Siman 128

One must mention in the get the location where they write and sign the get, and this is what we write: "on such-and-such [date] etc. according to the era that we count here in... the city situated etc." And this is an enactment of our sages of blessed memory to write the location where the get was made. And the opinion of the Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Tur, and so it is implied from the Rambam, is that the primary concern is for the location of the witnesses and not the location of the scribe, for what concern is there regarding the scribe? But regarding the witnesses, it is a beneficial enactment for the sake of the order of the world, lest a challenge arise against it, so that we may know who the witnesses are in order that we may validate it through them (Levush). And if we do not write the name of the city, who knows who the witnesses are? For are there not many [named] Yosef ben Shimon in the world? But one should not say the reason is so that it shall be testimony that you are able to subject to the law of "conspiring witnesses," such that they could say to them, "you were with us," and of necessity they must write the location where they were at the time of the writing of the get; for we maintain that the witnesses of delivery effect the severance, and the witnesses of signature are only for the sake of the order of the world (ibid.). And regarding the witnesses of delivery, there is no benefit in writing the location, for perhaps it was delivered to her in another location, and those cannot be subjected to the law of "conspiring witnesses." Therefore, the first reason appears correct (it is Tosafot and the Rosh, ibid. See there).

But there are some of the great Rishonim (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Sefer HaTerumah, and Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter 1) who hold that one must also be meticulous regarding the location of the scribe's standing, and so implies the plain meaning of the language of the Gemara (ibid. which says "rather, [it refers] to the scribe"). Now, according to the first opinion, if the scribe writes in Tiberias and the witnesses sign in Tzippori, one must write Tzippori in the get; but according to this opinion, they must all be in one place, as it is impossible otherwise. And it is certainly so that one should not write the location of the scribe's standing alone and the location of the witnesses' standing alone, for the enactment was not thus, and of necessity they must be in one place (and with this the words of the Tur and Shulchan Arukh at the end of section 1 are understood, see there). And regarding the reasoning of the proponents of this opinion, it may be said that since in truth the entire get is the language of the husband, and the location of the husband is clarified in the get, if so, there is no relevance at all to mention the locations of the witnesses as well, except because the matters of the get must be clarified since they must write and sign for his sake and for her sake; therefore, it must be clarified in which place they wrote and signed this great matter. And just as regarding the identification of the man and the woman, the scribe also must identify them, as is written in siman 120, so too regarding the matter of the place where they stand, the scribe is equal to the witnesses. But the first opinion holds that it is not comparable to identification, which is necessary to identify them since he must write for his sake and for her sake, and if he does not identify them, this is not considered "for his sake and for her sake"; however, the location of his standing is of no relevance at all (and see Beit Shmuel subsection 4). Furthermore, the truth is that the get is the language of the husband, but he writes according to the era that we count and speaks with the witnesses, therefore we write the location of the witnesses (ibid. subsection 1), but with the scribe he does not speak, rather he is his agent to write.

And if the place of the standing of the witnesses and the scribe was not written at all, the great later authorities (the Beit Shmuel, the Get Pashut, and the Tuv Gittin) agreed that the get is valid, for certainly there was no decree of the sages to disqualify the get because of this. It is not similar to a case where it lacks a date, where there is concern for potential harm, but in this case there is no concern of harm at all; rather, it is a beneficial enactment, as I have written. And it is a simple matter that if the get has not yet been given and there is time to go back and write another get with the place of their standing, one should write another get.

And there is a question regarding this: for are there not some of our teachers who hold that regarding anything that is not necessary to mention, if one changed it, it does not disqualify (Tosafot, ibid., beginning with "And there")? And if so, since a change in the location of the standing of the witnesses is a disqualification as will be explained, it must be that the omission is a hindrance. And the answer to this is that this rule only applies to a matter where the falsehood is not evident from within it, such as a change in the place of birth—as will be explained before us that it was their custom to write—for not everyone knows in which place one was born and this is not a recognizable matter. But regarding the location of the standing of the witnesses, where the falsehood is evident from within it—for they may come to refute the witnesses and say they are false witnesses since they were with us in such-and-such a place—certainly the change disqualifies, even though the omission is not a hindrance (Get Pashut).

Therefore, if they changed the location of their standing and wrote that it was written in another place, the get is invalid even in a time of pressing need (ibid.). And if she married, she does not leave, like all rabbinic invalidations whose law will be explained in siman 150. This is the opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh, and thus they ruled anonymously in the Shulchan Aruch, section 1, and did not bring another opinion. However, this is the wording of the Tur: If one changed the location of the standing of the witnesses, Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that if she married with it, the offspring is a mamzer. And so wrote the Ramah, that even if she married she must leave, but the offspring is kosher from the second husband; however, from the first (if he took her back without a get from the second), he is a mamzer. But it did not seem correct to my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory. And Rabbeinu Tam ruled that the offspring is kosher, but she may not marry with it ab initio. And according to the explanation of Rashi, she may marry with it ab initio, and such is the opinion of Rav Alfas. Thus far his words. And he means when the get has already been given.

And behold, that which was written that according to Rabbeinu Chananel the offspring is a certain mamzer, its meaning is not that he would be permitted to a complete mamzeret, for it is only rabbinic; rather, his intention is a mamzer by rabbinic decree (Bach), for he holds that this is called changing from the form that the sages established, and the offspring is a mamzer by their words. And the first one, when he took her back without a get from the second, the offspring is a mamzer from the Torah, for since from the Torah she is completely divorced, the betrothal of the second was a complete betrothal. And that which he wrote that according to Rashi and the Rif she may be married with it ab initio, it is not that this is explicit in their words, but rather the Tur understood their intention so, and there is no clear necessity for this to one who examines the sugya. And so wrote one of the great ones (Get Pashut subsection 4 in the name of the Re'em). And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, took as the primary view the opinion of the Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, and the Rosh, and so appears to be the primary view (Get Pashut). And there are those who were concerned for the opinion of the Ramah that she must leave (Beit Shmuel subsection 3 and Tur HaZahav), and one must deliberate on this, for they wrote that Rav Hai Gaon also holds like the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch.

And know that there is one who says that a change is considered such not only with a complete change where one wrote a different city, but even if one wrote the name of that same city with a change, such as the city of Tunis which one wrote as Tans, or the city of Lepanto which one wrote as Liponat, the get is invalid (Get Pashut, subsection 3). And thus wrote one of the great authorities regarding a city whose name is Piltz and they wrote it as Pilz, that it constitutes a change of name (Noda BiYehudah, siman 7). And there are changes that one need not be so particular about after the fact, or in a case of agunah and a time of pressing need (Get Pashut), such as in Kushtandina where one wrote Kushtantina, a tet instead of a dalet, or where one wrote Kushtantin, it is valid, for the change is not so noticeable; but Tans and Tunis, the change is noticeable. And similarly, the city of Ischopi where they did not write the yud after the aleph and they validated it (ibid.). Therefore, those who sit in judgment should be precise regarding the changes, which to validate and which to invalidate (ibid.). However, there are some of the great authorities who hold that these changes are not judged as a change, but rather as if one did not write the name of the place at all, and so it appears (Beit Meir and Gemat), and it requires further study.

