Siman 129

One writes the name of the man and the name of the woman in the get, and this is from the Torah. And if they did not write his name and her name, the get is void from the Torah, even if he delivered it to her in the presence of witnesses of delivery, for "a scroll of severance" is written—a recounting of matters of severance—and a recounting of matters of severance is impossible unless his name and her name are written in it (Ramban and Ran, Gittin 20a). This is included in the language of the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Divorce regarding the ten things that are the essence of the get, in what he wrote: "and he shall not divorce except in writing," meaning that he must write their names in writing. And he did not need to explain this due to its great simplicity (and the precision of the Get Pashut is settled). And such is the opinion of all our teachers. And so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11: that if he did not write the name of the man and the woman in the get, it is invalid and the children are mamzerim. Thus far his words. And so agreed most of the great later authorities (the Gra, subsection 19, and the Be'er Mayim, and the Tuv Gittin, subsection 15). (And this is what Tosafot wrote on 20a, beginning with "Ha," that according to Rabbi Meir it is invalid from the Torah; it means that according to Rabbi Meir it is certainly from the Torah, and it is heard from this that also according to the Rabbis they do not disagree on this, as is explained in [the chapter] HaZorek regarding one who changed [the name], and not entirely as Tosafot wrote, and all the more so where he did not write it at all. And so wrote the Be'er Mayim, and the later authorities labored over this in vain; and examine this carefully):

And know that in the Mordechai at the beginning of the third chapter, it is written in this language: Our teacher Yoel HaLevi wrote, if I were not afraid of my colleagues, I would say even if he did not mention the name of the man and the woman in the get, etc., according to Rabbi Eleazar who said "witnesses of delivery effect the severance," and we rule like him; for since the witnesses stand before us and say the get was delivered to this woman from the hand of her husband, why do we need to mention their names, etc. Thus far his words. And these are the words of an individual, and he has no companion among the poskim, and the proofs he brought are not proofs at all (the Gra). And in truth, this reasoning is very wondrous, for that which is effective for Rabbi Eleazar regarding witnesses of delivery even when it is not evident from within it, this is when the names were written but there is another name like this name or it is possible to forge and the like; in this we say that the witnesses of delivery know. But when no name is clarified in the get, upon what are they witnesses of delivery? And all their testimony is oral, and he does not divorce with a document. And it is also not similar to a nickname which is valid, for that is like the essence of the name; but what relevance is there to the name "get" without names at all (and with this all his proofs are removed, see there). And nevertheless, there are some among the great later authorities who were concerned for this opinion as a stringency, that perhaps the invalidation is only rabbinic (Lechem Mishneh chapter 1 and Ginnat Veradim). And according to this, if he divorced her without names and she was betrothed to another, she requires a get from this one and from that one, and it requires further study.

Nevertheless, even according to that which is simple to us that from the Torah the names are indispensable, there is room to doubt if his name is written in the get but her name was not written, rather he wrote anonymously "you are my wife," whether we say that its law is like one with no name at all, or perhaps since his name is clarified in the get and the witnesses to the delivery know that this is his wife, it is called a get from the Torah and its invalidity is only rabbinic. And there is one who wrote that her name is also from the Torah, for if not so, there is no "telling of matters" between him and her (Tumat Yasharim). And it appears to me that when he has only one wife, it is possible that it is from the Torah like an explicit name, and if he has two wives or more, there is no "telling of matters" here; and in practice, one should be stringent in every case.

The Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh, of blessed memory, that if one did not mention the name of the woman's father in the get, it is kosher, and the same law applies if one did not mention the name of the husband's father (Beit Yosef). And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 9: if one did not mention the name of the man's father or the name of the woman's father, it is kosher, and therefore a convert (in ancient days) or a shetuki or an asufi, we write only their names alone. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that this is specifically when the place of their residence or the place of their standing was written, for if not so, by what would it be known who is the divorcer and the divorcee (Knesset HaGedolah in the name of the Radbaz). And according to this, in a get that is sent, where we do not mention the place of the woman's standing, we must mention the name of her father. And there are those who are further concerned that the Rosh who validated it was because in their days they would write the place of residence, which was a good identifier; but in our time, when we mention only the place of their standing, and how many passersby there are from many places, there is no identifier at all, for there are thousands of identical names in the world. And according to this, in our time, it is not sufficient without mentioning the names of the fathers (Noda BiYehudah Tinyana, siman 113).

However, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, left the matters unspecified, and behold, even in their days they only wrote the place of their residence; we learn from this that there is no distinction in this. And the truth is so, for we, who establish the law according to Rabbi Elazar that the witnesses of delivery effect the severance, and they know who the husband and his wife are, do not require it to be "evident from within." And it is no worse than a document that can be forged, which is kosher for us for this reason. According to this, even if the place of their residence was not written, it should be ruled kosher with their names alone; for since it contains his name and her name and the witnesses know who they are, this is sufficient (ibid.). And so it is explicitly implied in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 3), as we learn there: Even if he writes "I, so-and-so, divorce my wife," it is kosher. Thus far its words. It would also be possible to infer from this that her name is not required, since it does not say "my wife, so-and-so," but it is possible that it employed a concise phrasing or that one word is missing in the Yerushalmi. But regarding the names of the fathers, it is certainly a good proof, for if it were not so, it would not have omitted this, for the entire essence of the law is there, that a get does not require lengthy phrasing; see there (it appears to me).

And know that the Levush wrote regarding this law that if one did not mention the name of the father, some say it is kosher and some disqualify, thus far his words. And I do not know who are those who hold the opinion to disqualify, and it appears that his intention is toward the words of the author of Terumat HaDeshen, siman 138, for it appears from his words that he disqualifies (and this was brought in the Beit Yosef, and the Beit Shmuel in subsection 17 rejected his words without proofs, see there). Therefore, in practice, one must deliberate on this, and it is a simple matter that this is only ex post facto and in a case of agunah, but otherwise, even according to the opinions that permit, it is forbidden to do so, and they must write the name of the fathers with their nicknames and not deviate (and it appears to me that the Terumat HaDeshen does not disagree with the Rosh, but rather he holds to distinguish as I wrote in section 4).

If he changed his name or her name, for example, if his name was Avraham and he wrote Yitzchak, and even if he wrote Avram, or Avram and he wrote Avraham (Gittin Pashut), and similarly with a woman whose name was Nafata and he wrote Tafata (Gittin 63b), and similarly anything like this, even though he wrote "and any name that he or she has," nevertheless the get is invalid according to the Torah. And such is the opinion of all the poskim, and even if it was delivered in the presence of witnesses of delivery (Beit Shmuel, subsection 5), for what benefit are witnesses of delivery when the get was written for another name? And there is one who wishes to say that according to the opinion of the Tosafot the invalidity is only rabbinic (ibid.), but it is not clear to me (this is the Tosafot that we cited in section 1, and according to what I wrote there, the intention is not specifically to Rabbi Meir, and delve into this).

And even if he changed his father's name or her father's name, the get is likewise invalid. And even though if he did not write the father's name at all it is valid, as I have written, and in the previous siman it was explained that anything which is not indispensable, a change in it also does not invalidate—nevertheless, in this case it is not comparable to there. First, because there it was also explained in section 4 that this rule only applies to a matter that is not recognizable to the public, but in a matter that is recognizable, this rule does not exist. And even if we did not say so, it is impossible to validate in this case, for since his name is Yosef son of Shimon and he wrote son of Shmuel, behold, it is another man who is divorcing. Furthermore, regarding that which is required by the law to be written, even though it is not indispensable post facto if one did not write it, nevertheless, since it must be written, certainly a change in it invalidates, just as with a change of the place of residence there in section 44 (the Gra). And all this is when he has not established himself with this change of name, but if he already established himself here with a change of his name and her name, or the names of the fathers, there are other laws regarding this, and they will be explained before us with the help of Heaven in section 88.

It is found in the writings of one of the Rishonim who wrote that with a change to the father's name, the get is not invalidated (Ittur, Article 7), as he holds that even ab initio there is no need to write the father's name (Get Pashut). This is a minority opinion and is nullified against the majority of our teachers, the Rishonim and Acharonim, who ruled that even if she married, she must leave. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 10, see there, and there is no doubt regarding this.

However, there is one who says that this invalidation due to a change in the father's name is not from the Torah but rather from the Rabbis, and it is not comparable to a change in his name or her name (ibid. subsection 49). And even though regarding all Rabbinic invalidations we maintain that if she married she need not leave, as is written in siman 150, nevertheless there are invalidations where the Sages saw fit to be stringent regarding them, that even if she married she must leave (ibid.). And the proof that this invalidation is only from the Rabbis is that the Rosh wrote in a Responsum that the reason for the invalidation in a change of the father's name is because of those who see it, who will say another man divorced her; and since it is only because of those who see it, it is simple that its invalidation is only from the Rabbis (ibid.). And so I have seen some great authorities who wrote that this is only from the Rabbis.

However, from the Responsa of the Rosh there is no proof at all, for there it deals with one who, due to shame, intentionally changed his father's name from Shimon to Shmuel, as is evident from his words (Klal 17, Siman 12) where he wrote that he divorced his wife with the new name; see there where he wrote, "how can he change his father's name?" Thus far his words. And so it is implied in the Tur. And there is one who wrote that the incident was that he changed it to the name of his grandfather (see Beit Yosef, starting with "And he wrote further"). But this case, where by error or intentionally he wrote another name for his father, behold, he is not this divorcer. And if it is because the witnesses of delivery know that this is the divorcer, for if so, even if he changed his own name we would also say that since the witnesses of delivery know that this is the divorcer it should not be disqualified by Torah law; rather, it is certainly so that since another name is written in the get, it is not a get at all, and witnesses of delivery do not avail for this. And if so, in a case where he changed his father's name as well, behold, it is specified in the get that Yosef son of Shmuel divorced and not Yosef son of Shimon, and what will witnesses of delivery avail for this? Nevertheless, in practice one must be stringent, for if she was betrothed to another, she requires a get also from the second. (And the core words of the Get Pashut, who wrote that in this the sages were stringent that she must leave, are perplexing, for is it a Mishnah or a Gemara? And see the Responsa of the Griva, Siman 119, where it appears that also his opinion and the opinion of the Gaon Baruch Mordechai is that the matter is not clear that it is only rabbinic; see there.)

There are many detailed laws regarding one who has two names, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. However, in the definition of "two names" there are also several categories. The first is that they call him two names from his birth, as is frequently found among us. The second is that it is one name, but this name has a kinui, as is customary among us, that one who is called Leib, his holy name is Yehuda or Aryeh; and one who is called Wolf, his holy name is Zeev or Binyamin; and one who is called Ber, his holy name is Dov or Yissachar; and one who is called Michel, the holy name is Yechiel, and similar to these. The third is that from his birth they gave him one name, but he was ill and they added another name for him, as is the custom among us. The fourth is that some people call him by this name and some call him by another name, as is found in the Gemara (34b): that case where the majority called her Miriam and a minority called her Sarah, see there. And the fifth is that in this place they call him such, and in another city they call him by another name, and the get goes from here to the other city, and there is here the name of the place of writing and the name of the place of giving. And a great principle must be known: that the "two names" explained in the Gemara and in the Rishonim are of the fourth and fifth categories. For it is known that in the days of the sages of blessed memory and the Rishonim, they did not call a person two names at all, as our eyes see in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud and Midrashim, that you do not have a Tanna or Amora who had two names. And that which we find "Abba Shaul" is nothing but one name, Shaul, and Abba is a title like Rav or Rabbi. And also among the Rishonim it is not found (except in Tosafot Ketubot 98b s.v. Amar). And also kinuyim did not exist in their days. And also the changing of a name due to illness was a literal change of name, where they exchanged the old name for a new name, and not as is customary among us where they add a name. And behold, in the Torah we also saw a change of names and not an addition of a name, such as Sarai to Sarah, Avram to Avraham, Hoshea to Yehoshua. And our father Yaakov, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, "Your name shall no longer be called Yaakov... but rather Yisrael," we do not find in the entire Tanakh that they called him by two names, but rather either Yaakov or Yisrael. And this, that the name Yaakov was not completely uprooted, was because the Holy One, Blessed be He, so desired, as the sages of blessed memory expounded (end of the first chapter of Berakhot). These are the principles, and now we will explain, with the help of Hashem, may He be blessed, their details.

And know that the text of the get of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 4 is as follows: How I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, who is from such-and-such a place, and every other name and nickname that I have, and for my ancestors, and for my place, etc. And this is the text of the Behag according to what the Semag and the Rosh wrote in chapter 4. And in the Rif, the text before us in chapter 9 is: How I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, and every name that I have, and he did not write "and nickname." And so it is before us in the printed editions of the Behag. And also according to the text of the Rif, he does not write "and every name" except regarding his name and her name, and not for the names of their ancestors, see there (and in the Behag before us there is confusion in this, see there). And the Ramban, of blessed memory, testified that this is the true text of the Rif, of blessed memory, as the Ran wrote. And so they write in Ashkenaz according to this text (Rosh):

The reason for this formulation is based on what we learned in the Mishnah (34b), that Rabban Gamliel the Elder ordained that one should write "So-and-so and any name he has," "Such-and-such a woman and any name she has," for the sake of the order of the world. That is to say, if it is later discovered that he or she has another name, it will be included in "and any name." They were not concerned for the opposite—perhaps he has no other name, and one who sees "and any name" written will say that this is not the one who divorces—for since this is the formulation of all gittin, there will be no challenge regarding this (so it appears to me). The formulations that added "and nickname" are also for this reason, lest they have some nickname. Furthermore, for the most part in Ashkenaz, the nations call the Jews by a nickname close to the Hebrew language, and it is not appropriate to write concerning that nickname "who is called"; therefore they accustomed to write "and any name and nickname," which includes everything (the Rosh). And that which is in the formulation of the Rif is only regarding his name and her name alone, and not regarding the fathers; for since it is a mere concern, and in the ordinance of Rabban Gamliel it is found only regarding their names alone, therefore they were not concerned to write also thus regarding the fathers. Furthermore, it was explained in the previous siman that the name of the fathers does not invalidate ex post facto; see there.

But our teacher Tam, of blessed memory, it was not clear to him that this should be a general formula, for sometimes it leads to a mishap when he has only that name written in the get and has no nickname, and when one writes in the get "and every name and nickname," it appears to be the get of another person who has a name and a nickname (Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol). And even though this is a general formula, nevertheless, how can we write "and every name and nickname" since he has no other name and also has no nickname (it appears to me). And the enactment of Rabban Gamliel was only concerning one who truly has some other name, as is explained in the Mishnah and Gemara there, that because of this was the enactment; and the intention was not to write "and every name," but rather that he should also write the second name that he has, as it is in the Shas (34b): "Acha bar Hadya who is called Aya Mari," see there, and according to how the details of the laws will be explained regarding this. And this is the formula of the get of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and Rabbi Yitzchak of Paris, and the Sefer HaTerumah, that they do not write "and every name" in the formula of the get, and such is the widespread custom in all our countries.

The first opinion holds that if such were the intention of Rabban Gamliel, why would he say "so-and-so and every name he has"? He should have said concisely that the enactment is that they should write all the names (Ran). And according to the latter opinion, it can be said that he says this intentionally so that they write his primary name first and the secondary name they write afterwards with "who is called" or "who is nicknamed," as will be explained with the help of Heaven (it appears to me):

However, from that which is stated in the Gemara there: That woman who was called Maryam and a little bit Sarah, meaning a minority of the people of her city called her Sarah (Rashi); and in the Rif the version is: That woman whom the majority called Maryam and a little bit Sarah, and the people of Nehardea said that they should write in the get "Maryam and every name she has" and not "Sarah and every name she has," see there. Behold, this is explicitly explained according to the first opinion, for according to the latter opinion they should have said "Maryam who is called Sarah" and not "Sarah who is called Maryam." And it must be said that in truth this is the intent, and the Shas employed the language of the Mishnah, and so it becomes clear to me from the novellae of the Rashba there, see there. And if it is difficult: since he explicitly mentions both names, what does it matter to me if he writes Sarah first or writes Maryam first? For it can be said that nevertheless, one should not write "who is called" regarding the primary name (ibid.).

Furthermore, it can be said that according to our version, it should be explained that everyone would call her, according to the majority, Miriam, but the minority would call her Sarah occasionally; and in such a case, it is possible that one should not write "who is called Sarah," since even the minority only calls her Sarah occasionally, and one must write "and any name." And even according to the version of the Rif, that the minority called her Sarah always, it can also be said that one should not write "who is called Sarah," for the phrasing "who is called" implies that everyone, or at least the majority of them, call her so, and not when a minority of people call her so. Therefore, one must write "and any name." And it is not similar to what will be explained regarding one who has one name in the place of the writing and another name in the place of the giving, where one must write regarding the place of the writing "who is called," for since in this place everyone calls him so, this phrasing is certainly appropriate. This is not the case when only a minority of the city calls her by another name; it can be said that the phrasing "who is called" is not appropriate in that case, and this requires further deliberation.

And in the Yerushalmi it is stated regarding the enactment of Rabban Gamliel in this wording: Rabbi Yose said, this which you say applies after the fact, but initially one must act according to that which Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Avin, if he has a name in another place he must mention all three of them. Thus far his words. And it means to say that after the fact "and any name" suffices regarding a case where he has one name in the place of the writing and another name in the place of the delivery, and this is the enactment of Rabban Gamliel regarding after the fact; but initially one must specify the names according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. And not only that, but even if he has a third name, he must specify all three names. And it is explained according to this that the interpretation of the enactment is like the first opinion, and initially one must act like the latter opinion.

