Siman 136

The get is given into her actual hand, and even though according to the essential law it is effective also in her domain which is not her actual hand—and the sages explicitly said (at the beginning of chapter 8): "Her hand," I only have her hand; from where do we know her roof, her courtyard, and her enclosure? The Torah teaches: "And he shall give"—nevertheless, since it is not written "and into her hand he shall give it," this implies any giving, and we only require it to be similar to her hand in that it is guarded by her knowledge (Rashi), for the core definition of "hand" is domain, as in "and he took all his land from his hand" (Rashi, Bava Metzia 10b). And it is explicitly taught in a Mishnah: One who throws a get to his wife and she is inside her house or inside her courtyard, she is divorced. Nevertheless, we hold as the law that we do not permit her until she receives the get into her actual hand, as will be explained in siman 139. And the Aruch wrote under the entry "get": They received from our teachers that even if he threw it into her courtyard, she is not permitted to the world until the get reaches her hand (Tosafot 78b). And the proof is from the Yerushalmi (chapter 8, halacha 2) which says there: The clearest of them all is until he gives it into her hand. And so too in our Shas (ibid.) where Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: You shall not perform an act until the get reaches her hand, see there. And although our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, explained that this refers only to acquisitions in a public domain, such as "close to her" and the like, and not to the acquisition of a courtyard, see there; nevertheless, according to the tradition of the Gaonim, the matters are as their plain meaning.

And the reason seems clear to me based on what is found there in the Yerushalmi, which poses a difficulty from Rava against Rava; for here Rava said that within her four amot she is divorced, and here he said that we specifically require the stretching of hands, meaning that she must be able to stretch out her hand and take it. And it answers: here is for the halacha, here is for the practice. Meaning, that certainly according to the essential law she is divorced when the get falls within her four amot even if she cannot stretch out her hand and take it, but for the practice it is specifically required that she be able to take it. And upon this it concludes that the clearest of them all for the practice is until he places it into her hand. And it is not that this is required by the law, but rather that one must be stringent in practice regarding a get. And the reasons for these matters are that in several things the sages, of blessed memory, were more stringent regarding gittin than the essential law requires, as is found in the Shas (85b) regarding what they enacted to write "from this day and forever," even though according to the essential law it is not necessary, as is explained there. And Rashi explained there: that we require this to remove ourselves from dispute, so that the matter should emerge with permission and a reputation of disqualification should not emerge regarding the families of Israel. Thus far his words. And they were concerned in this for an erring beit din who would err in the interpretation of "and he shall place it in her hand," that it means her actual hand; for in several places they were concerned for an erring beit din, and all the more so regarding a get (Yevamot 106a and Bava Batra 138b; and see there in the Rashbam, d.h. "u-mishani").

And know that there are some of the great authorities who hesitated, saying that perhaps we require that the entire get be literally in her hand, meaning that the edges of the paper should not protrude from her hand, but rather the whole of it should be hidden within her hand. And based on this, I have heard that there are those who are stringent to fold the get into many folds until it is possible to hide it entirely in her hand, and they bring proof from the Yerushalmi (Chapter 2, Halacha 3) which says there: "Or is it different, as it is written 'and he shall give it into her hand,' until it is entirely in her hand," see there, for it implies that the entire get must be literally in her hand. And behold, besides the fact that our ancestors never conducted themselves thus and there is no reason for this, and one will not find a person who would err in this to say that regarding an acquisition of the hand it is necessary that the entire object be hidden in her hand—and there is no need for proofs for this—furthermore, there is in this a concern of casting aspersions on earlier gittin, and also a concern that through the multitude of its folds one will come to the blurring of a letter. And the Yerushalmi never intended this, but rather as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

