Siman 126

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1: One may write the get in any script and in any language, whether it is the script of the nations or the script of Israel, such as Provençal and the like. However, if part of the get was written in one language and part of it in another language, it is pasul. And there are those who validate it. And it seems to me that even according to the one who invalidates, he admits that part of it in Lashon HaKodesh and part of it in Aramaic is kosher, for both were given at Sinai and are linguistically close and considered as one language. Therefore, it is the custom now to write in the get some words in Lashon HaKodesh while the majority is in Aramaic. Alternatively, since the majority is in Aramaic and it contains only words of Lashon HaKodesh, this is not considered "part of it in another language." Alternatively, he only said this regarding the essential part of the get, but what they add to the essence, "Behold you are permitted to any man," or other words, are not necessary and are only a doubling of matters that is customary ab initio; so it seems to me to settle the custom. And they practiced to write it in Aramaic and in Ashuri script, and one should not validate it in another script except in a case of iggun or a time of pressing need, such as if it was brought from afar and caravans are not common. Thus far his words.

And behold, regarding that which they wrote, that one may write in any script and in any language, so all the poskim agreed without dissent, for there is no sanctity in a get such that it would be disqualified in other languages or other scripts. And so it is proven in the Shas (19b; 87b). And the script of the nations is considered script even regarding one who writes on Shabbat; if done unwittingly, he is liable for a chatat, and if done willfully, sekilah. And it is not as one desired to say, that the prohibition of their script on Shabbat is not from the Torah; Heaven forbid to say so! And the giants of the world have already refuted him (Beit Shmuel at the end of subsection 1, and Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim siman 340 subsection 10, and Or Zarua siman 306, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah). And so wrote Rashi and the Bartenura in Shabbat (103a), and it is an explicit Mishnah there. And so ruled the Rambam in the eleventh chapter of Shabbat. (And the error emerged from what is written in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman 306 section 11, and there the intention is to command a gentile to sign, for telling a gentile is a shevut, as the Eliyah Zuta wrote on the Levush there and in his book Eliyah Rabbah):

And that which they wrote, whether it is a Jewish script such as Provencal, the explanation is that this is what we call Rashi script, and there is a greater novelty in this than the scripts of other nations which are agreed upon to write the letters in such and such a way. But Rashi script is like the script of the holy tongue in a small quality and with several changes, and there would have been room to say that it does not have the status of a script at all and regarding Ashurit it is a disqualified script; thus it comes to teach us that it is a script. And so too anything similar to it, such as our scripts that we write in letters and accounts. And in truth, there are those who hesitate regarding Provencal script, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work, but he rebutted them. And those who hesitate hold that when one writes a form that tends toward Ashurit, one must write actual Ashurit, and if not, it is not a script. However, from his words there it is explained that Provencal does not tend toward Ashurit at all, and this is the script they used to call Mashki. But in the book Get Pashut, he wrote that Provencal is Rashi script. However, regarding the law, all scripts are valid since it is a script that has spread in the countries, and all the more so Rashi script, in which all books are printed.

It appears to me that if a necessity arises in a case of iggun to write in our script that we use for writing letters and accounts, the writer must be very careful that every letter be complete. For example, the letter aleph, which some write like this [image] and the last stroke is not connected to the first, and it is not an aleph. And so too one must be careful with the other letters, except for heh and kuf, which even in the holy tongue are divided into two. For the letter kuf in our script, there is a form that they write like this [image], and it is better to write it like this [image] or like this [image]. And one must also be careful not to write two letters together, and that the letters should not be jagged, which is called "gezuckt." And also not to write with abbreviations. And so too with any script, one must be very precise with it.

It appears to me that all this applies regarding the script, but regarding another language, one should not write it at all even in a case of iggun. This is not from the perspective of the law, but rather because we are witnesses that it is nearly impossible to translate the language of the get that the sages, of blessed memory, ordained into other languages without errors. Furthermore, regarding another script, we have never heard in our days of writing in another script. However, now that Israel is scattered and separated across the entire globe, and it is possible that there is no scribe there who knows how to train his hands in the holy tongue in Ashurit script, if there is a case of great iggun, he should write the entire holy tongue according to the version of the get in our script, and one should not leave the daughters of Israel in iggun because of this (and see Gidulei Terumah, subsection 10, who wrote that Ashurit script, even if it is not straight and beautiful, is much preferred over Provencal script, and for me this requires further study):

And the reason for all this is that it has already been explained in the previous siman regarding several matters that we are stringent with a get just as with a Sefer Torah, since it is called a "sefer of severance." Therefore, we are also stringent regarding Ashurit script and the holy tongue. However, in a case of iggun, none of this is a hindrance, for "sefer" comes for the purpose of the recounting of matters, as I wrote there (and see the Bach):

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 4, law 9: Any language in which the get is written, the scribe must be careful with the words of the get so that they do not imply two matters, to the point that the reader might say perhaps he intended this or that which does not imply a language of divorce, or perhaps he intended this matter which does imply a language of divorce; rather, the words must be such that there is no doubt in that language, but rather their meaning is one matter—that so-and-so divorced and sent away so-and-so. And similarly, that script must be clearly explained in that script in which he writes, until the minors who recognize that script know how to read it, and who are neither understanding nor foolish but average; and it shall not be a crooked or confused script, lest one letter resemble another letter and the matter be found changed. Thus far his words. And his words are clear and do not require explanation.

And that which they wrote, that if part of it is in one language and part of it is in another language it is pasul, this is also from the words of the Rambam there. Based on this, they exerted themselves greatly to find a reason for our version of the get, which is primarily in the Aramaic language and part of it is in the holy tongue, and regarding all the reasons they wrote there is room to hesitate (as written in the Responsa of the Rema siman 126 and in the Gidulei Terumah). Also the Tur wrote this law in siman 130, and there are those who wrote the reason that the Merciful One said "one book" and not two or three books, and two languages are like two books (the Drisha and Perisha there). But it is impossible to say this at all, for what does this have to do with the matter of two books? Furthermore, we have already written in siman 125 that the Rambam did not bring the law of "two books" at all, see there. However, the essence of this law is from the Tosefta at the end of Gittin, where it is taught: A get that was written in five languages and five witnesses signed upon it in five languages is pasul. Thus far his words. And regarding the witnesses, it will be explained in siman 130 with the help of Heaven. And the Rambam holds that it is not specifically five languages, for the same applies to two languages, as there is no logical reason to distinguish in this. And the reason is simple, for the continuity of the matter does not appear well when one changes in the middle of the matter from language to language, as is known by the senses. Therefore he wrote "pasul" and not "batel," for this is not a Torah disqualification. According to this, there is no difficulty at all regarding our version of the get, for these two languages, the holy tongue and Aramaic, connect together in language very well, and the entire holy Talmud and all our teachers the authors wrote their books with the combination of these two languages, and it is almost impossible to write in any other way. And it is known that one who wishes to force himself and write a large matter in the holy tongue alone or in Aramaic alone will toil much and it will not be well-flavored (and see the Gidulei Terumah who wrote something similar to this in subsection 7, but he wrote it for the reason that in the Torah and Prophets Aramaic is found, and according to our words it is settled with simplicity).

This is the text of the get that we write in all our regions: On such-and-such day of the week, on such-and-such day of the month of so-and-so, in the year such-and-such from the creation of the world, according to the count that we count here in the city of... which sits on the river so-and-so, I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, standing today in the city of... which sits on the river so-and-so, have desired of my own free will, without being compelled, and have released, set free, and expelled you, you my wife so-and-so daughter of so-and-so, standing today in the city of... which sits on the river so-and-so, who were my wife from before this time; and now I have released, set free, and expelled you, so that you shall have authority and control over yourself to go and be married to any man whom you desire, and no man shall protest against you from this day and forever, and behold you are permitted to any man, and this shall be to you from me a document of expulsion, a letter of release, and a get of freedom, according to the law of Moses and Israel. And the witnesses sign, each one on a separate line beneath the text: so-and-so son of so-and-so, witness; so-and-so son of so-and-so, witness.