And in truth it appears that if according to the reading of the reader it appears like a completely different city, it certainly constitutes a change; but if according to his reading he recognizes that it is the city, only that it is written with a corruption, there is no concern in this to disqualify ex post facto. And according to this, everything depends on the discernment of the beit din. And more than this, we see in the writing of the names of cities astonishing things, for in the city of my birth which everyone calls Babruysk, both Jews and non-Jews, and so it is written in every script and language and in the government registries, yet in a get they write Babraisk. And so too the city where I am now, Navahardak, which they write in a get with the omission of an aleph between the dalet and the kof, and it is astonishing, for the kamatz draws an aleph and in every language they read the dalet with a kamatz. Furthermore, according to the writing that they practice, there would be three consecutive shevas, and this thing is impossible as is known, and of necessity it must be said that the reader will read with a kamatz even without the aleph, and it seems to me that it would more likely be read with a patach and it would be like a change of name. And at the beginning of my arrival here I reflected much on this, but I was afraid to change because so wrote all the great ones who were before us; and it must be said of necessity that since the matter is known that so they wrote in a get, everyone knows that this is not a change.

It is written in the Mordechai in the chapter HaMegeresh a responsum of the Ritzba and the Rashba, the authors of the Tosafot, and this is their wording: Regarding the get that was brought from the land of Hagar, etc., and that which they call Borzish and we call Bauryish, it seems in my eyes that since from the place of the man's residence and the place of the writing of the get it is proven that it came from the land of Hagar, and their language is to speak with a light pronunciation, one should not be particular at all. Thus far their words. And we have learned from these words of our teachers that regarding that which we hold that the name of the place of delivery is primary, this is when the names are distinct; but with one name, only that according to the language of pronunciation from province to province it changed slightly with a change of letters and vowels, and in the place of delivery it is known that in the place of writing they speak thus and they know that this is the name of the city or the river that there they call it thus and here they call it thus, there is no concern at all if they wrote according to the pronunciation of the place of writing.

They further wrote there, and this is their wording: That which they wrote "on the river Yair," and we are accustomed to write "on the river Kair," since there is no other letter in the place of the vernacular, thus a yod is equal in place of a kof. Thus far their words. And the matters are obscure (see Aruch HaShulchan and Get Pashut, subsection 3). And it appears to me that this is the explanation: Certainly if there were another letter there in the place of the writing instead of the kof of the place of the giving, it would be a complete change of name (like Nephata and Tephata, 63b). However, since in the place of the writing there is no other letter instead of the kof, but rather the kof is missing, thus a yod is equal in place of a kof; that is to say, it is equal when it begins with a yod as if it began with a kof, for everyone understands that it is the same river that they call here "Kair," except that in the name they omitted the kof and adopted a short form "Yair," and this is like an abbreviation of the name. And that which he wrote "another letter in the place of the vernacular," he means in place of the vernacular of the kof (so it appears to me).

The Darkhei Moshe wrote in the name of the Mahariv that if one divorces within the ibbur of a city, they write "who is present here," for within the ibbur of the city is like the city itself. Thus far his words (Beit Shmuel, subsection 1). And it appears that this is the explanation: that if there is a wall around the city, or the houses themselves are adjacent to one another around the city until it is clearly visible that there is the edge of the city (see Rashi at the beginning of the fifth chapter of Eruvin), and behind the wall there are more houses, if they are within the ibbur of the city—that is, within seventy cubits and a fraction—and the one giving the divorce or the one receiving the divorce are standing there, they can write in the get "who is present in such-and-such a city" or "who is present." And likewise, if they write a get there, they can write the name of the city, for within the ibbur of a city, the name of the city is upon it. And it implies that after the ibbur of the city, one should not write the name of the city even if they are within the techum, for what does the techum have to do with the city? And such is the law regarding vows, as we learned in a Mishnah (Nedarim 56b): One who vows to abstain from the city is permitted to enter the techum of the city but is forbidden to enter its ibbur. And it is explained in the Gemara there that it is written, "And it came to pass, when Joshua was in Jericho," and it is impossible to say literally "in Jericho," for it is written, "Now Jericho was straitly shut up," but rather that he was in the ibbur of Jericho. And it is impossible to say in the techum of Jericho, for regarding the techum it is written in the Torah, "And ye shall measure without the city for the east side two thousand cubits," which proves that it is called "outside the city" and not "city." See there.

One must analyze according to this that which is written in Yehoshua (21): "And it was for the children of Aharon... and they gave them Kiryat Arba... which is Hevron in the hill country of Yehuda, and its open land around it; but the field of the city and its courtyards they gave to Kalev son of Yefuneh as his possession." And at the beginning of Shoftim it is written: "And they gave Hevron to Kalev as Moshe had spoken," etc. And perforce it was much further from Hevron than its ibbur, for it was after the open land, and the open land itself is one thousand amot as is written in Masei. And the open land itself is called "outside the city," as is written there: "And the open lands of the cities which you shall give to the Levi'im, from the wall of the city and outward, one thousand amot around." Nevertheless, in Shoftim it calls it Hevron. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Batra 122b; Makkot 10a), where it challenges the verse in Shoftim: how could they give it to Kalev, for was it not a city of refuge? And it answers that they gave him the suburbs of the city—villages, fields, and courtyards adjacent to it that are called by its name, these they gave to Kalev (Rashi). And it must be said that it is not a general rule, for only in an unspecified case do we say that outside the ibbur it is not like the city; but if they are called by the name of the city, even if they are very far, the name of the city is upon them. And this is not because it belongs to the city, but because they call it by the name of the city. And so it was in Hevron, that they also called the villages around it by the name Hevron. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said in Makkot ibid. regarding the city of Kadesh, that one was a large city, a fortified city, and a medium city was adjacent to it which they also called Kadesh. See there.