And the explanation is that it refers there to the Mishnah that if he writes the get for her on the horn of a cow and gives her the cow; and R. Zeira asks there: If he handed it over to her through masirah, what is the law? By the measure of the law, you say the purchase is acquired, and here do you say thus? Or is it different, as it is written, "and he shall give it into her hand," until it is entirely in her hand. Thus far his words. And the explanation of the matters is that it is certainly so that according to the essential law she is divorced, and even though he cannot hand over the cow into her hand literally as he hands her a paper upon which a get is written—for she does not have the strength to lift the cow and take it in her hand—nevertheless, he can transfer it to her with another kinyan, through meshikhah or masirah. However, because the Yerushalmi in chapter 8 that we cited was stringent in practice that it specifically requires her literal hand, for this R. Zeira asks regarding such a get written on the horn of a cow, what shall we do with it? For in this, only a kinyan of meshikhah or masirah is possible. And the Yerushalmi in Kiddushin (chapter 1, halakhah 4), there is one who holds that it is not acquired except through masirah and not through meshikhah, and like the plain meaning of the Mishnah in chapter 1 of Kiddushin (25b), and this is the shitah of Rashi there, see there. And therefore R. Zeira asks: If he handed it over to her through masirah, what is the law? Meaning, that in this, no other kinyan is possible, as I have written. By the measure of the law, meaning that certainly according to the essential law there is no question in this, for since you say the purchase is acquired, meaning as we learned in the Mishnah that a large animal is acquired through masirah, and here do you say thus? Meaning, and here there is a question, in wonder. Or is it different, as it is written, "and he shall give it into her hand," until it is entirely in her hand? Meaning, that the question is according to what we were stringent in chapter 8 there, that in practice one should not permit her until he gives it into her hand literally, and with a cow it is impossible to give it into her hand literally. And therefore he asks if in this too they were stringent in practice, or perhaps in this they were not stringent, since it is impossible to do so, we establish it upon the law. And that which he said, "until it is entirely in her hand," the intention is not that it be entirely hidden in her hand, but rather the intention is until the entire get is literally in her hand, not in her domain. And therefore, Heaven forbid to be stringent and to do so, and especially since we also practice that after her receipt of the get, she places it under the wrap that is over her heart and walks thus four amot.

I have further seen that there are those who rely on the words of our teacher, the Rema, in this siman, section 1, who wrote: and it is the custom that the husband folds the get like a letter and gives it to her so that she can hold all of it in her hand when he gives it to her, thus far his words. And they think that his meaning is that the entire get should be hidden in her hand so that the edges of the get do not protrude outward (according to Pitchei Teshuva siman 139, subsection 4, who wrote that this is not a new matter as the Rema already mentioned it). But it is not so; rather, his intention is that if the get were not folded like a letter, she would only grasp a small part of the get, and by folding it like a letter, the essence of the entire paper is in her hand, as is known. And they were concerned for everything, as they said in the Yerushalmi and as we have explained, for they were concerned for an erring beit din.

And clear proof for this is from what all the Rishonim wrote, that the woman should be careful not to clench her hands while the husband is holding its other end. This is the wording of the Mordechai, chapter 8: And according to this, if so, there are times when the husband holds the get by its end and places it in her hand, and she holds it by the other end and closes her hand tightly before the husband has released the end of the get from his hand, and it is like "a get in her hand and the string in his hand"; however, ex post facto, etc. Thus far his words. And if it should enter your mind that the entire get must be hidden within her hand, how could you find such a case? Rather, it is certain that they never practiced this way, and we must not change from what our teachers have always practiced. And in siman 139 this will be further explained with the help of Heaven (and this is also the intention of the Tosafot 78b, in the heading starting with "If," and examine it closely).