This fact that for the days of the week we write "in the Shabbat" and for the days of the month we write "to the month," it is certainly more correct to write with the letter Lamed according to the style of the language. However, regarding the day of the week there is a concern of error; for example, if they were to write "on the third to the Shabbat," people might say it is the second day and it is the third to the day of Shabbat. Therefore, we write "in the Shabbat" as there is no room for error, whereas regarding the day of the month this error is not relevant, for in truth the counting is from Rosh Chodesh (Darkhei Moshe). And why in truth do we write "in the Shabbat" and we do not write "to the week"? Because "week" [shavua] also includes a Sabbatical year [shemittah] in the language of the sages (Gittin 17b). Furthermore, because "week" is written regarding marriage, "fulfill the week of this one," they did not wish to mention it in a get (Get Pashut). Furthermore, we, the Children of Israel, count every day toward the day of Shabbat due to its great sanctity, and so it is stated in the Mechilta: "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it" etc., you shall count for the sake of Shabbat (Ramban in his commentary on the Pentateuch). And so we say in the Song of the Day: "Today is the second day in the Shabbat," and so too all the days.

And know that regarding the day of the week, we do not mention "day," but rather "on the first in the Shabbat," "on the second in the Shabbat." However, regarding the days of the month, we mention "day," as we write "on the eleventh day of such-and-such moon." For in truth, it is not necessary to mention "day" at all, except that regarding the days of the month, one might err at the beginning of the month; when they write "on the second of such-and-such moon" or "on the third of such-and-such moon," they might say that it does not refer to the days of the month but to the weeks, that it is the second or third week of such-and-such moon. In a get, there must be clear language; therefore, we add "day" or "days" until the tenth of the month, as will be explained. And this fact that we write "moon" [leyerach] and not "month" [lechodesh] is based on the verse "the bounty of the moons," for "month" is named after the renewal [chidush] of the moon, and therefore we write the clear language. And although in the Torah everything is written with the language of "month," there is a great reason for the matter: for in the Torah the names of the months are not mentioned, only their number—"in the first month," "the second," "the third," "the seventh." And it is impossible to write "in the seventh moon," for is there a change in the moon between the seventh and other months? Therefore, it writes the language of "month," meaning the seventh renewal of the year, for in every month it is renewed, and twelve times in the year it is renewed; for this, it writes the first, second, third, and seventh renewal. This is not the case in a get, where we mention the name of the month; therefore, we write clearly the moon that serves in the month of Iyar, Sivan, etc. And a proof for this is that in a place where the name of the month is explicit, it is written "moon": in Kings I 6 it is written, "In the fourth year... in the moon of Ziv," and "In the eleventh year, in the moon of Bul, which is the eighth month," etc., see there. Behold, it is explicit that when the name of the month is specified, it is written "moon," and in a numbering, it is written "month." And even though there are several specified months in Tanakh and nevertheless it is written "month," nonetheless it is a fine reason and a great proof from the verse in Kings that we brought (so it appears to me).

On the first day of the week, one writes "on the first in the shabbat" and not "on the first of the shabbat," and if one wrote "on the first," it is valid (Rashdam). And so too regarding all that has been explained, if one wrote "for the month" [l'chodesh] and not "for the moon" [l'yerach], or wrote "in the moon" [b'yerach] and not "for the moon" [l'yerach], or regarding the days of the week where one wrote "week" [shavua] and not "shabbat," or wrote "for the shabbat" [l'shabbat] and not "in the shabbat" [b'shabbat], post facto it appears to me that it is valid (and so wrote the Gidulei Teruah), for there is no essential hindrance in this post facto, as it is not called a change; rather, initially we are meticulous because of the reasons that have been explained.

And this, that initially we write "on the first [echad] of the week" and not "on the first [rishon]," is because it is so written in the account of creation, "And it was evening and it was morning, day one [echad]." And similarly regarding the days of the month, it is written in Parshat Bamidbar, "on the first [echad] of the second month." And as for the fact that throughout the entire Torah regarding months it is written "in the first [rishon] month," there is a great reason for the matter, because "first [rishon]" is a term of importance from the root "head [rosh]," as it is written, "This month shall be for you the head of months; it is the first [rishon] for you of the months of the year." And according to the plain meaning of the verse, this is its explanation: since this month is for you the head of all months because of the miracles that were performed in it, therefore it remains for you forever the first [rishon] of the months of the year. And it is possible that we intentionally do not write the term "first [rishon]" to indicate that it is not the head of the days (and examine this carefully). And as for that which the Tanna at the end of Tractate Tamid taught regarding the song that the Levites would say in the Beit HaMikdash, "On the first [rishon] day they would say," and similarly in the Baraita of Tractate Rosh Hashanah (31a), and similarly in the Baraita at the end of Tractate Sukkah regarding the songs of the festival—this is because he counted all the days: first, second, third, etc. And in a collective count, one certainly must say first, second, third, etc. This is not the case when we are speaking only of this day, we write "on the first [echad] of the week." And as for that which we say after the prayer the song of the day, and we say "Today is the first [rishon] day of the week, on which the Levites etc.," it would have been more correct to say "Today is day one [echad] of the week," but in order not to deviate from the language of the Mishnah and the Baraita, we say thus (it appears to me).

In the third, in the fourth, and in the fifth, they are malei with a yod in the middle; in the second and in the sixth, they are chaser without a yod in the middle, for so it is in most scriptures. And if there is occasionally an exception, there is a midrash regarding the matter. The general rule of gittin regarding names and words is to follow the majority of scriptures. And so it is explicitly stated in the Masorah, parashat Naso, that every first is malei, every second is chaser, every third is malei, every fourth is malei, every fifth is malei, every sixth is chaser, every seventh is malei, every eighth is malei, and every ninth is malei (the Gra, subsection 3).

The names of the months are as follows: Nissan with a full yod, for so it is in the Megillat Esther; Iyyar with two yods, for so it is there in the Targum, and if one wrote it with one yod it is pasul except in a case of pressing need; so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 7. And he further wrote that there are those who refrain from giving a get in Iyyar, but in a place of pressing need they give it and write it with two yods. Thus far his words. And the simple custom is to write Iyyar with two yods ab initio, and likewise we do not refrain from arranging a get in the month of Iyyar, and so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 23, for there is no doubt in the matter. And that which he wrote, that if one wrote it with one yod it is pasul except in a case of pressing need, certainly it is so, for in truth its pronunciation is with a chirik and a kamatz, Iyyar, and when one writes it with one yod, the yod is quiescent; and in a case of pressing need it is kosher because in the language of people they say it thus, "Ir," and furthermore because one cannot mistake it for another month. Nevertheless, the great authorities wrote that if the error became known on that same day, one should write another get with two yods, and if some days have passed, another get is not necessary.

Sivan is written full with a yod, for so it is in the Megillat Esther. Tammuz is full with a vav (Ezekiel 8). Regarding Av, one does not write Menachem Av, for that which they are accustomed to write so in letters and when they bless the month, this is only for the sake of consolation when we shall merit it, may it be G-d's will, speedily in our days; but its name is only Av, and so it is in the Shas at the beginning of tractate Rosh Hashanah, see there. And if one wrote Menachem alone, there is one who says that it is valid ex post facto, since the matter is publicized and known that they call the month of Av "Menachem" (Get Pashut). And to me this requires further study, for while it is true that in the books of the Sephardic sages and in their approbations they are accustomed to do so, among us we do not practice so. And there are those who write both of them together. And this certainly appears to me, that if one wrote Menachem Av it is valid ex post facto, since so we bless the month in all our regions and so we write in letters.

Elul is full and with a vav, for so it is in Nehemiah (6) and in the Mishnah at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah and the ninth chapter of Bekhorot. Tishrei with a single yod at its end and no more, for so it is in the Mishnah there. Marheshvan with a single vav, for so it is in the Mishnah and Gemara in the first chapter of Taanit and other places; and if he wrote only Heshvan it is kosher (Get Pashut), for so it is called in the language of people, and also in the calendars only Heshvan is printed and there is no concern of error. And it appears to me that if he wrote it with two vavs it is also kosher, for the addition of the vav does not create a different reading and there is no concern of error. And one must write Marheshvan as one word, and if he wrote it as two words like this, Mar Heshvan, there is room for doubt (ibid.). And even if we say it is kosher as two words, there is room for doubt if he wrote Mar at the end of a line and Heshvan at the beginning of a line (ibid.). And it appears that Mar is a word unto itself, as there are those who explained that because in this month rain descends, and Mar is an expression for a drop of rain, as it is written: "Behold, the nations are like a drop (mar) from a bucket" (Pri Hadash). Or it is possible to say that, behold, in the Yerushalmi Rosh Hashanah (Chapter 1, Halacha 2) and in Midrash Bereshit (Parashah 48) we say that the names of the months ascended from Babylon, and there is room to say that they made the name of this month as a memorial for the beginning of the sin, for through this iniquity the ten tribes were exiled and afterwards Judah and Benjamin; and the head of the sinners was Jeroboam son of Nebat, and he switched the festival of the seventh month to the eighth month, as it is written in Kings, and "mar" in Aramaic is an expression of switching, and to this they alluded: Mar Heshvan, meaning that he switched for Heshvan, and incidentally they alluded that through this he caused bitterness (merirut) to all of Israel. However, in truth, we do not derive homilies from names, and when he wrote it as two words or in two lines it is a doubt, even though the mind inclines toward declaring it kosher, and in a case of iggun it is possible that one may be lenient.