It appears in my humble opinion that even the first opinion holds this way, for their intention is not that when he has two names or a nickname not to specify it, as one certainly must specify all the names. Rather, they hold that "and every name" must also be written, since the enactment of Rabban Gamliel was to write this in order to validate it post facto in any event, and therefore it should be written; and also perhaps he has another name or nickname that is not known to us. And indeed, the opinion of the Ra'avad is so, as the Ran wrote there in his name, and this is his wording: But from the words of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, it appears that this is the explanation: Rabban Gamliel the Elder enacted that he should write "so-and-so," meaning the two names that he has explicitly, of the place of the writing and of the place of the delivery, and because he also concerned himself with an additional name and nicknames, he enacted that he should also write "and every name that he has," and thus he would write "so-and-so who is called so-and-so and every other name etc." Thus far his words. And in our opinion, even the Rif and the Rambam, even if they do not hold so in the explanation of the enactment, nevertheless, regarding the law they hold so.

And so too the reverse, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory: ex post facto, if he did not write all the names but only the primary name with "and every other name," it is also kosher. The proof for this is from what will be explained regarding a case where it was reversed, for we also write "and every other name." Furthermore, behold, if he wrote only the primary name alone, it is also kosher, as will be explained. However, if he wrote only the secondary name alone, even though he wrote "and every other name," one should not validate it. Many detailed laws regarding this will be further explained with the help of Heaven.

However, from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1, it is somewhat implied not like our words. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: If one of them has two names, they write the name that they are accustomed to and by which they are most known, and he writes "So-and-so and every name he has divorced such-and-such a woman and every name she has." Thus far his words. And it is implied that there is no need to specify the names according to the opinion of the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, glossed, and this is his wording: And some say that one should not write "and every name he has," but rather if he has two names he should write "So-and-so who is called So-and-so," and such is the custom and one should not deviate; and even if the get was written, one should not divorce with it even though he wrote "and every name," until he writes the two names. Thus far his words. Behold, even ex post facto he does not validate it. However, one could say his intention is when the get has not yet been given, but if the get was already given, it is valid (and so wrote the Beit Shmuel in subsection 2). And this is certainly so, for as long as the get has not been given, it is still considered as ab initio, and one should not deviate from what is customary.

And also in the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, one must be precise, for he himself wrote in section 16 that one writes "Yehuda who is called Leon," and in section 17 he wrote that one writes "Chaim who is called Vivant," and in section 19 regarding a name that was changed due to illness, that one writes it first and regarding the old name "who is called," see there; behold, he holds that one must specify all the names. However, his opinion is clarified according to what he wrote in section 12 regarding one who has one name in Judea and one name in the Galilee. This is his wording: At the outset, he should write all the names that he has, or he shall write the name that he has there and write "and any name" to include the names of other places. Thus far his words. Behold, he holds that this and that are one and the same, and there is no advantage of one over the other, and therefore he was not concerned to be precise in this in all places; sometimes he writes that one must write "and any name" and sometimes he writes that one should specify the names, since he holds they have one law. But from the Yerushalmi that we brought, it is clarified that at the outset it is better to specify all the names (and from the language of the Beit Yosef it is implied that when one specifies all the names, there is no need to write "and any name," even though in its place they wrote "and any name," but he is teaching us the law, so it appears in my humble opinion).

And now we will explain the details of the two names that we explained in section 12, and first we will explain the fourth and fifth details that are in the Shas. And we will explain the fifth detail, which has two names in two places, and thus it is stated in the Gemara (34b): If he had two wives, one in Judea and one in the Galilee, and he had two names, one in Judea and one in the Galilee, and he divorced his wife who is in Judea with his name that is in Judea, and his wife who is in the Galilee with his name that is in the Galilee, she is not divorced until he divorces his wife who is in Judea with his name that is in Judea and the name of the Galilee with it, and his wife who is in the Galilee with his name that is in the Galilee and the name of Judea with it. If he went out to another place and divorced with one of them, she is divorced. But did you not say the name of the Galilee must be with it? Rather, learn from this: this is where he was established, and this is where he was not established. Thus far the words of the Gemara.

The explanation of the matters is that when one sends a get to his wife who is located in another place, and it is known here that in the place of the delivery of the get he has another name, he must write in the get the name of the place of delivery, and regarding the place of writing he shall write "who is called" or "and any name" according to the opinions that have been explained, for the primary factor is the place of delivery. This applies when it is known that he has another name there. However, if it is not known in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery, and they wrote the name from the place of writing and he sent her the get and she received it, even if it later became known that he has another name in the place of delivery, the get is kosher, for we have only the name by which he established himself. Therefore, only in Judea and Galilee is it necessary to specify the names, for in those places they knew that he had another name in another place. But if he went to another place, and in that place it was not established that he has another name, even if he sent the get to the place of the second name, the get is kosher as I have written. This is the approach of Rashi and Tosafot. The reason that the place of delivery is the primary factor is because the essence of a get is to permit her to the world, and they must write the name that was established in the place where she was permitted. And even though it is explained from Tosefta chapter 6 of Gittin that the place of writing is the primary factor, and it also implies somewhat so in the Yerushalmi, nevertheless, our Talmud is the primary authority, and so most of the poskim agreed.

It must be explained regarding this that if so, that the primary factor is the place of delivery because the woman is permitted there, as has been written (as the Rosh wrote), and furthermore, that those in the place of delivery who do not recognize the name of the place of writing will cast aspersions upon her children from the second husband, as they will say that she was not divorced from her husband (Tosafot and the Rosh); if so, why is the get valid when it was not established in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery? Ultimately, in the place of the delivery of the get where he is called by another name, it is not recognizable that this woman was permitted, and they will also cast aspersions upon her children from the second husband. For the truth is that according to the fundamental law, when they do not know, there is no concern in this, for in the place where the get was written he is called by that name as it is written in the get, and the people of the place of delivery will also judge so, for presumably the husband of this woman is called by this name in the place of its writing, as no man divorces the wife of his fellow (see Nedarim 6a). Therefore, it is valid both according to the fundamental law and because of the aspersion. However, when it is known in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery, it is impossible not to write the primary name of the place of delivery, for they themselves know that in the place where the woman is permitted, it does not appear at all in the get that her husband is divorcing her. Therefore, even ex post facto it is not a get if they did not write the name of the place of delivery. And also the people of the place of delivery, when it becomes known that the people of the place of writing knew that he had another name in the place of delivery and they did not mention it in the get, they will certainly say another man divorced her, for had she been divorced from her husband, they would have mentioned this name since they knew of it (and the Tuv Gittin, subsection 8, wondered about this).

And if he did not write so, the Tur wrote that the get is invalid, and if she remarried based on it, the offspring is a mamzer, and all thirteen ways taught in the chapter "HaZorek" apply to her, for this is a complete change of name. And it appears that this is only when he did not mention the name of the place of the giving at all, even if he wrote "and every name," for since this name is the primary one, it should not be included in "and every name." However, when he specified this name as well and wrote concerning it "who is called," even though he made the name of the place of the writing primary, nevertheless, since he also explicitly mentioned the name of the place of the giving, it is valid ex post facto. And so it is implied from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book; see there.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that if one made the place of the writing primary and wrote regarding the name of the place of delivery "which is called" or "and any name," it is invalid. Thus far his words. This requires further study: from where does he have this? For the later authorities (Beit Shmuel subsection 7 and the Bach) have already wondered about him. And there is one who validates in such a case even ab initio (Bach). This is a great leniency, for certainly ab initio one should write regarding the name of the place of writing "which is called" and not regarding the name of the place of delivery (Beit Shmuel). However, post facto, it does not seem that it should be an impediment (ibid.). And more than this, it is puzzling that it is written in the Shulchan Aruch that the Beit Yosef wrote this, as it is implied from the language of the Tur; on the contrary, the Tur and the Beit Yosef only wrote regarding "and any name" and not when one specifies the name, see there. However, his reasoning seems to be like what I wrote in section 23, for they hold that the law of "and any name" is equal to specifying the name, see there. And since they invalidated regarding "and any name," it follows that it is also invalid when specifying. And although this is their opinion, for the law it can be said that they are not equal, like the decision of the great later authorities (and also the Gra subsection 12 and the Mishneh LaMelech chapter 3 halacha 13 wrote that the primary view is like the opinion of those who validate, see there).

And if they did not write the name of the place of writing, but only the name of the place of giving, there is one who says that it is also pasul (Beit Shmuel, subsection 6). And he inferred this from the wording of the Shas that we brought, which says: "until he divorces his wife who is in Judea with his name that is in Judea and the name of Galilee with it," implying that the name of the place of writing is also a hindrance. And even though according to the system of the Rif and the Rambam even lechatchilah one does not need to specify it but rather to include it in "and every name," nevertheless, this is as if he mentioned it explicitly according to their system; but if they did not write it at all, neither specifically nor in "and every name," one cannot validate it. Furthermore, according to the opinion of the Ra'avad that we brought, one must specify it, and we explained that it is possible that in the final law they agree with him. Furthermore, the Tosefta holds that the primary thing is the place of writing, and since from the wording of the Shas it also implies that one must mention it, it is impossible to validate it when he did not mention it at all. And even though regarding every primary and secondary name, when he mentioned the primary name alone the secondary name is not a hindrance, as will be explained, that is when both names are in one place; but here, where in the place of writing it is the primary name, it certainly is a hindrance. Nevertheless, if she married, there is doubt if she must leave, since in any case the primary name was written in the get, and it requires further study for the final law.

From the words of the Rosh and the Tur, it is explained that the requirement to write both names, which is a disqualifying factor after the fact, applies when the people of one place do not recognize the name of the second place at all. However, if in one of the places they know that it has another name from the second place, it is kosher after the fact if they wrote only this name of the second place that is also known to the other place, and this is a simple matter. Nevertheless, initially one certainly must specify all the names, as I wrote in section 19 from the Yerushalmi; see there.

And know that regarding what we wrote, that when it is not known in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery, it is valid with the name of the place of writing alone, the Rosh and the Tur wrote, and this is their wording: But if he was not established with two names, such that they do not know in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery, and also in the place of delivery they do not know that he has another name in the place of writing, it is not necessary to write anything but the name of the place of writing and not "every name and nickname" etc. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matter is that it is not only if in the place of delivery they know of the name from the place of writing, for it is obvious that it is valid as we wrote, but even if the people of the place of delivery do not know of the name from the place of writing, it is also valid, even if the matter is revealed afterward that he has another name there (Beit Yosef). And that which they wrote "it is not necessary to write anything but the name of the place of writing," they did not say this as an initial requirement, for certainly it is only valid after the fact, as is proven from the end of their words, see there. And that which they wrote in a language of an initial requirement, it is necessarily so because they do not know of another name, and their intention is that it is not necessary to be concerned lest he has another name in the place of delivery, and it is not necessary to write "and every name" because of this concern; and even if it is revealed afterward that he has another name, it is valid after the fact, as they wrote at the end of their words, see there. (And the Bach and the Taz exerted themselves to explain the words of the Rosh and the Tur in another manner, but the matter is simple as the Beit Yosef wrote; and as for what they questioned why it is valid when they did not know of the other name, and likewise the Tuv Gittin wondered in subsection 8, we have already explained with the help of Heaven in section 26, and particularly since this is only rabbinic that the offspring is a mamzer with the name of the place of writing alone, as the Chelkat Mechokek wrote in subsection 8):

And the matter is simple that all of this is only regarding the names of the place of writing and the place of delivery; but when the writing and the delivery are in one place, or when the name is the same in both places, even though in another place it has an additional name, we are not concerned for it. However, ab initio it is certainly proper to write all the names, as was written from the Yerushalmi, and so wrote the Smag, see there. And all these matters that we have explained are according to the system of Rashi, the Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Tur.

But there are some of our teachers who hold that there is no difference between whether they knew in the place of writing that he has another name in the place of delivery or whether they did not know; for even if they did not know, if it was revealed afterward that in the place of delivery he has another name and they do not recognize the name from the place of writing, the get is invalid. And that which the sages, of blessed memory, said, that where it was not established we do not concern ourselves with it, this is its explanation: specifically when he was established by another name in the place of delivery. But if he was not established in the place of delivery by another name, but rather his name is the same as the name in the place of writing, or they know that in the place of writing they call him so, even though it was revealed afterward that in some place he had another name and they do not know of this name at all, we do not concern ourselves with it, since it is neither the place of writing nor the place of delivery. And this is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumah, the Semag, the Ra'avyah, and the Mordechai. And for the halacha, certainly one should not transgress the opinion of these our teachers. The Rambam, of blessed memory, and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch did not mention this entire matter at all, and their reason and rationale will be explained before us with the help of Heaven.

And there is yet another explanation for this from the Rishonim which the Ran, of blessed memory, cited, which is the opposite of the opinions that have been explained; for he holds that if it was established in the place of writing with two names—meaning that they call it by a certain name and sometimes they also call it by the name of the place of giving—then even if he wrote the name of the place of giving, she is not divorced. However, if it was not established with two names in the place of writing—meaning that they only call it by one name—even though they know that it has its own name in the place of giving, one writes only the name of the place of writing. Yet the Ran, of blessed memory, himself elaborated and explained according to the explanation of Rashi and the Tosafot, see there. And according to all the explanations, so it is: regarding a name that he or she has in other places, which are not the place of writing or giving, we are not concerned with them at all ex post facto. And the names of the place of writing and the place of giving, whether his or hers, and likewise the names of their fathers, must be detailed explicitly. The primary one is the name of the place of giving, and regarding the name of the place of writing, they shall write "who is called" for a male and "who is called" for a female; or ex post facto, if they wrote regarding the name of the place of writing "and any name," it is valid, but regarding the place of giving it is invalid. And according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, even "who is called" is invalid regarding the place of giving, but most of the great authorities disagree with him on this, as I wrote in section 28. And ab initio, one should write all the names from all the places, as I wrote from the Yerushalmi.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 4 did not mention anything of this, and only wrote: One who had two names, and similarly a woman who has two names, when he divorces he writes his name and her name by which they are accustomed and most known, and says "the man so-and-so and every name he has divorced the woman so-and-so and every name she has." And if he wrote his nickname and her nickname it is kosher. If he wrote the name by which they are not most known and wrote "and every name he has" regarding the primary name, this is pasul. Thus far his words. And he did not mention any distinction between the place of writing and the place of delivery. And it appears that his opinion is that the essence of the enactment of Rabban Gamliel was such: that one who has another name, whether the second name is here or whether it is in another place, it is a great principle to write the primary name and "and every name" regarding the second; and it is incumbent upon the witnesses to understand which is the primary and which is the secondary. And regarding the matter of the place of writing and delivery, since in the Shas the place of delivery is equated to the primary, and in the Tosefta the place of writing is equated to the primary, he holds that they do not disagree and there is no concern regarding which name he writes "and every name," for both are primary (Get Pashut end of subsection 16). And he did not need to clarify that where it was not established one does not need to write "and every name," since he holds that the enactment of Rabban Gamliel was to write "and every name" in every get because of this concern; if so, even where it was not established we write it. And the Shas explains according to the essence of the law. And from that which the Rambam wrote, that if he wrote the name that is not most known and "and every name" regarding the primary it is pasul, we learn from this that its invalidity is only rabbinic, as I wrote at the end of section 31, and it is not similar to a complete change of name (as the Beit Shmuel wrote in subsection 8).

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 4, wrote this law that the place of the giving is primary, according to the opinion of most poskim. And so they wrote in section 12, that ab initio they should write all the names that he has, even those not from the place of the writing and the giving, or he should write the name that he has there and include within it "and every other name." And if he wrote only the name that he has there in the place where they both are standing alone, and did not write "and every other name," it is also kosher, even though they knew that he has another name in some other place (Beit Shmuel, subsection 22). But if he wrote the name from the other place, and regarding the name of the place of the writing and the giving [he wrote] "and every other name," the get is void according to the Torah (ibid., subsection 23). And it is not similar to what has been explained regarding one who wrote the name of the place of the writing, and regarding the name of the place of the giving [he wrote] "and every other name," which is not invalid except by rabbinic decree, for regarding the name, there is at least the place of the writing; but regarding a name from another place entirely, it is like a complete change of name (ibid.).

And behold, they too did not mention a distinction between whether it was established or not established. And according to their words, if it was established in the name of the place of delivery that it has another name there, if he wrote regarding the place of delivery "and every name," the get is invalid. If so, they should have clarified that where it was not established, the get is valid. And it appears clear that they were concerned for the opinion of our teachers that we brought in section 33, that even where it was not established, if it only became known afterward that it has another name in the place of delivery, the get is invalid even if they wrote "and every name," as long as they did not mention it explicitly. Therefore, they omitted this law entirely.

And now we will explain the fourth detail in section 12, when he has two names in one place, where some call him Reuven and some call him Shimon. Behold, if half and half call him so, the matter is simple: he writes one name and regarding the second, "who is called" or "and any name" according to the method of the Bahag, and he may choose which name he wishes to write "and any name" for and not write it explicitly. However, if the majority of people call him Reuven and a minority call him Shimon, he must write "Reuven who is called Shimon" or "and any name," and not the reverse, as it is stated in the Gemara that we brought there regarding that case where the majority called her Miriam and a minority Sarah, and the sages ruled: "Miriam and any name she has" and not "Sarah and any name she has." And we have already explained in section 17 that according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam—that we do not write "and any name" and according to our custom, but rather every name explicitly—the intent of the Gemara is also "Miriam who is called Sarah" and not "Sarah who is called Miriam," see there.

One must doubt whether the intent of the Shas is that it even hinders ex post facto if one wrote "Sarah and every name she has," or only ab initio. The doubt is whether we compare the minority to the place of writing and the majority to the place of delivery; then the law would be that if one wrote "Sarah and every name," the get is invalid, and if one wrote "Sarah who is called Miriam," the get is valid, as I wrote in section 28. However, it is possible to say that this is superior to there, for there, in the place of delivery, they do not recognize the name of the place of writing at all, but here, even the majority know that the minority call her by the name written in the get. This is similar to what was explained in section 30, and it is valid ex post facto even with the minority name alone. So it appears from the Chidushei ha-Rashba, of blessed memory, there; see there.