Furthermore, it appears to me that regarding Hebron and Jericho there is no difficulty at all, for this distinction between within its outskirts and beyond its outskirts only applies to a city that has a wall around it or where the houses themselves are attached to one another and they themselves are like a wall around the city, for in such a case the term "outside the city" is well-applied. But a city that does not have a wall around it, and also the houses are not attached to one another, how is it relevant to say of it "outside the city"? Who knows where the edge of the city is? According to this, it is well-settled, for Jericho was surrounded by a wall as is explained there, but Hebron was a city of refuge, and cities of refuge are forbidden from being surrounded by a wall, as is stated in Makkot there (which asks from the fortified cities). And so it is stated explicitly at the end of tractate Arakhin, that cities of refuge are without a wall around them, see there. Therefore, even a great distance away is called by the name of the city. Nevertheless, it is impossible to say so, for behold, in Nedarim it does not distinguish between whether it has a wall or does not have a wall. Furthermore, it derives this from the verse "And you shall measure outside the city," which is written regarding the cities of the Levites, and their cities were not surrounded by a wall, as is stated in Arakhin there. Rather, certainly, wherever the houses of the city end, that is the edge of the city, and all the houses thereafter are called "outside the city," and all that is beyond the outskirts is not included in the city. And the primary explanation is like the first answer, that in Hebron, even the villages and the courtyards and the fields were called Hebron. And so we find at the beginning of Gittin, "Lod and Kfar Ludim," and in Makkot there, "Selikum and Akra de-Selikum," see there. And that which will be explained, that regarding a river, as long as it is within the techum of a city one writes "which sits upon such-and-such river," this is because the city's usages are from it, as will be explained, and there is no proof for houses standing beyond its outskirts. And so wrote the Mordechai in the chapter "Mi She-Achazo," that beyond the outskirts of a city, it is not included in the name of the city even if it is within the techum (see there in the gloss beginning "There are those who explain").

And even though in the Maimonidean Responsa to the laws of Ishut, siman 22, a response of the Rashba, the author of the Tosafot, is written, stating that anything within the techum is considered like the city, and he brought proofs for this; however, he himself wrote there that he does not rely on the proofs, and his primary reasoning is from logical deduction regarding a river or a mill, for the name of the city is called upon them, see there. And according to this, he does not disagree in our case, for regarding houses this is not applicable, as I have written. And I have seen one who relied on this to validate within the techum anything where the name of the city is written, but it is not at all clear. For certainly, if they have no other name but the name of the city, even ab initio one writes the name of the city, as I have written regarding Hebron. But if it does not have the name of the city, it appears that it is a change of location. And so appears the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, see there. And it requires further study why he did not mention anything of this in the Shulchan Aruch at all. (And the Get Pashut, subsection 26, validates in a time of pressing need even outside the techum, and within the techum he is lenient ex post facto, see there, and it requires further study):

And behold, if it becomes necessary to write outside the ibur of a city, if that place does not have a name of its own, it appears that one must write "according to the count that we count here near..." or to write "here on the side of...". And in the Gemara we find this phrasing (Yevamot 115b): A certain get that was found in Nehardea and it was written "on the side of the city of Kalunya" etc. However, it is possible that the city was called by two names, "Side of Kalunya" (and perhaps this is the intention of Rashi there, for if not so, what is it coming to teach us?) (and from the aforementioned Teshuvot Maimoniot it implies according to its plain meaning). And however one wrote it, it is kosher. And so too, if the husband is standing there at the time of the writing of the get, he should write "who is standing near..." or "who is standing on the side of... the city that sits..." etc. And so too, if the woman is standing there, he should write "who is standing near" or "on the side of" (so it appears to me if this place does not have a name of its own, and even if it is outside the techum, since it is nullified to the city).

And behold, now in our time, in many cities there are suburbs at the edge of the city that have a name of their own, whether it is continuous with the city together or whether it is separated from the city by some distance. For example, my city in which I am currently located has a small suburb separated from the city by about half a techum Shabbat, and it is called Pieriesieka. In the city of Novardok, if one asks a resident there "where is your dwelling," he will answer "in Pieriesieka." And if he asks him in the form of a question, "Do you dwell in Novardok," he will answer and say, "No, for my dwelling is in Pieriesieka." Also in the government registries it has this name; however, from the registries there is no proof, for every part of the city has a name of its own, as such is the law of the government that every street shall have a name. And it appears to me that if it is necessary to write a get there, he should write "according to the count that we count here in Pieriesieka, which is near the city of Novardok, etc." or "in Pieriesieka which is on the side of the city of Novardok, etc." And if he wrote only "in Pieriesieka" alone, it appears that it is valid ex post facto. But if he wrote only "in Novardok," it appears that another get is required. And perhaps in a case of iggun or a time of pressing need one may rely [on it], since in other places this name is not known at all, and when the man dwelling in Pieriesieka travels a distance of ten parsaot and they ask him "from where are you," he will say "from Novardok," and when they say to him "from where did you come," he will say "from Novardok," and when they ask him "to where are you traveling" upon his return from his way, he will say "to Novardok." This is nothing other than a part of the city, and one must deliberate on this for a practical ruling.

The term "mata" is written whether regarding a large city or a small city, and even regarding a small village (the Gra, subsection 10), for "mata" means a place. However, this is according to the explanation of the Tosafot in Eruvin (21a), but according to the explanation of Rashi there, there is no proof. And it appears to me that it is better to write "in the village of such-and-such," for so Onkelos explained regarding "Havvoth-jair" as "the villages of Jair" at the end of parashat Matot, and similarly there where it is written "and he took Kenath and its daughter-towns," he explained "Kenath and its villages." Furthermore, it appears to me that when the necessity arises to write "village," he should write "the village of such-and-such adjacent to the city of such-and-such," because it is known that there are many villages that have the same name, and the place where the get was written is not well-recognized. And they write "in the mata of such-and-such" or "in such-and-such mata," and such is the custom among us.

When the necessity arises to write a get in courtyards that are in the fields, it appears that one must write: "according to the count that we count here in the courtyard of so-and-so, which is near the city of so-and-so, a city that sits..." And if one must write a get in the inns [kretshmes] that are on the road and stand alone without a village near them, he should write: "according to the count that we count here in..." according to whatever they call it, "which is near the city of so-and-so, a city etc." For that which we call in our language "kretshmes," there is no specific word for this either in the Holy Tongue or in Aramaic, and therefore one should only write its name. And when he writes in all of these "near the city of so-and-so," he will not need to write the name of the river that is in the village, courtyard, or inn; and for the most part there are no rivers there, and when there are, it is not clear what its name is called. Therefore, it is better to write the proximity to the city as I have written, and the proximity to the city is known to all the inhabitants of the villages and estates, as to which city they belong. And behold, it is certainly so that one should prevent himself with all his ability from writing a get except in a city where they regularly arrange gittin; however, sometimes with a get of a dangerously ill person, the necessity is to arrange it in the place where the sick person lies, and therefore we have explained these matters. And if he omitted the word "city" [mata], it is kosher. And they wrote that if the entire province is called by the name of the city—such as there is the province of Bavel and a city whose name is Bavel—when they write in the city of Bavel, they write "in the province of Bavel" (Darkhei Moshe and Beit Shmuel, subsection 7) "that sits etc." and they put the province before its actual name. But regarding "city" [mata], our custom is to put its name before "mata," and the reason is that "mata" must be placed adjacent to "that sits on the river," meaning to say, "the city that sits on such-and-such river." This is not the case with a province, where it is impossible to write thus, for its meaning would be that the entire province sits on that river. And after the fact, there is no concern in either of them whether he wrote them earlier or later. (In the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Megillah: "family and family," these are the villages; "province and province," these are the metropolises; "city and city," these are the large towns.)

