Siman 135

The witnesses before whom they give the get, and they are the witnesses of delivery which is the essence of the get, must read it before the giving (19b). And it is a hindrance even ex post facto, for if they did not read it, to what are they witnesses? For they do not know if he gave her a get or something else. And it implies that here the sages, of blessed memory, did not permit others to read and tell them as they did regarding the witnesses of signing in siman 130. The distinction is simple, for regarding witnesses of signing they were lenient, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 1, because witnesses of signing was a rabbinic enactment, and we explained this there in section 47; see there. But witnesses of delivery are from the Torah, and therefore immediately adjacent to its giving, which is the completion of the get, they are obligated to read it themselves. However, some say that when the head of the beit din and his scribes read before them, whom they fear, they may rely upon them (Ran, chapter 2). And reason dictates this, for in other documents it is also valid in such a case, as written in Choshen Mishpat siman 45, and we should not be more stringent regarding a get. And regarding the signatures they were more lenient than in other documents, as written there in section 43:

According to what I have written, it is possible to say that according to the Rif and the Rambam, for whom the witnesses to the signature alone are sufficient when there are witnesses to the signature who read the get themselves, we are not stringent regarding the witnesses to the delivery that they must read it themselves, since according to the Torah it is valid even without witnesses to the delivery (and so it appears in the Beit Shmuel, subsection 1). However, from the plain meaning of the language of the poskim, it does not appear so, for it is possible to say that only regarding witnesses to the signature did they alleviate a rabbinic requirement, because not every person is capable of signing for himself, therefore they were lenient with them; this is not the case regarding witnesses to the delivery, for every person is fit for this and many will be found who are able to read. Furthermore, regarding witnesses to the signature, the completion of the get is not at the time of the signatures but at the time he delivers it into her hand, therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, were lenient; but regarding witnesses to the delivery, which is the completion of the get, they were not lenient. Furthermore, it appears clear that even if the witnesses to the delivery are the witnesses to the signature and they already read it before they signed, nevertheless the obligation is upon them to return and read it close to its delivery. And so it appears from all the Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch who wrote this law without qualification, even though the custom is that the witnesses to the signature are the witnesses to the delivery.

All the Rishonim agreed that it is good to read it before the giving and after the giving, and so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. The reason appears to be because we are concerned that perhaps from the time the husband took it into his hand, he exchanged it for another paper (as is implied in the Rosh, chapter 2, section 16). And even though it is a remote concern, nevertheless, at the completion of the get there must not be any uncertainty. However, post facto, if they did not read it after the giving, it does not invalidate. Furthermore, even if after their reading before the giving the husband took the get and hid it in his bosom, we are not concerned that he exchanged it, and she is permitted to marry (Tosafot and the Rosh). Nevertheless, ab initio in such a case, there is certainly an impediment in the matter to return and read it according to the law (and the Rosh is in doubt about this).

And likewise, if they did not read it before the giving, but read it immediately after the giving, it is also kosher (ibid.), for what should we be concerned about? And there are those who hesitate regarding this (Mordechai in the name of the Maharam, chapter 2) because we require that at the time of the giving the witnesses know that it is a get, see there. And this opinion was not cited in the poskim. And it appears to me that they do not disagree at all, for certainly if the witnesses of delivery were there at the time of the making of the get, during its writing and its signing, and they knew that it is a matter of a get, everyone agrees that it does not matter if they did not read it before the giving since they read it afterward. However, if they did not know at all of the matter of the get, and they were called from the marketplace to be witnesses of delivery for the get and they did not see it and did not read it, certainly one must be concerned about this, unless they read it within the time of a speech of the giving (so it appears to me). And know that the reading of the get is not the primary thing, for there is no commandment of reading in it, and the primary thing is to know that this paper is the get that this man wrote for this wife of his. Therefore, if the witnesses of delivery examine well that this is her get, nothing more is required (and that which the Rema wrote "and likewise if they testify" is a scribal error, and it should be "if they examine," as written in the glosses of the Tur).