But the Tur does not hold so, for he wrote in the name of the Ramah, this is his wording: When one divorces in his place, he writes the primary name specifically and includes the secondary name in "and every name," and if he wrote the secondary name specifically and included the primary name, it is a case of a doubtful divorce. Thus far his words. And I found in the book of the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo chapter 4, siman 16), this is his wording: And what he wrote etc. a doubtful divorce, I do not know why. Granted that we say "Miriam and every name" and not "Sarah and every name," seemingly this language is only for the outset, and from where do we have the authority to invalidate it post facto? At most, it is only an invalidation such that she should not marry, but if she married she does not leave, and even this is only according to their interpretation etc. but according to our opinion this is not a strict requirement except for the outset, but if he wrote "Sarah who is called Miriam" it is obvious that it is valid, and so ruled the Rivash. Thus far his words. And behold, in such a case it is certainly valid as I wrote in the previous section, but if he wrote "Sarah and every name" one must be concerned for the opinion of the Tur and it is a doubtful divorce. And so it is implied from the words of the Rambam that we brought and from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, this is his wording: If he wrote the names by which they are not most known, and wrote "every name that he has," behold this is invalid. Thus far his words. And it is implied that this is even if both names are in one place, like that of Sarah and Miriam in the Gemara, and according to their opinion it is a rabbinic invalidation. And regarding rabbinic invalidations, it was explained in siman 150 that if she married she does not leave, and it requires further study.

The essence of the words of the Tur is perplexing, for he himself wrote at the beginning of this siman that one writes the primary name and "any name or nickname," but one does not write the secondary name and "any name etc." In what case does this apply? Initially; but after the fact, even if only one of them was written, it is kosher. Thus far his words. It is explicitly explained that even if he wrote only the secondary name alone, it is kosher. Our teacher, the Rema, also wrote this at the end of section 1, and this is his wording: If he wrote only one name, even if it is the secondary name, and divorced with it, it is kosher. Thus far his words. How then does the Tur contradict himself? Rather, one must say that he writes the opinion of the Ramah and he himself does not agree with it. If so, since our teacher, the Rema, ruled not like the Ramah, we adopt this as the halacha. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, wrote the reasoning that without "and any name" it is much better, see there. It appears that our teacher, the Rema, also holds this, for if not so, he should have emended in section 2. This reasoning is not logical at all (the Gra, subsection 7, and so it appears from the Beit Shmuel, subsection 3). According to this, in the law, it is invalid with the secondary name alone, as is also implied by the Rambam (ibid.), and it is not comparable to a nickname which is kosher because everyone recognizes it and it is known to all, but not so with a secondary name (ibid.).

When one writes two names in the get, he should write the primary name first and the secondary name as "who is called." If he did the opposite, it is valid ex post facto since both are explicitly stated. From the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, it is implied that even ab initio there is no concern regarding this. However, some say that if it is not a case of agunah and the get has not yet been given, one must write another get, for it is explained from the Shas that one should write the primary name and the secondary name as "who is called" and not the opposite (Beit Shmuel, subsection 4), and such is the primary rule.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 14: One who has two names, we write "Reuven who is called Shimon," and if he wrote "Reuven Shimon," there is one who says that it is pasul. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is, for example, if he has one name in the place of the writing and another name in the place of the giving, or even if both names are in one place, where some call him Reuven and others call him Shimon, like that case of Miriam and Sarah in the Shas where the laws were explained that it is necessary to write on one of them "who is called" according to the details that were explained. Therefore, if he wrote the two names together it is pasul, for since they do not call him by the two names together, they will say that another person is the one divorcing (Maharik 398). And even if the people of this place know that in another place they call him Shimon (Beit Shmuel subsection 24), and similarly in one place where those who call him Reuven know that there are those who call him Shimon, nevertheless it does not avail, for in the end, he is not called by the two names together.

And know that in his great work he wanted to distinguish that when the two names are in two places it is pasul, but when they are in one place, where these call him Reuven and those call him Shimon, it is kosher when he writes Reuven Shimon. However, from his wording in the Shulchan Aruch it implies that in all manners it is pasul (and so wrote the Get Pashut, subsection 62). And his reasoning in his great work was because he saw that Mahari, the author of Terumat HaDeshen, validates in such a case; therefore, he wanted to distinguish. But in the Shulchan Aruch he stated it without qualification like the opinion that invalidates, and did not distinguish in this, because there is no logical basis to distinguish in this. And therefore he wrote "there is one who says it is pasul," because in his opinion the author of Terumat HaDeshen disagrees in this (ibid.). However, the truth is as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in his work Darkhei Moshe, sign 16, that the Terumat HaDeshen also admits that it is pasul in such a case in every manner. And that which he validated, it is explained there that his name was changed due to illness, and when they called him to go up to the Torah, they called him by the two names together, Reuven Shimon. And therefore, even though most people called him by only one name, these calling him Reuven and those Shimon, nevertheless, since for the Torah they called him by the two names together, the author of Terumat HaDeshen validated. And according to this, for the halacha, in all manners it is pasul if there is no one who calls him by the two names together (the Levush gave another reason for this invalidation, and the Get Pashut ibid. already wondered at him, for in the Beit Yosef the reason we explained is clarified).

And now we shall explain the first detail in section 12: one who is called by two names together. In the time of the Shas and the Rishonim, this was not common at all, and therefore they did not mention anything of this, as I wrote there. However, among us it is very common, such as one whom they call Avraham Yitzchak, the two names together; the matter is simple that it is necessary to write thus in the get, and such is the common custom. And if he wrote "Avraham who is called Yitzchak," it would be completely invalid, for this is a complete alteration (Beit Shmuel subsection 24 and Get Pashut subsection 63). And regarding that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote on the words of the Shulchan Aruch in section 14: "But if he is called by the two names together, or if he is called thus to the Sefer Torah, it is valid," thus far his words. They wondered about him, for from his wording it implies that only ex post facto is it valid when they wrote the two names together. But there is no wonder here at all, for he is dealing with a case where most people call him by one name—some call him Reuven and some Shimon—for he stands upon the words of the Shulchan Aruch. And regarding this he says that if he is called by the two names together, or if he is called thus to the Sefer Torah—meaning that there are those who call him by the two names together, or even if there is no one who calls him by the two names, nevertheless to the Sefer Torah they call him by the two names together—in such a case it is valid only ex post facto. And these are his words in his book Darkhei Moshe which we brought in the previous section, and it is clear (and so it appears from the Taz and the Get Pashut, see there).

And if they wrote in the get only one name, and everyone calls him by two names, his law has not been explained in the poskim. And it appears to me that it is not similar to a nickname or a shortening of the name, which will be explained as kosher, for there everyone calls him so when they wish to use a nickname or to shorten his name; but by one name, there is no one who calls him. And even one who validates a secondary name, it also appears that he would admit here that it is pasul, for with a secondary name, at least a minority of people call him by the secondary name, which is not the case here, where they do not call him by one name.

But if some people call him by one name and they wrote this name, it appears to me that it is valid ex post facto. And even the one who invalidates regarding a secondary name, this is because the majority do not call him by this name at all; but here, where the majority also call him by this name in conjunction with the second name, and some of them call him by this name alone, it is no worse than the shortening of a name which is valid ex post facto, or a family name, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

There is one who says that one who is called by two names, Reuven Shimon, and wrote in the get "Shimon Reuven," that the get is invalid (Get Pashut, subsection 163). In my humble opinion, this does not seem to be so. For certainly, in a case where the meaning of the name is changed to the ear of the listener—such as one whose name is Yom Tov and they write "Tov Yom," or Shem Tov when they write "Tov Shem," or regarding a woman whose name is Bat Sheva and they write "Sheva Bat," and things similar to this—it is certainly invalid. But regarding Reuven Shimon or Avraham Yitzchak and all similar to this, where it is recognizable to the hearing of the ears that this person about whom "Shimon Reuven" was written is the one called "Reuven Shimon," why should it be invalidated because of this? And a hint to the matter is found in Scripture regarding two names, where sometimes it precedes one name and sometimes the other name, such as "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth... on the day of making... earth and heavens" (Genesis 2:4). And so too, "This is Aharon and Moshe" (Exodus 6:26), "This is Moshe and Aharon" (Exodus 6:27). And even though this is regarding separate people and separate things, and there is no proof from this for one person, nevertheless, when the verse begins thus and concludes with the opposite, we learn from this that there is no strictness in this. And although there are homiletic interpretations of the sages, of blessed memory, on this to teach that they are equal, nevertheless, ultimately, the way of Scripture is thus. And it requires further study for the halacha.

There is one who says that one must be careful regarding someone who is called by two names, that they should write the two names on one line and not on two lines (Turei Zahav in the Likutei Shemot, letter 1). And if they wrote them on two lines and it is a time of pressing need where it is not easily possible to write another get, they may give her the get even ab initio (ibid.), for in truth there is no reason for this. It is only regarding names where there is doubt if it is one name or two names, such as Yedidya and Aminadav and those similar to them which will be explained, that one must be careful; this is not the case with two separate names like Reuven Shimon and those similar to this. It is only ab initio, since they gave him the two names from birth, they are like one name regarding this matter, not to separate them into two lines. However, it is a simple matter that one should not join them completely to make them one word (ibid.), but rather he should write each name as a separate word, unlike the one who wished to say they should be joined completely (ibid.). And know that all these two names that we explained, where they call him by two names, this is when they gave him two names from his birth; but regarding one to whom they added a name due to illness, there are other laws for this. And likewise if they sometimes call him by one name, or if he ascends to the Torah with one name, or the opposite, that he ascends to the Torah with two names and they call him by one name, and likewise if he signs himself differently than what they call him, there are other laws for this, and they will be explained before us with the help of Heaven.

And now we shall explain the second detail from section 12 regarding a nickname, and because there are many details in this, we will first transcribe the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and explain them with the help of Heaven. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 15: One who has two names, and the second name is derived from the first name as a childhood name, such as Yitzchak Chakin, Aharon Arnin, and the like, does not need to write the childhood name at all unless there is one whose name is Yitzchak or Aharon. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, emended regarding this: And the same applies to Yaakov Yaekil, Peretz Partzin, and it seems the same applies to Avraham Avrelan and the like; however, if he wishes to write it, it does not cause harm. However, any shortening of a name that is a name in its own right, such as Elchanan Chanan and the like, we write. Thus far his words.

And in section 16, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: If the second name is derived from the Hebrew name, such as Yehuda Leon, one writes "Yehuda d'mitkari Leon," and if it is not somewhat similar to the Hebrew name, one should write "hamachuneh." Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: The explanation of his words is that Leon is the translation of Aryeh, and Yehuda is called so because of "a lion's whelp is Yehuda," and according to this, one should write "Yehuda d'mitkari Leib." However, there are those who say that whenever both names are in the holy tongue, one writes "d'mitkari," and if one is in a foreign tongue, one writes "hamachuneh," and there is no distinction whether it is derived from the name or not. Therefore, one writes "Yehuda hamachuneh Leib" and anything similar to this, and so we practice in these lands. And any family surname should not be written at all, whether it is in the Hebrew tongue or a foreign tongue, and such is the custom. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote there: One who has a Hebrew name with which he ascends to be called to the Torah, and he also has a name in a foreign language, we make the Hebrew name primary, and regarding the second we write "demitkari." And the same applies to a woman, we make the Hebrew name primary. Thus far his words. He further wrote: There are those who say that one who has two names, if he is accustomed to both of them and nevertheless one is more primary, we write "Ploni demitkari Ploni," and if he is not accustomed to the second, we write "de'itkari." Thus far his words. (This is how it should be: Gimmel-Pei and Tav-Gimmel; "demitkari" is in the present and "de'itkari" is regarding the past, see there.) And he further wrote: Any nickname that is a disgrace to the divorcer, we do not write it in the get, and therefore a convert who returned to his faith, we do not write for him "v'chol shum v'chanicha d'it lei." And any nickname where he is not called by that nickname alone, but rather they call him with the primary name, one does not need to write the nickname. But if the gentiles call him by the nickname alone, even though Israelites do not call him so, there are those who say that we write "v'chol shum v'chanicha," even though in other gittin we do not write so, and similarly regarding a family nickname. And it appears to me that one should not write the nickname at all, as is the custom regarding a family nickname. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: If the second name is in a foreign language and they are both one, such as Chaim Vivante (for this is like Leibin in our language), they write "Chaim who is called Vivante." For any surname, they write "who is nicknamed," whether it is in the Hebrew language or in a foreign language. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And it has already been explained that we do not practice accordingly. Thus far his words. And in section 8, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: Now it is the custom that in all gittin they write "and any name that I, or my fathers, or my place have." Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And in these provinces we do not practice accordingly, but rather if he has two names, they write them explicitly as I have written. Thus far his words. And he wrote likewise in section 1, that one should not write "any name that he has," but rather if he has two names, he should write "Ploni who is called Ploni," and so we practice and one should not deviate. Thus far his words. And we have already explained this in section 15; see there.

And a great principle must be known: that the term "demitkari" is applicable to all types of names and nicknames, for he is indeed called so. However, the term "hamichuneh" is only applicable to a nickname of a name, as will be explained, where there is some connection of the nickname to the name. But when there is no connection at all, such as when his name is Reuven and they call him Shimon, if he writes "hamichuneh" it is completely invalid, for there is no connection between the name Reuven and the name Shimon, and he must necessarily write "demitkari." And even if we say that "hamichuneh" refers to the person and not to the name, the language of "hamichuneh" is still not applicable, for this is not a nickname but another name. Therefore, when there is a doubt whether to write "hamichuneh" or "demitkari," they should write "demitkari" and not "hamichuneh." And so ruled all the great authorities (and so wrote the Beit Shmuel, subsection 30).

And regarding the explanation of the word "kinui," several explanations can be offered. Its primary meaning is a term of change, concealment, and hiding from the thing itself. We find in Job (32): "Let me not, I pray you, show favoritism to any man, nor give titles (akhaneh) to a person, for I know not how to give titles," etc. That is to say: I will not show favoritism to a man to change my words and cover them, but rather I will reveal my words, for I have not known this trait of concealment and hiding. And in Isaiah (44) we find: "And he shall title himself (yekhaneh) by the name of Israel," meaning that even though he did not conduct himself as an Israelite, he shall title himself as an Israelite. This too can be explained as a term of concealment and hiding, that he shall hide himself from what he is and say, "I am an Israelite." And so too regarding Cyrus (ibid. 45): "I have titled you (akhankha), though you have not known Me," meaning: Behold, I have titled you that you are My servant and My anointed, though you have not known Me (however, there it can be said to be a term of "ken" and "basis," like "and the foundation [vekhannah] which Your right hand has planted"). And in the language of the Shas, we find it regarding a nickname (kinui) for disgrace, such as "Eye of All," "Eye of a Thorn." And so too the kinuyim of vows, nazirite prohibitions, and oaths: from "nazir" comes "nazik," from "shevuah" comes "shekukah" or "shevutah," and from "nedarim" where his speech is "konam upon me," its kinui is "konas" or "konakh" (Nedarim 10b). The essence of the intent is that they change the name slightly from what it was, but it is recognizable that this is from the essential name, and it is not a total concealment. However, in Ezra (6) we find: "Tatnai, governor of across the river, Shethar-bozenai, and their colleagues (ukhenavotehon)," and its explanation is "those similar to them," meaning these ministers and those similar to them in rank; behold, it is a term of similarity. (And in Shevuot 36a we find) regarding the Mishnah of "May God strike you so," Rav Kahana sat before Rabbi Yehuda, and he sat and said this Mishnah as it was taught. He said to him: "Kanneh" (title it). And Rashi explained: "Invert your words toward others, etc., so that you do not curse me." Thus far his words. Behold, it is a term of inversion.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds that one should not write "hamikhuneh" unless the nickname is not truly similar to the proper name, for a nickname is a concealment and a hiding; and when it is truly similar, even though it is in a foreign tongue—such as Vivante and his name is Chaim—how is "hamikhuneh" applicable to this, for behold, this is his proper name. Therefore, among us, one whose name is Baer and his holy name is Dov, and similarly Wolf and his holy name is Zeev or Binyamin—for Binyamin is also like a wolf based on the verse "Binyamin is a wolf that raveneth"—and similarly one whose name is Leib and his holy name is Aryeh or Yehuda—for Yehuda is like a lion based on "Yehuda is a lion's whelp"—one must write "Dov de-mitkari Baer," "Zeev de-mitkari Wolf," and similarly "Binyamin de-mitkari Wolf," and similarly "Aryeh" or "Yehuda de-mitkari Leib," since this is his actual name. But when it is not his actual name and it emerges from his name, such as Shelomo and they call him Zalman, or Yechiel whom they call Michel, and similarly Raphael whom they call Po'ah (see the Beit Yosef), they write "hamikhuneh." But when the nickname is truly another name that is not related to the proper name, they do not write "hamikhuneh." And the name Zalman emerges from the name Shelomo, for they called him Solomon, as the gentiles call Shelomo, and it is a play on words, and afterwards they called Solomon "Zalman" according to the pronunciations that change from country to country. And similarly Michel is from the name Yechiel, for at first they called Yechiel "Eichel" to shorten the name, and afterwards according to the change of pronunciations as I have written, they called him Michel. And similarly Po'ah for Raphael was a shortening of the name. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds that there is no difference between Hebrew and a foreign tongue, but rather everything depends on what has been explained.

