leather etc. or who marked upon a tablet etc., see there. And this is the engraving that will be explained.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5: One who tears the form of writing into leather, it is kosher; but one who marks the form of writing on leather, it is pasul. And there are those who say the opposite, and there is one who rules both are kosher. Thus far his words. And the "those who say the opposite" is according to the version of the Tosefta, and it has already been explained that the primary view is according to the version of the Yerushalmi (the Gra). And "there is one who rules both are kosher," this is according to the version of the Rambam. The primary view is like the first opinion; nevertheless, in practice, in all of these cases it is a doubtful get.

That which is written in the Torah, "and he shall write for her a scroll of severance," the same applies to engraving on wood and stone, which is also called "writing." For regarding the Tablets, the language of writing is written several times, yet they were engraved on the stones, as it is written, "engraved upon the Tablets." And in Parshat Tavo, regarding the stones that they erected across the Jordan, it is written, "And you shall write upon the stones." And even though it is possible that there it was writing and not engraving, nevertheless, certainly regarding stones, engraving is superior to writing, for with writing it is impossible to have "perfect writing," whereas it is not so with engraving, as is proven in the Gemara Menachot (34a), see there. And it appears that regarding a get, only engraving is valid and not writing upon stones; for even though we do not require "perfect writing" for a get, as will be explained, nevertheless we require something that endures, as has been explained, and writing upon stones is not something that endures, as is proven there in the Gemara (see there in Tosafot, starting with the words "And you shall write etc.," that perfect writing is not applicable to stones because they do not endure. Thus far his words).

Engraving is valid for a get, whether on stone or on metal plates, provided that he engraves the body of the letter, whether he engraved it from the inside so that the letters are sunken and the area around the letters is raised, or whether he engraved the letter from the outside in a manner where the letters are raised from the inside and the area around the letters is sunken; for there is no difference whether the letter is sunken or raised. All this is when he performs an action on the body of the letter itself, but if he does nothing to the letters, only performing an action around the letters and within their interiors so that the letter remains of its own accord, the get is void. This is what they said in the Gemara (20a) that "engraving the interiors" is invalid and "engraving the thighs" is valid. "Engraving the thighs" is when he performs an action on the letter itself, and "engraving the interiors" is the term used when he performs an action on its interior and its exterior and not on the letter itself. Just as "engraving the thighs" is valid whether the letter is sunken or whether it is raised, so too "engraving the interiors" is invalid whether he sank the interiors of the letters from the inside and the letters remained raised, or whether he sank the interiors from the outside and the interiors remained raised from the inside and the letters are sunken. Even if he made a seal and engraved the get with the seal in the manner that minters do, this too is called "engraving the interiors" and it is not a get according to the Torah, for it is not called writing at all (ibid.).

And since chak tochot is invalid, therefore if a drop of ink fell into the letter and the letter is not recognizable, one cannot remove the ink and repair the letter, as it would be chak tochot; for since the letter was nullified by the drop of ink, when he removes the ink and the letter remains, he is performing an action within its interior and not on the letter itself. And so he wrote in Orach Chaim siman 32 regarding a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzah, see there. And there is no difference between moist ink and dry ink, unlike one who wishes to be lenient regarding moist ink; so have the majority of the poskim agreed. And even if the drop fell after the letter was completed (Beit Shmuel), when it is in the toref and the form of the letter was changed; but when the form of the letter was not changed, he may erase the drop of ink, as it is not called chak tochot since the letter was recognizable (Beit Yosef). And see what I wrote in section 19.

Our teacher, the Rema, in section 8, wrote that there are those who are stringent even if the letter is recognizable, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. This is for the first instance, but after the fact it is kosher in a time of pressing need or agunah (Acharonim). There is no proper reason for this stringency even for the first instance, for since the letter is recognizable, this has no relevance at all to chak tochot. It appears that the stringency for the first instance is because of the requirement of being surrounded by parchment, and even though in a get it is not a disqualifying factor, nevertheless, for the first instance one requires being surrounded by parchment even in a get (and so it appears from the Noda BiYehudah, siman 85, who explained it thus; see there). And the truth is that from the source of the law (Maharik, shoresh 98), the intention is clarified that this too relates to chak tochot. The explanation is not, for example, that a drop fell on the letter while the letter remains in its proper form, for it is obvious that there is no reason to be stringent in such a case. Rather, the intention is, for example, where the legs of the heh or the kof slightly touched their roofs, and it is recognizable that the touching occurred afterward, and the heh and the kof are recognizable; but in any event, according to the touching, the letter is not in its proper form. This is what he calls "even if the letter is recognizable," meaning it is recognizable that this was not from its initial writing, and therefore one certainly must be stringent because of chak tochot. The summary of the matter is that "the letter is not recognizable" is what it is called when a drop fell and removed the entire form of the letter, and "recognizable" is what it is called when the letter is well recognized but its flaw is visible to the eye as having been caused by the falling of ink and not from the initial writing. However, in any event, since to repair it so that a letter remains requires scraping the drop, it is like chak tochot, and one should not be lenient except in a time of pressing need when the get has already been given, or in a case of agunah even when it has not yet been given.