There are versions where they would write, both regarding names and regarding cities, "and any name that I have and that my place has," because of the concern that perhaps they have some other name. Nevertheless, if it is known that it has two names, one does not rely on this, and one writes explicitly "such-and-such a city which is called such-and-such." Our custom is not to write "and any name," neither regarding names nor regarding cities; rather, if it has two names, one writes explicitly "demitkarya" as has been written. One should not write a yod next to the mem, for the dalet is with a sheva, and after a sheva it is impossible for there to be a yod. However, if one wrote a yod, "dimitkarya," it is kosher, and one reads the dalet with a chirik. One writes "demitkarya" with an aleph or "demitkaryat," for a city is feminine in gender, as it is written: "Behold now, this city is near." Similarly, when a river has two names, one writes regarding the second "demitkari," and for a river one writes without an aleph because a river is masculine in gender, as it is written regarding the four rivers: "the name of the first... and the name of the second... and the third... and the fourth river is Perat." Even though "river" in the plural is "neharot," as it is written: "the rivers have lifted up their voice," and so it is throughout the entire Tanakh except for two times in Chavakkuk where it is written "neharim," nevertheless, in the singular it is masculine. Some say that if the river is called with a masculine name one writes without an aleph, and if it is called with a feminine name one writes with an aleph, for there are rivers called with a masculine name—those whose ending is with a visible rest—and there are those called with a feminine name—those whose ending is not with a visible rest. Post facto, there is no hindrance in any of these.

If a city or a river has two names, one in the place of the writing of the get and one in the place of the giving of the get when the get is sent by a messenger from place to place, their law is like the names of the husband that will be explained in siman 129, for the primary factor is the place of the giving, and regarding the name of the place of the writing, they write "who is called." However, in this it is not similar to the name of the husband, for regarding the name of the husband, if one made the place of the writing primary and the place of the giving secondary, there are those who disqualify it as written there; but regarding the name of a city or a river, this is not a disqualification post facto or in a time of pressing need, for the name of the husband is an essential requirement of the Torah, therefore a change disqualifies it even if it is not a complete change, whereas the name of the city and the river is not required by the Torah, therefore if it is not a complete change, such as this where he made the place of the writing primary, the get is not disqualified (Get Pashut, subsection 30). And we have already explained in section 9 that as long as the name is one, but the pronunciation changed from the place of the writing to the place of the giving, and it is a known name where their language differs in their pronunciation, there is no concern in this; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: And if a city has two names, one called by the mouth of Israel and one in the language of the nations, the name that Israel calls it is primary, and they write according to the sense of their language. And if the two languages are close to one another, and the name that Israel calls it is nothing but a shorthand of the language, such as a city that the nations call Heredish and Israel calls Redish, they write only the name of Israel. But otherwise, they write both, the name of Israel first, and regarding the name of the nations, "which is called." Thus far his words. Ostensibly it appears that these are two separate cases: that when it is nothing but a shorthand of the language they write the name of Israel alone, and with two names they write the name of Israel as primary and regarding their name "which is called" (and so wrote the Get Pashut, subsection 31). But if so, why did he lengthen it so much, as this is not his way? And furthermore, what is this that he wrote, "and they write according to the sense of their language"—what does "sense" pertain to in this?

It appears to me that there are three distinctions in the laws. For sometimes there is a name that is the same for us and for them, and only according to the pronunciation of their language does the name change, such as my city Navardok in our language, while the nations call it Navagrudok. This is not due to a change, but rather that it is so according to the pronunciation of their language, as they exchange the letter "he" for "gimel" as is known, and also the "nun" and "vav" are with a kamatz according to their language, for the meaning is "new city." There is no change here, rather that according to the difference of the pronunciation of our language compared to their language, some of the letters and vowels are exchanged. In this case, one writes only the Israelite name alone. This is what he means when he says "and they write according to the sense of their language," meaning according to the sense of the Israelite language alone, and the sense of their language one does not write at all, since in truth there is no change of language here, only from the necessity of the pronunciations. And afterwards he says, "and if the two languages are close to one another," meaning that there is an essential change between the languages, not because of the pronunciations, but that they are close to one another, like "Heredish" and "Redish." In this case too, one writes only the Israelite name alone for another reason: for this is like an abbreviation of the name or a nickname, which is valid even ab initio according to many poskim, as will be explained in siman 129. And all the more so a city that they call with a "gimel" and Israel with a "kuf," such as the city Rothenburg/Rothenburk, where one writes only with a "kuf," for this is of the first type we wrote. And furthermore he says, "but otherwise, one writes both of them etc.," meaning that when the change is not in the pronunciations and it is also not an abbreviation of the language, it is a complete change, and one writes both of them.

And they questioned our teacher, the Rema, for according to what he wrote regarding Hradish and Radish, that because it is a shortening of the name one need not mention Hradish at all—yet behold, at the end of the laws of gittin, he wrote the version of the get from his city, Kazmer, "which is called Kazmirz," see there. And behold, this too is nothing but a shortening of the name. And so too in Poznan they write "which is called Poznana," and it is also nothing but a shortening of the name. And in truth, the Levush did not mention Hradish and Radish at all, but rather wrote that when it is a shortening of the name, one need not write their language at all, and he wrote that in truth, here in Poznan they did not need to mention "which is called Poznana," see there. And there are those who wrote to distinguish that Kazmirz, as is the way of their language to stress the zayin at the end, and similarly Poznana, as is their way to stress the nun at the end, it is like another name, and therefore one must mention both (Beit Shmuel, subsection 9). But I do not understand; is it because they stress the letter that it is not a shortening of the language? For is it not understood by all that this is a shortening of the language? And it is possible to say another reason for this: that certainly in a shortening of the language where in the lengthening of the language there is no other meaning besides the lengthening, such as Hradish and Radish, one should not write both. However, when there is another meaning in the lengthening, one must write both. Therefore, in Kazmer and in Poznan one must write both, for it appears the city is named after its founder who was named Kazmer, as it is known that this name is common among them even now, and when they say Kazmirz, it is like saying "of Kazmer," meaning that it belongs to Kazmer, and so too in Poznan it is thus; therefore one must write both (so it appears to me).