Kislev without a yod at all, for so it is written at the beginning of Nehemiah and in Zechariah (7). And even though in the Mishnah and Gemara throughout the entire Shas there is a yod after the lamed, and so it is in Targum Yonatan there, nevertheless the Scripture is primary. And in any case, if one wrote it with a yod after the lamed, one is not to disqualify it because of this (Pri Chadash and Get Pashut), for there is no meticulousness in this, as in Aramaic there must be a yod after the lamed because the lamed is with a tzeirei, and every tzeirei draws a yod in Aramaic. Tevet, Shevat, Adar are simple in Scripture, Mishnah, and Gemara, of three letters each and no more.

It is proper to read the get according to the vocalization of the letters. There are months where, according to the common pronunciation, it is not like its vocalization; therefore, it is necessary to clarify: Nisan, the samekh is with a kamatz; Iyar, the yods are with a kamatz; Sivan, the vav is with a kamatz; Elul, the lamed is with a melafum; Marheshvan, although the vocalization of the vav has not been clarified for us, nevertheless it appears that it is with a kamatz; Kislev, the lamed is with a tzeirei; Tevet, also the beit is with a tzeirei; Shevat, the beit is with a kamatz; Adar, the alef is a hataf patah and the dalet is with a kamatz.

There is one who wrote that if one wrote for Marheshvan "Bul," and for Iyar "Ziv," and for Tishrei "Eitanim," it is kosher because in the Scripture in Kings it is so (Pri Chadash). And to me this requires further study, since the masses of the people do not understand this, and in a get it must be understood by all. Furthermore, did they only call the months this in the days of Solomon? For these are only nicknames for the months. Therefore, in practice, one must deliberate on this. And so too there is one who says that if he did not mention the name of the month at all, but rather wrote "the first month," "second," "third," etc., it is kosher (Get Pashut), since everyone knows that Nisan is the first, and Iyar the second, and Sivan the third, it is as if it were explicit. And in the entire Torah and in the Prophets it is written so, for the names of the months ascended from Babylon, as has been written. And in a case of iggun, one certainly should validate it; but not in a case of iggun, one should not be lenient unless she became betrothed or married (it appears to me).

When the year is intercalated and one gives a divorce in Adar, he must write explicitly which Adar it is; and in the first, he should write "Adar Rishon" or "ha-Rishon" (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 21), and in the second, he should write "Adar ha-Sheni." And if he wrote "Adar" without specification in the first Adar, it is kosher, but in the second, it is invalid, for "Adar" without specification is the first Adar, as most of the poskim have agreed, as written in Yoreh Deah siman 220 and in Choshen Mishpat siman 43. And although it was explained there that according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 10 of Nedarim, when he knew that the year was intercalated, "Adar" without specification is the second Adar, and in truth some say that as a matter of law regarding a get, it is invalid even in the first if written without specification, for we are concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory (Bach and Shach, Yoreh Deah siman 220). And they wondered about the Shulchan Aruch for not bringing his opinion here in section 7 at all. However, many of the great authorities agreed that regarding a get, it is kosher if he wrote in the first without specification, and we are not concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory; for since even according to the Rambam this is nothing more than a postdated get, and according to most poskim even a postdated get is kosher, as will be explained in siman 127 (Beit Shmuel subsection 19, and Taz, and Pri Chadash, and Get Pashut). And even though according to the Rambam a postdated get is invalid, as written there, its invalidity is only rabbinic. Furthermore, there is a double doubt here: perhaps the law is that the first is "Adar" without specification; and if you say that the second is "Adar" without specification, perhaps the law is that a postdated get is kosher. And it is also a reversible double doubt (Get Pashut). Furthermore, there is another doubt: perhaps the scribe did not know that the year was intercalated, and in such a case even the Rambam admits that by "Adar" without specification his intention was the first, as written there (ibid.). And he must write "ha-Rishon" fully with a vav (see Chelkat Mechokek subsection 22, who also wrote like the Beit Shmuel, only his words are lacking clarity, and see Tuv Gittin).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 4: On the day of Rosh Chodesh, one should write "on the first day of the month of so-and-so," and some say that one writes "on one of the month," and because of this, there are those who refrain from giving a get on Rosh Chodesh. Thus far their words. Behold, that which is written "on the first day" is a scribal error and it should say "on day one" (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel, subsection 8), and so it is written at the beginning of Haggai, "on day one of the month," and as I have written regarding the first day of the week. Their dispute is whether one writes "day," for according to the "some say," one does not write "day" as one does on the days of the week. However, we have already explained in section 11 that we intentionally write "day" so that one does not come to err regarding the week, see there. Certainly it is an excessive stringency to refrain from giving a get on Rosh Chodesh (Get Pashut) when Rosh Chodesh is one day. All the Acharonim agreed that only when there is a need for the matter do we give a get on Rosh Chodesh (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel, subsection 8). So too the Bach testified that he saw in gittin given in former days on Rosh Chodesh that it was written in them "on day one," and such is the primary ruling; yet if one wrote "on one of the month," it is also kosher (Get Pashut).

They further wrote in section 6: If one writes a get on the first day of the month of Iyar, he should write "on the thirtieth day of the month of Nisan, which is Rosh Chodesh Iyar," and so too for all Roshei Chodashim that are two days. And on the second day of Rosh Chodesh, he should write "on the first of such-and-such month," for its count is from the second day. And there are those who say that one should not give a get on any Rosh Chodesh, and it is good to be concerned for this except in a place where there is a concern of iggun. Thus far his words. And behold, this is certainly a proper stringency not to give on the first day of Rosh Chodesh because they must mention both counts, the past month and the present one, even though our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that one should not be concerned at all for these stringencies; nevertheless, so we practice in all the dispersions of Israel, that when it is not a place of iggun, we do not arrange a get on the first day of Rosh Chodesh. But on the second day, it is like when Rosh Chodesh is one day, and they write "on the first day of such-and-such month." And that which is written in the Shulchan Aruch with the wording "month" [instead of "moon"], he did not intend to be precise in this. And similarly, that which he wrote "on the first" [be-echad] and not "on the first day" [be-yom echad], even though there is one who wants to say that when Rosh Chodesh is two days it is better to write on the second day "on the first" and not "on the first day" for the reason that they should not say it is the first day of Rosh Chodesh (Bach), and when they write "on the first of the month" everyone sees that it refers to the number of the days of the month—nevertheless, it does not seem correct to distinguish in this (Chelkat Mechokek and Get Pashut). And it has already been explained that post facto all these matters are not disqualifying. And on the first day of Rosh Chodesh, if he wrote only "Rosh Chodesh such-and-such" or if he wrote "Rosh Chodesh such-and-such which is the thirtieth of the month of such-and-such," it is also kosher (Beit Shmuel, siff katan 17). However, without this, we do not arrange on the first day of Rosh Chodesh except in a place of iggun as I have written. And all the more so on the second day of Rosh Chodesh when he wrote "Rosh Chodesh such-and-such" that it is kosher, and similarly when Rosh Chodesh is one day; for behold, on the first day of Rosh Chodesh, which in truth is not Rosh Chodesh as it belongs to the past month, even so it is kosher because in the language of people it is called Rosh Chodesh and they say Hallel and Musaf, and all the more so on the second day of Rosh Chodesh or when Rosh Chodesh is one day, for in truth it is Rosh Chodesh.