But our teacher, the Rema, holds that whenever the kinnui is in a foreign tongue, we write "hamakhuneh" even though it is similar to the proper name, since it has changed from language to language. The meaning of "hamakhuneh" would then be like "ve-khannotehon" from Ezra which we cited, which is an expression of similarity as I wrote. Therefore, we write "Dov hamakhuneh Baer," "Zeev" or "Binyamin hamakhuneh Wolf," "Aryeh" or "Yehuda hamakhuneh Leib." This is the common custom among us. This is certainly so regarding "Shlomo Zalman," "Yechiel Michel," and "Rafael Fuah," where we write "hamakhuneh" because they are not completely similar, for even according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, we write "hamakhuneh." So too with all abbreviations of names, if it is necessary to write the abbreviation of the name as will be explained, one should write "hamakhuneh." One should not ask according to our words regarding the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, that "hamakhuneh" is derived from "ve-khannotehon" in Ezra—from where do we know that when it is not similar at all we write "hamakhuneh"? For the truth is that when it is not similar at all, certainly everyone agrees that this is the primary definition of a kinnui, like most of the kinnuim in the Bible and the Shas that we cited, which is a matter of concealment and hiding; rather, even when it is truly similar, the term kinnui is applicable, as in Ezra.

And that which he distinguishes between a foreign language and the holy tongue, that when the kinnui is in the holy tongue one does not write "hamakhuneh" and in a foreign language one does write "hamakhuneh," it seems to me that his reasoning is as follows: whenever the kinnui is in a foreign language, it certainly has some similarity to the language of the essential name, such as in its abbreviation or in the transformation from language to language and the like. But when the kinnui is in the holy tongue, it has no connection to the essential name and is truly another name, and how does the term kinnui apply to this, as I have written. And according to this, one must be in doubt regarding one whose name is Yehuda and they call him Aryeh, or Binyamin and they call him Zeev, how to write; for according to the rule of our teacher, the Rema, one must write "demitkari," yet there is no reason for this not to write "hamakhuneh," for from Yehuda emerged the name Aryeh and likewise from Binyamin, Zeev. And it appears that the reason is that this is like one name truly in all details, and therefore "hamakhuneh" does not apply to this, for this is like if we were to write "Yehuda hamakhuneh Yehuda" or "Binyamin hamakhuneh Binyamin." And a proof for this is that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote regarding Yehuda "demitkari Leon," and Leon in their language is like Leib among us, and it is difficult: for it is not truly similar to the name Yehuda, as Leon is Aryeh, and behold Yehuda is called after the name of Aryeh, and this is a concealment and a covering over Yehuda. Rather, certainly Yehuda and Aryeh are like one name truly without distinction, and likewise Binyamin and Zeev, for they have one reasoning. And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, "and there is no difference whether it emerges from the name or not," thus far his words, he means to say whether it is truly like the essential name such as Yehuda Leon as I have written, or it is not truly similar to the essential name, to exclude the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, see there.

And know that even though the reasoning we wrote—that every foreign language name has some similarity to the essential name—is certainly so regarding most names, nevertheless it is not an absolute rule. Also, that which we wrote regarding the explanation of "derived from the name," even though according to the depth of the words of the Shulchan Aruch it implies this, nevertheless from the book Darkei Moshe, sign 18, where he wrote that there is no difference whether the foreign name is an explanation of the Hebrew or not, thus far his words, it implies explicitly that even if there is no connection between the foreign name and the Hebrew, one writes "hamakhuneh." And there is clear proof from what he wrote there in sign 24, "Moshe hamakhuneh Liwa," see there, and there is no connection between them. And so we have names: "Shimon hamakhuneh Zimmel," and "Meshullam hamakhuneh Zalman" (Beit Shmuel, subsection 29), and so "Abli" which is a kinnui for "Avraham" (ibid. in Names of Men, letter Aleph), and "Elimelekh hamakhuneh Pilta" (ibid.), and "Eliezer hamakhuneh Liberman" (ibid.) or "Buksh" or "Pavoli" or "Feivush" or "Lipman" (ibid.), and so "Yissachar hamakhuneh Baer" (ibid. letter Yod). And so regarding names of women, the vast majority of the foreign names are derived from the essential name, as we have heard and seen in the books of names. Nevertheless, one cannot give a rule in this, for there is one kinnui for several names. Therefore, for every foreign name one writes "hamakhuneh," since for the Hebrew name they use this foreign name as a kinnui, the language of "hamakhuneh" is applicable to it. And for every holy name one writes "demitkari," since it is also a name in its own right. Therefore, regarding "Elchanan demitkari Chanan," one does not write "hamakhuneh," even though it is certainly derived from Elchanan; nevertheless, since Chanan is also a name in its own right, it is not applicable to say that Elchanan is "makhuneh" Chanan, for there is a Chanan without Elchanan. And so it appears from all the books of names, and such is the custom in all our regions.

And that which he wrote, that a family nickname should not be written at all, the reason is simple: since the entire family is nicknamed so, this is not a sign at all (Levush). And that which he wrote, that if he is called to the Torah by a Hebrew name and he also has a name in a foreign language, we make the Hebrew name primary and regarding the second we write "de-mitkari," thus far his words. And he contradicts himself regarding what he wrote previously, that for a foreign name we write "ha-mechuneh." The Acharonim wrote that he was not being precise regarding the difference between "de-mitkari" and "ha-mechuneh," but rather he comes to teach us that the Hebrew name is primary; but in truth, one must write "ha-mechuneh" (Taz and Nachalat Shiva and Beit Shmuel subsection 30). And this is a great difficulty, that he would not be precise in the matter he is dealing with. And there is one who says that here it is dealing with a case where the nickname is also a proper noun, that they call such a name on its own, and it is like a Hebrew name where we do not write "ha-mechuneh" but rather "de-mitkari" (Get Pashut subsection 82). And some distinguish between when the nickname was from his birth and when it was newly created later, and they rejected their words (see Beit Shmuel and Get Pashut ibid.). And some say that here it is dealing with one who at his birth was given only the nickname, and afterwards they changed his name to a Hebrew name due to illness; if so, the term "ha-mechuneh" is not applicable to this, since from the beginning it was so. Therefore, even though a name that was changed due to illness is primary, as will be explained, nevertheless it is impossible to write "ha-mechuneh" on a name from birth, but rather "de-mitkari" (Get Pashut ibid. and Noda BiYehuda Tinyana siman 119). However, even though it is certainly so according to the essential law, nevertheless this is not implied in his words, for if so, he should have specified.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is the explanation: for certainly if the secular name is based on the Hebrew name, even if it is not derived from the Hebrew name, one writes "nicknamed," since they call him by this secular name because of this Hebrew name. But if he has two names, one Hebrew and one secular, and the secular name is not based on the Hebrew name, but rather they gave him two names such that sometimes they call him by this name and sometimes by the other name—and this is what it comes to teach us—that even though most of the time they call him by the secular name and we should have said to write the secular name first and regarding the Hebrew name "who is called," nevertheless the Hebrew name is primary, for he ascends to the Torah with it. Therefore, one writes the Hebrew name as the primary one and regarding the secular name "who is called," and it is not appropriate to write "nicknamed" regarding it since it has no connection to the Hebrew name, as I wrote in section 54, see there. And afterwards it states a greater novelty than this, that the same applies to a woman in such a case: the Hebrew name is primary and one writes regarding the secular name "who is called," even though the majority call her by the secular name and regarding a woman ascending to the Torah is not applicable. And according to this, his words are precise, and the matter is simple: that regarding a woman, this is specifically when at least a minority call her by the Hebrew name, then there is a status for the Hebrew name against the secular name such that the Hebrew is primary. But if even a minority do not call her by the Hebrew name, it is like a forgotten name and one does not write it at all. But regarding a man, there is the ascending to the Torah where they call him by the Hebrew name; and if he also ascends to the Torah with the secular name, one does not write the Hebrew name at all, for it is like a forgotten name (and so wrote the Beit Shmuel in subsection 31, that the Hebrew name is primary even with a minority).

And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote afterwards: some say that one who has two names, if he is accustomed to both of them and nevertheless one is more primary, they write "Ploni who is called (demitkari) Ploni," and if he is not accustomed to the second, they write "who was called (de'atkari)." Thus far his words. He means to say that that which was explained—that the Hebrew name is primary even though most people call him by the other name—this is in the case of a Hebrew name versus a secular name. But when both names are Hebrew or both are secular, and they do not call him by both together but rather sometimes by this name and sometimes by the other name, therefore if one is more primary, such that for the most part they call him by this name, they write this name and regarding the second "demitkari," and it is like that case of "the majority Miriam and the minority Sarah" in the Gemara. However, if he is not accustomed at all to the second—meaning that even in a minority of instances they do not call him by the second name, and not that it was entirely forgotten, for if so it would not be necessary to mention it at all, but rather meaning that on rare occasions they call him by this name—they write "de'atkari" and not "demitkari," because "atkari" refers to the past (so it appears to me). And a nickname of derision is not written at all, for "the Torah's ways are ways of pleasantness," and therefore in the case of a convert who returned to the faith, they do not write "and any name" (ve-chol shum) even though for a convert they do write it even according to our custom as I have written (and also from this there is proof for what I wrote, that the Rema is dealing with a case where the nickname is not related to the Hebrew name at all, for a nickname of derision certainly is not related to the Hebrew name, and likewise regarding a convert; and delve into this).

And that which he wrote, that any nickname that is not called by that nickname alone, but rather they call him with the primary name, one does not need to write the nickname, thus far his words. The reason is simple: since they always mention the distinct name with the nickname, it is not called a chanika regarding the matter of gittin. For what is the reason we write the chanika in a get? In order to recognize that this is so-and-so the divorcer, so that they should not think that this Reuven who is written in the get is not this divorcer, for many who call him by the chanika do not know that his name is Reuven. And if so, in any case where they call him regularly by the distinct name with the nickname, there is no longer a concern for this (Terumat HaDeshen siman 235 and Get Pashut subsection 85). And some say that one must write both of them together (see Pitchei Teshuva subsection 45).

However, regarding that which he wrote, that if the gentiles call him only by the nickname some say that we write "and every name and nickname" even though in other gittin we do not write it, and he decided not to write it at all, there is a question on this. For behold, he himself wrote in section 14, and this is his wording: If he is called by one name by Israelites and by another name by gentiles, we write the Israelite name and "who is called" by the gentile name; but if their matters are almost one, we write only the Israelite name, as I wrote above in siman 128 regarding rivers. Thus far his words. And how did he write here not to mention the gentile name at all, and even those who hold that we do mention it do not specify it explicitly but rather write "and every name"? However, the truth is that in section 14 it deals with a case where he has two proper names, one used by Israelites and one used by gentiles (ibid. subsection 86), and therefore we write "who is called" and not "who is nicknamed" since the gentile name is a proper name in its own right and is not a nickname for the first name (and this is proof for what I wrote in section 61), or when both names are in a foreign language (Beit Shmuel subsection 25) where "who is nicknamed" is not applicable since every name is a name in its own right. But here it deals with a case where the primary name is the Hebrew name and the nickname is for the Hebrew name, and since the Jews call him by the distinct name along with the nickname, there is no need to mention the nickname at all, and even to include it in "and every name" is not necessary, for they will not come to err for the reason we explained in the previous section. And one should not ask: how can we write only one name, for behold it was explained in section 45 that when they call him by two names one must write both of them, and here where they call him by the proper name with the nickname, why should they not write both? The answer is that it is not comparable; for there, where the two names are complete names, where each name is a name in its own right, certainly one must write both. This is not the case here, where one name is only that they call him with his nickname; why should we mention the nickname, for everyone knows who he is, as I wrote. And that which he wrote in section 14, that if their matters are almost one we write only the Israelite name, his intention is when the gentiles also call him by the Israelite name, except that according to the pronunciation of their language it changes slightly, such as when they call Aharon "Aran," and Michal "Michail," and Moshe "Mashei," and the like; there is no need to mention this at all, for this is like a shortening of the name.

And that which they wrote in section 15 regarding the matter of a childhood name that emanates from the primary name, that one does not need to write it at all, such as Yitzchak—Chakin, and in our language Itza, Itzik, Itzka; Aharon—Arnin, and in our language Ara, Arka; and for Yaakov—Yekil or Yankel, as we are accustomed to call the name Yaakov; or Peretz—Paretzin; or Avraham—Aberlan or Avremil, Avremka; and similarly for Shmuel—Mula, Munia, Shmulik; and similarly with the names of women, they are accustomed to call Bila—Bilka, Biliata; Feigel—Feigela; Basha—Bashka or Bashinka; and anything similar to this, as it is only a name of childhood and youth, and for the most part, regarding the person himself, they will not call him by the childhood name (and see at the end of the Names of Men that with women it is not so). Therefore, one does not need to mention it at all, for everyone knows that this childhood name by which they call him is the name written in the get. However, that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, and this is his wording: However, any abbreviation of a name that is a name in its own right, such as Elchanan—Chanan, we write it, and anything similar to this. Thus far his words. One must ask: what is the connection between an abbreviation of a name and a childhood name? However, he holds that they are all one. And so it appears, for we find that the Mordechai wrote in the fourth chapter in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, and this is his wording: And one does not need to write a kinnui that is an abbreviation of the name, such as Bila—Bilta, Shmuel—Mual, Margaliot—Margaluta, Tzipora—Pora, Binyamin—Bunmi, for this is neither a kinnui nor a change. Thus far his words. And the author of the Hagahot Maimoniot in the fourth chapter calls this a childhood name (cited in the Beit Yosef); learn from this that this and that are one and the same. And the truth is indeed so, for regarding a youth, they are not particular to call him by the essential name, only by the abbreviation of the name, and sometimes it is a name of endearment and affection, such as they call Berela, Leibela, and with the names of women, Feigela, Bilka. But for a great man and in his presence, they call him by the essential name, and this is the way of respect. And it is not specifically that they shorten the name, for behold, Bila—Bilta, Margaliot—Margaluta, are lengthenings of the name, but rather they call this by the borrowed term "abbreviation of the name" or "childhood name." Therefore, we do not write it, for it is not a name at all. Consequently, if this abbreviation is a name in its own right, such as Elchanan whom they call Chanan, we write it, and so too anything similar to this.

And that which he ruled, that if one desires to write the abbreviation of the name it is not detrimental, this is the primary law. For even though there is one who wishes to say specifically that one should not write it (Ra'anach), and his reason is that perhaps they will not write it properly (Get Pashut subsection 71), and also perhaps one who sees it will challenge this (ibid.), nevertheless we are not concerned for this. For why should we be concerned that they will not write it properly? And also, the one who sees it will not challenge it, as he will reason that there was another person in the city whose name was like his name, and the abbreviation is for identification (ibid.). Furthermore, sometimes there is a doubt whether this is an abbreviation of the name or a name in its own right, and in this case it is certainly proper to write it (Beit Shmuel subsection 28). Furthermore, there are abbreviations of names that have another holy name; therefore, the Maharshal ruled (in Yam Shel Shlomo siman 28) regarding Yaakov Yaekil that one must write Yaekil because he has another holy name, Elyakim. And even though from the language of our teacher, the Rema, it is implied that even in this case one need not write the abbreviation—for this is the novel point he added to the words of the Mechaber—therefore, certainly if he comes to write it, he writes according to the ruling of our teacher, the Rema. And so the Acharonim decided, and particularly regarding the names of women, as will be explained.

And know that from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch it is somewhat implied that this rule, that one does not need to write the shortened name, applies specifically when they also call him by the primary name; even though the majority call him by the shortened name, nevertheless, one writes only the primary name. This is certainly true regarding a man whom they call to the Torah by the primary name, and likewise he signs himself with the primary name. However, regarding a woman, if everyone calls her by the nickname, the primary name is like a forgotten name and one writes only the nickname, even if it is a shortening and a name from youth. Likewise regarding a man, when they call him to the Torah by the nickname—as is common now when there is no permanent sexton to know the calling of the names—and likewise when he signs himself with the nickname, one writes only the nickname alone (so it appears to me, and so it is implied from the Get Pashut, subsection 67). And even if the arranger has a doubt regarding this, it is better to write only the nickname, for behold, if one wrote his nickname or her nickname it is valid ex post facto, and according to several great poskim it is valid even ab initio, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven. And it is a great principle regarding names that whenever there is some slight doubt regarding the primary name, one writes only the nickname alone. And what does it matter to me if it is a nickname from youth or a shortening of a name? Ultimately, everyone calls him so, and we do not engage in homiletics regarding names; rather, according to how they call them, so one must write. And it is impossible to clarify everything in writing, and if the arranger is a Torah scholar who has learned and possesses reasoning, he will understand how to write, and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And now we will explain the third detail from section 12, when one was ill and they changed his name. The poskim were very, very stringent regarding the changed name, for it is the primary name. We have already explained that the changing of a sick person's name that existed in their days was not like our current custom, where we add a name to the previous name and call him by both names together, and so he signs his name and is called to the Torah, as is known. In their days, it was a literal change of name, for they removed the previous name and gave him another name, similar to the matter of "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel," etc. This is also explicitly apparent from a Sephardic responsum (brought in Get Pashut, subsection 93). This is his wording: Regarding a get of a person facing death where they wrote his name Matzliach, and three days before the writing of the get they performed a prayer for him and changed his name and called him Chaim, etc. Thus far his words. And so too in a responsum of the Mabit, a person facing death whose name they changed from Yitzchak to Chaim, etc., see there. And so it was brought in the Beit Yosef with this wording: A case came before the Maharap regarding one who was ill and they exchanged his name during his illness, etc., see there. For our custom, that we add a name for the sick person to the first name, is not a change of name but rather an addition of a name. Therefore, all the laws that will be explained regarding the changing of a sick person's name according to the opinions of the poskim follow their custom where they exchanged the name; but according to our custom, there is another law in this matter, as will be explained in section 82 with the help of Heaven.