And for this reason, that when the letter is recognizable it is only a mere stringency, therefore there is one who wrote that if a drop of ink fell and the form of the letter was not changed, and the scribe hurried before the ink was absorbed into the paper and sucked the ink with his tongue and wiped it from the get, and it is not recognizable that there was an erasure upon it, one may be lenient even ab initio; for even if it had dried, it would not have changed the form of the letter and he would have been permitted by law to scrape it. Therefore, when it has not yet dried and he licked it with his tongue, one may be lenient even ab initio. But if, when it would dry, it would change the form of the letter, one should not be lenient with licking while it is moist (Ghet Pashut). And all this is specifically when black ink fell into the letter, but if something fell that is not so black, such as coffee or the like, where even upon its falling the writing is recognizable but it merely detracts from its appearance, there is no concern in this, and he wipes it and that is sufficient (ibid.). However, if according to the appearance of the eye it will look like an erasure, one should be stringent, for we are stringent regarding erasures in a get, as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

There is no remedy for a get that was disqualified when a letter was ruined, for while in a sefer Torah there is a remedy to erase and write over the place of the erasure, in a get one does not write over an erasure due to concern of forgery, as it is forbidden for there to be any erasure or blurring in a get, even between one letter and another, due to concern of forgery (Beit Shmuel, subsection 11). However, in a case of iggun, there is a remedy for any error, even a complete error, to scrape and write over the erasure; and even for us, who do not validate any erasure, nevertheless it is kosher in a pressing situation (ibid.). And so the Taz did in a practical ruling in a pressing situation (ibid.). And even if he noticed the error after the writing of the entire get, nevertheless he may erase and write; and even though it is not in order, there is no hindrance in a get if it is not in order, for only in tefillin and mezuzot is "in order" a hindrance (ibid.). It is incumbent upon the Rav arranging the get to understand if there is a pressing situation regarding this get or not. Regarding the primary law of a missing letter, see what I wrote in siman 126, section 61 (and examine carefully).

And know that we wrote in section 15 that if the entire letter was ruined and its form changed, if one removes the ink and the letter remains as it was before, it is considered hak tochot; thus all the poskim agreed. However, regarding that which some say (Bach) that the get is void from the Torah, many disagree with this, for from the Responsa of the Rashba (siman 611) it is explained according to the Yerushalmi of Megillah that specifically before it became a letter it is hak tochot from the Torah, but if it was written according to its law and afterwards through a ruin its form changed, and they removed the ruin and the letter remained as it was before, this is not a disqualification from the Torah (Beit Meir). And besides this, it is a far-fetched matter that from the Torah the get would be void through the lack of a letter or even a word, and even in the toref it would be void from the Torah, for behold there are several repetitive phrases in a get, and it was explained in siman 126 section 61, see there.

Some say that if a drop of wax fell upon the letter or inside the letter, even though the letter is not recognizable, one may scrape the wax and remove it, and there is no concern of hak tochot here (Pri Chadash and Magen Avraham in siman 32, subsection 23). And there is one who hesitates and is inclined to be stringent, for this too is like hak tochot (Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 13 in the name of Ginat Veradim). And so it implies from what was written in Orach Chaim siman 340, that one who removes wax from a writing tablet and there is space to write two letters is liable, see there. And it appears to me that when the wax is still soft, one may scrape it, for this is nothing more than a mere covering, and it is not similar to wet ink; for when ink falls upon the letter, even when it is wet, nevertheless it all becomes one, which is not the case with wax. However, when the wax has dried and consequently nullified the letter, if so, when one scrapes it, it is similar to hak tochot, and it requires further study.

If a drop of ink fell on a letter and appears as if it is part of the body of the letter, and the letter is still recognizable to a child who is neither wise nor foolish, but the roof of the letter or the leg of the letter became thick, there is no disqualification in this. For even if he leaves it so, it is kosher, as there is no measure for the quantity of the letter; and consequently, he may also repair it and scrape its thickness, not like the one who wishes to disqualify even in such a case (Pri Chadash). And similarly, when any small point whatsoever protrudes from the body of the letter in a manner that does not change the form of the letter at all, but rather the point protrudes, it is also kosher (ibid.), and he may scrape the point.

There are letters that do not require scraping for their correction, but only to add a little to the form of the letter, such as kafin, beitin, daltin, reishin, and others; this is not chak tochot (Rivash, siman 66). And it is simple that if one erred and wrote a beit in place of a kaf, or a dalet in place of a reish, he adds to the thickness and makes it like a circle; and similarly the reverse, he adds to the thickness and makes a corner. And this disqualification is only in tefillin and mezuzot when he has already written afterward, because it is not in their order, but not in a sefer Torah and certainly not in a get (Pri Chadash). However, if he should scrape from the thickness of the letter to make a circle so that it resembles a reish, or to make it with a corner so that it resembles a dalet, it is certainly chak tochot. But when he adds to its thickness, it is the way of writing. But if a drop of ink fell into the beit and it appears like a pei, or its form was ruined, and similarly any other letter whose form was ruined even if it did not change into another letter, it is disqualified, and there is no remedy to scrape the ink, for this is literally chak tochot (Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 32).

If one made a word divided such that it appears like two words, and on the side of the division was the letter shin, there is a remedy: he should erase one of the three heads and make another head, extending it slightly in a manner that it no longer appears divided. However, if he first made a fourth head for the shin and extended it, and afterwards erased one of the three heads, it is considered hak tochot, unlike the one who validates it even in such a case (Ginat Veradim and Pri Chadash). Similarly, if he wrote two words as one word, if there is a superfluous letter between them, he should erase it and they will appear as two words (ibid.). And so it appears that he can scrape from the thickness of the letter to make it thin so that it appears as two words, and likewise the opposite, to add to its thickness so that it appears as one word, for behold, there is no measure for the thickness or thinness of letters. Furthermore, this is not a matter of hak tochot, for the letter remains as before, only that it was thickened or made thin; and also the intention is not for the essence of the letter, but rather to bring it closer to the second letter or to distance it from it (it appears to me).