In the number of the days of the month, one writes in the masculine form: "beshnei yamim" [on two days], "bishlasha yamim," "bearba'ah," "bechamisha," "beshisha," "beshivah," "beshmonah," "betishah"; for the feminine form is without the "heh": "shalosh," "arba," "chamesh," and for two one writes "shtei," for "chodesh" is masculine throughout the entire Scripture and "shanah" is feminine, as it is written at the beginning of Bamidbar: "on the first of the second month in the second year." And know that in "shmonah" there is no difference between masculine and feminine except in the vocalization, for in the masculine the "nun" is with a kamatz and in the feminine with a segol, and "shmonah" is missing a "vav." And if he wrote "shmonah" full with a "vav," it is kosher, and likewise if he wrote "shloshah" full with a "vav" it is kosher, because the word is well-recognized and the meaning does not change, and furthermore, in the Masorah "shmonah" is counted six times full, and likewise "shloshah" and "shalosh" are full occasionally according to the Masorah. And likewise if he did not write the "bet" of "beshnei yamim," "bishlasha," etc., but rather "shnei yamim," "shlasha," it is kosher, and in Yerushalayim they write so ab initio (Get Pashut). And likewise if he swapped masculine for feminine or feminine for masculine, it is kosher ex post facto even not in a time of pressing need. And likewise if he wrote only in abbreviations like "11," "12," it is also kosher when he placed dots over them to understand that this is a number (Get Pashut), and even not in a time of pressing need it is kosher (Beit Shmuel, subsection 13), and some say only in a time of pressing need (Levush).

Up to ten, one writes "yamim," and from ten onward, one writes "yom": "be-echad asar yom," "bi-shneim asar yom," etc. And even though "eser" is a feminine form and "shneim" is a masculine form, nevertheless, such is the style of the language, as it is written: "echad asar yom me-Chorev," etc. And similarly in Esther it is written: "u-vishneim asar chodesh," etc., "bi-shlosha asar yom bo." And this—that up to ten one writes "yamim" and from there onward "yom"—is because such is the style of the language, as it is written in Parshat Behaalotecha: "lo yom echad tochlun," etc., "ve-lo chamisha yamim ve-lo asara yamim ve-lo esrim yom." And there is one who says that from twenty onward one writes "yamim," and some disagree; and such is the custom, that one writes "yom," as is proven from the verse we cited (see Beit Shmuel, subsection 11). And if one wrote "yom" instead of "yamim," or "yamim" instead of "yom," it does not disqualify post facto when the get has already been given, and certainly in a time of pressing need, for this is not called a change at all.

In the counting of the years, one should write in the feminine form: "In the year five thousand and six hundred and forty-five since the creation of the world." And likewise: two, three, four, six, seven, nine, ten, without a "Heh" at the end. And likewise: eleven, twelve, etc., until twenty. And from there onward: twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three—the smaller number in the feminine form. And so it is always, for the smaller number is in the feminine form and the larger is in the masculine form, the opposite of the days of the month (see Be'er Sheva, subsection 14), for such is the style of the language regarding years in the Tanakh, as it is written: "In the six hundred and first year," etc., and many such instances.

And there is also a difference between the number of the days of the month and the years, for regarding the days of the month, one writes the smaller number first, such as "on the one and twentieth" or "on the two and twentieth," and regarding the years, one writes the larger number first, for so it is in Scripture: "a hundred years and twenty years and seven years," and many like it. But regarding the days of the month, the smaller is first, just as we count the days of the Sefirah, and so it is written in the Torah: "and on the fifteenth day of the seventh month." However, all this does not invalidate ex post facto, for if one wrote regarding the years the smaller number first, or regarding the days of the month the larger number first, it is kosher, as there is no strictness in this. And we find in the Gemara (Yoma 55a) that regarding numbers there were local customs; some took the smaller first and some the larger, see there. And also in Scripture we find sometimes regarding the years the smaller number first, in Kings (I, 6): "And it was in the eightieth year and four hundredth year," etc. And know that "shemonim" is full with a vav even though "shemonah" is deficient, as written (see Helkat Mechoqeq subsection 13, who wrote that if one wrote "sheni" or "shishi" full it is kosher, and to me it requires further study, for according to the pronunciation it refers to "shenayim" and to the language of "sasson," even though they too are in Scripture without yods, nevertheless according to the pronunciation of people perhaps so it is, and one must deliberate on the law; and furthermore, "shishu" in Tanakh, which is the language of "sasson," is full with a yod in Lamentations at the end, and at the end of Isaiah, see there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: There are versions of gittin in which it is written "How I, so-and-so son of so-and-so," and it is not precise, and one must be careful not to write the word "how." Thus far his words. For in the version of the get of the Rif and the Rambam, of blessed memory, "how" is written, and the Rosh, of blessed memory, criticized this, for this is only relevant to other documents when witnesses write how this matter was done before us; but a get, which is the language of the husband who says that he is now divorcing his wife, it is only necessary to write that at this time I am divorcing my wife. However, if he wrote "how," it is certainly kosher, for also in the Gemara (85b) this version is found (Chelkat Mechokek and Beit Shmuel, subsection 22). However, the Rosh holds that the language found in the Gemara is not the actual language of the get, but rather the Gemara explains the subject of the matter that Rava instituted regarding "from this day and forever," as is explained there. And you should know that it is so, for the writing of the get is in the second person, and in the Gemara there it is in the third person, see there; rather, it is certain that it only states the subject there and not the actual version.

He further wrote: And so there are versions in which it is written "and to the places of your fathers," and one must be careful not to write them. Thus far his words. This means that they would write in the version of the get: "and every other name and nickname that I have, and my fathers', and my places', and the places of my fathers." And similarly regarding the woman, they would write: "and every other name and nickname that you have, and your fathers', and your places', and the places of your fathers." And the Rosh, of blessed memory, challenged this: why did they practice writing this, since they do not mention the place of his father or the place of residence of the woman's father? And among us, the custom is not to write the names of the places of birth and residence at all, for reasons that will be explained in siman 128, and also "and every name" we do not write.

It is stated in the Gemara (85b): Abaye said: One who writes a get should not write "v'din" which implies "and judgment," but rather "v'dan," meaning: and this is the document which shall be for you from me, etc., meaning "and this is the book that shall be for you from me" (Rashi). And if he writes "v'din" with a yod, it implies "it is judgment (law) that I divorce you," but if it is not a judgment upon me that I divorce you, you shall not be divorced (ibid.). And even though we find many instances of "v'din" with a yod in the Shas where the meaning is "this," such as "din garma d'ashira'ah bir" (Berakhot 5b), "v'din kiyumeihon" (Bava Batra 161b), and in the entire Yerushalmi "mai k'din," and on the verse "and one called to this one," the translator translated "and they receive this from this," and on the verse "this you may eat," he translated "yat din tikhulun," nevertheless, it is within the power of the husband to protest and say that he intentionally wrote it thus to ruin her, as will be explained. And even though according to the Rambam it is invalid even without the protest of the husband, as will be explained, this is because he deviated from the formula established by the sages (the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 4, halakha 14). And know that the Rambam there wrote a different concern regarding "v'din." This is his wording: Lest the reader read "v'din," meaning a judgment shall be between me and you. See there.

Abaye further said there that regarding "igueret shevukin," one should not write "igueret" with a full yod, for that implies the roof of a letter, as it is common to write it with a yod because it is not written in Hebrew; but regarding "igueret" which is the language of a written letter, it is written in Hebrew without a yod, as it is written: "concerning all the words of this letter" (Tosafot). And some say that this is the explanation: that he should write "ve-igueret shevukin" and not "igueret" without a vav at its beginning, for that implies a mere letter that a person sends to his fellow, but rather "ve-igueret" with a vav, which implies that it refers back to the "get" and "shichrur" mentioned above (Tosafot in the name of Ri). And the Rambam wrote that he should not write "igueret" lest the reader read "im garat" [if you have committed adultery]. Thus far his words. That is to say, "garat" in Aramaic is the language of a harlot, and the reader will read it as two words: "im garat," meaning if you have committed adultery it shall be a get, and if not, it shall not be a get.

Further there: and he should not write "limehak" with a yod, for it implies "li me-hakh" [to me from this], let this number be to me from now on (Rashi); rather, "lemehak" without a yod, as it concludes "to be married to anyone etc.," meaning that she has the permission to go and be married to anyone she desires. And likewise, he should not write "lemachak," which implies like "khoka" [laughter]; meaning, one must be careful to separate the leg of the heh so that there is space between its leg and its roof, so that it does not appear like a chet, which would mean "lemachak," to laugh, meaning "I am laughing at you" (ibid.). And because the letters Aleph, Chet, Heh, Ayin, and Resh are interchangeable, one must therefore be more careful in this, as the intention would change; and so it is with every heh.