And behold, regarding the changing of a name according to their custom, if everyone were to call him by the new name, it would not be a burden for the poskim in this matter, and it would be simple that they write the new name. However, because of the habit that everyone was accustomed to his first name, even after the change there are many who will call him by his first name. The early authorities ruled that the changed name is primary, and regarding the first name they write "who is called," even if the majority call him by the first name and a minority by the changed name. And even if the first is a Hebrew name and the changed name is a secular name, nevertheless the changed name is primary and regarding the first they write "who is called." And it is not similar to "a majority call her Miriam and a few call her Sarah," and likewise to a Hebrew name and a secular name where it was explained that the secular name is secondary; for here, since they intentionally changed his name to another name, it is obvious that the second is primary in all cases.

Therefore, some say that it is not specifically regarding a name change due to illness, but rather even if one changed his name due to another matter where he was forced to change his name, the second name is primary, just as in a name change due to illness (and so it appears in the Responsa of our teacher, the Rema, siman 84). And some say that only in a name change due to illness, because it tears up the divine decree, is this name treated stringently, but not in a name change due to another matter (so it appears in the Maharik, shoresh 98). And the primary view appears to be the law that certainly in any name change we follow the change; however, in this it is not similar to a sick person, for regarding illness we follow this name even when only a minority call him by the name that was changed and we make it primary. But in any other name change we follow the majority, for if the majority call him by the name that was changed, we properly write regarding the first name "who is called [by the second name]." But when the majority call him by the first name and a minority by the name that was changed, we write the first name and regarding the name that was changed "who is called" (and so it appears from the words of the Tuv Gittin, subsection 27, and Get Pashut, subsection 92, except that they hold that when the change is due to rebels, where by changing his name he is saved from danger, it is similar to a name change due to illness; and in the words of the Beit Shmuel, subsection 33, there is a scribal error, see there and examine carefully).

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, section 18: One whose name was changed due to illness, even if they always call him by the first name, nevertheless the changed name is primary, even if it is a vernacular name and the first name is Hebrew. And we write it first, and afterwards "who is called so-and-so," the first name. And specifically when they call him sometimes by the second name; but if they do not call him by the second name at all, he writes only the first name alone. And there is one who requires two gittin with the two names. And if he has a prominent name with which he ascends to the Sefer Torah and signs his writings and documents, that name is primary. And if he ascends to the Sefer Torah with both of them, we write the second as primary and regarding the first "who is called." However, a witness who signs himself and has two names, he shall sign himself with the two names without "who is called." Thus far their words.

And behold, it is a simple matter that what was written—that even though they always call him by the first name, nevertheless the changed name is primary—the intention is not that they do not call him by the changed name at all, which would be like a name that has fallen into disuse. For in such a case, it is obvious that the changed name is not primary; and not only that, but they do not write it at all, as is explained in their own words. And some say that not only is it unnecessary to mention it in such a case, but it even invalidates the get if they mentioned it, since this changed name has fallen completely into disuse (Get Pashut, subsection 196). And so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, where he cited the words of the Kuntresim regarding a woman whose name was Rivka and her name was changed due to illness and she was called Chana, and everyone calls her by the name Rivka which is her first name, that one should not write the name Chana in the get at all, and it is obvious that the name Rivka is no less than a nickname, etc. Thus far the words of the Kuntresim. And he wrote regarding one who was called at the time of his birth Chaim and afterwards they call him Vivant, etc., and if they do not call him at all by the name Chaim, they write only Vivant alone; and if he also wrote the name Chaim, it implies from the Kuntresim regarding the woman whose name was Rivka and was changed to Chana that she is not divorced. Thus far his words. Behold, he adopted the opinion of the Kuntresim that if he also wrote the name Chana which had fallen into disuse, she is not divorced; and from this he learned regarding the birth name, that when it has fallen into disuse and they wrote it, even though he also wrote the name by which he is called, she is not divorced. And that which they wrote, that they always call him by the first name, means that for the most part they always call him by the first name; however, a minority call him by the changed name.

However, regarding that which he disqualifies the get if he also mentioned the name of the change that was forgotten, the matter is astonishing. For since they also mentioned the name by which he is called, what harm does the name of the change do? And granted that this name was forgotten, nevertheless, they did in truth change his name, and in the get it is recognizable who the divorcer is. Furthermore, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, "she is not divorced," which implies that from the Torah she is not divorced, is something that is impossible to say. Furthermore, from where does he have this to infer so from within the Kuntras? On the contrary, from what they wrote that the name Rivka is no worse than a nickname, it is explicitly proven that they validate with the name Rivka alone, and not that they disqualify if they also wrote the name Chana. Therefore, it appears to me in my humble opinion that there is a printing error in his great book in that which is written, "and if he also wrote the name Chaim," and it should say, "and if he wrote only the name Chaim." And this is certainly so, for with the forgotten name alone she is not divorced from the Torah. And there is further proof, for if it should enter your mind as it is written before us, why did our teacher, the Beit Yosef, not bring this law in the Shulchan Aruch? And not only that, but he wrote that there is one who requires two gittin when they do not call him at all by the name of the change; and how can we say that this name disqualifies? And there is also proof for this from the words of the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 4, siman 24) who wrote regarding the opinion of the Terumat HaDeshen that a secular name, even though they do not call him by this name, nevertheless it is considered, for this is like a segulah, see there. Therefore, it appears to me that even though the Levush also wrote that if they also wrote the forgotten name in the get it disqualifies the get, see there, nevertheless, with a secular name that was forgotten it does not disqualify the get. And also regarding the core of the matter, that the forgotten name should disqualify the get if they also wrote the name by which he is called—and they did not write both of them together but rather "who is called"—I am astonished why it should disqualify, and it requires further study for the halakhah.

This matter, that the name from the illness is primary, is specifically when the divorce is in the place of the writing of the get, or even in a get sent from place to place, provided that in the place of the delivery it is known by the name of its change. But if in the place of the delivery it is not known at all that his name changed and he is called by the first name, one must prioritize the first name known in the place of delivery, and regarding the name of the change he shall write "who is called" (Beit Shmuel, subsection 34), for it has already been explained that the place of delivery is primary. And some say that they write the name of the change as primary and regarding the first "who is called," and they shall write to the place of delivery that his name changed due to illness (Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 24). And some say that one should not rely on this (Beit Shmuel, ibid.), and so it appears primary (and see there ibid. that he validates in such a case, but not that one must do so ab initio, and therefore the primary view is like the Beit Shmuel).

And that which he wrote, that there is one who requires two gittin for the two names, he explained his words in his great work in two ways. The first way is according to the plain meaning of his words in the Shulchan Aruch, that even if they do not call him by the second name at all, nevertheless, two gittin are required. And the reason is that since in one girt it is not proper to write the second name even as secondary since they do not call him by it at all; however, since we see that a secular name is so powerful that even if only a minority call him by it we make it the primary name as I have written, therefore even if they do not call him by this name at all, nevertheless one should write it in a separate girt, but ex post facto we are not concerned about this (Beit Yosef). And the later authorities decided that even ab initio two gittin are not required for a secular name that has fallen into disuse, but rather one writes the name by which he is called and that is sufficient (Beit Shmuel subsection 35 and Get Pashut). And so one should instruct, for in two gittin there is great exertion and a concern of bereirah, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And regarding the second manner, he wrote concerning a sick person whose name was changed and who divorces during his illness, for this name has not yet been established at all, neither by his being called up to the Torah nor by his signature. And it is impossible to write one get and write it as the primary name according to the law of the name of illness because it has not yet been established for him, and to write the previous name as the primary name and the change as "who is called" is also impossible, for we have a general rule that the name of illness is primary. Therefore, one must write two gittin (Beit Yosef). However, ex post facto, if he divorced with the previous name alone, it is kosher (Beit Shmuel ibid.). And ab initio, there is one who says that he should write the previous name and "any name that he has" (Get Pashut subsection 193). And so it is proper to do even among us, for although we do not write "any name" in a get, nevertheless, in such a get one should write it ab initio. And if he divorces after three or four days when it has become known that they changed his name, there is a doubt as to which name is primary, and ab initio one should write two gittin; and ex post facto, whether he wrote the previous name and "any name that he has" or whether he wrote the changed name and "any name that he has," it is kosher (ibid.). And it appears to me that as long as he has not been established with the changed name, one must specifically write the previous name with "any name" (and see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 50 what he wrote in the name of Gidulei Terumah, and it is an a fortiori argument, see there).

A sick person whose name was changed and died from that illness, it appears that we do not mention the changed name at all regarding whether his son or daughter would need to mention their father's name in their gittin; they should only mention him by his previous name. For since he died from his illness and the change of his name did not avail him, he remains only with the first name. Furthermore, since he died from his illness, he was not established at all with this name. And so ruled one of the great authorities (the Gaon Rabbi Yosef, grandson of the Shelah, in the responsa Chinuch Beit Yehuda, siman 10, and cited in the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 50; see there).

And that which he wrote, that if he has a distinct name with which he ascends to the Torah and signs his writings and documents, that name is the primary one, it appears clearly from the arrangement of his words that even regarding one whose name was changed during his illness, if he ascends to the Torah and signs himself with the previous name alone, even if everyone calls him by the changed name, nevertheless, the name that he establishes for himself by his ascension to the Torah and by his signature is superior to all names, and they write it as the primary name, and regarding the changed name "who is called" (Get Pashut, subsection 198). And if he ascends to the Torah with this name and his signature is with the other name, there is one who says that we follow the majority; if his ascension to the Torah is more frequent than his signatures, he makes this name the primary one, and regarding the name of the signature "who is called." And if his signature is more frequent than his ascension to the Torah, they make the name of the signature primary, and regarding the name of his ascension to the Torah they write "who is called" (ibid.). And if both are equal, the changed name is primary (ibid.). And there is one who says that when his ascension to the Torah and the signature contradict one another, the changed name is always primary (Tuv Gittin, subsection 30). And regarding other names that are not due to illness, if his ascension to the Torah and his signature contradict one another, they join to this that which the world calls him; if they call him by his name with which he ascends to the Torah, they make it primary, and regarding the name of the signature "who is called." And if they call him by the name of the signature, they make it primary, and regarding the name of his ascension to the Torah "who is called." And if they call him by a third name, they prioritize the name by which the world calls him, and regarding the remaining two "who is called," and they prioritize that which is more common for him, as has been explained (ibid.).

And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that if he is called to the Sefer Torah by both of them, they write the second as the primary and regarding the first "who is called," thus far his words, his intention is not that they call him by both names together, for if so, they would need to write both of them together, and what is the relevance of "who is called" here? Rather, it means that sometimes they call him by the previous name and sometimes by the changed name, and therefore the changed name is primary (Get Pashut subsection 99). And one should not ask that according to this, how does he conclude: "But a witness who signs himself and has two names, he shall sign himself with the two names without 'who is called,'" thus far his words, and in such a case how shall he sign himself "Reuven Shimon" when they only call him Reuven or Shimon? The answer is that regarding a witness, even in such a case, he can sign himself with the two names together. And this is explained in the great work of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and this is his wording there: And this law was written by the Maharik, etc., and he wrote that one must write "Ploni who is called Ploni," and he protested against a get where they wrote the two names without "who is called" between them. And also in Terumat HaDeshen siman 234, he wrote that one must write "who is called." However, if he comes to sign on a get, he should sign "Yaakov Moshe ben Ploni, witness," and he does not need to sign "who is called." And he gave a reason to distinguish between the one giving the get and the witness, etc. Thus far his words. And the reason is that the fact that witnesses specify their names in gittin is only for the sake of the order of the world (Gittin 36a). Furthermore, it is not applicable to say that he is called by two names and this is not the witness, for in any case, he is fit for testimony (Beit Shmuel subsection 36), and whoever he may be, he is fit. But regarding the one giving the get, if they say he is another person, they will say regarding the wife of this man that she is still a married woman.

And it may further be explained that it deals with a case where he is called to the Sefer Torah by both names together, but the public calls him by only one name—some call him by the former name and some call him by the changed name. And this is what it comes to teach us: that even in such a case, the changed name is primary, and regarding the former name we write "who is called," and even if they precede the former name when calling him to the Torah, we do not pay heed. And so it is explicitly explained in the Responsa of Mahariw, siman 182, and this is his wording: One whose name was Yosef and his name was changed to Yisrael due to illness, and everyone calls him Yisrael, only when he signs he signs Yosef Yisrael, and similarly when they call him to the Torah they call him Yosef Yisrael, we write Yisrael who is called Yosef, for the name of the illness is primary. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote "that everyone calls him," it was a case that occurred so, but the same law applies if a minority call him by the changed name, as has been explained. And according to this, it can be said that also regarding a witness who wrote that he signs with both of them, it is only in such a case. However, it has already been explained according to the great book of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that regarding a witness in all manners, when he signs with the two names together, it is valid. (And the Get Pashut there questioned this, that since they precede the former name in the Sefer Torah, one should write it in the Get also first; and he follows his reasoning that with two names together, if they reversed the last name to the first it is invalid, but we have already explained in section 48 that in my humble opinion it does not appear so, see there).

There is one who asked a great question regarding the essence of this matter: since we follow the name by which he is called to the Torah, if so, how do we find that which the poskim wrote, that the changed name is primary? From whichever way you look at it: if he is called to the Torah by the changed name, the reason regarding the change of the secular name is unnecessary; and if he is called to the Torah by the previous name, we have ruled that we make it primary (ibid. in the name of Responsa Lechem Rav). And it appears to me that this is not a question at all, for the poskim truly mean to say this: that the change of the secular name is primary and should be prioritized. Therefore, regarding the name of a woman, or the name of a man who dwells in a settlement and is not called to the Torah and does not sign on documents, it should be prioritized. And so too in places where they do not call to the Torah by name, but rather "let the Kohen, Levi, or Third stand," or in many places where there are no permanent cantors who know how to call to the Torah, as we see with our own eyes in our times in many places that they do not know between their right and their left regarding the calling of the man in his ascent to the Torah, and sometimes they call him this and sometimes they call him that—and one cannot establish a foundation upon the calling of his ascent to the Torah—the changed name comes first. And even in places that are expert, the poskim truly mean to say this: that the changed name is primary, and consequently one must be careful in his signature to sign this name as primary, and so too the cantor must be careful to call him to the Torah by this name. However, if he signs himself by the previous name and they call him to the Torah by the previous name, although they have not acted properly, nevertheless, since in any event he himself uprooted his changed name, consequently we do not follow the changed name since he himself uprooted it (so it appears to me).

All these laws were explained according to their custom, where they would change the name of the sick person entirely. However, according to our custom, where they add a new name to the previous name so that he is called by two names—for so we say in the prayer for changing the name of a sick person, for example, when his name was Reuven and they added the name Shimon to him, they say, "and his name in Israel shall be called Shimon Reuven"—one must write both names together in the get. And if afterwards everyone calls him only Reuven, but in his signature and his calling up to the Torah he uses both, one writes "Shimon Reuven who is called Reuven." And if he wrote "Shimon who is called Reuven," it is invalid. And if he wrote "Shimon Reuven" and did not write "who is called Reuven," it is valid (Get Pashut on names that were changed, section 2). And if there are those who call him by both names, even if they are a minority, it appears to me that there is no need to write "who is called" at all; for just as it has been explained that a change of name for a sick person is powerful regarding making it the primary name even when a minority call him by the changed name, so too regarding this matter. And it is possible that nevertheless, ab initio, one writes "who is called Reuven" since the majority call him so.

One of the great authorities wrote (ibid. section 11): A woman whose name was Frida and due to illness her name was changed to the name Sarah Frida, according to the custom of the places where they do not uproot the first name but rather add a name, and now some call her Frida Sarah and some Sarah Frida and some Sarah alone and some Frida alone, one should write Sarah Frida who is called Frida Sarah and who is called Frida. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that one should also write "and who is called Sarah" (see there subsection 8, where he gave a reason that it is not necessary to write Sarah alone, and in my humble opinion the reason is not sufficient; see there and examine carefully).

He further wrote there that if the majority call her Frida Sarah, one should write Frida Sarah and who is called Frida. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that since a minority call her Sarah Frida, one should write as the primary name Sarah Frida who is called Frida Sarah, as I wrote in section 82, for regarding this matter as well, the change of name due to illness is powerful enough that we prioritize it even if only the minority call her so.

It further appears to me that according to our custom where we add a name, even if there are those who call her by both names and the majority call her only by the former name, if the arranger erred and wrote only the first name alone, it is valid in a case of pressing need. For that which the poskim wrote, that if he did not mention the changed name it is invalid, this is when they uprooted the first name entirely, and if so, they did not write the primary name at all in the get. But according to our custom, where they do not uproot the first name at all and the majority call him only by this name, this name is no worse than a nickname, and one should deliberate much on this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18: One whose name was changed due to illness and has a kinui due to the second name, we write the second name with its kinui before the first name; and if he also has a kinui due to the first name, we write it as well at the end. And if his name was changed twice, we write the third name first, and afterwards the second, and afterwards the first, and we write each name with its kinui. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is according to their custom where they uprooted the first name, but the public calls him mostly by the first name and a minority by the changed name, as it has been explained that we write the changed name as the primary name and regarding the first "demitkari." Therefore, if there is a kinui for the changed name, we write it with its kinui, and afterwards the first name; and if the first also has a kinui, we write it as well at the end. For example, one whose name was Yehuda and his kinui Leib, and the changed name is Dov and its kinui Ber, we write: Dov hamikhuneh Ber demitkari Yehuda hamikhuneh Leib. And so too when his name was changed twice, we write the last and its kinui, and afterwards the second and its kinui, and afterwards the first and its kinui, for the last name is always primary. And in this case, one should not write regarding the first "ve-demitkari" like one who has two kinuyim, as will be explained that we write "hamikhuneh so-and-so and hamikhuneh so-and-so," for regarding a name it is certainly so since the kinuyim are equal and one does not uproot the other; but here, where the last name uproots the first, except that because they still call him much by the first name, it is not appropriate to write "ve-mitkari" but rather "demitkari," meaning that in the mouths of many he is still called by his previous name (Beit Shmuel, subsection 37). And all this is when they call him by his first name, but if they do not call him by it, there is no need to write it at all. And so too if they call him by his kinui name and the holy name was uprooted from him, such that they do not call him by it and he does not sign himself with it and does not ascend with it to the Torah, we do not write the first holy name but rather the kinui name alone, and so too with all his names in a similar case (see Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 53).