There is one who wishes to say that if the leg of the heh is attached to the roof by a very thin hair-breadth, and a child who is neither wise nor foolish still reads it as a heh, one may be lenient to separate the hair-breadth. Many and great ones disagreed with him, for when we see a change in the letter, it does not depend on the reading of the child (and see what I wrote in siman 126, section 60, and look closely), and the letter does not depend on its thickness or its thinness, for what difference is it to me if it is thick or if it is thin? It is pasul (Radak, Pri Chadash, and Eliyah Rabbah). Similarly, two letters that were attached together in a manner that the form of one letter was completely ruined, there is no remedy to scrape the attachment, for this is "chak tochot." Rather, in a Sefer Torah there is a remedy to scrape the leg of the letter completely and return and write it. But in a get, where it is forbidden to write on an erasure unless it is a place of pressing need and agunah, there is no remedy for this, and he should write another get if there is no pressing need in this. Similarly, when he needed to make an open mem and his hand was drawn and it was closed, he cannot scrape the attachment, for it would be "chak tochot." Rather, he must scrape the entire nose, and he does not need to erase the entire mem (Beit Shmuel, subsection 13). And in a Sefer Torah, he returns and writes on the erasure, but in a get there is no remedy unless it was a time of pressing need, as I have written. And there are those who were stringent regarding the "toref" even in a place of agunah, but one should be lenient in a place of agunah and a time of pressing need (see Beit Shmuel ibid. and Turei Zahav).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 16: The legs of the letters heh and kof that touch, one must disqualify even post facto; however, if a child can read it, there are those who validate in a case of iggun. And ab initio it is forbidden to separate them with a knife, but rather he should write another get, and specifically when it is not a case of iggun; but in a case of pressing need where there is concern for iggun, he should repair it according to the opinion of the Rav. And see Orach Chaim siman 32 regarding how he should repair it, and see siman 154 section 45. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that when the legs of the heh and the kof touch, it is not effective even if a child can read it, as has been written, for as long as the form of the letter is not upon it as it was transmitted to Moses at Sinai, the name of a letter is not upon it (Beit Shmuel). However, in a case of iggun, when a child can read it and the get was already given without correction, it is kosher in a pressing situation, for we rely on the reading of the child. And even those who are stringent in section 24 admit in a case of iggun and a pressing situation where it is impossible to obtain another get. Furthermore, he says that if the get has not yet been given, also initially, if there is no concern of iggun, it is not effective even if he scrapes away the entire leg and returns to write it properly; for although in a Sefer Torah this is effective, nevertheless in a get, where it is forbidden to write upon an erasure, this is not effective. And certainly to separate the contact with a knife is forbidden due to the reason of chak tochot. However, if there is a concern of iggun and it is necessary to correct this get, he should not separate it with a knife due to the reason of chak tochot, but rather he should scrape away the entire leg as has been written in Orach Chaim siman 32. And even though he must write the leg upon the erasure, and now we do not practice to validate any erasure in a get as will be explained, nevertheless in a case of iggun it is a get without validation; for it is permitted to write on something that can be forged when he gives it to her with witnesses of delivery, as has been written in siman 124. And if so, all the disqualifications due to concern of forgery, when he gives it to her with witnesses of delivery, are kosher in a case of iggun. And all the stringencies mentioned in this siman due to concern of forgery are only when there is no case of iggun here (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 25), and even in the essential part of the get it should be validated as has been written in siman 154.

And even before the signatures he cannot repair except in a case of iggun (Beit Shmuel, subsection 24). And even though regarding the touching of letters he can repair before the signatures even not in a case of iggun, as will be explained, nevertheless, a touching in the heh and the kof, which is a repair to the body of the letters, he cannot repair even before the signatures not in a case of iggun (ibid.). Although in a Sefer Torah he can repair, and likewise in tefillin and mezuzot where he scrapes the entire leg, a get is different, for it is forbidden to write over a scraping or over an erasure, as has been written (ibid.). And according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, which will be explained, even regarding the touching of letters he cannot repair not in a case of iggun; however, regarding a touching one should be lenient in practice even not in a case of iggun, but not regarding the body of the letter (ibid.).

The Tur wrote: There are those who require making zivunim in a get on the letters shaatnez getz, and in the Sefer HaTerumah he wrote that it is not necessary and one should refrain from making them. Thus far his words. For since it is not the custom to make tagin, one should not change the custom so as not to cast aspersions on earlier gittin. Furthermore, there are many scribes who would make them like sticks upon the letters because they do not know how to make them properly, and through this they will ruin the script such that the letter will not be legible. Therefore, it is good to desist and act according to the custom. And so wrote the Semag (Beit Yosef). And so it was ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, section 7, that if there is one who wishes to add zivunim, one should prevent him; see there. And if one made tagin in a time of great need or to prevent iggun, the get is kosher (Chelkat Mechokek, subsection 10). And when it is not a time of great need, one must write another get because of the aspersions on earlier gittin. And know that the concern of casting aspersions on earlier gittin is only regarding a matter that is merely a stringency, but if according to the core of the law it appears necessary to change, we do not pay heed to the concern of casting aspersions on the earlier ones (Beit Shmuel, subsection 10).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: It is the custom to be stringent that the letters be surrounded by parchment, and if there are attached letters, one should scrape between them to separate them. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that according to the law, there is no requirement for being surrounded by parchment in a get, for in a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, because it is written "and you shall write them," we require perfect writing; therefore, every letter must be surrounded by parchment, but not in a get, which does not require perfect writing. Nevertheless, they practiced stringency even in a get because the letter does not appear beautiful when one letter is attached to another. Therefore, we are lenient when a letter is attached to another to separate them, and there is no issue of hak tochot in this, for he does not touch the body of the letter. Also, below, we require ab initio to be surrounded by parchment as in a Sefer Torah. And that which we said, that according to the law it does not require being surrounded by parchment and is kosher even if a letter is attached to another, this is when the form of the letter was not changed thereby and a child can read it; but when he cannot read it because the form of the letter changed, according to the law it is invalid (the Maggid Mishneh chapter 4 and Chelkat Mechokek subsection 6). However, it is not common that through the attachment of a letter to another the form would change, and therefore they did not write the law of the form of the letter changing in the attachment of a letter to another (and the precision of the Beit Shmuel subsection 7 is answered). But if it changed, the law of ink falling into the letter applies to this, for he cannot remove the ink because it would be hak tochot when it changed, and all the poskim agree on this (and the words of the Beit Shmuel require further study).