And there is one who says that it is not necessary to mention anything at all except for the Israelite name alone (Get Pashut there), as with the name of the divorcer which will be explained in siman 129. For behold, the get is the law of Israel and it must be known among Israel, and we have only our name alone. For it is for this reason that even according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, we do not pay attention to whether the majority of the city is Israelite or not; for even if the Israelites are a minority, the primary thing is the Israelite name, and according to their tongue we write "who is called," because the get is between Israelites. And if so, why must we mention another name in the get? (And he wrote that from Mahari and from Maharik there is no proof for this). However, in truth, it is not comparable to the name of the divorcer, for Israelites gave him the name, whereas with a city, the founders of the city are the nations, and they called them names beforehand, and the name they gave it at the time they founded it has not yet ceased from among them. Therefore, it is impossible not to mention this name at all. And such is the simple custom in all the provinces; and in my previous city, which is called in our tongue Zibkai and in their tongue Novo-Zybkov, we write Zibkai "who is called" Novo-Zybkov. And such is the custom in all the provinces.

And behold, it is a simple matter that if they only wrote the Israelite name alone, it is valid even ab initio, and there is no need to write another get. However, if they only wrote the name of the nations, ab initio one certainly must write another get. Nevertheless, if she already received the get and it is difficult to obtain another get, it appears that it is valid post facto, for it is no worse than a nickname. And in the province of Reisin, there is one city where they write in the get only according to the name of the nations alone, and already in the generation before us, one of the great authorities raised an outcry over this; regardless, they did not change their custom. And perhaps they relied on this: that since according to the opinion of several great poskim it is valid with a nickname ab initio even regarding the names of the husband and the wife, as I wrote in siman 129, all the more so regarding the name of the city. And since they have always conducted themselves thus, they did not want to change so as not to cast aspersion on the earlier gittin. And although there is not so much casting of aspersion in this, nevertheless, since according to the law it is valid, they did not want to change (according to the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 13, and according to our words it is well-settled; and examine this carefully).

And this, that regarding names we write "the one nicknamed" as has been explained in siman 129, yet regarding a city we write only "which is called," is because regarding a city a nickname is not as applicable as it is regarding a person. Furthermore, regarding a person, they first gave him the primary name and afterwards nicknamed him with a nickname; but regarding a city where we write according to the name of the nations "which is called," how could we write "the one nicknamed"? For in most cases they are the founders of the city and they gave it a name first. Furthermore, it will be explained later that if one wrote "which is called" regarding a nickname it is kosher, but not the reverse; therefore, regarding a city we write only "which is called," and so too regarding a river.

According to the law, it is not necessary to write the name of the river upon which the city sits, as this is not such a significant identifier (Levush). However, it is customary to write it in order to distinguish it from another city whose name is the same as the name of this city. Therefore, even when it is not established that there is another city whose name is the same as the name of this city, we write the name of the river (Beit Shmuel). In the Gemara, we find a get that was written with the name of the river (Gittin 27a): "In Shuviri, the city that is upon the Rakhis river." And so too, we find a get that was written without the name of the river (Yevamot 115b). Therefore, if he did not write the name of the river, it is kosher (Beit Yosef). However, if it is known that there is another city whose name is the same as the name of this city, certainly according to the law one must write the name of the river, and if he did not write it, there is one who is concerned to disqualify it (Get Pashut, subsection 33). But in a case of iggun, it should be validated (ibid.), for even if the place of the writing of the get was not written at all, it is kosher ex post facto, as was written in section 3, and all the more so in such a case. And in a place where they write the name of the river in all gittin and it happened that in one get they did not write it, there is one who is concerned to disqualify it in any event because of the observer, who will say that the get was not written in this place (ibid.). And it is obvious that in a case of iggun it is kosher (ibid.), for the observer will also assume that in this get they omitted the name of the river, for why should he think that it is another city? And even when it is established that there is another city whose name is the same as the name of this city, and they write the name of the river in all gittin, and in this get it was not written, it appears to me also that it is kosher in a case of iggun for the reasons that have been explained.

And even if he changed the name of the river, our teacher, the Rema, ruled in section 4 that it is kosher, on the grounds that anything which is not required to be written, and one changed it, is kosher (the Gra, subsection 22). And behold, according to what I wrote in section 4 regarding a change that is apparent to all, this law does not apply, see there. And in truth, I found one who disqualifies in the case of a change to the name of the river (Radach, House 4). Nevertheless, most of the great later authorities qualify it in a case of agunah (Levush, and Beit Shmuel, and Get Pashut), for it is not similar to the name of a city mentioned in the Shas which must be written, where certainly the change disqualifies, which is not the case with the name of a river. And it is not similar to what will be explained, that if he wrote a river that is outside the techum there are those who disqualify; this is because since this river does not belong to the city, and the city is without a river, when he wrote "which sits upon such-and-such river" it is a change in the city. This is not the case with a change in the name of the river, for it is true that the city sits upon a river, and there is no change in the city, only in the river, one should not disqualify (Levush and Beit Shmuel). And it requires further study for the practical law.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that any river that is outside the techum of the city should not be written at all, even if they draw water from it; and even ex post facto, if they wrote it, some disqualify it. And even if it is within the techum, but outside the ibbur of the city, they do not write it unless all the city's needs are from it. Thus far his words. It is implied from his words that there are three divisions of laws regarding a river: For if it is within the city or within the ibbur of the city, if the city residents only use it for some needs, such as soaking flax or laundering or grinding, they write it in the get. And if they do not use it for anything, they do not mention it at all (so it is implied in the Beit Shmuel, subsection 14), for the meaning of "which sits [upon the river]" is that they use it. And some say that within the ibbur of the city, they write it in any case (ibid. in the name of the Maharam). And if it is outside the ibbur but within the techum, they do not write it unless all the city's needs that we enumerated are from it. And certainly if the city residents drink the water from it, it is obvious that even according to the one who holds that whenever it is outside the ibbur they do not write it (see the Beit Yosef), in such a case they do write it (it appears to me). And if it is outside the techum, they do not write it at all, even when all the city's provisions are from it; and if they wrote it, some disqualify it, for it has no connection to the city. However, some validate it in such a case (Beit Yosef in the name of the Kol Bo), and certainly if they see it from the city, it is valid (see the Beit Yosef). And it appears to me that if they drink the water from it, according to everyone it is valid, since it is the lifeblood of the city, it is appropriate to say "which sits [upon it]" even outside the techum. And similarly, within the techum and outside its ibbur, even if they do not use it for all the needs we enumerated but only one of them or some other use, and they have already accustomed to write the river in the gittin of that city, one does not protest against them (Get Pashut).