It says further there: "Di tihaviyin, di titzviyin" with three Yods each, meaning "tihaviyin" and "titzviyin." That is to say, one must write five Yods in "di tihaviyin": three Yods at the end of the word, and [one] after the Dalet and [one] after the Tav. And "di" means "which." And so too in "di titzviyin." For this is the explanation of the get that he writes to her: "And now I have released etc. so that you shall be (di tihaviyin) authorized and have power etc. [to marry] any man whom you desire (di titzviyin)." Meaning: and now I have released you with this get, which shall give you permission to be married to anyone you wish. Therefore, if he writes only two Yods at their end, "di tihaviyin, di titzviyin," it would imply that it refers to people of the world. Furthermore, perhaps the reader will read it as a plural feminine form, as if he is speaking with two women, and it would turn out that he is not divorcing this one but another. But when he writes with three Yods, there is no room for error. And ex post facto, one need not be concerned if he did not write a Yod between the Tav and the Dalet, and similarly between the Tav and the Heh (Chelkat Mechokek subsection 31), as I wrote in section 50.

Some say that "di-tehavyan" is one word, and likewise "di-titzviyan," and some say that they are two words. Therefore, one must be careful to write "di-tehavyan" on one line, and likewise "di-titzviyan," and also one should not distance the word "di" far from them (Levush), in a manner that it would be possible to read them as one word and as two words, and such is the custom. And if one writes "di" on this line and "tehavyan" on another line, it will specifically be two words, and likewise if he distances them significantly. However, in a case of pressing need, or if the get was already given, it is kosher, for there is no change to the meaning of the get (Taz and Be'er Sheva subsection 25). Furthermore, the primary view is that they are two words, and so it is in the Targum, "di" alone (the Gra subsection 20). (Also the Chelkat Mechokek subsection 32 disagrees with our teacher, the Rema, for on the contrary, the Rosh wrote that even as one word it is not an error, and all the more so as two words; see there):

And further there: and he should lengthen the vav of "teiruchin" and the vav of "shibukin" and the vav of "vekhadu," for if he does not lengthen them and they appear as yuds, it implies a book of "terichin," general divorcees, and "shebikin," general abandoned women, and not that she is his (Rashi). And if he does not lengthen the second vav of "vekhadu," its meaning will be "vekhadi," meaning for free and for nothing (ibid.). And the Rambam wrote that "terichin" and "shebikin" imply that she abandoned and divorced him, and "khadi" implies "on this condition I shall exempt you." And the intention is not to lengthen them excessively such that they lose the form of the letter, but rather he should lengthen them slightly more than other vavs, and so they practiced. And the main point is that it should not appear as a yud (Tosafot). And certainly with all vavs one must be careful that they do not appear as yuds, but with these one must be more careful because they contain a change in meaning.

And he shall write "taruchin" and "shevukin" lacking the first yod, for if he were to write them with yods, the Shas would not have warned to lengthen the vavs, since even without this their meaning is clear (Rosh). However, "piturin" should be written with a yod after the peh, and therefore one does not need to lengthen the vav, for without a yod it is the language of "patur" and "hova." And some say that "piturin" is also lacking the first yod, for when one writes a "get piturin" one cannot err between "patur" and "hova," and so we practice. Therefore, one must also lengthen the vav of "piturin." And do not find it difficult as to why the Shas did not warn about this, for in truth the Shas also (85b) distinguishes regarding the language of "piturin" between the people of Babylonia and the people of the Land of Israel, for these write with a yod and those without a yod, see there. And we practice like those who do not write with a yod.

And know that these three terms, "shvukin" (released), "taruchin" (expelled), and "pturin" (exempted), are written in the get three times. In the first instance, we write: "I have desired... and I have released (v'shavkit) and exempted (v'patrit) and expelled (v'taruchit)." In the second instance, we write: "And now I have exempted (patrit) and released (v'shavkit) and expelled (v'taruchit)." In the third instance, we write: "And this shall be for you from me a document of expulsion (taruchin) and a letter of release (shvukin) and a deed of exemption (pturin)." Your mnemonic is Sh-P-T, P-Sh-T, T-Sh-P. And if one changed this, it does not invalidate the matter; so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 12, see there.

The reason for these expressions and their variations seems to me to be as follows: Behold, in the parsha of divorce in the Torah, the expression "divorced woman" (gerusha) is not written, but rather the expression of "sending away" (shiluach) and the expression of "severance" (keritut). The expression "divorced woman" is stated in other places, such as regarding the Kohanim: "and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take." For there are three matters regarding a get. The first is that initially they were joined in the marriage between them, and now this connection is severed between them by means of the get; and regarding this the Torah said, "and he shall write for her a scroll of severance (sefer keritut)," and Onkelos translated "a get of release (peturin)." Behold, release is the expression of severance. The second is that he sends her away from his house, as it is written, "and he sends her from his house," for it is impossible for them to be together, and with this the matter of the get is completed; and this is the expression "and I have left (shevakit)" which they write in the get, meaning that he allows her to go from his house. And the term "divorced" (gerusha) is like the expression of sending away, except that sending away is an expression of respect and for the moment, while divorce (gerushin) is an expression of disgrace, as it is written, "and he drove them (vayigaresh) from before Pharaoh," and it is forever. Therefore, regarding Adam the First when he sinned, it is written, "and the Lord sent him away (vayishalchehu)," and afterwards it is written, "and He drove out (vayigaresh) the man," meaning that He sent him away from the Garden of Eden for the moment, and afterwards the verse informs us that He drove him from there forever. Therefore, in the parsha itself, the expression of disgrace of "divorce" is not written, but rather the expression of "sending away," for it is one and the same. And regarding Kohanim, it therefore writes the expression "divorced woman," because for that reason they shall not take them due to their sanctity. And this is the expression "expulsion (terukin)" in the get, for regarding "divorced woman" (gerusha) Onkelos translated "expelled (metarka)." And this is the order of the wording of the get: "I, so-and-so, have desired etc. and have left (shevakit) and released (patrit) and expelled (terukit) you to yourself," meaning: it is my will to send you away from my house, and to sever the bond between us, and to divorce you forever. And afterwards: "who were my wife from before this time, and now I have released (patrit) and left (shevakit) and expelled (terukit) etc.," meaning: until now you were my wife and we were joined, and now I have severed the bond and sent you away and divorced you forever. And he preceded "released" to "left" now because he previously said that they were joined, therefore he says immediately that now the bond between them has been severed. And in both instances he preceded "left" to "expelled" because the expression of "sending away" is written in the parsha of the get itself, while the expression of "divorce" is written in another place. And at the end of the get he writes: "And this shall be for you from me a scroll of expulsion (sefer terukin) and a letter of leaving (igeret shevukin) and a get of release (get peturin)," for the entire matter of "and this" is so that there should be "demonstrative handles" (yadayim mokhichot) as to what he is divorcing her with, as it is found in the Mishnah and Gemara (85b). And the explanation is that with this scroll he divorces her. And behold, the Torah called it "a scroll of severance," and the tradition came that it is not like a literal scroll, but rather it comes for the "recounting of matters" (sefirat devarim), as it is found in the Shas there (21b). And furthermore, the tradition came (ibid.) that "a scroll severs her and nothing else severs her," for she is not divorced except through a document. And the Sages were compelled to mention these three names: "scroll" (sefer), "letter" (igeret), and "get." For "scroll" is written in the Torah, and since the tradition came that it is not a literal scroll, they therefore called it a "letter." And so as not to say it is merely a common letter, they therefore also called it a "get," meaning a legal document, for without this he cannot divorce her. Therefore they attached these three names to the three names of the subject of the get. And they preceded the name "scroll" because it is written in the Torah, and they did not want to write "scroll of release" as it is written "scroll of severance" so that we should not say it is a literal scroll; therefore they wrote "scroll of expulsion," meaning the scroll of the divorce. And afterwards "letter of leaving," for that is a sending away for the moment, as I have written, and a "letter" is only for the moment. And afterwards "get of release," meaning the document that severs their connection forever, and a document (shtar) is something that endures.