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that one should not separate the letters if they are touching, and such is the custom; and there are those who are lenient in a time of pressing need to repair them before the witnesses sign when the husband commands to repair. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that there are those who say even if the form of the letter has not changed and a child can read it, nevertheless one should not separate them except in a time of pressing need. And it is not similar to a Sefer Torah, where even initially one may scrape it; that is in order that it should not be necessary to bury a sacred object, but a get has no sanctity and they should write another (Chelkat Mechokek). And this is merely a stringency, and therefore in a time of pressing need one may separate them. However, this is before the signatures, for after they have signed with a disqualification, what benefit is the repair (ibid. subsection 9)? And without the command of the husband, they also cannot repair, for they have already performed their agency. Yet this is an excessive stringency, for one way or the other: if it is valid without the repair, then it requires no repair at all; and if it is not valid without the repair, then the scribe has not yet performed his agency and can repair even without his command, as written in siman 122 (the Gra, subsection 8). And it is possible that his intention is that certainly the scribe can repair even without his command, only another person cannot repair without his command, as the husband did not make the other person an agent (and so it appears from Chelkat Mechokek subsection 9, who wrote: but without the command of the husband, who can repair the get besides the scribe?). However, in truth, from the wording of the Rosh in a Responsum, it is proven that even after the signatures and without the command of the husband, one should repair in a case of agunah when the form of the letter has not changed. And similarly, they are permitted to deliver it to her without any repair at all; therefore, in a get sent to the place of the woman, one may rely on this (Chelkat Mechokek ibid.).

The core words of our teacher, the Rema, who was stringent in this matter, are very puzzling, for regarding the touching of the legs of the "Heh" and the "Kof," which by law is forbidden, he nevertheless was lenient in a case of iggun as he wrote in section 25. Therefore, there is one who says that an error fell into his words, and it should say: "And some are lenient in a time of pressing need or to correct beforehand etc." And he means to say that in a time of pressing need one may be entirely lenient, either to give it as it is without correction, or that someone may correct it even without the command of the husband; and if it is not a time of pressing need, they should correct it before the signatures and with the command of the husband (Tuv Gittin). And whatever his intention may be, for practical action the great later authorities (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel and Tuv Gittin) agreed that in a time of pressing need it is kosher in any manner, either to give it to her without any correction at all, or for whoever wishes to correct it even without his command and after the signatures. And all this is when the forms of the letters have not been changed.

And know that in every place where the poskim wrote to correct before the signatures, one should ab initio correct even before they finished writing "according to the law of Moses and Israel," so that it should not be lacking an act between the writing and the giving (Taz). And it is only a mere stringency, for "lacking another act" refers to lacking the act of the writing itself; however, ab initio it is proper that the scribe, before he writes "according to the law of Moses and Israel," should look at the get for what needs to be corrected.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that it is not called hak tochot unless the entire letter is made in this manner, but if it still requires repair for it to be a kosher letter, etc. Thus far his words. And it is a wonder that he was so lenient, for regarding the touching of letters, which has no basis for this according to the law, he was stringent; and similarly, where a drop of ink fell into the letter and the letter is recognizable, he was stringent as has been written; yet regarding hak tochot, which is a disqualification of the Torah, he was so lenient. And what difference is there to me if it is the entire letter or if it is part of the letter? For it is not considered a letter until it is entirely according to its proper form. And in truth, there is one who disagrees on this and holds that even part of it disqualifies (Pri Chadash and as is implied by the Radach in Responsa 61, see there). And it appears to me that even our teacher, the Rema, was not speaking regarding the actual law of hak tochot, and these words of his were printed in error in section 4 on the law of hak tochot, but this belongs to section 8 regarding the law of a drop of ink that fell into the letter. For in that case, he correctly said that since the letter was written according to its proper form, but through the falling of the ink it was nullified, by the removal of the ink it returns to being a letter. And we have already explained in section 19 that according to the Torah, since it was written according to its proper form, this is not hak tochot but only by rabbinic decree, see there. And according to this, certainly if a drop of ink fell and ruined the letter, and even when he removed the ink it was still not repaired and he must complete the writing of the letter itself, this is not a matter of hak tochot.

Some say that according to this, if a small amount of ink fell, one may add ink and make a yod or a vav from the ink that fell and from the ink that he added, and it is not considered hak tochot; for even though the beginning of the letter is through the ink that fell, nevertheless, as long as one must assist in the completion of the letter, it is kosher (Beit Shmuel, subsection 5, in the name of the Beit Yosef). And there are those who disagree regarding this (Pri Chadash), for there is no difference between a part of a letter and the entire letter; and similarly regarding "not for its sake," when one wrote part of a letter not for its sake, it is also invalid (ibid.). And also regarding the previous law, according to what we explained, it is not comparable, for there the letter was previously made in a kosher manner, which is not the case here (it appears to me).

He further wrote there that some say that ab initio one should be stringent not to write with an iron quill so as not to come to engraving. Thus far his words. And even though there is no concern in this even if he comes to engraving, for he engraves the letter itself and it is valid as has been explained, nevertheless there is a concern lest he come to engraving the interiors (Beit Shmuel). And furthermore, that ab initio it is better not to engrave at all but rather to write (the Gra). And furthermore, perhaps the paper will be thin and the point of the quill will engrave the paper and pierce the letter with a perforated hole, and part of the letters will be in holes and part of them in ink, and sometimes the crack and the hole will be adjacent to the letters and they will not be surrounded by parchment (Ginat Veradim). And the matter is simple that in a case of pressing need when there is no other quill, one should not prevent the get because of this, for there is no reason for this according to the law and it is merely a stringency.

And behold, in no place do they write with an iron pen. However, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 22, that there is one who wrote that one should be careful not to write the get with a quill of a feather but rather with one of a reed, thus far his words; and this we have not seen nor heard, and it is almost an impossibility that the writing would come out well. And the Be'er HaGolah wrote that a certain pious man in Vilna commanded to write with a reed and it did not succeed for him. And also in Yoreh Deah siman 271 he wrote so regarding a Sefer Torah, and even with a Sefer Torah they do not practice so. However, in the days of the sages of the Shas, it appears that they wrote a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot with a reed (Taanit 20b).