And all this is according to their custom, but according to our custom, where they add a name as has been written and call him by both names, and each name has a kinnui, we write the two holy names together and also the kinnuim together, such as Dov Yehuda hamikhuneh Ber Leib. And if they changed his name twice and added for him another name, Tzvi hamikhuneh Hirsch, and they call him by three names, we write Tzvi Dov Yehuda hamikhuneh Hirsch Ber Leib. And if one of the names was forgotten, we do not mention it at all, as has been explained. And regarding all names, the law is such, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 10: Yosef ben Shimon who changed it and wrote Yosef ben Shmuel, it is pasul. And there is one who says that if she married, she shall not leave; and specifically if he was established by the second name, but otherwise she shall leave. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matters is that the Tur brings an incident that occurred with one whose name was Yosef ben Shimon, and his father became an apostate and he was ashamed to mention him, and he called himself Yosef ben Shmuel, and it appears that such was the name of his father's father (see Beit Yosef). And the Rosh, of blessed memory, invalidated the get, for the observer says another man is divorcing her, because her husband's name was Yosef ben Shimon and this is Yosef ben Shmuel. Thus far the words of the Tur. And it means to say that even though the name of the father is not a hindering factor in a get, as the Tur wrote previously, nevertheless the change invalidates it. And we do not say that anything which is not a hindering factor, the change does not invalidate it, for this is only regarding a change of the place of birth and the like, where the matter is not recognizable to the public; but a change of the father's name, which is recognizable to the public, the change invalidates, as we wrote this reasoning in section 8, see there. And we wrote further reasons there regarding this, see there.

And even though this disqualification is only rabbinic, as is evident from his wording, and regarding a rabbinic disqualification we maintain in siman 150 that if she married she shall not leave, nevertheless here she shall leave, for there are rabbinic disqualifications where they were stringent to say she shall leave, as I wrote in section 10, see there. And we have already written in section 11 that from this there is no proof that a change of his father's name is only rabbinic, for one could say it is from the Torah. And here there was no change intentionally or unintentionally, but rather he intentionally established his father's name as another name or signed himself by the name of his grandfather because of shame. And if it is difficult, for if so, why is the get disqualified, and why do we not say that just as a person can change his own name, so too he can change his father's name? However, it is certainly not comparable, for every person has the ability to change and substitute his own personal name, but not to change his father's name, and it is of no effect that he established his father's name as another name, and therefore she shall leave. And the opinion of "there is one who says" is that since his father's name was established with the change, if she married she shall not leave, and they brought a responsa from Rashi, of blessed memory, who ruled accordingly (see Beit Yosef).

Behold, from the fact that they wrote this opinion in the name of "there is one who says," it appears that the primary ruling follows the first opinion. However, we have seen for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in a Responsum (siman 9) that he was asked regarding such a case and replied that if she has not yet married, even if she was betrothed to another, we do not rely on this get, and the first husband writes her another get with the name of the true father. Only if she has married do we rely on this opinion, for if we require a get from the first, she would perforce have to leave the second, according to the law of one who marries under the prohibition of a married woman, who must leave this one and that one. Therefore, due to necessity, we rely on this opinion; see there. But in truth, we hold that in any rabbinic invalidation, the first husband divorces her and she remains with her husband, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 10, and so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 150; see there. According to this, even if she has married, the first husband gives her another get and she remains with her husband (Getaot Peshutim subsection 52). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, left the matters unspecified, for it is true that in the case of the Rosh it is only a rabbinic invalidation, but in the Shulchan Aruch he wrote generally that he changed the name of his father, and it is possible that he changed it intentionally, and in this it could be a Torah invalidation as I have written. Since this law is not clear, he therefore left it unspecified (as mentioned above).

One who converted to become a Cuthite, it would seem appropriate to say that we write the Israelite name as the primary name and the Cuthite name as "who is called," but Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, ruled that one should not mention this name in a get written according to the law of Moses and Israel (Tosafot 34b, and the Rosh, and the Ran, and all the poskim), and we write only the Israelite name alone. And some say that this is specifically when the Israelite name has not yet been forgotten from him, such that they remember that he had this name, but if it was forgotten, we do not write the Israelite name (Beit Yosef). And some say that even if it was forgotten we write it (ibid. in the name of the Maharik), for it is not similar to any name that was forgotten, as here everyone knows that he had an Israelite name, and even if they do not know now what his name was, nevertheless he must have had some name, and those who see it will say that presumably this name written in the get was his previously (Responsa of the Radach, House 4). And there is one who decided in this matter that they should write the Israelite name and the Cuthite name as "who is called" (Get Pashut, subsection 24). And so is the primary ruling, for even regarding anyone who converted, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 5 that if one wrote the Cuthite name as the primary name and the Israelite name as "who is called," it is valid, and all the more so the reverse. However, the primary law is that there is no distinction here between whether it was forgotten or not forgotten (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 6, and such is the conclusion of the Beit Shmuel, subsection 10, and so wrote the Tuv Gittin).

Our custom regarding a convert is to write the name Israel and "every name and nickname that he has," and even though in every get we do not write "every name," nevertheless in this case we write it. And if the name Israel has a nickname, we write the name with its nickname before "every name." But if he wrote the gentile name and "every name that he has," the get is invalid. However, if he wrote regarding the name Israel "who is called," it is kosher, since he wrote the name Israel explicitly. And one whose father converted, when the son writes a get, he does not need to write regarding his father's name "every name," for since it is not a requirement, we should not shame him (Taz and Beit Shmuel). However, the Maharshal and Maharam Padua in a responsum wrote that one should write "every name" and inform the one giving the divorce of this, and it requires further study for the law (according to Pitchei Teshuva subsection 13). And he should write "every name that I have" after his name and not after his father's name.

A convert in former times must write his name as Israel son of Abraham our father, and he should not write "son of Abraham" without qualification, lest they think his father's name was Abraham. If he did not write "our father," he must write that he is a convert, and if he did not do so, it is invalid (Beit Shmuel, subsection 39). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: A convert who wrote his gentile name, it is valid even if it has fallen into disuse from him. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, for certainly with this name alone it is impossible to validate the get; rather, his intention is that he wrote this name as the primary one in addition to the Israelite name by which he is called. However, from the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, it implies according to its plain meaning that with this name alone it is valid. Its source is from the Tosefta, chapter 6 of Gittin, where we learned there: A convert who changed his name to a gentile name, it is valid, and so you say regarding a female convert. Thus far its wording. The Tosafot there and the Rosh there brought this Tosefta, but the Rif and the Rambam did not mention it. For in truth, one could say that the intention is not that they changed their names in the get alone, but that they changed their names also before the get, and it comes to teach us that since it is their will to be called by this name, it is valid when written so in the get. Thus one of the early authorities explained it in a responsum (Radach, house 4). And this is implied from what we learned afterward in the Tosefta there in Gittin: Gittin that come from overseas, even though their names are like gentile names, they are valid, because Israelites who are overseas, their names are like gentile names. Thus far its wording. But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch explained it according to its plain meaning, that only in the get did he write this name. And there is a question on this: for behold, in the reverse case it is invalid if he wrote a gentile name alone, so why is it valid for a convert? The answer is that a convert who writes the name he had before he became an Israelite, the Law of Moses does not prevent him, for the Torah did not obligate a gentile who converts [to change his name], which is not the case in the reverse (Beit Yosef). And even if this name has fallen into disuse it is valid, because it is known that of necessity he had some name before he converted, and they will not say that he is another person; it is not similar to any name that has fallen into disuse, according to the reasoning we wrote in section 91. However, as a matter of law, the matter is certainly difficult to validate with a name that has fallen into disuse, and more than this, it is astonishing that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, himself in his great work rejected this matter, yet in the Shulchan Aruch he stated the matters without qualification and validated it, and it requires further study.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (87b): If he wrote his nickname or her nickname, it is valid. The Rambam in chapter 3 and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 transcribed the matters as they are and did not explain at all what a nickname is. It is clear from this wording that only post facto is it valid. However, there are some of our teachers who hold that even initially it is valid with his nickname and her nickname (Tosafot 34b, and the Rosh and the Ran in chapter 9 in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Chananel), because they have the version in the Mishnah: "If he wrote his nickname or her nickname, it is valid; and thus the pure-minded of Jerusalem used to write." This is the version of the Yerushalmi, see there, for it is clear that the pure-minded would sign thus initially. But in our version, that which pertains to the pure-minded is written beforehand and refers to a different matter, see there. This is the version of the Rambam, and therefore he ruled that only post facto is it valid.

And what is a "chanika"? Rashi explained there: a surname of the family, all of them. Thus far his words. And it means, for example, that his family name is Lipschitz and her family name is Shapiro, and they wrote that a man from the Lipschitz family divorced a woman from the Shapiro family, and they did not mention their specific names at all. And in the get it was written: "I, from the Lipschitz family, standing etc., have released you, my wife from the Shapiro family," and she was divorced on this condition, for if not so, how do we know which woman from the family he divorced? (Mordechai, beginning of chapter 3). And according to this interpretation, the definition of "chanika" in the Mishnah is like the Baraita in the Gemara (88a), where we learned there: The Rabbis taught: The "chanika" of ancestors in gittin is up to ten generations; Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Up to three generations. And the Rif and the Rosh ruled like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as a verse supports him: "When you beget children and children's children," see there. And so we learned in the Tosefta (chapter 6): If he wrote it in the name of his grandfather, it is kosher; in the name of the family patriarch, it is invalid; if they were called by his name, it is kosher. Thus far his words.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that it is impossible to say, even according to the explanation of Rashi, that the Mishnah and the Baraita are one and the same. For regarding a surname of the entire family, such as the Lipschutz family that we wrote of, it is not relevant to distinguish between generations, since all generations share the same nickname, as is known. Rather, certainly the Baraita is a different matter, for it does not deal with a surname of the entire family where everyone is called so, but rather, for example, where the head of the family had a name that was known and recognized by the whole world, such as if he were a sage or a wealthy man, and he wrote in the get, "I am from the seed of so-and-so who stands [prominent]." The first Tanna holds that for up to ten generations the matter is recognized, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that for more than three generations the matter is not recognized, and he divorced with a false name as we have written. And according to this, the wording of the Tosefta that we brought is precise: that if he wrote for the name of his grandfather—meaning from the seed of the known so-and-so who was his grandfather—it is valid; for the name of the father of the family who is further than three generations, it is invalid. And if they were called by his name—meaning that the entire family adopted this name as a family nickname and in the mouth of the world they are called so, the Lipschutz family and the like, as in our Mishnah—it is valid (so it appears to me).

But the Rosh and the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote in the name of our teacher Chananel and our teacher Tam, of blessed memory, that the "nickname" of the Mishnah is an entirely different matter from that of the Baraita, and the Mishnah is dealing with the nickname of the man and the woman themselves. Its explanation is like the nickname of the name that was explained in this siman, such as one whose name is Yehuda and his nickname is Leib, or Dov and his nickname is Ber, and similarly the nickname of the woman's name, such as her name is Miriam and her nickname is Mariasha or Mirush and the like. According to this, it can be said that regarding the law they do not disagree, and all admit that the nickname of the man himself is written ab initio, and the family nickname is only ex post facto (and see Beit Shmuel, subsection 1). This is also proven from the Tur, see there (and that which he wrote "it suffices" means ex post facto).

From the silence of the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory, it is proven that he also interprets it as the nickname of the man himself, and so he wrote explicitly in the Commentary on the Mishnah, see there (see Beit Yosef and Get Pashut). And he only validates even this post facto, though there is one who says that the Rambam validates it ab initio (Tosafot Yom Tov, chapter 9, mishnah 8), and according to the style of his wording this is proven, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wondered about him in his great work for not mentioning at all that matter of the family nickname up to three generations, see there. And this same wonder may be wondered about him as well, for he did not mention this at all in the Shulchan Aruch. And it appears to me that, behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, raised a difficulty regarding the family nickname up to three generations and no more—on the contrary, as long as they were established for many generations, the nickname is more significant—and he was very pressed in this matter, and therefore he omitted this. And although in section 96 we settled the matters correctly, this was not satisfactory to him. And regarding the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, it appears to me that, behold, in section 95 we wrote that it deals with a case where he did not write his name at all, but only the family nickname, see there. And it is true that the Mordechai wrote so at the beginning of chapter 3, but there are some among the Rishonim who explained that it deals with a case where he also wrote his name, but instead of "son of so-and-so" he wrote the nickname of his grandfather who was the head of the family, and up to three generations it is kosher, and from here onwards it is like a change of name and is invalid (Shiltei HaGibborim, chapter 4, in the name of the Riaz). And for the Rambam, he was in doubt about it, therefore he did not write it at all. Furthermore, it is possible to say that he holds like what we wrote in section 96, that it does not deal with a family nickname but rather the name of his grandfather who was known and recognized, and he wrote "from the seed of so-and-so," as is implied from the Tosefta that we brought. And therefore, since in this time it is not the way at all to write so, and this is not an identification in our days, for that reason he did not write this law at all.

One does not write in a get "Rav" or "Sage" or "Prince," even if he or his father were so, and likewise her father. And it is not only that concerning himself he does not write, since the get is the language of the husband and it is not the way of a person to refer to himself with a title of honor, but even regarding the name of the father one only writes the name alone, "Ploni son of Ploni." And likewise one does not write "son of the Holy One," even if he was holy and was killed for the sanctification of His Name, may He be blessed, for one does not write any title in a get. However, post facto, if he wrote "Ploni the Sage" or "the Rav" or "the Prince," it is valid. And it is not only if the truth is so, but even if he is not worthy of this and they do not call him so, nevertheless the get is valid since he wrote his name explicitly, and even regarding his own name it is valid (as is evident from the Shulchan Aruch section 7). And we do not fear that they will say that he has two names and this is not the one divorcing, for everyone will understand that he desired to describe himself so, and who shall protest against him? And we find in the Gemara that it is possible for a person to describe himself so (at the end of the seventh chapter of Pesachim).

There is one who asked a question regarding this, for behold we find in the Gemara (Ketubot 85b): A certain man said, "My property is for Tuvia," etc. Tuvia came, and then Rav Tuvia came; he said, "To Tuvia," but to Rav Tuvia he did not say (this is the intent of the Beit Shmuel, subsection 13). According to this, it would seem that for one who is worthy of being written about as "Rav," it constitutes a change of the name if written without "Rav," and there is one who ruled accordingly (Shiltei HaGibborim, chapter 8 of Gittin). But this is no question at all, and we have seen throughout all generations that they did not practice this way regarding gittin, even concerning the name of the father. And so is the primary ruling, for behold in that case of Tuvia, it says there: "And if he is a person who is familiar with him," meaning accustomed to him, he calls him without the title "Rav," see there. And who is more accustomed than a son with his father? And the get is the language of the husband. One cannot say that on the contrary, since the son is obligated in the honor of his father, he certainly must call him "Rav"; it is impossible to say so, for behold we find in the Shas that they would not refer to their fathers with a title, but only by their proper names. In Pesachim (112a): "I say to Yochai my father." And in Gittin (14b): Regarding Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai, who said, "Who gave to Yannai my father a son like me?" And in Bava Batra (56b): "Rabbi Yose said: When Abba Chalafta went," etc., "to learn Torah." And so we saw regarding the Rambam, of blessed memory, in his introduction to his great composition, and in his introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah and at its end, that he signed himself "Moshe ben Maimon," even though his father was great in Torah, for behold he cited him in chapter 11 of Shechitah, law 10, see there. Behold it is explicit that the way of honor is to say of one's father only his proper name alone. However, as a sign in the case of two men named Yosef ben Shimon in one city, if the father of one is a Rav and the second is not a Rav, one should write "the Rav" (Beit Shmuel ibid. and Keneset HaGedolah). Nevertheless, we have never heard that they should write so.

According to the essential law, it is not necessary to write "kohen" or "levi," and it is proven in the Shas (Bava Batra 172a) that in the time of the Tannaim they were not accustomed to write "kohen" in documents unless it was to distinguish him from another whose name was like his name. However, it is a widespread custom in all lands to write "kohen" or "levi," and also regarding the father of the woman they write if he is a kohen or a levi. It is somewhat implied in the Shas (Ketubot 24b) that in the time of the Amoraim they wrote "kohen" in a document. And since the custom is widespread to write it, if they did not write it, some say it is invalid, for since they were accustomed to write it and here they did not write it, they will say that he is someone else. And there are those who validate it, for since it is not necessary to write it according to the essential law, they will not attribute it to another. The decision for the law is that if the one giving the get is a kohen or a levi and they did not write it, even if the get was already given, if it is possible to give another get they give it, unless it is a time of pressing need where it is impossible to give another get. In such a case, even if the get was not yet given, when it is a time of pressing need where it is impossible to write another get, he gives her this get. However, regarding the father of the woman when he is a kohen or a levi and they did not write it, if the get was already given it is kosher even when it is possible to write another get, for they are not so particular regarding the names of the fathers with respect to their descriptions (Beit Shmuel, subsection 14). And know that the matter is simple that they write "kohen" and "levi" next to the name of the father, and it is not necessary to write it regarding him specifically and regarding his father specifically, for automatically since his father is a kohen or a levi, he is also so (ibid.).