If there are two or three rivers, one writes all of them: "which sits on river such-and-such and such-and-such," and it is not necessary to write "on river such-and-such and on river such-and-such," for why should we mention "river" next to each one? However, there are get templates where they write "river" next to each one, and it is proper so that they do not err to say that the river has several names (Get Pashut). And such is the custom. And one writes all the rivers even if the majority are supplied from one and a minority from the second; nevertheless, one writes all of them (Beit Shmuel). And the reasoning is so, for is a minority of the city not the city? And similarly, if in one they utilize many uses and in one a minority of uses, nevertheless one writes all of them, unless one has no use at all, for then one does not write it. And one writes "de-yateva" with one yod and as one word, and its explanation is "the city that sits on river such-and-such." And if he wrote "di yateva," it is also kosher, for this is like "the city which sits on river such-and-such."

Even a river that dries up during a time of great heat nevertheless retains the name "river" upon it at the time when there is water in it, as it is written: "And the river shall be wasted and dried up," and in the Gemara: "and the river ceased" (Bava Metzia 77a). I found that the Maharik (Gett Pashut, subsection 37) ruled accordingly. The matter is simple: when there is no water in it, then at that time it is impossible to write it in a get (ibid.). A city situated on the shore of the seas, we write "which is situated on the bank of the sea" (al keif yama), and they did not practice writing the name of the sea, and I do not know why. It appears to me that a city situated on two seas must write "yamei" with a yod in the plural form. There is reason to doubt regarding a river that does not flow but is like a mikveh and is called an "ozire," whether one should write the term "river" (nahar), for "river" is a term of flowing; perhaps it is better to write "which is situated on the waters of such-and-such." In Jerusalem, may it be rebuilt and established speedily in our days, they write "on the waters of Shiloach." There is one who says that many hold if it is not within the city's outskirts, one should not write "on the bank of the sea" (al keif yama), which implies on its shore, unless it is visible in the city (Gett Pashut, subsection 45). I do not know if they practiced this, for seemingly it appears that a sea, which is more famous than a river and everyone knows that this city is situated on the sea and the matter is famous because of commerce, one should not be exacting in this. Nevertheless, for the law, the matter requires further study. However, one should not dwell on such matters, for certainly every city where they write gittin, they were very exacting, and the action was done according to the great instructors of that time, and one should not cast doubt after them (so it appears to me).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote that a city whose supply is from well water, they write "on the water of wells," and a city whose supply is from spring water, they write "spring water" and with one vav, and they write "b'eiret" without a vav. And if the spring is hot water, they write "on the water of hot springs." And if there are flowing wells in the city and he wrote "that sits on the water of pits," it is kosher. And if the city sits on a river, one should not write "wells" nor "springs," but rather the river. And there are those who disagree and hold that one should write all the supplies of the city, and such is the custom in these provinces, as will be explained to you from the text of the get that I wrote at the end of siman 124. And a city that has nothing but pits and ponds, he should not mention them at all, so as not to differentiate between gittin that were written before they were made and those written after they were made. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters is that a bor is called gathered water, and a beer is called living water that flows. And so it is found in the Shas (Eruvin 23b), and so it is in the Scripture (Proverbs 5:15): "Drink water from your bor, and flowing water from the midst of your beer." And the difference between a river and a spring is that a river has a flow further from the place of its source, as is the way of rivers, and a spring is that which does not flow further from the place of its source. And so it is taught in the Gemara (Shabbat 121b): "Rivers that flow and springs that gush," etc. And the difference between a beer and a spring is that a spring is that which gushes on its own and the water is close to the ground, and a beer is also a spring, but they dig deep into the ground until they bring forth living water that flows, in the manner that they dig our wells, and they make a structure inside the beer so that the soil will not fall and block it.

And regarding that which they wrote, that when there are hot springs one writes "on the waters of hot springs," in many places they did not follow this custom, and even in the holy city of Teveryah they do not mention "hot springs" (Get Pashut), for there is no obligation to mention all the detailed identifying marks. And regarding that which they wrote, that if one wrote "borot" instead of "be'erot" it is kosher, even though throughout the Shas we say a "bor" is one thing and a "be'er" is another as has been written, nevertheless, since the Shas in Beitzah (39a) considers saying that a "bor" is a spring, see there, it proves that the name "bor" applies to a spring, and all the more so to a "be'er." And it appears to me that the reason is that certainly in the Holy Tongue there is a difference, but in Aramaic "be'er" is without an aleph, as Onkelos translated every "be'er" in the Torah as "beira." Therefore, even if he wrote "bor" with a vav it is kosher, for the majority of a get is in the Aramaic language. And at the end of Middot it is also proven that the name "bor" applies to a "be'er," see there (and examine it closely).

And if he wrote "on the wells of springs," there are those who wish to disqualify it (the Beit Yosef in the name of the Maharik), and similarly if he wrote "on the springs of wells" (Get Pashut, subsection 52). And I am very much astonished, for in our version of the get we mention only "springs" and not "wells," as is written at the end of siman 154. And so is the simple and known custom, that among us most water usage is from wells, and there are places where there is no spring at all, and even in a place where there are springs, they are a tiny minority. And it is difficult to say that we rely on what has been explained, that one should validate a change in the name of a river, for how is it possible to rely on this ab initio? Rather, it is certainly established for us that "spring" also includes "well." And a clear proof for this is that Rashi, of blessed memory, in Eruvin (104b) explained "a cold well" as a spring, see there (and there is also proof from there that "bor" or "bir" is a well, see there and examine it closely). And even though in our accustomed language we call it a "well" and not a "spring," nevertheless everyone knows that a well is a spring, for in truth they are springs that flow in the depths of the ground. Furthermore, in the Talmud in Beitzah which we cited, it was thought to say that a cistern and a spring are one and the same, and all the more so a well and a spring (and so wrote the Chelkat Mechokek, subsection 16, even though in subsection 14 he brought the words of the Maharik).