Many of the great authorities agreed that a printed get, where they intended for his name and for her name and gave her the get, is kosher, for printing is engraving, and engraving of the letters themselves is kosher as has been written. Furthermore, this is not engraving but actual writing, for what difference is there to me if one presses the pen onto the paper or if one presses the paper onto the lead letters (Beit Shmuel and Taz in Yoreh Deah siman 271, and Pri Chadash, and Get Pashut, and Tuv Gittin). And it is simple that this is specifically when the printer is an adult Israelite and intends for his name and for her name, and if any one of these is missing, it is not a get. However, the signatures of the witnesses are not kosher through the act of printing, for they must recognize their actual handwriting, and therefore they are obligated to write in actual script (Pri Chadash). And it appears to me that even though a get is kosher even with engraving as has been written, nevertheless, if the husband commanded the scribe to write and he engraved it, or vice versa, it is a change in his agency and is invalid. And even though in the language of the Torah writing and engraving are one—for on the Tablets and the Tzitz there was engraving and the language of writing is written—nevertheless, in the language of men it is not so. And nevertheless, regarding the law, there is doubt in this, as it can be said that this is not a change, for the husband is not particular between one or the other, and this is like what our sages, of blessed memory, said in other matters, "he is merely pointing out a location to him." Therefore, regarding the law, it requires further study and one should follow the stringent view.

From the perspective of logical reasoning, it appears that there is no doubt that even though engraving the letter itself is called writing, as has been explained, nevertheless, to embroider or to weave or to sew letters in a get is not writing at all. And you should know this, for the Torah called them in the work of the Mishkan "the work of an embroiderer" and "the work of a weaver," and embroidery is the work of a needle (Yoma 72b). And it is not similar to engraving, for the Torah called engraving "writing" in several places, as I have written, and so it is implied in Gittin (20a), see there. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 23 wrote: If one embroidered or wove or made the letters of the get with the work of a needle, some say it is not writing. Thus far his words. And it implies explicitly that there are those who say it is writing. And he wrote in his great book that from the words of Rashi in Gittin there, it is implied that the fact that embroidery is not writing is only when it is placed upon the garment and its two ends are tucked in, but with embroidery in the garment itself, it is called writing, see there. And so it is somewhat implied from what he wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 283, that just as it is forbidden to write verses, so too it is forbidden to carve in wood or in gold or to embroider on garments, see there, for he brought this from a responsum of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And according to this, if such a case occurred in practice, it would be a doubtful get (and so wrote the Pri Chadash). And certainly, it is nothing more than a mere stringency, for from where would we derive to compare this to writing? And that which they were stringent regarding the embroidery of verses is because of the disgrace to holiness. However, according to what Rashi explained in Yoma there, that in embroidery they first prepare the form by means of dye, it would certainly be a doubtful get because of the dye (and with this, the difficulty of the Get Pashut on the Beit Yosef is settled, see there and examine it closely). And because the matter is a remote possibility, that they would weave or embroider a get for his sake and for her sake, there is no need to elaborate on this; and in practice, it is simple that if such a case occurred, one should be stringent in all manners.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 15: There shall be no blurring in it, and they shall not write upon an erasure. Thus far their words. And the reason is due to the concern of forgery. Therefore, one should be careful that no spray or any moisture falls upon the paper, for when one writes upon this, it appears like an erasure. And when rain falls upon the writing, they do not give the get, for it becomes black and is like something that can be forged. And likewise, one should not write upon an erasure for this reason (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel). Therefore, if a fly comes and drags the ink, one should not erase it, but rather leave it as it is if the letter was not ruined. And there should not be between word and word, or between letter and letter, any erased matter or anything that can be forged. Therefore, they do not write upon any scraping (ibid.). And one should not write upon any hole that the ink does not pass over, for it will appear like an erasure or like a scraping. And if the hole was at the side of the letter and not in the letter itself, there is no concern in this (Chelkat Mechokek).

However, all these matters are not according to the strict law, for it was explained in siman 124 that it is permitted to write on something that can be forged when there are witnesses to the delivery before us, and only ab initio should one be careful lest the witnesses to the delivery die (Beit Shmuel). Therefore, in a case of iggun, it is valid (ibid.), and similarly, if the get has already been given, another get is not required (it appears to me), as it is merely a stringency lest the witnesses to the delivery die as I have written. In truth, even for this there is a remedy, to ratify the erasures and scrapings, but even in this they were accustomed to be stringent not to make any ratification in a get. The reason is because we do not change the language of the get from what was customary, and also because it is necessary to write twelve lines and no more, and if they ratify what is written upon the erasure and the scraping, he will be forced to add to the language and to the lines (Bach and Gidulei Terumah). Therefore, the supervisor must be careful and understand that if during the time it takes to write another get it is possible that the get will be nullified and she will remain an agunah, one should not be stringent in all this, since according to the strict law one may write on something that can be forged.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 19: A get in which a letter or a word was erased, or that he suspended between the lines—if it is from the tofes of the get, it is kosher; but if it is from the toreph, it is not a get. If he went back and specified at the end of the get that a certain letter is suspended or over an erasure, even if it is from the toreph of the get, it is kosher like other documents. The authentication should be written before "according to the law of Moses and Israel." Now it is the custom to be stringent not to authenticate an erasure in a get. Thus far his words. We have already explained the reason for this; and in a case of iggun or post facto, it is kosher even if it is not authenticated, since there are witnesses to the delivery (Beit Shmuel). It has already been explained that the date is also considered part of the toreph (ibid.). Know that the tofes which pertains to the continuity of the subject matter of the get, without which there is no connection between the words, it is obvious that this is also included in the toreph. Also, regarding the toreph, that which is not a hindrance by Torah law or rabbinic law, such as the doubling of the language, is included in the tofes; so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in a responsum (siman 9). The general rule of the matter is that the place of the names of the man and the woman is called toreph, as well as the connection of words that proves he is divorcing his wife, and also the place of "behold you are permitted to any man," and the place of the date, and the place of "from me" according to the opinion of several poskim, and such is the primary view (Pri Chadash). It has already been explained that we consider the date as toreph for stringency and not for leniency. Similarly, it appears to me regarding the place of the writing of the get and the place of the standing of the man and the woman, that we should consider them as toreph for stringency and not for leniency. However, from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 123, section 3, it implies explicitly that they are not at all relevant to the toreph; see there, and it requires further study.