If they wrote "Kohen" regarding one who is not a Kohen, and similarly "Levi" regarding one who is not a Levi, it is obvious that the get is invalid. Even though for any matter that is not required to be written, a change does not hinder the validity, it has already been explained in section 8 that we only say this regarding a matter where the change is not recognizable to the public; this is not the case here, as it is certain that they will say he is another person. And also regarding the father of the woman, if they wrote "Kohen" or "Levi" and it is not so, the get is invalid even in a time of pressing need. Thus have the giants of the world decided (Noda BiYehudah siman 89 and the Gara siman 116). And even though there is one whose opinion tends toward declaring it valid in a time of pressing need (see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 21), Heaven forbid one should rely on this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: And if there is a doubt whether he is a kohen or not, one should give two gittin. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding the divorcer himself, a doubt is not applicable, for there is no man of Israel who does not know this; rather, the intention is regarding the father of the woman, who does not know if her father is a kohen or not. And behold, presumably there is no concern, for the majority of people are not kohanim or levi'im, and his intention is only when they say that it seems he is a kohen or a levi and the matter is not clear, for then one must write two gittin. And the same applies to the divorcer himself when it happens that he does not know with certainty and it seems to him that he is a kohen or a levi (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 11, and see Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 17). He further wrote that one does not write in a get "Ploni bar Ploni" but rather "Ploni ben Ploni." Thus far his words. This is because "bar" can be interpreted as the language of "outside" (Beit Shmuel). And post facto it does not invalidate, even if the get has not yet been given, for the majority of the language of the get is Aramaic, and in Aramaic one writes "bar," and only ab initio is there a slight concern (it appears to me).

If the one giving the get is a kohen or a levi and his father has a kinnui, he should write "ha-kohen" or "ha-levi" before the kinnui, for example: "Ploni son of Yehuda ha-kohen or ha-levi who is nicknamed Leib." And so too regarding the father of the woman. The reason is that if they were to write "son of Yehuda who is nicknamed Leib ha-kohen," they might say that the kinnui is "Leib ha-kohen." Therefore, he should write "ha-kohen" after his sacred name, and regarding this there is no concern that the kinnui will be distanced from the essence of the name, for in a similar case we find in a verse: "And they took Lot and his property, the son of Avram's brother." However, if he has two names where they write regarding one "who is called," he should write "ha-kohen" afterwards, for there is no concern that they will say he is called such, since in truth he is called such; but a kinnui is not applicable to this. And it appears to me that even regarding a kinnui, if they wrote it afterwards and the get was already given, there is no need to write another get even if it is not a time of pressing need. And so too if it is a time of pressing need, there is no need to write another get even if the get was not yet given, for it is a slight concern (and so it appears from the Beit Yosef, see there).

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 19: There is one who says that when one gives two gittin to a woman, he should not give both of them at once, but rather one after the other. And one should not give two gittin except in a case of pressing need. He should give that get which appears more valid to the Rav first, with all its inquiries and its reading according to the Seder HaGet, and afterwards he should give the second one also according to the Seder HaGet. He should state to those standing there at the time of the giving the reason why he is giving two gittin, and he should tell the husband to intend to divorce her with each one of the gittin. And if he gave both of them one after the other in a single order, it is valid. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matter is that giving two gitin at once involves several concerns. The first is that perhaps he intends to divorce her with the get that is not the primary one according to the law (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). The second is due to the concern of bereirah, for we hold that regarding Torah law there is no bereirah; and since it was not clarified at the time of the giving of the get which one effects the divorce, there is concern for bereirah (the Rema in Responsa siman 84, letter 22). And the third is that the Tosafot wrote in Sotah (18a) that it is forbidden to divorce with two gitin, for the Merciful One said "one scroll" and not two or three scrolls (ibid.). And that which they wrote, that one should not give two gitin except in a case of pressing need, is because in the giving of two gitin, even one after the other, there is a concern; for the witnesses of delivery do not know with which of them he divorces her. Such a concern is found in the Gemara (86b) regarding two men who sent two gitin and they became mixed up, where he gives both of them to this one and both of them to that one; and Rava said that according to Rabbi Elazar, who said the witnesses of delivery effect the severance, it is not effective, for they do not know with which of them he divorces her, and this is not a clarified giving, and we require a giving lishmah. And even though Abaye rejected this and said that we only require writing lishmah and not giving lishmah, and so we hold as was written in siman 132, nevertheless, regarding gitin the sages also concerned themselves with all opinions, and there is reason to be concerned for the opinion of Rava. Therefore, one should not give two gitin except in a case of pressing need, and if it is possible to fulfill the obligation with one get, how goodly it is.

And behold, regarding all the concerns, one should deliberate: for the first concern, perhaps he intends to divorce her with that which is not the primary requirement according to the law—this applies to one who gives two gittin without specification. However, anyone who gives two gittin explains explicitly that his intention is to divorce her with the get that is the primary requirement according to the law, and there is no concern in this. Therefore, the third concern of "two or three scrolls" is also not present here, for that applies to one who intends to exempt her with both of them; but this one who says explicitly that he intends to exempt her with one of them is not within the category of "two or three scrolls." However, it could be said that we concern ourselves lest the arranging Rav forget to tell him that he should say he intends to exempt her with one of them; and even though it is a remote concern, nevertheless one must be concerned. Yet even in such a case, the concern of "two or three scrolls" does not apply since only one of them is valid; except that it could be said that according to the majority, by Torah law both are valid, and the concern returns to its place. However, we have already written in siman 122 that the Rambam does not hold of this matter of "two or three scrolls," for he did not bring this law in all of the laws of divorce, and we explained his reason there.

And the concern of bereirah also does not apply, for there is no requirement of giving lishmah, as I have written, and he gives her both and divorces her with that which is in total fitness. And there are several mitzvot where, due to doubt, one performs both and intends to fulfill the obligation with one of them, such as those who don the two pairs of tefillin at once, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 34, that he intends to fulfill the obligation with one of them, see there. And even though the husband does not know with which get he is divorcing her, nevertheless, what of it? For in any case, she is divorced with one of them (Get Pashut subsection 104). And there is clear proof from the law of two who sent two gittin and they became mixed up, which we brought. And furthermore, regarding the get of a person facing death where he says, "Behold, this is your get from today if I die," where when he dies it becomes a get, the husband does not know at the time of the giving of the get when the get will take effect, and despite this, we do not concern ourselves with bereirah. And it is a kal vachomer in such a case where he knows that he is divorcing her with one of them, but only that he does not know which is the essence of the get (see there subsection 106 and Noda BiYehudah Tinyana siman 119). However, in truth, the Rishonim raised a difficulty regarding this case of "from today if I die," why there is no concern of bereirah here, and they answered that regarding a matter that stands to be clarified from the first moment—for it will be clarified when he will die—bereirah does not apply to it (Ran chapter 3 in the name of the Tosafot). And there are those who answered that bereirah only applies to two things, but regarding a condition on one thing, even according to the one who does not hold of bereirah, it is effective (ibid. in the name of the Ramban). And according to this, here, where they are two things and it will never be clarified, the concern of bereirah would apply. However, in truth, since in any case she is divorced with one of them, bereirah does not apply at all, for at the time of giving it is clarified that she is divorced with one of them (ibid.). And like this reasoning was brought in the poskers (Kesef Mishneh chapter 4 of Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni halakhah 15 in the name of the Maharik, see there). And there is one who was concerned regarding two gittin at once due to the reason of chatzitzah (Bach). And it is not understood, for "kind with its kind" does not form a chatzitzah. And furthermore, she receives both of them with her two hands, and the fit one is attached to one of her hands; and is it to say that if she receives it in one hand and it rests on the palm of her hand, it would not be a get? And also if she receives it in one hand, the fit one is also supported by her fingers, for she takes the two gittin with her fingers, and perforce it is supported by one of the fingers, unless we were to say perhaps the husband will place them on the palm of her hand and the bottom one resting on the hand will be that which is not in total fitness.

And also the primary reason for distancing from two gittin due to the concern that the witnesses to the delivery do not know with which of them he divorces her—aside from the fact that the halacha is not so, as I have written—furthermore, it is not similar to two gittin from two men that became mixed up, where the one that is not his was not written for his sake and for her sake. This is not the case here, where both were written for his sake and for her sake, but rather there is a doubt regarding the names and the like. Is it not known to the witnesses to the delivery that with these two gittin she is certainly divorced, and both belong to her? Rather, the primary divorce takes effect with the get that was written according to the halacha. The end of the matter is that certainly the reasons are weak; however, since our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, were concerned for this, it is impossible to transgress their words.

Therefore, they wrote that initially he should give the get that appears more valid with all its questions until the completion, for if not so, even before the completion of the get we fall into one of the concerns that has been explained. Therefore, he completes the one and begins with the second. And regarding this there is no concern, for when he gives the second get, he has nullified the first get; for in truth, the husband does not have the power to nullify a get after its delivery into the hand of the woman. Therefore, with a get via a messenger, the matter is certainly difficult to send via two gittin, for it appears like the nullification of a get. And also there is no concern that the Rav himself, when he arranges the second get, is as one who disqualifies the first get, for the Rav certainly must not say that the first is disqualified, but rather that he has a concern and a doubt, and therefore he arranges the second get.

And there are some of the great authorities who added a beneficial enactment regarding this, for even according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, some concerns remain; for if the husband knows from the beginning that he must give two gittin, it will still not be clarified for him with which one he is divorcing her. Therefore, they instituted not to inform the husband, the witnesses, or the scribe that two gittin are required. Rather, he should arrange one gpt according to the law of the Torah, and afterward he shall say to them: "Behold, I have seen some concern in this gpt, therefore it is a good thing to write another gpt." And through this, all concerns will be removed (Get Pashut subsection 107 and Noda BiYehudah siman 90). And although there is reason to fear that the husband might say, "Had I known that I must give another gpt, I would not have divorced her" (and the Get Pashut there was concerned for this), nevertheless, this is no concern at all; for when the Rav arranges the second gpt for him, the husband says that he gives it to her willingly and with the nullification of protests, so how can he challenge it afterward? And if perhaps the husband truly will not agree to give a second gpt, then the arranging Rav must necessarily see to appease him with monetary appeasement or with words until he agrees; and if not, he certainly will not arrange it for him against his will. And if we come to fear that the woman will not be able to marry, behold, since that which is the primary law was arranged first, if the husband remains stubborn, we shall permit her with the first gpt, just as we are concerned for all enactments of agunot. Therefore, it appears to me that one should certainly distance himself from arranging two gittin, and when the necessity arises, he should act as I have written: not to reveal beforehand the need for the second gpt, and to arrange first the gpt that appears more primary according to the law, and afterward arrange the second gpt with the husband's consent.

Regarding the matters of names and nicknames, it has already been explained that for a sacred name, one writes "demitkari," and not specifically in the holy tongue, but rather for any Hebrew name found in the Tanakh or the Gemara one writes "demitkari," and for a secular name one writes "hamikhuneh." For a woman's name, one writes "demitkarya" and "hamikhunah" with a kamatz. There is no difference in the writing of "mikhuneh" between a man and a woman, but only in the reading—for the latter with a kamatz and for the former with a segol. If they wrote only the nickname alone without the Hebrew name, it is kosher, for regarding this we learned: if he wrote his nickname or her nickname, it is kosher. According to many of our teachers, it is even kosher ab initio. Therefore, the custom in a place where there is some doubt regarding the sacred name—such as one whose name is Leib and his Hebrew name is not known whether it is Yehuda or Aryeh—is to write only the nickname alone, and so several great authorities have done. However, this fact that it is kosher with the nickname alone applies to a nickname by which everyone calls him, as the Tur wrote. This is his wording: And if his nickname is known and recognized everywhere, and everyone calls him by it, but when he signs a document or is called to the Torah they call him by the primary name, then the nickname alone suffices even ab initio. Thus far his words. Even ex post facto we do not validate it with the nickname alone if the majority do not call him so and he is not very accustomed to this nickname, as the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 3 regarding what the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: if he wrote his nickname or her nickname, it is kosher. He wrote, and this is his wording: And this is provided that he is more accustomed to that nickname. Thus far his words. But when they write the Hebrew name, they write "hamikhuneh" or "demitkari" even if a minority call him so, as is proven from that case of "the majority Sarah and the minority Miriam" in the Gemara, which was explained in this siman.

One who has two Hebrew names and for each name a kinui, such as one whose name is Yehuda Dov and his kinui is Leib Ber, we write "Yehuda Dov hamikhuneh Leib Ber," and so too anything similar to this. And if only one name has a kinui, such as one whose name is Moshe Yehuda and they call him Moshe Leib, there is one who says that we write "Moshe Yehuda hamikhuneh Leib" (Beit Shmuel, subsection 24). And they disagreed with him on this, for "hamikhuneh" does not refer to the name but rather to the person; and if so, how can we write "hamikhuneh Leib" when they call him Moshe Leib? Rather, it is necessary to mention both of them, and consequently it is impossible to write "hamikhuneh" since there is a Hebrew name as well; rather, he should write "Moshe Yehuda demitkari Moshe Leib," and such is the primary ruling (Noda BiYehuda, second edition, siman 119, and Tuv Gittin and Get Pashut in Leshon Shemot, subsection 7), and so too anything similar to this, unless they call him only by the name Leib, then one should write "hamikhuneh Leib."

One who has two names from his birth and thus ascends to the Torah and signs, but among the world he is called by only one, such as if his name is Avraham Yitzchak and they call him only Avraham, one writes "Avraham Yitzchak who is called Avraham." And ex post facto, if he did not write "who is called" at all but rather "Avraham Yitzchak," it is also kosher. And so too if he wrote only "Avraham" alone, it is also kosher if everyone calls him only Avraham, and it is no worse than a family name. But if only some call him by one name alone, it is invalid if he wrote only "Avraham," and in such a case there is no need to write "who is called" at all (Get Pashut in Leshon Ha-Shemot section 2). And if it is the opposite, that he is called by two names and ascends to the Torah with one name, one should write "Avraham who is called Avraham Yitzchak" (ibid. section 3). (And what he wrote there, that one could also write "Avraham Yitzchak who is called Avraham," is not clear, for "who is called" refers only to what he is called among the world).

One whose name during the aliyah to the Torah is Yechiel Avraham and is called by everyone Michl Avraham, and similarly one who goes up to the Torah with the name Yehuda Moshe and is called Leib Moshe, must write Yechiel Avraham de-mitkari Michl Avraham, and similarly Yehuda Moshe de-mitkari Leib Moshe, and so too anything similar to this. And one does not prioritize the sacred name over the vernacular name since he is called with the vernacular name first (ibid. section 7). And one who is called by everyone Yehuda Leib and thus he signs, but for the Torah he goes up only with the name Yehuda, ab initio one should write Yehuda de-mitkari Yehuda Leib, and ex post facto if he wrote Yehuda alone and it is a time of pressing need or the get was already given, one should validate it (ibid. section 8). And one for whom it is impossible to recognize how the world calls him, such as one whose name is Elchanan Zeev and in the mouth of the world he is called Chanan, if we knew that they call him so, it is simple that one must write de-mitkari Chanan; but if it is impossible to recognize if they call him Chanan or Chana, one should not write de-mitkari at all, but rather Elchanan Zeev, since thus he goes up to the Torah and signs himself so (ibid. section 10). For it is a great principle that one should sooner enter himself into a doubt of omission than into a doubt of change, for this disqualifies and this does not disqualify.

An incident occurred regarding one whose name was Yehoshua and his nickname was Heshel, and he would also ascend to the Torah and sign his name thus, only in his youth some erred in calling him Hirschel, and so until today some call him Heshel and some call him Hirschel. And they ruled that one must write both nicknames: Yehoshua who is nicknamed Heshel and who is nicknamed Hirsch (ibid. section 12). And one should not write Hirschel, as this is a name of childhood. And know that even one who signs his name with his name and nickname as is common among us, that they sign Shlomo Zalman or Tzevi Hirsch or Yehoshua Heshel or Yechiel Michel, nevertheless one should not write both of them together in a get, but rather Shlomo who is nicknamed Zalman, and similarly all of them. Unless everyone calls him Shlomo Zalman, for then one must write Shlomo who is called Shlomo Zalman. And one should not pay heed now to the chazzanim who are not experts, who call to the Torah with the name and nickname, for the expert chazzanim do not do so, as one only ascends to the Torah with the holy name.

One of the great authorities wrote: If her name is Shasia Tova and nearly all the residents of the city call her Tova alone, but some people and those of her household and her family call her by the two names together, initially one should write two gittin: in one, "Shasia Tova who is called Tova," and in the second, "Tova who is called Shasia Tova." Post facto, if they wrote "Shasia Tova who is called Tova" and she was divorced and it is difficult to obtain another get, it should be validated. Likewise, if they wrote "Tova who is called Shasia Tova," or if they wrote only "Shasia Tova" alone, it should be validated when it is difficult to obtain another get. However, if they wrote only "Tova" alone, it should not be validated except in a case of great iggun, and similarly in any such case (ibid. section 15). In my humble opinion, the fact that he was so stringent requires further study (and look closely), and the writing of the name Tova will be explained, with the help of Heaven, in the names of women at the end of this siman.