Abaye further said there that one should not write "l'itnasava" with an aleph, but rather "l'hitnasava" with a hei; for if he writes with an aleph, perhaps he will distance the "la" from "itnasava" and it will imply "do not be married" (Rashi). However, if he omitted the hei of "l'hitnasava" and wrote "l'tnasava," it is kosher, for as long as the matter is not changed, there is no concern in this. And even if he omitted the entire word "l'hitnasava," it is kosher ex post facto, as it is only from the formula (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban, and see there). Furthermore, even without this word, the meaning is such, for he writes to her, "that you shall be permitted, etc., to go to any man whom you desire," meaning to belong to any man you wish. For it is only invalid when there is another meaning, such as if he writes with an aleph and it can be interpreted as "do not be married," but otherwise we have no concern with it. And in this manner, one must be careful with every language and every script that he writes, that there should not be in it the implication of two different matters. And it has already been explained that we only write in the language that the sages, of blessed memory, ordained and in Ashurit script.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote a great principle in section 20: that since we recognize the style of the matter, one should not disqualify it because of the omission of a single letter, and in the formulaic part of the document even with more missing it is kosher (Beit Shmuel, subsection 30). And anything that is recognizable as a scribal error is kosher in the date, such as if the shin of "shishi" or the resh of "revi'i" was missing; even though the law of the date is like the essential part of the document, nevertheless it is not exactly like the essential part. But regarding his name and her name, it is certainly disqualified (this appears to be the intent of the Beit Shmuel), for in the essential part of the document one must be precise regarding deficient and plene spelling by Torah law (ibid.).

Therefore, if he wrote on the fourth, twenty days of such-and-such a month, and omitted the word "beshabbat," it is kosher, for "the fourth" has no other interpretation except for the days of the week. And some say that even if the fourth day was the 21st of the month, it is kosher ex post facto. The reason is that since "fourth" has no other interpretation besides the days of the week, and it is known that the fourth day was the 21st of the month, it is then certain that he erred regarding the date of the month. This is also explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 43 regarding legal contracts. However, our teacher, the Rema, even though in Choshen Mishpat he did not provide any gloss, here, due to the stringency of gittin, he wrote in section 21 that there are those who disagree and disqualify in such a case, for there too there are those who disagree (as the Shach wrote there, subsection 7). And even if he wrote the day of the week correctly, the day of the week neither adds nor subtracts, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said (at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah) that we do not find the days of the week in the Torah; for even if he did not write the day of the week at all, there is no concern in this, and the primary thing is the day of the month (so it is in the Responsa of the Rivash, siman 117).

יתיכי with three yods; ליכי with two yods, as it is written, "Take [היליכי] this child," etc. אנתתי without a yod after the aleph (Beit Yosef). ואנש לא ימחא בידיכי with three yods. וימחא: some say with a heh and some say with an aleph, and this is the primary view, for with an aleph it is the language of protest, but with a heh it is from the language of "you shall blot out [תמחה] the memory," etc. And if he wrote it with a heh and the get was already given, it is kosher. And if it was written ימחי with a yod, it is pasul, except in a case of great need or a situation of iggun. And some say that in any case it is kosher (the Gra, subsection 30; and regarding what he wrote that one time it is written in Daniel ימחה with a heh, and so wrote the Beit Yosef, I do not know its location).

If he wrote "v'yisrael" with the aleph and lamed as one, it is not disqualified thereby ex post facto if it was already given or in a case of iggun. This has already been explained in the previous siman, that we write "monin" and not "monin" [with a vav], and if he wrote "monin" [with a vav] it is not to be disqualified in a time of pressing need. Even if they were accustomed to write it thus ab initio, it is not to be disqualified, for twice it is found in the Tanakh plene with a vav, in Jeremiah 33 and in Psalms 147. Regarding "l'minyan" with one yod, for so it is in the Targum in Numbers many times, it appears that if he wrote it with two yods it is not to be disqualified, for there is no change in this, and in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 5a) it appears several times with two yods. The same law applies if he wrote "l'minyana" and not "l'minyan," it is also kosher. Similarly, if he wrote "l'minyan that we count with in such-and-such a city," it is also kosher, and so too anything similar to this.

That "diyatva" (which sits) on such-and-such river is one word with a single yod, and if he wrote it as two words and with two yods, "di yatva," it is kosher even not in a case of pressing necessity. And we write "in such-and-such town 'demitkarya' (which is called) such-and-such," for "ir" (city) is a feminine noun, as it is written: "Behold now, this city is 'kerova' (near)" and many such instances in Scripture. And we write "anisna" (I am compelled) full with a yod, which is the sign for one speaking of himself, and if he wrote it without a yod, "anis," it is also kosher ab initio, for the intent is the same and at times the way of the language is such.

They are accustomed to write "dehavat" as one word, and if he wrote "di havat," there is no concern. And if he did not write "min kadmat dena" but only wrote "dehavat inteti," or if he omitted the word "inteti" or the word "dehavat," it is kosher, for he already wrote previously "at inteti." And regarding "benafshichi," they are accustomed to write it with two yods, and if they wrote it with one yod, it is kosher, for according to the opinion of several poskim, they write it thus ab initio without a yod after the shin, because with a yod it implies two souls; however, in truth, this is not the primary view (and see the Beit Yosef). And regarding "le-itnasaba," they are accustomed to write it without any yod, and if he wrote a yod after the heh, it is kosher, as some say that ab initio they write it with a yod, except that they are not accustomed to do so. And there are those who are accustomed to write "min shemi min yoma denan u-le'alam," and some say that they do not write "min shemi," and thus they are accustomed in these lands.

One must write "and behold you are permitted to any man," for this is the primary essence of the get, and so we learned in the Mishnah (85a): The body of the get is "behold you are permitted to any man." In the early templates of gittin, this was not written (Tosafot 26a, s.v. "v'tzarich"), and so it is implied from the text of the get of Rashi, of blessed memory (85b). Their reasoning is that since we now write several expressions in the get—"I have released, and I have set free, and I have sent away"—and we triple this three times, and we also write "that you shall have authority and control over yourself to go to be married etc.," it is no longer necessary. In the time of the Mishnah, they did not lengthen it so much. Nevertheless, there are some of our teachers who wrote that if one did not write "behold you are permitted to any man," it is close to saying that if she married, she must leave (Ramban). The reason is that although it is true that he permitted her to marry whomever she desires, nevertheless, it was explained in siman 137 that if he said to her "except for your promiscuity," it is a reservation in the get; and here too, one could say that he only permitted her for marriage and not for promiscuity, for which her status would be like a married woman, and it would be a reservation in the get. Therefore, one writes "behold you are permitted" completely. And if you ask why indeed they established the practice to write "to be married," for one could say that since they write "behold you are permitted," they were not concerned about this. However, most of the poskim do not hold this way (Get Pashut and Pri Chadash, and so it is implied from the Vilna Gaon, subsection 148), for the concern of promiscuity only exists when he says so explicitly; and furthermore, behold he writes to her "dismissal, release, and freedom," which implies for every matter. Therefore, if she married, she does not leave. And similarly, if it is a case of iggun where the husband has wandered far away and it is impossible to obtain another get, she may marry ab initio. And so too, if he wrote "behold you are permitted to any man" but did not write "to go to be married to any etc.," if it is a case of iggun where they cannot obtain another get, she may marry (Get Pashut).

One must be careful to write "muteret" (permitted) with a vav, for if the vav is omitted, it is possible that it is pasul even ex post facto, as it implies that she permits (materet) another person (Levush and Beit Shmuel, subsection 36). And even though it is possible to read it with a shuruk, and a shuruk does not require a vav like a melafum, nevertheless, it appears more likely to people to read it with a patah, meaning that she permits another person. All this is according to those who disqualify in the case of the omission of "harei at" etc., but according to most poskim, there is no concern in this in a case of iggun (also the Gra, subsection 50, criticized this, and I do not know his intent, for he wrote that the tav is with a dagesh, and what of it? For "materet" with a patah is also with a dagesh; and it requires further study).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 41 that initially it is good to be careful to write "harei at" in one line, but if the get was already written in two lines, it is kosher to give it. Thus far his words. And the reason initially is so that it will be read at once without interruption, for if one interrupts, it could be said that the listener thinks he did not permit her to every man (Levush); and according to this, the reader should see not to interrupt in the reading (Beit Shmuel). And in truth, the primary reason is very weak and has no taste (Get Pashut). And in the Gemara we find explicitly the opposite, as it says that he wrote "harei at" below and "muteret" above (85b; the Gra also wrote this, and the Terumat HaDeshen himself wrote that he did not know a scent of strictness in this, and it was brought in the Beit Yosef). However, initially one certainly must be careful to write "ve-harei at muteret le-khol adam" in one line since it issued from the mouth of our teacher, the Rema, and such is the custom.