The one who divorces must intend at the time he delivers the get to her that with this get he is releasing her from him, and she also needs to know that by receiving this get she is released from him and permitted to any man. Therefore, he must say to her at the time of delivery in the presence of witnesses: "Behold, this is your get," or "This is your get," or the like. And if he placed it in her hand and said nothing to her, and they had not previously spoken regarding the business of the get, the Rambam wrote in chapter 1 that it is a pasul get, and it is clear that according to the Torah it is at least a get. But the Tur wrote that it is not a get, implying that according to the Torah it is not a get, just as with kiddushin as was explained in siman 27 that they are not kiddushin at all. And according to the Rambam the distinction is simple: for in kiddushin her consent is required, but in a get her consent is not required at all. And even though from the Torah we also require that he shall send her away and she does not return, and if she does not know, will she not return to him? For one could say that after some time they will inform her that it is a get, as it is a simple matter that she must afterwards know that she was divorced from him so that she does not return to him (and this is the intention of the Rema in section 5 in the name of the Tosafot, Perek HaZorek [and what he wrote Perek HaMeguresh is a scribal error] 78a, s.v. "eino"; and what the Beit Shmuel wrote in subsection 3 in the name of the Tosafot, that it must be said at the time of the giving, this is not found in the Tosafot, and so wrote the Turei Zahav, and for naught did he create a dispute between the Tosafot and the Rambam; and also the words of the Gra in subsection 10 require further study, and the words of the Rema are correct; and delve into this).

In what case are these things said? When he was not speaking with her regarding the matters of the get, for then the speech is a requirement of the Torah or of the Rabbis as I have written. However, if he was speaking with her regarding the matter of the get and within the context of the matter he gave her the get and she received it, even though he said nothing, she is completely divorced. In kiddushin as well the law is so, as I have written in siman 27. And it is an explicit Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheni chapter 4), for the reason for the speech "this is your get" is that if not so, it is not recognizable at all that he gave it to her for the sake of divorce; and since they are speaking of the matter of the get, the context proves that he gave it to her for the sake of divorce, as it is written: "a scroll of severance and he shall give it into her hand," that he shall give it in the capacity of a scroll of severance (the Rambam).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: He must give it to her for the purpose of divorce, but if he gave it to her as if it were a promissory note, she is not divorced unless he says afterward, "Behold, this is your get," or if he informs the witnesses of this at the outset. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: Provided that the woman knows she was divorced with it, or that the witnesses tell her afterward. Thus far his words. The primary law of giving it as a promissory note is in siman 138, and here it seems to me that it comes to teach us that since he wrote in section 1 that when he spoke with her regarding the matters of the get, the verbal statement is not an absolute requirement, this is specifically when he gave it to her without specification, for then it is like a verbal statement as I have written. But if, during the words they spoke regarding the matter of the get, he said to her, "Collect this promissory note," even though it is likely that he said this because of shame—for they were speaking regarding the matter of the get and he gave it to her—nevertheless, since in any case he explicitly said it is a promissory note and his giving was as if for the purpose of giving a promissory note, it is not a get until he says to her afterward while the get is in her hand, "Behold, this is your get," or if he informs the witnesses at the outset that his intention is for the purpose of a get, and only because of shame will he tell her it is a promissory note. For in such a case, even if he had not been speaking with her regarding the matter of the get, she is divorced, as will be explained in siman 138. And the words of our teacher, the Rema, follow this, as he wrote that he should inform the witnesses; for while it is certainly so that informing the witnesses is sufficient regarding the essence of the get, as we do not require her knowledge, nevertheless, when she does not know she is divorced, she will return to him, and we require from the Torah "he sends her out and she does not return" (Yevamot 113b). And his words are according to all opinions (and the words of the Beit Shmuel, subsection 3, and the Gra, subsection 10, require great study, as I wrote in section 7).