He further wrote: One whose name in everyone's mouth is Nachum Shoel and he signs thus, but he ascends to the Torah by the name Menachem Shoel—if it is known that the family members of this person who is divorcing are called Nachum and their holy name is Menachem, and all the more so if it is known that such was the name of the deceased for whom this person was named, one must write "Menachem Shoel who is called Nachum Shoel." But if this is not known and there is a doubt that perhaps from the cradle they called him Nachum as he signs, one should be stringent and give two gittin: in the first, "Menachem Shoel who is called Nachum Shoel," and in the second, "Nachum Shoel who is called Menachem Shoel." Thus far his words. And ex post facto, if he divorced with the name Nachum Shoel alone, it is valid, for it is no worse than a nickname. And it is a simple matter that if he also ascends to the Torah by the name Nachum Shoel, that ab initio one should write only Nachum Shoel; even if it is known that the name of the deceased for whom this person was named was Menachem Shoel and from the cradle they also called him so, nevertheless, the name Menachem has been abandoned and should not be written. And so too regarding a woman whose name is Mariasha, even though in most cases it is from the name Miriam, nevertheless, if she does not sign her name Miriam, one should not write Miriam at all, but rather Mariasha alone, according to the rule we have written: that one should rather enter into a doubt of omission than into a doubt of change. And so too with anything similar to this, for it is a great principle in gittin regarding the matter of names.

He further wrote (ibid. section 29): A woman whose name is Frida Beila, and thus the minority call her, but the majority call her Beila alone—if it is her way to sign letters "Frida Beila," this is the primary [name], and one writes "Frida Beila who is called Beila." And if they wrote "Beila" alone, it is also valid, for this is a shortening of the name. And if she does not sign herself at all, or if she signs "Beila" alone, one should write two gittin: in one, "Frida Beila who is called Beila," and in the second, "Beila who is called Frida Beila." Thus far his words. And ex post facto, it is simple that it is valid with "Beila" alone. And if everyone calls her only "Beila," even ab initio one should write only "Beila" alone, for the name "Frida" is like a forgotten name.

He further wrote (ibid. section 36): One whose name was Yaakov Yehoshua and his daughter came to be divorced, and they investigated his signature and saw that he would sign himself Yaakov Yosha, and it is known that such was the signature of his ancestors after whom he was named, and there is a doubt whether they signed thus due to tradition and not because of a shortening of the name, it is good to write two gittin, one with the name Yaakov Yehoshua and the second with the name Yaakov Yosha. And if the get is through a messenger or it is a time of pressing need, one may be lenient with one get with the name Yehoshua alone. Thus far his words. And specifically when it was clarified that he was called to the Torah by the name Yehoshua (ibid. subsection 37).

Every name that is in the Holy Tongue is with a heh at the end, and every name that is not in the Holy Tongue we write with an aleph at the end. There are many such examples in Tanakh: Ezra, Amasa, Ulla, Uzza, Mechida, Charsha, Sisera, Chatipha, Peruda (Ezra 1). Nevertheless, we also find them with a heh: Dalayah, Toviyah, Asnah (ibid.). Therefore, regarding the names of women, they are with an aleph at the end, such as Beila, Alka, Basha, Chasha. Even though they pronounce the lamed of Beila with a segol, and similarly the kof of Alka and the shins of Basha and Chasha, and every segol draws an ayin, this is in the middle of the word and not at the end of the word. Therefore, the name Geila, even though the gimel and the lamed are pronounced with a segol, nevertheless after the gimel we write an ayin and after the lamed an aleph, and so too in all similar cases. And that which we find in the Gemara, Choma the wife of Abaye and Chova the wife of Rav Huna with a heh at the end, is because the name is in the Holy Tongue. The same applies to the kinnui of males: every kinnui that is in the Holy Tongue we write with a heh, and every one that is not in the Holy Tongue is with an aleph at the end (Shulchan Aruch section 34). However, if one deviated and wrote a heh in place of an aleph or an aleph in place of a heh, it is kosher (Beit Shmuel subsection 50). But ab initio one must be very careful, for we see regarding the names of the Amoraim in the Shas, all of them are with an aleph at the end: Rava, Ravina, Rav Huna, Rav Chisda. And that which Rabbah is with a heh is because in the Holy Tongue this word exists: "And Hashem saw that it was great (rabbah)," etc. Therefore, every foreign name that is derived from the Holy Tongue, such as if her name is Sarah and they call her Saya, we write it with a heh (Beit Shmuel in his rules, section 15), and so too in all similar cases. Nevertheless, we do not write "who is called" (demitkarya) but rather "nicknamed" (hamekhunah), for ultimately it is a kinnui (ibid. section 14).

Any nickname that is in a foreign language, such as the German language, when there is a doubt whether to write a tav or a tet, one writes a tet, because the tav can be read as soft and there would be a change in the name, and so too with anything similar to this. And any word where there is a doubt whether to write a chet or a kaf, such as Michal or Ichal, one writes a kaf, because there are places where they read a chet like a heh and there would be a change in the name. And regarding this, one need not fear that they will read the kaf as dagesh and there would also be a change, for certainly they will not read it with a dagesh, for if so, one should have written a kuf (Beit Shmuel, subsection 47), and so too with anything similar to this. And if one changed it ex post facto, it is kosher, and also ab initio one should not create doubts because of this unless the doubt is clear.

It is a great principle regarding names that we always follow the name by which he and she are called, and we do not deviate from how they are called unless it is known to be a shortening of the name or a childhood name. However, regarding the primary name, we do not engage in homiletic interpretations of names to say that one was named for such-and-such a reason, and consequently we must deviate in the writing of this name from how it is called, for they could easily ruin and disqualify the get. Rather, we write it as it is called. And even if the name is like the names of the gentiles, or if this name indicates some defect, we do not say that they certainly would not have given him such a name; rather, we do not deviate from its pronunciation (Beit Shmuel in his principles, section 1). And so too, if it is known how he signs his own name, we do not deviate at all, provided he is not an ignoramus who signs with errors. And if his name is not known, we follow the name written in the ketubah (ibid.). And know that nowadays one should not look at the ketubot because many write without precision regarding the name.

It has already been explained that for a shortening of a name, one is not required to write it, but rather they write the primary name. However, there is no objection if one wishes to write both the primary name and the shortening, such as "Yitzchak who is nicknamed Itza" and the like. Therefore, when there is even a doubt whether it is a shortening of the name or not, they write both. And if this shortening of the name has another sacred name, they certainly write both. Similarly, if this sacred name has another nickname, one must also write the shortening. But if the shortening is swallowed within the primary name, such as "Eliezer Lazer" or "Eleazar Lazar" or "Yitzchak Itzak" and the like, one is not required to write the shortening in any case, for it is truly one name (ibid.). And one who has a sacred name and a profane name, if they prioritize the sacred name, they write regarding the profane name "who is nicknamed" (hamikhuneh), and if they prioritize the profane name, they write regarding the sacred name "who is called" (demitkari). The prioritization depends on knowing which name is the primary one given to him at the time of his birth, and in most cases the sacred name is the primary one. When there is a doubt whether to write "demitkari" or "hamikhuneh," they write "demitkari." And if the two names are profane and they do not call him by both but rather by this one or that one, it is obvious that they write "demitkari," for "hamikhuneh" is only used when this nickname is for a sacred name. And one should not write a diminutive name like "Berela" or "Leibli" or "Velvela" unless they call him this to his face and he does not object (ibid.). And this is when the majority of people call him this to his face, but for a minority they are not concerned, even if he does not object (as is implied ibid.). And so too regarding the names of women, and it will be explained at the beginning of their names, see there.

One should not place vowel points in a get, even for names that can be read in two ways when not pointed; nevertheless, one should not place vowel points. And if one did so, it appears that it does not disqualify the get. Nevertheless, when there is a doubt whether to write a vav or a soft bet, it is better to write a vav, for a bet could be read as doubled and there would be a change. Generally, in a place where a vav is needed at the beginning of a word, they write two vavs, such as Wolf, and therefore the city of Vilna is written with two vavs (Chelkat Mechokek). So too the city of Warsaw. And similarly in the middle of a word, if the vav is in place of a bet, such as Zanvil, Zanwil, they write it with two vavs, and if it is in place of a soft pei, they write it with one vav (ibid.):

In foreign names, the kamatz draws an aleph after it and not the patach; however, this is not a universal rule, for the cities of Warsaw and Danzig are called with a patach and draw an aleph (and so wrote the Turei Zahav in several places). And my city, Navardok, is the opposite, for after the patach they write an aleph and after the kamatz they do not write (see Rashi, Ketubot 69b, s.v. "yenachem"). And the chirik draws a yod after it, and likewise the tzeirei, as in Beila, Reizl, and the like. And they write a single yod, for two yods are not written unless the yod is felt after the patach, as in Breina, Treina, and the like. And one should not ask, according to the rule we wrote, why they write Chaya with a single yod; this is because two yods are only when the patach draws them, and not when the yod is with a vowel point on its own, unless the yod is with a tzeirei, like "chayei avotai," or with a chirik, like the name Chaim, which are with two yods (and see Turei Zahav in the name of P"A). And the segol draws an ayin in the middle of the word, for at the end of the word it is with an aleph as I have written. And the melafum draws a vav. And know that all the rules are according to the majority, and there are exceptions to the rule, and even in the holy tongue it is so, as is known.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 32: One may not divide the name of the man or the name of the woman into two lines, but on one line it is possible that some names are divided that allow for this, similar to Chedorlaomer, and likewise Immanuel; and if he wrote it as one word, he has not lost. And the name Yedidyah, if he divides it into two words, it is kosher, provided it is on one line. And Pedahzur and Amminadab are one word. Thus far their words. And there is one who decided the practical halacha that ab initio he should write these names as two words resembling one word, as I wrote in siman 126 regarding "di teheveiyin" and "di titzbeiyin," and only with the name Yedid-yah should it appear more like two words than one word, and with Pedahzur and Amminadab it should appear more like one word than two words; and post facto, if he wrote them entirely as one word or entirely as two words, the get is kosher (Get Pashut, sub-section 134). And the name Yom Tov is similar to Yedidyah, and likewise Shem Tov (ibid.), for indeed any name that has a closed mem at its end or a long nun at its end, they are certainly two words, and one must only be careful to write them on one line (ibid.), for on two lines it is certainly invalid. Therefore, with the name Ben Zion, he should write it like two words but not entirely like two words. And with these names—Yom Tov, Shem Tov, Ben Zion—even if he wrote them on two lines and the get was already given and it is a case of iggun, they may be validated (Tiv Gittin, Leshon HaShemot, sub-section 3). And regarding the name Bat Sheva, some say it is literally one word (Yam Shel Shlomo and Beit Shmuel, Names of Women, letter Bet), and so it implies in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 102a). And there is one who says they are two words (Tiv Gittin ibid., letter Dalet, in the name of Seder Gittin) and it must be written on one line and appear like two words; and post facto, if he wrote it as one word, one may rely on the first opinion (ibid.). And the names Avigdor and Shneur are one word, and likewise Aviezer (Yam Shel Shlomo). And there is one who disagrees regarding the name Aviezer (Tiv Gittin, letter Aleph, sub-section 16), and therefore it should be written as one word and also appear somewhat like two words. And Avi HaEzri is written as two words and on one line (Beit Shmuel ibid.).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman: Any kinnui that changes due to the language of the countries—such as Leib, where there are countries that speak a light language, "Leib," and in some countries they speak "Leiba" or "Leiva"; and similarly with the kinnui Wolf, which they call thus in these countries, and in other countries "Wolfa" or "Wolflein" or "Wolflein"; or with the kinnui Mendel, where some speak "Mendil," and all similar cases; and similarly with the pronunciation of words, such as in some countries where they call "Gumprecht" or "Gumprecht," or where the languages differ in the pronunciation of the Bet or Peh or Vav, such as "Zanvil" or "Zanwil," "Feibush," "Veibush," because some countries speak more with a soft tongue—one follows the language of the people in the country where the get is given. One should not be particular in this regarding how the names and the kinnuyin were found written, for each one wrote according to the language of his country, and therefore the Seder HaGittin differ from one another in this matter. The main principle is as I have written; so it appears to me to rule. However, if the language of the countries is not known, one should not change from what is found in the words of the earlier authorities. Nevertheless, post facto, if one changed one of these matters, it is kosher, as mentioned above. Thus far his words. And all this applies to foreign languages, but regarding names found in Scripture, one does not follow the change of the language of the countries, and we write according to what is written in the verse, such as the name Yosef, which some call "Yosef" and some call "Yosef," we write "Yosef" in every place. And a name that is found sometimes full and sometimes deficient, one follows the majority.

And after these words of our teacher, the Rema, it is explained that one should not pay attention to the writing of the details of names based on the authors of the name-lists, but rather one must understand and comprehend the language spoken in the country where the get is being written. Therefore, we too shall bring only a few of the names, and they are the names common among us in our regions of Lithuania and Reissen, for the pronunciation is the same for both regions, and likewise in Little Russia. However, the regions of Volhynia, Podolia, and a bit of the region of Ukraine, their pronunciation differs from ours, and likewise the pronunciation of the people of Poland differs from ours, and all the more so the countries of Germany, Austria, France, England, and America; and likewise Spain, Portugal, Holland, and the rest of the countries shall not learn from what is written here regarding their pronunciations. For do you not see there, "Basha" and "Pasha," they call in Volhynia and Poland "Basil" and "Pessil," and many similar cases. And the general laws of names, have we not explained with the help of Heaven, and these laws are equal in all countries:

And these are the names common among us: Avraham, Abba, Abli, Aharon, Aryeh, Aril, Ara, Arka, Artza, Eliyahu, Eliya, Eliezer, Elazar, Avigdor, Uri, Alexander, Isser, Elchanan, Isaac, Elimelech, Ephraim, Elkanah, Elyakim, Aviezer, Itzel, Izak, Isak, Itzk, Asher, Antshil. Binyamin, Binush, Baruch, Ber, Beril, Bruna, Bunam, Bendit, Binya, Binka, Benya, Bezalel, Ben Tzion, Boaz, Berech, Berechiah. Gad, Gedaliah, Gronam, Getzil, Gutil, Gutman, Gershon, Gershom, Gera, Gabriel, Gimpel. David, Dan, Dania, Danka, Daniel, Dadka, Dov. Hillel, Hoshil, Hoshka, Hasha, Heshel, Hoshia, Hirsh, Hersh, Hertz, Hertzil, Hendil, Henoch. Falk or Pelak, Wolf, Velvil, Volya, Veltzik. Zevulun, Zechariah, Zeev, Zalman, Zusman, Zusha, Zissel, Zimmel, Siskind, Zelig or Selig, Zeka, Zavil, Zanvil. Chaim, Chaikel, Hezekiah, Chatzkel, Hananiah, Chlavna, Chlovna, Chanan, Chania. Tevya, Tuvia, Tadros, Todros, Treitel, Tadil. Yitzchak, Yosef, Jozef, Yehuda, Yuda, Yudel, Yudka, Issachar, Yaakov, Yehonatan, Yonatan, Yasil, Yashka, Yakil, Yochanan, Yechiel, Yekutiel, Yerachmiel, Yehoshua, Yoshua, Yeshaya, Yirmia, Yechezkel, Yedidya, Yisrael, Yom Tov, Yeracham, Yoel, Yozel, Yozef, Yona, Yania. Katriel, Kalev. Leib, Levi, Levik, Lipa, Lipman, Lizer, Lazer, Lemil, Lapidot, Liakum, Lima, Liama. Moshe, Meir, Michal, Michael, Mordechai, Menachem, Mendel, Mandil, Mantza or Mantza, Menchin, Menchil, Menashe, Manus, Man, Mania, Manoach, Meshullam, Matat, Mattityahu, Munia, Mania, Mulia, Melech, Meitza, Meika. Natan, Neta, Noach, Nachum, Nachman, Nehemiah, Nissan, Netanel, Naftali, Nasha or Nashka. Saadia, Sender, Sinai. Akiva, Ovadia, Ozer, Ezra, Azriel, Ever, Amram. Pinchas, Pina, Pinka, Peretz, Pesach, Pisha with a tzeirei, Fishel, Fishka, Palti, Paltiel, Feivel, Feivush, Feitel, Polt. Tzvi, Tzadok, Tzemach. Kusha, Kushka, Kulia, Kapel, Kalonymus, Kalman, Kim, Kodesh. Reuven, Rubtza, Ruva. Shaul, Shoel, Shokel, Shmuel, Shmelke, Shechna, Shlomo, Shalom, Shabtai, Shepsil, Simcha, Shemariah, Shemeril, Shimon, Shimshon, Shimshul, Shneur, Sheftil. Tanchum, Tania. And now we will explain them in detail with the help of Heaven:

Avraham does not need to write the nickname Avremel or Avremka, for all of this is a shortening of the name and also a childhood name. But for one nicknamed Ever or Everlin, some say that it must be written, as their pronunciation is not so similar to Avraham, and some say it is not necessary (Beit Shmuel in the names and Tiv Gittin). It appears more likely that they are written, and it is not similar to Avremel or Avremka, for an honorable man would not be called so to his face, but one is called Ever to his face. And Everil seems to me to be a childhood name. But one who is called Abba and his holy name is Avraham, one must write "Avraham who is called Abba," since it is a Hebrew name and not a foreign name. And even if he signs "Avraham Abba," nevertheless they are not written together, for it is nothing but a nickname for Avraham. And that which they sign with two names is like those who sign "Dov Ber," "Zeev Wolf," "Yechiel Michel" (Tiv Gittin, letter Aleph, subsection 36). And if his nickname is Avli, they write "Avraham nicknamed Avli," and even though some say there is no need to write the nickname at all (Taz), nevertheless the main rule is that they write it (see there). Aaron, whom they call Ara with a kamatz under the Aleph or with a patach, or Arka or Artza, one does not need to write the nickname, for it is only a shortening of the name and is also not an honorable way (and so it appears in the Beit Shmuel). And so too Aril does not need to be written. And Aryeh, for the most part his nickname is Leib; however, this is not a universal rule, for there are those who are called Aryeh and have no nickname at all, and the arranger must inquire after this.