Our custom is to act in a manner that is good and upright, wherein the organizing Rav reads the get after they have written it and signed it, and the husband has nullified the declarations once more as has been written in siman 134. The Rav reads the get with the witnesses, and afterwards the Rav asks the scribe if he wrote it for his sake and for her sake and for the sake of divorce, and if the husband commanded him to do so. And he asks the witnesses if they heard from the husband that he commanded him, and if they heard from the scribe that he wrote it for his sake, etc. And afterwards he asks each witness if they signed in the presence of one another, and if they signed for his sake, etc., and if the husband commanded them to do so. And he asks the scribe and the witnesses if they recognize the writing of the get that they wrote and their signatures that they signed. And afterwards he delivers the get to the woman in the presence of the witnesses, and afterwards they receive the get from her, and the Rav returns and reads it with the witnesses and returns and asks the scribe and the witnesses as has been written. And this is the completion of the get, as has been written in the Seder HaGet in siman 154.

They read the get and gave it to the husband or his agent, and he placed it in his sleeve and gave it to her—at the outset, they must read it a second time prior to the giving. However, post facto, if they did not read it and gave it to her, and she threw it into the sea or into the fire and it is impossible to read it after the giving, she is nevertheless divorced. Since they read it initially, we are not concerned that perhaps he exchanged it, for he is not suspected of causing her ruin. Furthermore, even if the husband says after the get was burned or lost that he exchanged it and gave her a different document and not the get, he is not believed, and she is divorced. For she was established as a divorcee from the moment of receiving her get, and he is not believed to remove her from her established status; for if it were according to his words, he should have said so immediately at the time of the giving. Rather, it is certain that he has now reconsidered and is seeking pretexts, unless he now shows the get before us that is in his hand, for then there is proven evidence that he is telling the truth and she requires another get. And even in such a case, he is only believed as long as she has not married another; but if she married, it is not within his power to forbid her to the other. After she was established as a divorcee, he cannot remove her from her established status and forbid her to the second, and we say that she gave him back the get in order to release herself from the second, and they made a conspiracy between them. And so too, even if she did not marry and he is a kohen, he is not believed so as to take her, due to this concern that perhaps she gave him back the get. Therefore, if it is known to us that the object he gave her was burned and now he shows it in his hand, he is believed in every case, even if he is a kohen and even if she married another, and she must leave this one and that one. And that which we said, that he is not believed when she married another, this is when it was not burned or lost, but rather that they did not read it after its giving into her hand. And since there could be ruin if the get remains in her hand—that she might return it to him to release herself from the second or to return to him and he is a kohen—if it happens that they do not read the get after the giving, therefore our custom is good and proper that they do not leave the get in her hand, and the beit din takes and tears it.

Behold, if they did not read the get before the giving, and he gave it to her, and she threw it into the sea or it was burned, and it turns out that they did not read it at all, neither before the giving nor afterward, behold she stands in a state of doubtful divorce in every respect until he divorces her with a clear get. And even if she married, she must leave, for she was established as a married woman and did not depart into certain divorce, and a doubtful divorce does not remove the certain status of a married woman. And even if the husband says it was kosher, he is not believed to establish her as certainly divorced, and her law is like the law of a husband who said, "I divorced my wife," where she is doubtfully divorced, as will be explained in siman 152. And even though there the reason she is not certainly divorced is because of the deficiency that every get has a rumor and this one has no rumor, as is written there, and here she was divorced and there is a rumor—since the witnesses did not read it, neither before the giving nor afterward, and the get was lost, it is impossible to establish her as certainly divorced. And on the contrary, even if we say that there he is entirely believed (see Bava Batra 135a), here he is not believed, for there is a deficiency before us in that the witnesses did not read it at all and now it is lost. And so too the opposite: even if the husband says that it was not a get at all, that he gave her another document, he is not believed to make her as certainly not divorced, for in any event, from the time of its giving she was established as doubtfully divorced, and therefore she remains in a state of doubtful divorce in every respect.

That which we have said, that if they did not read it at all she is a doubtful divorcee, this is when the get was burned or lost. However, if the get is produced from her hand after some time, certainly ab initio she may not marry with this get, since they did not read it neither before the giving nor immediately after the giving. Nevertheless, if she married she shall not leave, since the get is still in her hand; and even if she showed the get after she married the second [husband] she shall not leave (Beit Shmuel, subsection 4), for this is nothing but a clarification that she was divorced then. Nevertheless, when she has not married, they do not permit her to marry with this get because of the flaw that they did not read it immediately after the giving, yet they do not remove her from her husband because of this flaw. This is the opinion of most of the poskim.