And regarding that which they wrote, that a city which has only pits and ponds should not mention them at all so as not to differentiate between the earlier gittin and the later gittin, in order that there not be a casting of doubt upon the earlier ones—in truth, casting doubt is not relevant in this matter regarding something that is not a necessity to mention if one mentions them later, as some of the great authorities wrote. Rather, this is the explanation: it is a simple matter that even previously they did not dwell without water, for it is impossible for man and beast to live without water; rather, it must be said that they were supplied by the waters of another city adjacent to them (Get Pashut), and they would write in the gittin "in such-and-such a city which is supplied by the waters of such-and-such a city." And later, for the benefit of the city, they made pits and ponds in it, yet they are still supplied by the waters of the adjacent city; therefore, it is not worthwhile to change from the previous version. But if now they are not supplied by the waters of the adjacent city, but only from the pits and ponds, it is a simple matter that one must write them in the get: "the city of such-and-such which sits upon the waters of pits and ponds." And so they write in Jerusalem, the Holy City, "which sits upon the waters of Shiloah and upon the waters of pits" (ibid.). And similarly, if another river was added, they write the new river as well, and casting doubt upon the earlier ones is not relevant in this (Levush, and this is the intention of the Gra in subsection 29 who disagreed with the Beit Shmuel; and delve into this).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: Two rivers that flow into one another, if close to the city one loses its name, one writes only the one; and if the name of both is upon them, one writes both; and if there is a doubt in the matter, one writes only one, and so always, it is better to enter a doubt of omission than a doubt of change. Thus far his words. And behold, it is known that according to the majority, small rivers fall into a large river, and it is implied from his words that even if the large one loses its name, one writes only the small one, but in the source of the law in the Responsa of the Maharik, siman 106, it is explained otherwise, see there. And also the Levush wrote, and this is his wording: Two rivers that mingle before reaching the city, if one is large and one is small and the small one loses its name from the mixture onward before it reaches the city, it is simple that one writes only the name of the large river; and if the large one loses its name and all or most of those in the place call the river by the name of the small river, some say that one must write both: the large one, for our eyes see that the primary water and the majority of it is from the large river, but because the people of the place call it by the name of the small river, one must mention that name as well. Thus far his words. And it is possible that our teacher, the Rema, also holds this, and that he stated his words without specification because it is the way of the matter that the small one loses its name (and so it appears in the Beit Shmuel, subsection 18, and not like the Get Pashut). And that which he wrote, "if there is a doubt in the matter," means that some call it by the name of the small river and some by the name of the large one; this is a doubt, and one writes only the large river, which is the primary one (Levush), and one does not write both because perhaps the large one is primary and it would be a change; but in the reverse there is no concern, for the large one is not displaced, and there is no concern except for what is omitted of the small river from the get if both are primary. And it is known that even when there are two actual rivers and one wrote only one of them, it is also kosher, for the omission of a river does not disqualify, whereas with a change, there are those who hold that a change disqualifies even in a place where an omission does not disqualify (this is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumot as written in the Beit Yosef).

He further wrote in his composition Darkei Moshe that the custom has spread to write two rivers in a get, for then there is no longer a concern that perhaps there is another city whose name is like the name of this city and its rivers. However, in a place where there are not two rivers and there is a concern of iggun, or post facto, one should not be concerned (Beit Shmuel, subsection 18). And we are not concerned about this even ab initio, and in my city there is only one river and they have always written gittin in it, for certainly you have no greater iggun than this if we do not write a get in the city. And there are many places that have only one river and they write gittin. And if there is a river whose name is like two words, such as Regensburg and the like, nevertheless it is one word and one should not write it as two words (ibid.). And if there is a river or a city that they pronounce with a soft kaf, even though we pronounce het like a soft kaf, nevertheless one should not write it with a het but only with a kaf, because in some lands they pronounce het like a hei and it would be a change. And in siman 129 more of this will be explained (ibid.).

A city that has no river, spring, or well, but only a collection of water, and sometimes they dry up and then they drink from the waters of a nearby city, they should always write the nearby city as well regarding the water, even at a time when the water here has not dried up, since many times they use the other city. They should write: the city of so-and-so which sits upon a collection of water and which is supplied from the waters of the city of so-and-so (Hagahot Mordechai, and as per the explanation of the Get Pashut subsection 54, and it must be said that his intention is that they should also mention the collection of water that is in the city, and examine this closely). And a new city that has a river and it does not have a known name, and there are springs and wells, they should write: which sits upon the water of the river and upon the water of springs and wells (Noda BiYehuda Tinyana siman 116). However, the matter is distant in reality that a river would not have a name, and certainly in a new city, when they need to begin arranging gittin, they must ask the word of the great poskekim of that time, and they shall establish the names.

It is necessary to write in the get the name of the husband's city and the name of the wife's city, and it is proven in the Shas that they were accustomed to writing the name of his city and the name of her city (Gittin 20a: "But do we not require his name and her name and the name of his city, etc." and in the Mishnah 80a: "If he changed his name or her name, the name of his city, etc."). And in the explanation of "the name of his city and her city," it can be explained in three ways: The first is the name of the place where the husband and wife are standing at the time of the writing of the get, like the name of the city of the witnesses and the scribe that has been explained. And the second, it can be said, is the name of the city where they dwell, and if the get is written in another place, it is necessary to write that he is from such-and-such a place and she is from such-and-such a place. And the third, it can be said, is the name of the place where they were born. (And in truth, the Rosh, chapter 8, section 9, and the Tur wrote that they were accustomed in Ashkenaz and France to write all three: the place of birth, standing, and dwelling, due to the concern of "two Yosef ben Shimons," see there).

And there are some of our teachers who held that the primary factor is the place of residence and it is indispensable (the Rashba in a responsum, siman 1,213, in the name of the Ra'avad). And there are those who are in doubt regarding this (the Rashba there was concerned for the opinion of the Ra'avad, and in siman 1,208 he validates it post facto when they did not write it, see there). And there are some of our teachers who hold that the place of residence is not indispensable (there in the name of the Ittur, and the Rosh there, and the Smag, and our teacher Yechiel, and Rabbeinu Yerucham, and the Haggahot Maimoniot chapter 2, and this is the opinion of the Tosafot as well, see the Beit Yosef). Nevertheless, they wrote that initially, when it is possible to write the place of residence, they should write it, but it is not indispensable at all. And the place of birth is not necessary at all, and even in France where they were accustomed to write it, they wrote in the name of the Ri the Elder that many times when the place of birth was not clear to them, he would say to them: Do not write it at all (Tosafot ibid.).