One must be careful to write "v'den di yehei" etc., so that there will be "yadayim mokhichot" that he is divorcing her with this get, and they shall not say that he divorces her through speech and the document is merely for evidence; for in the Gemara (85b) it remained in doubt whether "v'den" is a critical requirement or not, and a doubt regarding a prohibition is ruled stringently. Most of the poskim wrote likewise, even though from the Rambam it does not appear so. Similarly, the word "minai" is a critical requirement even ex post facto, so that there will be "yadayim mokhichot" that he is divorcing her and not another man, as we say at the beginning of Nedarim (5b). It is a wonder that the Shulchan Arukh did not mention this, as the opinion of most poskim is that we require "v'den" and "minai," and if he omitted one of them, it is a doubtful divorce. One should write "minai" without a yod after the mem, for with a yod it is like "minut" (heresy). If he wrote a yod, it is not disqualified ex post facto, for according to the flow of the language the intent is clear that it is "from me." And "di yehei" is written as two words, and such is the custom; however, if he wrote "diyehei" as one word, it is kosher. And even if he only wrote "de-hei," it is kosher in a time of great need in a case of agunah, and it is a language of "present," meaning: and this, which is from me, is a book of dismissal, etc. And read "v'den" with a tzeirei, and "minai" with the mem in chirik, the nun in kamatz, and the aleph in chirik, and "de-havit" the vav is with a tzeirei (Levush).

It has already been explained that one must lengthen the vavs of "taruchin," "shvukin," and "pturin," and that one must include five yuds in "de-tihveyin" and "de-titzveyin," and that one should not write a yud in "den" or "be-iggeret." The Rambam wrote in chapter 4, halakha 14, and this is his wording: If one wrote in this version and did not lengthen these vavs, or did not write the extra yuds, or wrote the yuds that we said should not be written, this is a pasul get; and so too anything similar to this in any language is pasul. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 22, and they wrote that aside from the two additional yuds in "de-tihveyin" and "de-titzveyin," which is only a custom. Thus far his words. And he means that he wrote "de-tihveyin" and "de-titzveyin," for if the dalets are not in place of the relative "asher," they are in place of a shin, meaning "so that you shall be" or "that you shall desire" (Rosh). According to this, one also need not be particular about the yud between the tav and the hei (ibid.), nor about the yud between the tav and the tzadi (and these are the two additional yuds in each one, and examine this closely). They further wrote that there are those who say that if one did not write "de-tihveyin rasha'ah" but only wrote "zot tehei rasha'ah," it is even better. Thus far his words.

And this is the opinion of the Rambam, that with these changes the get is invalid, and even though they are only mere concerns, nevertheless, this is called changing from the form that the sages established (the Maggid Mishneh). And if she married, she shall not leave. However, the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, wrote there in the name of the Gaon that all these precision-requirements are only when the husband comes and protests. This is the wording of the Maggid Mishneh: And the masters wrote that all these rabbinic precision-requirements apply where the husband himself wrote it, or alternatively a scribe from his mouth, and afterwards the husband comes and protests, saying "it was I who invalidated it with these precision-requirements and I intended to cause her ruin." But if the husband told the scribe and the witnesses to write the get even without specification, and the scribe and the witnesses erred in one of these letters, and the husband does not protest, the get is valid and she may marry with it. And if witnesses are available, they shall testify before a beit din that it was a scribal error. And so wrote our teacher Hai: if the husband gave permission to the scribe to write a complete get and they erred in all of these or in some of them, if the scribe is present he corrects it, and if not and she married with this get, we do not remove her. And certainly if she comes to marry and the husband comes and protests and says, "this which is written 'and this'—'judgment' is what I said, etc., and for this I intended," we do not let her marry. But if she married, we do not remove her, etc. And our teacher Nissim replied thus as a tradition from the mouth of the Gaon: where the husband himself wrote the get, if she married and the husband protested, she shall leave, and if the woman claims it is a scribal error, it is upon her to bring proof. But if there is no protest from the husband and there is an error from the hand of a scribe, and he commanded to write a get without specification, since he desired to divorce with a complete mind, she does not need a second get, and any error that comes from the hand of a scribe, the protest of the husband is nothing. And such is the opinion of the Geonim, of blessed memory, etc. And I have written these opinions and it is not in my power to decide. Thus far the words of the Maggid Mishneh. And so wrote the Ran, and also the Tur brought this, but he did not write that if she married she shall leave; see there.

And behold, according to the commentators, this is the explanation: that with two factors for stringency—the protest of the husband and that he wrote it himself or the scribe wrote it from his mouth—even if she married, she must leave. And with two factors for leniency—that the scribe wrote it and the husband commanded him without specification, and also he did not protest—even initially she may marry. And with one factor for leniency and one factor for stringency—such as where the husband wrote it but did not protest, or the scribe wrote it and the husband commanded him without specification but the husband protested—she may not marry initially, but if she married, she does not leave (Taz, and Lechem Mishneh, and Pri Chadash, and the Maharit ben Lev in a responsum, and others). And from the Rambam, and the Ra'avad, and the Tur, it is explained that we never say "if she married, she must leave."

However, from the end of the words of the Maggid, it is implied that this is not entirely one opinion. Therefore, it should be explained that the authorities and our teacher, Hai, do not hold at all that if she married she must leave, even with two factors of disadvantage. Therefore, the Tur did not mention this at all, and this is only the opinion of our teacher, Nissim, in the name of the Gaon. Similarly, the Ra'avad did not mention this in the name of the Gaon, for he is addressing the words of the Rambam; and if it entered your mind that there is a case where if she married she must leave, he should have mentioned it, for the Rambam does not hold at all that she must leave. Similarly, the explanation is not that when the husband protests she may not marry in any case, but specifically with his writing or the writing of a scribe from his mouth. And that which he wrote, "and the husband does not protest," his intention was "or the husband does not protest," and it is a "vav" of division.

And this is the explanation of the opinion of the authorities: that all these meticulous requirements apply when there are two defects, but if he told the scribe to write without specification and they erred, or even if he wrote it himself and does not protest, it is kosher and she may marry with it. And if witnesses are available, it is good that they should testify that it was a scribal error and not for the purpose of corruption. And the words of Rav Hai are explained thus: if the husband gave permission to the scribe to write a complete get and they erred, etc., if the scribe is present, he corrects it even without asking the husband, and then we do not heed his protest. But if the scribe is not present, and of necessity when another corrects it one must ask the husband if he may correct it, as is written in siman 125, and if they did not do so, we do not tell her to marry, for perhaps he will come and protest; but if she married, she shall not leave, even when he wrote it himself (and this is what he said, "this which is written 'and this' etc.," which implies explicitly that he wrote it himself, and with this he concludes that she shall not leave). However, if he protests before she has married, even if it is not of his writing, we do not allow her to marry. And our teacher Nissim added that when he wrote it himself and protests, even if she married she shall not leave. And if the woman brings proof that there was no intention for corruption at the time of the writing, we do not heed his protest. But if there is no protest from the husband, even when he wrote it himself, we have no concern regarding this and she may marry. And so too if he commanded to write without specification and the scribe erred, his protest is nothing. And that which he wrote, "and it has an error from the hand of the scribe etc.," it is a "vav" of division, see there. And according to this, there are several opinions in this matter, where this one is stringent, that one is lenient, and likewise the reverse (and see in Gittin Pashut subsection 65 who also brought other opinions in their explanation and not like the previous explanation, and also from the Beit Shmuel subsection 32 it is explained that he is in doubt regarding the intent of these matters) (and also from what is written in siman 123 section 12 this is explained, see there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 22, after bringing the opinion of the Rambam, wrote, and this is his wording: Some say that if the husband did not protest, it is kosher; and there is one who says that his protest is not effective unless he wrote it or the scribe wrote it from his mouth. Thus far his words. And he was very brief, but in any case it appears explicitly as I have written, since he did not bring at all that opinion that if she married she must leave, from which it follows that he holds this is a solitary opinion and we do not rule accordingly. Furthermore, we learned from his words that according to the Ra'avad, which is the "some say," without protest it is kosher in any case, even in the husband's handwriting. And according to the opinion of the authorities, which is the "there is one who says," in the handwriting of a scribe the protest is of no effect at all, and in his own handwriting or the scribe's from his mouth his protest is effective, and without protest even in this case it is kosher. According to this, the Rambam is more stringent than all of them, and even according to him, if she married she shall not leave, as he wrote in chapter 10.