The Rambam in chapter 4, and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: that writing must be clearly explained until children are able to read it—children who are neither wise nor foolish but average—and the writing must not be crooked or confused, lest one letter resemble another letter and the matter be changed. If there were two possible meanings in it, or if there were a crookedness or confusion in its writing such that it is possible to read another matter from it, since it is read for the matter of divorce and there is a meaning of divorce in it, it is pasul. Thus far his words. That is to say, this is not a void get since the matter of divorce is also read in it and there is a meaning of divorce in it (Beit Shmuel, subsection 30). And the Tur brought the words of the Rambam in this language: since it is read for another matter, even though there is a meaning of divorce in it and it contains the matter of divorce, it is pasul. Thus far his words.

And it appears in my humble opinion that there is a great practical difference between the two wordings. For behold, the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote there regarding the wordings that one must be careful with in the text of the get—concerning the lengthening of the vavs and other wordings that will be explained in siman 126—that if one changed them, it is a disqualified get; see there in law 14. But the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, and likewise the Tur there, wrote that this is only when the husband contests it, and it will be explained there with the help of Heaven. Therefore, the Rambam, according to his reasoning, wrote: "Since it can be read regarding the matter of the divorce, etc.," meaning that even though its primary sense is proven to be regarding the matter of divorce, since it can also be understood regarding another matter, it is disqualified. But the Tur, according to his reasoning, wrote: "Since it can be read regarding another matter, etc.," meaning that its primary sense is explained regarding another matter, even though it also contains an implication of divorce, it is disqualified. This is to exclude the grammatical nuances that will be explained there, for even when one changed them, since it is nevertheless explained that its primary sense is regarding the matter of divorce, it is not disqualified unless the husband contests it (only that if so, he should not have written this in the wording of the Rambam, and it is possible that his version was thus, and it requires further study).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 18: The get must be readable in the place of its delivery to a child who is neither wise nor foolish; and there is one who says that even in the place of its writing it must be readable as such. Thus far his words. And this is certainly so, that regarding the change of names, the place of delivery is primary; however, even regarding the change of names, one must also write according to the place of writing, as was written in siman 129 (Beit Shmuel). Furthermore, how shall the witnesses sign upon a get that is not readable to them? And what of it that it is readable in another place (Chelkat Mechokek)? Therefore, whenever it is not readable to a child in the place of writing, it is certainly pasul (ibid.), and all the more so if it is not readable in the place of delivery. And there are those who wish to say that regarding this matter, the primary factor is the place of writing, and it is not comparable to the change of names where the place of delivery is primary; for there, when they write only according to how he is called in the place of writing, it is not known at all in the place of delivery who the divorcer is, and they will think it is another man. This is not the case regarding a change of letters, for it is known that every single province has some change in the form of the letters from that of another province, and when they see this form in the place of delivery, they know that in the place of writing they write thus; this is not a change at all, and on the contrary, one must write ab initio according to the place of writing (Get Pashut). Nevertheless, in practice, it is difficult to rule so, for ultimately, if it is impossible to read it in the place of delivery, it is certainly also a pasul get. And that which requires writing according to the place of writing, this is when it is also possible to read it in the place of delivery, but the form is according to the place of writing; in this, one certainly writes according to the form of the place of writing. But if it is impossible to read at all in the place of delivery, it is a pasul get. Therefore, it is necessary that in both places it shall be possible to read it (as appears to me clear).

When showing it to a child who is neither wise nor foolish, one does not need to cover the sides of the letter in which there is a doubt; rather, one shows it to him as is, and if he can read it, it is kosher. Some say that one requires a child who knows the letters but does not know the combination of words, and some say that even one who knows how to read that word is required (Tosafot, chapter 5). And so it is proven in the Shas (Menachot 29b, and see Chiddushei HaMachatzit HaShekel, subsection 34). However, if we see that the form of the letter does not remain in its proper state, it is pasul even though the child reads it correctly, as was written in Orach Chaim siman 32, for the reading of the child is only effective regarding the length of the letter (Magen Avraham, subsection 20) and the like. However, regarding a get, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 16: And one must be careful that everything that is fit to touch should touch, and that which is fit not to touch should not touch, like a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot. And if that which is fit to touch does not touch, such as the back of the tzadik and the yod in the alef and the like, some say that even if a child who is neither wise nor foolish reads it, it is pasul even ex post facto. And some say that in a case of iggun one should rule it kosher in such a case, meaning when a child can read it; and if it is in the formulaic part of the get, even without iggun one may be lenient. Thus far his words. And he wrote similarly at the end of siman 126.

He further wrote: according to the one who says the aleph of "Yisrael" is written together, some say it is kosher if it is in the standard form, and in a case of agunah one may be lenient. If the point of the yod that is upon the aleph was also touching from its front, like this, it is kosher. If the letters spread due to the moisture of the ink, which is called "geflossen," until they appear as if they are touching, but nevertheless it appears that the letters are not touching, it is kosher. Thus far his words.

And behold, that which he wrote regarding the lamed-alef of "Yisrael," if it is in the tofes it is kosher; he means to say that "according to the law of Moses and Yisrael" is tofes, which is not the case regarding names such as "Eliyahu Yisrael," which is the toref (Beit Shmuel). And even in the tofes one should not be lenient except in a case of iggun or in a time of pressing need. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 126, section 19, validates it completely in the tofes; see there. And that which he wrote, that if the thorn of the yod upon the alef touches it is kosher, he means to say specifically the thorn of the yod, which is the bend on the left side when it touches (ibid.). And similarly regarding the yod on the right side, when its thorn touches it is kosher; but if the yods themselves of the alef touch and it is not recognizable as an alef, it is certainly invalid in the toref, and in the tofes it is kosher only in a time of pressing need and in a case of iggun. And that which he wrote regarding "giplasin," that if the letters do not touch it is kosher, even though it appears as if they are erased, nevertheless everyone sees that this is on account of the moisture of the ink. But if the letters touch one another, it is certainly invalid even if it happened after the writing (ibid.). And even though it was explained that regarding the sticking of letters one may be lenient in a time of pressing need to repair it before the signatures of the witnesses, this is regarding one letter or more but not in the entire get, for the form of the get would be nullified; and even in the majority of it one should not validate (so it appears in my humble opinion).