But the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: If they did not read it at all and it was lost, and he says that what he gave her was not a get but merely a document, she may not marry, and she is disqualified from the priesthood; but if she married, she shall not leave. And the Rambam wrote that even if the husband says it was a valid get, she is in a state of doubtful divorce. Thus far the wording of the Tur. And he was very lenient, that even if it was burned and they did not read it at all, she shall not leave (and this is like the first resolution of Tosafot 19b, s.v. tzerichi; and examine this carefully). And his reasoning is that it is not similar to a husband who said "I divorced my wife," where she is in a state of doubtful divorce because there is a clear flaw in that there is no rumor of this get; but here, there is a rumor, only that the witnesses were negligent in that they did not read it. And since it is known to the witnesses that he wrote a get for her, and at the time he handed it to her he said to her, "Behold, this is your get," and he did not protest within twenty-four hours to say that he was mocking her and did not give her the get, and he is not suspected of ruining her before Heaven, she is established as a divorcee before us and he is not believed to forbid her to the second husband (and this is the "some disagree" that our teacher, the Rema, wrote, as the Beit Shmuel wrote in subsection 5; and the Gra in subsection 6 wrote that his intention was the opposite, that even if the get is in her hand, if she married she shall leave, and this is the opinion of the Rashba and like the second resolution of Tosafot there. And these matters are astonishing, for the second resolution deals with a case where it was burned, as is explicit in the Gemara, and also the Rashba's intention is when it was burned, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote explicitly in Darkei Moshe, sign 1; and the wording of the Beit Yosef is slightly imprecise, see there and examine this carefully).

There is a type of ink that over time is absorbed into the paper and the letters are not discernible at all, and there is a type of dye that one passes over the paper and it causes the absorbed letters to be emitted and they become visible (Rashi 19b). And likewise, if one passes pomegranate peel water over the paper, it emits the letters (Tosafot). And if a get was written with such writing and the writing was discernible at the time of delivery, the get is kosher, and this is not considered writing that cannot endure, for it does endure, but it was merely absorbed over time and it is possible to emit it as I have written. But if at the time of delivery the writing was absorbed, it is not a get. And so it is explained from the commentary of Rashi there, and so the Tosafot wrote explicitly. This is their wording (under the heading "Ta'ama"): It was not at the time of delivery that they saw it was blank paper, for if so, even if it were certainly written with gallnut water it is not a get, since at the time of delivery the letters were already absorbed. Thus far their words. And so it is implied clearly from all the Rishonim. But the Levush was stringent, that even in such a case it is a doubtful get, for perhaps the Torah was not particular that the writing be discernible; see there. And these are astonishing words even from the perspective of logic (and also the Beit Shmuel in subsection 6 contested him, and I am surprised that he did not bring the proofs from Rashi and Tosafot; see there).

This writing is called in the Gemara ibid. "gall-nut water," and it is stated there that if he gave her a blank paper and said to her, "Behold, this is your get," and the witnesses did not see at the time of the giving whether the letters were discernible or not, and afterwards they tested the paper with dye and the letters emerged, it is a doubtful get. And if they tested it and it did not emerge, this is nothing, for it is evident that it is blank paper. And if they did not test it at all and the paper was burned, some say that it was also a doubtful get (Tosafot, s.v. "VeShmuel"), and thus ruled the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And some say that when they did not test it, since they saw it as blank paper, we do not concern ourselves with it at all unless they tested it and it emerged, for then she is doubtfully divorced (the Rashba).