Even though saying "behold, this is your get" is sufficient, nevertheless, ab initio he must say to her: "Behold, this is your get, and receive this get of yours, and behold, you are divorced by it from me from now, and behold, you are permitted to any man." And so it is below in the Seder HaGet in siman 154. All of this is in order to clarify the matters: that it is a mitzvah for her to receive it, and that he divorces her from now and not from tomorrow. And the statement "and behold, you are permitted to any man" is because this is the essence of the get, and also in the time of the Shas they were accustomed to say so (see Tosafot 78a, s.v. "eino"). And the main point is that the husband must know the meaning of the words that he says to her, and likewise everything he says to her, they should inform him of its explanation (Rema). Therefore, our custom is that when the husband says these words to her, they explain with him every utterance in the spoken language so that he and she will understand, and there will be no doubt in this. And it is the custom that they fold the get like a letter and he gives it to her so that she can grasp the main part of the paper in her hand; for if he were to give it to her when the get is flat and not folded, she would grasp only its edges. And the husband holds it above her hands, and she extends both her hands and brings hand near to hand, and they are open from above. And the two witnesses stand exactly next to them, and the Rav HaMesader tells the husband to say the order of saying "behold, this is your get, and receive," etc., and explains the matters in the spoken language. And he speaks facing her and looks at her face as one speaking directly, and upon finishing all the words, he places the get into her hands. And she closes her hands and raises the get above her head and places the get beneath the garment over her heart, and walks here and there in the house with the get, and she should walk no less than four amot. And she hands over the get to the beit din, and they read it once more as has been explained, and they tear the get as will be explained below in the Seder HaGet.

It is written, "and he shall send her from his house," and not that he shall send himself (Kiddushin 5b); that is to say, the woman is the acquisition of the husband and the husband is not the acquisition of his wife. Therefore, just as in kiddushin he must say, "Behold, you are consecrated to me," and not say, "Behold, I consecrate myself to you," or "Behold, I am your husband," as was written in siman 27, likewise in divorce he must separate her from him and not separate himself from her, such as if he says to her, "I am not your husband," and the like. The Tur wrote that it is not a get even to disqualify her from the priesthood. If he said this phrasing to her and was speaking with her regarding the matter of the get, there is a dispute regarding this; for the Tur wrote that even in such a case it is not a get at all, and his reasoning is that this is worse than silence, because he separates himself from her and the Torah decreed that this is not effective. And some say she is certainly divorced, for it is no worse than silence, and some say it is a doubtful divorce (Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham). It appears the primary view is like the first opinion (Beit Shmuel, subsection 2).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3: When he gives her the get, he should say to her, "Behold, you are divorced from me with this get and permitted to any man," or "Behold, you are sent away from me." And if his agent gives it to her, he says, "Behold, you are divorced from so-and-so with this get and behold, you are permitted to any man." And if he said to her, "I am not your man," or "I am not your husband," there is one who says that it is not a get even if he was speaking with her concerning the matters of her get, as it is written, "and he sends her," and not that he sends himself away. And there is one who says that if he was speaking with her concerning the matters of her get, she is doubtfully divorced. Thus far his words. And regarding that which in siman 27 concerning kiddushin he wrote only the first opinion, it can be said that regarding a get he was concerned for this opinion because in the get effective language is written; it is possible that in such a case, at any rate, it is a doubt (Beit Shmuel).

And in truth, the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 1 wrote these laws in this language: How so? If he wrote to her, "Behold you are sent away," "Behold you are divorced," "Behold you are for yourself," "Behold you are permitted to any man," and similar to this matter, behold she is divorced. And the essence of the get is "Behold you are permitted to any man." But if he wrote to her, "I am not your husband," "I am not your betrothed," "I am not your man," this is not a get, as it is said, "and he shall send her," and not that he should send himself. And similarly, one who writes to his wife, "Behold you are a free woman," it is not a get. Thus far his words. Behold, he disqualified these expressions only regarding the writing of the get. And this is also implied by the words of the Rif, of blessed memory, in the first chapter of Kiddushin (as the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote; see there). And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that certainly they also admit that whenever he said these expressions she is not divorced, but because in the Gemara (Gittin 85b) these expressions were stated regarding the Mishnah of "the essence of the get is 'Behold you are permitted to any man,'" which they explain regarding the one who writes, they explained these expressions also regarding the one who writes. Thus far his words. And this requires deliberation, for still, from where do we know that when the get is written according to its regulation, and only in his speech he did not say as much as is necessary, that the get should be nullified entirely?