By law, a get does not require sirtut, for sirtut in a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot is for the sake of "perfect writing," and in a get "perfect writing" is not required, as has been written (Beit Yosef). However, it is customary to provide sirtut for it, and it is also customary to provide sirtut from the sides, and the lines of the get should be equal, not one long and one short. If one did not provide sirtut at all, it is kosher. One must be careful not to provide sirtut with lead because it dyes, and it would be like writing upon writing. One must provide sirtut from the outside, not in the place of the writing, so that the letters do not appear broken if the sirtut lines are deep. Nevertheless, one should not provide sirtut with lead, for even from the inside the color is visible, which is not the case when providing sirtut with iron or with a reed (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 14). And in Masechet Soferim it is taught: one rules lines with a reed regarding a Sefer Torah, see there (in chapter 1, halacha 1). And he should provide sirtut for everything before the writing.

And it is the custom to make it twelve lines corresponding to the numerical value of "get," and there are additional reasons for this. And so it is the custom to make a thirteenth line and divide it into two, that is, two half-lines, and they are also ruled before the writing, and the witnesses sign on them one under the other:

It has already been explained that if one did not rule lines it is kosher, and the same applies if one added to or subtracted from the twelve lines. However, some say that one should not declare them kosher except in a case of iggun where it arrived from a distant land and caravans are not common. The poskim have already agreed that regarding all the stringencies in this siman, it is kosher in a case of iggun even if the get has not yet been given, or if it has already been given even if it is not in a case of iggun (Beit Shmuel, subsection 19).

When writing on klaf, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 12 that one should write on the side of the flesh and not on the side of the hair, and if one wrote on the side of the hair, some disqualify it; and it seems to me that in a case of iggun one should not be stringent. Thus far his words. He further wrote that when the scribe writes, he should be careful ab initio not to touch the sirtut on the sides, and it is the custom ab initio to leave a margin on the sides of about half a finger, and at the top a finger, and at the bottom enough for a hand-hold and more. Thus far his words. And in all of this, there is no hindrance post facto even not in a case of iggun (so it seems to me):

It is the custom that the letters should not pass beyond the lines on the right and on the left. If one wrote outside the lines, some say that even one letter that went outside is invalid, but in a case of iggun or a time of pressing need, one may be lenient; so ruled our teacher, the Rema. The reason they were more stringent here than in a Sefer Torah is that they were concerned about the suspicion of forgery. Therefore, in a case of iggun, it is kosher even if many letters go outside the line (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel, subsection 21). There is one who is lenient regarding one letter if the get was already written, even if it has not yet been given (Bach). All this applies to the toref, but in the tofes it is not invalidated at all by this (Beit Shmuel), for it is an excessive stringency (Tashbetz). There was an incident involving two words in the tofes that went outside the line, and two of the great Sephardic authorities validated it in practice (Pithei Teshuvah, subsection 25). They wrote that if a blank space remains at the end of the line sufficient to write two letters, one should draw a line with ink like this (ibid.). All of this is due to the suspicion of forgery, so that one should not write there whatever he wishes; however, this is not the common custom (ibid.), but it is a beautiful custom to act accordingly.

It is customary to make it so that its length is greater than its width; length is called from top to bottom, and width is called from right to left according to the writing of the line. The reason is because it is called a "sefer keritut," and a sefer has its length greater than its width. Even though the "sefer" of a get is for the purpose of recounting matters, nevertheless, ab initio we strive for this as well. If it was not written so, it does not hinder at all, and we divorce with it ab initio (Radbaz and Get Pashut). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 13 that the length being greater than the width includes the bottom margin; that is to say, it is not necessary that from the writing alone its length be greater than its width, but rather we measure by the entire span of the paper. Although there is one who says that ab initio they should be precise that it be greater from the writing alone, nevertheless, we are not precise in this even ab initio (Get Pashut), for if we were precise in such a matter, the writing would not be properly aligned.

It is customary to interlace the lines, which means that one should pull the nun peshuta or khaf peshuta of the upper line down to the line below it, or the head of a lamed in the lower line to the row above it. If one did not interlace, some say it is pasul, but in a case of iggun one should not be stringent, for from the Gemara it is explicitly proven that interlacing is not required (the Gra). There is no correct reason for this stringency; rather, the primary reason is so that one does not come to forge between one line and another (Beit Shmuel, subsection 33). According to the law of the Gemara, we write on something that can be forged and only we are stringent in this; if so, it is a stringency upon a stringency. Only when it is not a case of iggun is it proper to be stringent since they have already accustomed themselves so. However, when there is a concern that the get will be voided, we are not concerned for this stringency. It is proper to be careful that the nun peshuta of "peturin" at the end of line 11 should be bent slightly toward the right side so that he can lengthen the head of the lamed of "v'Yisrael" above it, so that it too will be interlaced (Chelkat Mechokek).

Since it is customary to crowd the lines, the scribe must therefore be careful not to extend the head of a letter from below into the space of a letter from above, or vice versa. And if he did so, if the form of the letter was changed—for example, if he extended the head of a lamed into the space of a dalet, for then it appears like a heh—it is pasul. But if he extended the head of the letter into the space of an aleph and the like, where there is no concern for any errors, we do not declare it pasul; however, initially one must be careful even in such a case (Chamei Luach, subsection 39). And the main point depends on the change of the letter, as I have written.