The Tur wrote: If he gave her a blank paper and said to her, "Behold, this is your get," if they did not test it, etc., or if they test it and it emits writing, behold, she is doubtfully divorced, etc. And the Ramah wrote: And if it was burned or lost before testing, we are not concerned at all, and she is permitted even to the priesthood. Thus far his words. And the Ramah holds according to the opinion of the "there are those who say" in the previous section (Beit Yosef). And there are those who say that the opinion of the Ramah is like the first opinion and he does not disagree with the Tur; and that which they were stringent where they did not test it, that is when the paper is before us and it is possible to test it, we are stringent even when they did not test it, and the "there are those who say" in the previous section is lenient even in such a case. And in a case where it was burned or lost, even the first opinion admits that she is permitted, since it is not possible to test it (Bach in the name of the Rashal). And all these laws apply when the witnesses saw that it was a blank paper, for nevertheless we are stringent when they tested it and it emits, for perhaps at the time of the giving the letters were recognizable and the witnesses did not scrutinize well to see, or even if they scrutinized and it was not immediately adjacent to the giving itself, for then we concern ourselves that perhaps at the time of the giving they emitted and afterwards were absorbed. And even if we did not test it to see if it emits, we concern ourselves that perhaps it would have emitted if they had tested it, and according to the opinions that have been explained. But if before the giving the witnesses saw the letters were recognizable, it is simple that she is doubtfully divorced in any case according to all opinions, even if it was burned or lost (see Be'er Heitev subsection 6, and the words of the Bach who wrote that it deals with a case where they read it at the outset, and because of this he raised a difficulty, see there, and it requires great study from where he has this, and delve into it).

If he threw a document to her in the presence of witnesses into her domain and said to her, "Behold, this is your get," and they searched in the place where he threw it and no get was found, only a mezuzah or another document, we do not concern ourselves with the get at all, even to be stringent, for we say he certainly did not throw her a get at all, but rather the mezuzah or the document that was found. It is explained in the Shas (19b) that this is specifically in a place where a mezuzah or a document is not commonly found; but if in that place they are occasionally found, it is a case of uncertain divorce, for perhaps that which he threw was a get and mice ate it or dragged it away, and this mezuzah or this document was there from before. I wonder at the poskim who did not mention this condition, for behold, we explicitly say there regarding an incident where he threw it to her between her barrels, and Rav Nachman said: A mezuzah between barrels is not commonly found. It is explicitly explained that if it were commonly found, we would be stringent. Perhaps because they wrote in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch that he threw it to her "between the barrels," see there, it is automatically like a place where it is not commonly found; nevertheless, they should have explained this, and it requires further study. Similarly, it is difficult regarding the Rambam in chapter 1, see there. Perhaps they interpret that the Shas is dealing with a case where the witnesses read the get beforehand and he placed it under his garments and took it out and gave it to her, and therefore in such a case, if mezuzot were commonly found between the barrels, we would be stringent; but where they did not read it at all, we are not stringent even where they are commonly found, because this concern that mice took it is a remote concern. In practice, one should be stringent in every case (see the Ran who wrote two interpretations, and examine it carefully).

And specifically when only one mezuzah or one document was found, but if two mezuzot or two documents were found and we saw that he only threw one writing (Rashi), and if so, perforce one thing was also there previously, we are stringent in every case, and she is a doubtful divorcee due to the concern that mice took it. And even if they read the get beforehand and two mezuzot or two documents were found, she is also only a doubtful divorcee and not definitely [divorced] (Levush and Beit Shmuel). And there is one who says that in such a case she is definitely divorced, but it is not clear (ibid.), for how is it possible to make it a definite get since it was not found, and how can we depend on the dragging of mice for leniency (see Pesachim 9a, and examine this closely).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that all this applies when they did not read the get initially; however, if after they read it and it was a get, the husband took it from their hand and threw it into her courtyard among the barrels, even if only one mezuzah or one document was found, she is in a state of doubtful divorce. Thus far their words. Certainly their intention is that he placed it in his garments or that the witnesses averted their eyes for a moment, for if not so, they clearly saw that he threw the get to her, so why would it be a doubt? And it is possible that they hold that due to the severity of the prohibition of a married woman, we are stringent in every case and say that they did not examine it well, and perhaps in a single moment he swapped it, because the concern of mice is difficult to rely upon for leniency regarding the prohibition of a married woman. In any event, it is implied from their words that when they read it, we are stringent in every case, even if mezuzot are not commonly found among barrels, and even if only one was found. This is a contradiction to what we wrote in section 13. The Rambam, of blessed memory, leaves the matter undefined. See what I wrote in siman 139, that we do not permit her until it reaches her hand specifically.