And in truth, the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, are very difficult, for that which the Maggid Mishneh wrote—that his reason is because he deviates from the formula that the sages established—this itself we have not found except regarding the matter of "in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed," where they said so in the Gemara. But in this case, where the sages of blessed memory merely warned us to do so, from where do we know that this is called deviating from the formula that the sages established? For behold, regarding the enactment of Rabban Gamliel that the witnesses shall sign the get, nevertheless, if they did not sign and he gave it to her in the presence of witnesses of delivery alone, the get is valid; and similarly with witnesses of signature alone and without witnesses of delivery, as he wrote in chapter 1 and as will be explained in siman 133. And behold, you have no greater deviation from the formula than this, and nevertheless he ruled that it is valid. Rather, certainly in a place where the sages of blessed memory themselves did not say that it is called deviating from the formula, we do not say so. Furthermore, from his own words in that same chapter, law 9, another reason for this is heard: that it is only because of the rumors of others, as he wrote: Any language in which he writes the get must, etc., so that it does not imply two matters, until the reader is found saying, "Perhaps he intended this or that," etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he was concerned for the rumors of the reader. And it appears to me that he interprets the Gemara in this way: regarding everything they warned about so that it should not imply other meanings, the intention is that it should not imply other meanings to the reader, and they will spread rumors against the get.

And know that regarding the lengthening of the vavs of "tashpu," the great Acharonim agreed that the Rambam does not disqualify unless one made them small like yuds, but if one made them as vavs, even if he did not lengthen them relative to the other vavs, there is no concern in this (Beit Shmuel small mark 32, and Taz small mark 24, and Pri Chadash, and Get Pashut small mark 66). Nevertheless, one should lengthen them before the signatures of the witnesses, or at least before the giving. And specifically this scribe himself [may correct it], but another may not correct it except by the command of the husband, for when it is not a time of pressing need, one should not deliver the get without the lengthening of the vavs, as the Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh. This is his wording: If the get was given to her and the vavs are not long, and the husband is far from here, I would not disqualify it because of this; and similarly, if there is a remedy for agunah in it, such as if it was brought from a distant place, they should lengthen the vavs, for presumably the husband commanded to write according to the enactment of the sages, and if the scribe did not write properly, it is pleasing to the husband that they correct it, and upon this one may rely in a time of pressing need. Thus far his words. And this applies to a get that was sent, but when the husband is before us, another should not correct it without the command of the husband, as I wrote in siman 125. And similarly, if they wrote a yud in "v'den," or if they wrote "li" from "v'hen," or if the heh resembles a chet, they should correct them before the signatures, and at least before the giving. And they should correct them in a manner that there will be no concern of chak tochot, as I wrote there. And even though in this manner there will be a scraping or writing over an erasure, it is kosher according to the law, for one may write on something that can be forged; and even though we do not write [this way], as I wrote there, nevertheless, if it is in a manner where it is impossible to write another get, they should do so, for this is a disqualification according to the law of the Gemara. And one who is knowledgeable in the nature of gittin knows how to correct, and it is impossible to explain everything in writing.

The version of the get of the Rosh, in which they write "and any name" regarding both the names and the location, this is its version: I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, from such-and-such city which sits etc., and any other name or nickname that I have or my location has etc. Thus far his words. We do not write "and any name" for anything, as I wrote in siman 128 and 129. Regarding the version of the Rosh, our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch wrote in this siman, section 30, and this is his wording: They are accustomed to writing "who stands in such-and-such a place" before "and any name," and some say that one must write the nickname before "who stands in such-and-such a place," and so they are accustomed in these lands. They are accustomed to writing "so-and-so ben so-and-so" and not "bar so-and-so," and if he wrote "bar," the get is valid. They are accustomed to writing "and any name that I have or my ancestors had." Thus far his words. For us, we do not write "and any name" at all, except in a case of reversal, as I wrote there.

In a get for a betrothed woman, they write "that you were my betrothed," and if he wrote "that you were my wife," it is valid, for even a betrothed woman is called his wife, as he also betroths her with this language as has been written in siman 27. And some say that the same applies to the reverse, that if he wrote to his wife "my betrothed," it is valid ex post facto, and some disqualify in this (Levush), and one should be stringent in practice (and the Atteret Zvi also rejected the proof of the Beit Yosef and wrote like the Levush).

A shin or an ayin where the yudin were not touching them, such that they are separated from the body of the letters, and similarly the yudin of an aleph or a tzadi that do not touch the letter, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 17 that if a child reads them properly, even if they are in the toref, one may validate them in a case of iggun. And similarly, if the legs of the heis were attached to their roofs, he ruled that if a child who is neither wise nor foolish reads them, one may validate them in a case of iggun even if it is in the toref, and he shall separate them with a knife. Thus far his words. And we have already explained this in the previous siman, section 45, that regarding this matter we are more lenient with a get than with a sefer Torah, for with a sefer Torah the reading of a child is not effective for this matter, but with a get we rely on it because for the essential validity of the get there are several formulations of divorce, and to the eye of the observer, since the child reads it correctly, this is not a change in a time of pressing need. Nevertheless, it is proper to correct it before the signatures, and in any event before the giving. And that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, that he shall separate it with a knife, it appears to me that he did not mean this literally, for this would be hak tochot, but rather it means that he should erase the leg and write it correctly; and he relied on what he wrote regarding these matters in the previous siman (it appears to me).

He further wrote in section 20: Since we recognize the style of the matter, it is not to be invalidated because of the omission of one letter. Thus far his words. And his intention is even in the toref, for regarding the tofes he wrote in section 49: If he omitted one word from the tofes, it is not invalidated by this. Thus far his words. And why would he need to inform us regarding one letter? Rather, it is certain that even in the toref, if the omission of the letter does not cause a change in the meaning, it is not to be invalidated. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all the more so if he omitted the second vav of "ve-khadu" and wrote "ve-khad," since the matter does not change, there is no invalidation in this omission. And the same law applies if there were extra letters, as long as the matter does not change; but if the matter changed, it is invalid. Therefore, some say that if he wrote "li-vriat alma" with a heh, the get is invalid, for "almah" is the language of a young woman; and some validate it in a time of pressing need. Thus far his words. And according to the first opinion, the get is invalid even if the husband does not protest, because the language of "almah" with a heh more readily bears the meaning of a young woman than the meaning of the world; but if he wrote "le-alma" with an aleph, it is kosher (Beit Shmuel, subsection 41). And many great authorities validated it with a heh in a time of pressing need when it is impossible to obtain another get (Get Pashut, subsection 107, and the Pri Chadash validates it even not in a case of agunah, see there).

It is a settled halacha in the Gemara (Bava Batra 162a) that one does not learn from the last line in documents, and it was explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 44. Therefore, the scribe must be careful that the last line should not contain "sefer teruchin," "iggeret shevukin," or "get pitturin," but only "kedat Moshe veYisrael" alone. Therefore, they are accustomed to making them very large letters, because that which precedes this should not be written for the reason we have written. And that he should finish in the middle of the line is not proper, for the reason that there is a concern that the witnesses will sign on this line, and then one does not learn from the line before it, and it would disqualify "veden di yehei" etc., which is the essence of the get, as has been explained. Therefore, it is necessary to greatly lengthen these letters in order to finish at the end of the line. However, post facto, when it is impossible to write another get and there is a concern of agunah, it is not disqualified by this, even if he wrote "veden" on the last line, for in such a case we do learn from the last line. For we hold that in a place where they write "sharir vekayam," one learns from the last line, as written in Choshen Mishpat there, and "kedat Moshe veYisrael" is in a get like "sharir vekayam" in other documents. However, ab initio we do not rely on this because there are some among the Rishonim who questioned this, but post facto one may be lenient (and see Beit Yosef and Beit Shmuel subsection 29).

In siman 134 it will be explained that the husband must nullify protestations, and nevertheless, one should not write the nullification of protestations in the get, for we do not write any condition in a get as is written in siman 147. And one should not ask according to this regarding all the concerns explained in this siman and in the previous siman where we are concerned for forgery—what concern of forgery could there be for us, since we do not write anything in the get except for the established formula? For it can be said that regarding the names of the man and the woman and the fathers and the locations, there is reason to concern for forgery. Furthermore, that which we do not write a condition in the get is because of a stringency, as is written there, and therefore it is impossible that because we accepted upon ourselves this stringency, we should be lenient from this regarding another matter.