Moreover, his words are puzzling regarding what he wrote, that these versions were stated on the Mishnah of the body of the get, for in truth these versions were not stated there at all, but are taught in the first chapter of Kiddushin, see there. And on this Mishnah, they only said there in the Gemara: if he said to his wife, "Behold you are a free woman," he has said nothing. And even regarding this, Rashi, of blessed memory, explained there: he said to his wife to write in the get, "Behold you are a free woman," etc. Thus far his words. Behold, Rashi, of blessed memory, was explicitly precise that the definition of "saying" is writing, and it implies that the saying is not an impediment. However, regarding this it could be said that in the saying of "free woman," it certainly does not cause harm if the get is written according to its regulation, as it neither adds nor subtracts. But in saying "I am not your husband," it is worse, for this is the opposite of "and he shall send her" which the Torah stated. But even regarding this, it is difficult for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 4: If he said to her, "Behold you are for yourself," this is a get; but if he said to her, "Behold you are a free woman," he has said nothing. Thus far his words. And why did he not clarify that this is only if it is written so in the get? Furthermore, behold the Rambam, of blessed memory, included them in one law as I have written. Rather, one must certainly say that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds that this language ruins it even if the get is written according to its regulation. And from where does he have this? For from Rashi it is explicitly the opposite. And it is true that in Kiddushin there it is found in this language: and so in divorce, if he gave it to her and said to her, etc., "I am not your man, I am not your husband, I am not your betrothed," there is no concern here; implying that the saying is an impediment. However, just as Rashi explained in Gittin there regarding "free woman" that the definition of "says" is "writes," so too we shall explain here. Furthermore, since the Rambam changed his wording from the wording of the Shas, it appears that he wrote so intentionally, for if not so, behold it is known that he always preserves the wording of the Gemara. The end of the matter is that the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, are a wonder to me, and his words follow the system of the Rosh and the Tur; and according to the words of Rashi, the Rif, and the Rambam, at any rate it is simple that it would be a doubtful divorce, and one should be stringent regarding the prohibition of a married woman (so it appears to me). And know that a minor who is divorced through her father, as I have written in siman 141, he must say: "Behold your daughter so-and-so is divorced from me and behold she is permitted to any man" (Knesset HaGedolah). And the language "I have no business with you" is not effective in a get (Beit Yosef).

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said (Bava Batra 167b): Two men named Yosef ben Shimon living in one city may not divorce their wives except in the presence of one another. The reason is that we are concerned, since they write a get for a man even though his wife is not with him, perhaps they will write a get for him and he will take the get and deliver it to the wife of the second man, whose name is the same as his wife's name. And even though he is obligated to give it to her in the presence of witnesses, and they would know if this is his wife or not, it can be said that he will give it to her in the presence of witnesses, but they do not scrutinize to see if this is his wife, since they know that his name is such-and-such and her name is such-and-such, and they will not be concerned for this, that he would give it to the wife of the other. Therefore, also when they come to testify that this woman was divorced, they will testify that it is so, that this woman received a get from her husband whose name is such-and-such, and the beit din will not cross-examine them, "perhaps you were mistaken." But since they enacted that they may not divorce except in the presence of one another, the beit din always cross-examines regarding this, and also the witnesses scrutinize well (Tosafot ibid. and the beginning of the third chapter of Gittin, see there carefully). And they did not want to enact that it is necessary for the witnesses to recognize, beyond the name, that this woman is the wife of so-and-so, for this is not a good enactment, as if so, they would only with great effort find witnesses (ibid.). And this is according to the opinion of our teachers, the Tosafists, of blessed memory.