If the scribe needs to repair letters, such as when they do not touch in a place where they are fit to touch, or they were short and he needs to lengthen them and the like, initially he should repair them before he writes "according to the law of Moses and Israel," so that it will not be lacking an action after the writing before the giving (Taz). And even though we have already explained that it is not called lacking an action regarding the writing itself, nevertheless, initially we are meticulous even in this. And if he repaired them afterwards, there is no concern, provided that at the very least he repairs them before the witnesses sign, for after the signatures, what does the repair avail, since it was signed in a state of invalidity (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 27). Therefore, one must know if it is a complete repair, such that without it it would not be a letter, or if it is not a complete repair, for in that case there is no concern (it appears to me). And when he repairs, specifically the scribe must repair, for he is the agent of the husband, and not another (ibid.), unless the husband now commands the other to repair them (Beit Shmuel subsection 25). And post facto, it is effective even after the witnesses signed, as I wrote in section 30.

It was taught in the Tosefta at the end of Gittin: If it was torn [nikra], it is kosher; if it became torn [nitkara], it is pasul. If there was torn in it a tear of a beit din, it is pasul. If it dissolved, or rotted, or became like a sieve, it is kosher. If it was erased or blurred, but its impression remains, if he can read it, it is kosher, and if not, it is pasul. Thus far his words. And we maintain in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 3): Parchment that was torn [nikra], behold this is kosher; if it became torn [nitkara], behold this is pasul, provided it was not torn like a tear of a beit din. But if it was torn like a tear of a beit din (it is pasul). What is a tear of a beit din? Between the text and the witnesses. Thus far his words.

The Rashba, of blessed memory, explained in the chapter "Ha-itkabel" (Gittin 64a) the Tosefta, that this is its explanation: "Nakra" (is torn) is kosher to divorce with it, for the tear does not disqualify it; but "Nitkara" (has been torn) is disqualified. And what is "Nitkara"? For example, that a beit din tear was torn in it, it is disqualified to divorce with it, for it is like a mere shard. And even with eidut mesirah it is disqualified to divorce with it, since this is not a get at all but rather like a shard, and what would eidut mesirah avail? And so all of the Tosefta is explained. And so the Yerushalmi explains, that "Nitkara" is a beit din tear and is disqualified, and "Nakra" is a tear that is not of a beit din. However, from the words of the Ra'avad in the fourth chapter of Hilkhot Gerushin (halakha 15), it appears that he does not explain this regarding the fitness or disqualification of giving the get while it is torn, but rather regarding the collection of the ketubah; that the get came into her hand whole and beautiful, but now that she brought before us a torn get and claims her ketubah, if it was torn with a beit din tear, we say that she already collected her ketubah and therefore they tore it with a beit din tear. And if it was not torn with a beit din tear, she collects her ketubah with it. And it is implied from his words that to give a torn get is disqualified even if it is not torn with a beit din tear; see there.

But from the words of the Rambam there, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch section 20, it appears that they interpret like the Rashba. This is his wording: And so too, a get that was found torn warp and woof, which is a tearing of a beit din, this is a void get like other documents. But if it was torn and it is not a tearing of a beit din, it is kosher. If it decayed, or rotted, or became like a sieve, it is kosher. If it was erased or blurred, but its impression remains, if one can read it, it is kosher; and if not, it is not a get. In what case are these things said? When the get was produced from her hand with witnesses of signature and there are no witnesses of delivery. But if there are witnesses there that the get was delivered to her in their presence and it was kosher, this is kosher even though the essential part of the get was on an erasure or between the lines, or it was torn warp and woof when he gave it to her in their presence. Thus far his words.

It has been explained from their words that according to the law there is no disqualification in a get even if it was erased or blurred, provided that its impression remains, meaning that the writing and the letters are recognizable. And so, even if it is torn with the tear of a beit din, it is a valid get and she is divorced with it. And that which they required witnesses of delivery for a tear of a beit din, the reason is that without witnesses of delivery we are concerned that he did not give it to her for the sake of divorce, for perhaps they intentionally tore it with the tear of a beit din in order to void it, as is the way of the world. And that which they wrote that the witnesses must testify that it was valid at the time of the giving refers to where its impression does not remain, and they testify that at the time of the giving the impression remained, for without this it is simple that it is not a get at all. And even if its impression remains, if they cannot read it, it is not a get at all even according to the Rambam (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 42 and Beit Shmuel subsection 37). And in this they disagree with the Rashba, for the Rashba holds that when it is torn with the tear of a beit din it is completely disqualified. And know that this which the Rambam wrote, that the tear of a beit din is warp and woof, and the Yerushalmi says between the text and the witnesses, is because our Talmud (Bava Batra 168b) holds so, see there. And perhaps both are true, for in our Talmud as well there is another opinion, see there, and we establish the law like both opinions. And it is possible that we establish the law also like the Yerushalmi (see Maggid Mishneh chapter 23 of Malveh halacha 14, who wrote in the name of the Gaon that we rule like Abaye and like Rabbi Yehuda in Bava Batra ibid.).

In any event, we have learned from the words of all our teachers that a tear that is not of a beit din does not invalidate a get at all, and he is permitted to give it to her. This is not only if it was torn not in the middle of the letters, but rather between line and line or between word and word, if it is not between the text and the witnesses—which is the tear of a beit din according to the Yerushalmi, as I have written—but even if it was torn within the letters and split them in two, if the letters were not changed, it is kosher. For even though in a sefer Torah we invalidate this because it requires an encirclement of parchment, in a get it has already been explained that it does not require an encirclement of parchment. And even according to the Ra'avad, who provides a different interpretation, nevertheless we do not find explicitly that he would invalidate such a case (and so wrote the Beit Shmuel in subsection 36). However, this is post facto or in a time of pressing need, but initially one should not give it when it was torn within the letter, for even regarding writing on an erasure or a scraping we are stringent, as has been explained (ibid.). But in a tear between line and line or between word and word, one should not be stringent even initially. And regarding other documents, the laws of tearing were explained in Choshen Mishpat, siman 52; see there.