And behold, among us the simple custom is not to write the place of birth nor the place of residence, but rather the place where they are standing at the time of the writing of the get. And in a get sent from place to place, we do not write at all the place of the woman's standing. The author of Terumat HaDeshen, siman 142, wrote the reason: since our place of residence is unstable in our hands, for we are exiled and wandering, we do not write it at all, and we rely on the majority of the poskim that "the name of his city and her city" refers to the place of standing. And even though in a sent get we do not write at all the place of her standing because we do not know where she is standing now, and if so, there is no "name of her city" at all, nevertheless there is no concern in this. For that which they were accustomed to write even in the days of the sages of blessed memory, the name of his city and her city, this is not a requirement for validity. There are many proofs for this, and one of them is from what we learned in the Mishnah (26a): One who writes the forms of gittin must leave over the place of the man, the place of the woman, and the place of the date; thus far its words. And it does not teach "the name of his city and the name of her city," from which we learn that this is not a requirement for validity (the Gra, subsection 3). For the entire primary reason they instituted to write it is only because of "two Yosef ben Shimons" (ibid.), and since they write the place of the husband's standing, there is no longer a concern that he will deliver it to the wife of the other Yosef ben Shimon (Get Pashut, subsection 10). Also, in most instances, the place of his standing is his place of residence. And even if it should occur that the husband is not in the city at the time of the writing of the get, and she also is not in the city, such that we necessarily will not write for both of them the sign of the place, there is also no concern at all according to the opinion of the majority of the poskim, as I have written. And even according to the opinion of those who require the name of the place for validity, they would admit that in a place where it is impossible to write the name of their place, this is not a hindrance to the get, for if not so, how is it possible to say that one who has no fixed place shall not divorce his wife (ibid.)? And the sages did not wish to institute in a sent get that we should know at the time of writing the place of the woman's standing and write "who is standing in such-and-such a place," for if so, in most instances there would be a hindrance to the get, and you have no greater ruin for agunot than this (and what the Shiltei HaGibborim wrote in the name of the Riaz, chapter 8, is astonishing).

And this is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2, who wrote, and this is their wording: One writes the name of his city and the name of her city, and one does not write the name of the place of birth; and even though if one changed it, it is not disqualified, nevertheless it is better not to write it so that they should not come to err, and it appears as a change. And also, one does not write the name of the place of residence because we are exiled and wandering, and our place of residence is unstable in our hands. But one writes the name of the place of the man's standing, "who is standing today in such-and-such a city," if he is present in the place of the signing of the get; and if he is not present there, one does not write his place at all. And similarly regarding the woman, if she is standing in the place of the signing of the get, one writes the place of her standing, "who is standing today in such-and-such a city," and if not, one does not write her place at all. And if one wrote the place of birth or the place of residence and did not change it, it is valid. Thus far their words. And there is no novelty in this at all, but rather it comes to teach us that ab initio one should not deviate from what is customary—not to write the place of birth and residence—but post facto we are not concerned about this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if one changed the place of standing, there are those who validate it, just as with the place of birth, for anything that is not required to be written, even if one changed it, it is valid; and there are those who disqualify it, and in a case of pressing need one may be lenient. However, if one changed the place of residence, it is disqualified according to everyone, and even if she remarried, she must leave. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, for according to what has been explained, that there is no disqualification post facto if they did not write the name of their city at all, if so, why does the change in the place of residence disqualify according to the rule he wrote, that anything that is not required to be written, a change does not disqualify? Furthermore, how is it possible to validate a change in the name of the city, for it is an explicit Mishnah (80.): If he changed his name or her name, the name of his city or the name of her city, she must leave this one and this one, etc. See there.

However, the explanation of the matter is as follows: there are some of the poskim who hold that any change invalidates, even in something that was not necessary to write at all, such as the place of birth (and this is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumah as written in the Beit Yosef, and according to our teacher, the Rema, in the Darkhei Moshe, the Ra'avad also holds this; see there). However, most of the poskim validate this, and therefore the opinion of those who invalidate was not cited in the Shulchan Aruch in such a case. However, even the poskim who validate a change in something that is not necessary to write, some say that this is only in something where the change is not recognizable to the world, such as the place of birth, as not everyone knows in which place they were born. But the place of standing, where the change is recognizable to all, is like "forged from within" and is invalid (see Beit Yosef). And this is the opinion of "there are those who invalidate." But "there are those who validate" hold that even in such a case it is valid, since it is not necessary to write (and this is the opinion of the Tosafot and the Rosh and other poskim). But all of this is when they also wrote the place of their residence, which is the primary "name of his city and the name of her city" that was taught in the Mishnah; and since in this there is no change, we are not concerned with a change of the place of standing. Furthermore, a change of the place of standing is only recognizable temporarily, while a change of the place of her residence is recognizable always. Therefore, in a change of the place of her residence, according to all it is invalid, as this is the primary "changed the name of his city and the name of her city" taught in the Mishnah, as I have written.

And according to this, it must necessarily be said that our teacher, the Rema, is not referring to our custom, where we only write the place of their standing and we rely on the fact that this is the name of his city and her city as I have written; for if so, how is it possible to validate where one changed the place of their standing, for we explicitly learned in a Mishnah that the change invalidates? Rather, certainly his words are according to the ancient times when they would also write the place of residence. And so wrote one of the great later authorities (Tuv Gittin subsection 5; and what he wrote, that when there is no man in the place written in the get whose name is like this name, even for us it is valid, requires great further study, for based on the reason we wrote, even in such a case it should be invalidated; and study this carefully).

But the core of the matters is puzzling, for how is it possible that our teacher, the Rema, would write in the Shulchan Aruch that in a case of change of the place of standing it is kosher in a situation of pressing need, and not intend it for us? For there is no greater stumbling block than this. Therefore, it appears to me that he holds that even for us it is kosher, for he holds that the fact that we write the place of their standing, our intention is not that this is the "name of his city and her city" mentioned in the Mishnah, for it is certain that the intention of the Mishnah is only for the place of residence according to the plain meaning of the language. Rather, because our place of residence is unstable for us, we do not have the ability to mention it, as has been written, and also the Sages of blessed memory did not say this as a requirement, as has been explained in section 42. And this fact that we write the place of their standing is not from the enactment of the Mishnah, but rather we practice so because it is impossible for us to write the place of residence. Therefore, in a situation of pressing need, we rely on the poskim who hold that whenever one is not required to write, the change does not invalidate even in a matter that is recognizable to the public. Furthermore, the recognition is only temporary, as has been written. And even though in most instances the place of their standing is the place of their residence, nevertheless, since we do not mention that they reside there, we are not concerned. Therefore, in a get that is sent, we do not mention at all the place of the woman's standing, as has been written, and likewise if the husband is not in the place where they write the get at the time of the writing, we do not mention at all the place of his standing, as we have explained. Therefore, the change also does not invalidate in this.

And behold, all this we have written to settle his words, but in practice it appears to me that Heaven forbid one should rely on this, for from all the Rishonim it is explicitly proven that that which they validated regarding a change of the place of standing, this is when they also wrote the place of residence. But for us, it is impossible to validate in practice even if she has married. And I saw one of the great ones in his book (Pnei Yehoshua on the chapter HaZorek) who validated it in practice in a case of great need when both of them changed the place of the woman's standing, and for me, this requires great study. (Also the Gaon Noda BiYehuda in the second edition, siman 109, wavers on this, and nevertheless did not disqualify it explicitly, but rather wrote that if such a case came before him he would not hasten to validate or disqualify and would deliberate on this; and regarding the Gaon Pnei Yehoshua he wrote "an elder has already ruled," and therefore I say regarding this neither prohibition nor permission, and it requires study):