However, in siman 120, section 40, we explained that the witnesses must recognize that this is his wife, see there. Nevertheless, it can be said that in the case of two Yosef ben Shimons we do not rely on this. Furthermore, there is a concern regarding the collection of the ketubah a second time, as I wrote there. Therefore, even if a get is produced from the hand of one of them, she is not divorced until she brings proof that he divorced her in the presence of the other, or she brings witnesses to the fact that this is the one who divorced his wife.

And there is a question regarding this: Why did the sages of blessed memory establish this enactment that they must divorce in the presence of one another? Behold, we learned in Get Pashut (172a) regarding documents in the case of two individuals named Yosef ben Shimon, that they should write a distinguishing mark, which is to say, to write the name of his grandfather, or "Kohen," or "Levi," see there. And behold, according to R. Meir, who holds that the witnesses to the signature effect the severance, it is necessary to do so, for we require that it be evident from within the document who is the one divorcing. Why then should we not do so also according to our position, as we rule like R. Eliezer that the witnesses to the delivery effect the severance, and we would not need them to divorce in the presence of one another? And the answer to this, it can be said, is that indeed the Gemara says that according to R. Eliezer, who holds that the witnesses to the delivery effect the severance, we do not need this, and it is sufficient that they divorce in the presence of one another. However, in truth it is not so, for the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote (at the beginning of the third chapter of Gittin) that even when a distinguishing mark is written to differentiate between one and the other, nevertheless we do not rely on this, and we specifically require that they divorce in the presence of one another. And the reason is that perhaps the witnesses to the delivery are not experts in the distinguishing mark, see there.

And know that there is one who says that even for us it is necessary to write a sign to distinguish between one and the other, for even though we rule like Rabbi Eleazar, nevertheless, ab initio we must issue a get also according to Rabbi Meir (Beit Shmuel, subsection 4). And indeed, in several matters regarding a get we are concerned even for that which is not according to the halacha, but post facto we do not pay heed to this, and if the get was already given, she may marry with it (ibid.). However, some say that even according to Rabbi Meir we do not require that it be evident from within it (Ran, chapter 3). And it is implied from the language of the poskim that it is not necessary to write a sign for us, for the witnesses of delivery effect the severance, as they did not mention this at all. However, in practice, it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in section 6, that it is necessary to write a sign, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And so too from the perspective of logical reasoning, it appears that this which the sages required—that they must divorce in the presence of one another—this is when even the names of their wives and the names of the fathers of the wives are identical; for if not so, what concern is there in this? And so wrote the Tur, and this is his wording: And if there is one in the city whose name is like his name and his wife's name is like his wife's name, he cannot divorce except in the presence of the other, lest he write a get and give it to the wife of the other whose name is like his name, and he will cause her to be forbidden to her husband. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 2, law 3, see there. And so it is implied in the Shas (at the beginning of chapter 3), see there.

But our teacher, the Rema, there was stringent in this, as he wrote: There are those who say that if the names of the men divorcing are identical, even though the names of the women are not identical, nevertheless they should write a sign in the divorce document, either by way of his nickname or that one is a kohen and the second is not a kohen; and therefore they practiced giving the get in public so that if there were two in the city whose names were identical, he would be present at the get. Thus far his words. And it is not by the law, but merely a stringency, as they practiced in divorces to be stringent in many matters. And the reason is that perhaps this one has another wife whose name is like the name of the wife of the second (Beit Shmuel); and even though it is forbidden for us to marry two women, nevertheless perhaps he committed a transgression and took two women. And all this is merely a stringency, and according to the law even he admits that it is not required (as mentioned above, and the words of the Beit Shmuel subsection 4 were not clarified to me). Furthermore, it appears clear to me that in such a case he only requires a sign and not that they divorce in the presence of one another, for if we were to say that it requires this in the presence of one another, how could he rely on the fact that they divorce in public, for perhaps he is not here? Rather, certainly this is merely for extra preference, and so it is implied from Terumat HaDeshen siman 6, see there.

The Ritva wrote (at the end of the first chapter of Bava Metzia): I have a difficulty, since two men named Yosef ben Shimon are established in the city, how can they write a get for a man when his wife is not with him to send it via a messenger? And it may be said that there it is when the witnesses do not recognize the woman, but if they recognize her, he certainly can divorce her not in the presence of the wife of his fellow, etc. And here, because of iggun, the sages were lenient that if the messenger recognizes her, he may give it to him, and they relied upon him like two witnesses. And this is what we say: "Two Yosef ben Shimons who dwell in one city"—but when they do not dwell there at the time of the divorce, the sages were lenient to divorce her via a messenger who recognizes her, or that he should not give it to her except in the presence of witnesses who recognize her; so it appears to me, and so our teacher instructed us. Thus far his words. And it is explained from his words that he holds like the words of the Tosafot that we wrote in section 15, and not like what was written in section 16 and in siman 120, section 40. And it is also explained from his words that a siman is not required to distinguish between one and the other, for if not so, this is not a difficulty at all why they were lenient via a messenger, even though we are stringent in this as well as was written in section 17. And in truth, I wonder why we should be lenient in this since it is possible via a siman (and see Tosafot at the beginning of Gittin, beginning with "Derabbanan," and delve into it).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Beitzah 36b): We do not judge, and we do not betroth, and we do not perform chalitzah, and we do not perform yibbum on Shabbat and Yom Tov, as a decree lest one write. And all the more so we do not divorce on Shabbat and Yom Tov, since the essence of a get is in the writing, and for this reason it was not taught in the Mishnah (Ran ibid.). Furthermore, it is an a fortiori argument from these others which involve a mitzvah and are forbidden, all the more so a get which does not involve a mitzvah, as I wrote in siman 119, section 8; see there. And in the Tosefta there we also learned this, that we do not divorce on Shabbat and Yom Tov; see there. And even if they wrote the get on Erev Shabbat and it is not predated, such as if they wrote the date of the month or to send it via a messenger. Nevertheless, the sages of blessed memory permitted it if the hour requires it, such as if he is ill and his illness overcomes him and he wishes to divorce her in order to exempt her from chalitzah, and the get was written on Erev Shabbat, the sages of blessed memory permitted it when the get is in his domain that he should transfer to her ownership the place where the get is resting along with the get, and it turns out that the get is in her domain. And they did not permit moving it and giving it by hand because the get is muktzeh, for anything that is not fit on Shabbat is muktzeh, and the get is only fit for divorce which is forbidden on Shabbat. And although it is fit to cover the mouth of his flask, nevertheless it is muktzeh, for before she is divorced he will not use it for another purpose so as not to spoil it, and it is like muktzeh due to monetary loss, which is the more severe muktzeh. Therefore, they preferred to permit for him the acquisition of the place, even though this too is a shevut, over the moving of muktzeh, for we find that the sages of blessed memory were very strict regarding the prohibition of muktzeh more than regarding other shevut prohibitions (see Shabbat 94b in Rashi s.v. "le'afokei" and examine it). And one should not ask that since they permitted him to divorce, it automatically follows that it is not muktzeh, for in truth, just because they permitted a sick person a certain thing, the law of the object does not change. And all this is when it is possible without moving the get, but if it is impossible, such as if it is not resting in his domain, they permitted him to take it in his hand and give it to her (Gittin 77b and see the Rosh there). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that in this time when we write the Oral Torah, it is permitted to move a get on Shabbat since it is possible to learn several laws from it, and he can give it to her in any manner. Thus far his words. And they questioned this, for in the Gemara there the incident occurred with Rava, and already in his days it was permitted to write the Oral Torah (in the Tosafot). And it can be said that this opinion holds that there the get was resting in another place where it was necessary to transport it through a public domain, and therefore Rava required the acquisition of the place and not because of the prohibition of moving (for indeed the Rosh wrote so there in the name of the Rashbam). (Even though its source is from the Mordechai and he holds otherwise, see there, nevertheless our teacher, the Rema, brought this according to the opinion of the Rashbam).