Siman 138

Even though it is written, "and he shall write for her a scroll of severance and place it in her hand," the giving of the husband is not similar to the receiving of the wife. For regarding the receiving of the wife, even if she did not receive it in her actual hand, but rather he placed it in her domain, she is divorced, and this will be explained in siman 139. The reason we explained at the beginning of siman 136 is that it is not written "and into her hand he shall give it," and "her hand" implies domain, as in "and he took all his land from his hand," and we only require that it be similar to her hand in that it is guarded by her knowledge; see there. However, his giving must be from his actual hand, or from the hand of his agent who is like him. If he placed the get in his domain and said to her, "Take this get from my domain," it is nothing. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (78a): "Take your get from upon the ground," he has said nothing, even if the ground is his. For since it is written "and he shall give," it implies explicitly that he must give, and not that she should take. This is like the giving of the blood of consecrated offerings of sin-offerings, where it is written "and he shall give," and it specifically requires the hand, as is explicit there, that he must take it with his finger. And so too regarding the guilt-offering of a metzora, where it is written "and the kohen shall give," and it specifically requires the hand. It is not similar to the giving of the priestly gifts, regarding which the language of giving is written, such as "and he shall give to the kohen the shoulder etc.," where giving specifically by hand is not required, for there the meaning is the language of a gift, and therefore it requires the measure of a gift. This is not the case with the giving of a get, which is not the language of a gift, for even if he wrote it on objects from which benefit is forbidden, it is valid (see Tosafot Gittin 20a, starting with "Perhaps"), and so too the giving of the blood of consecrated offerings is not the language of a gift. Therefore, it specifically requires giving by his hand, with the essence of the body.

And there is a great question regarding this, for it has been explained at the end of siman 136 that they permitted a shekhiv mera to divorce on Shabbat by means of the acquisition of the domain in which the get is placed, and the domain is acquired together with the get as one, and it is an explicit Gemara (beginning of chapter 8). And yet he did not place it in her hand! And one cannot say that this is only rabbinic and they were lenient regarding a shekhiv mera, for the Sages explicitly said that "take your get from the ground" is of no effect; thus it is from the Torah. And so it is explained by all the poskim. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there regarding that case of the acquisition of the domain that this is not comparable to "take your get from the ground," for since the get comes from the domain of the husband to her domain, it is as if he gave it to her. Thus far their words. And it requires further study, for is her domain superior to her hand? For if she took it in her hand from his domain it is not effective, so how can it be effective that it comes to her domain from his domain? And one must say that their intention is that since the domain itself comes into her domain with the get, it is superior to when she took it in her hand from his domain and the domain did not enter her hand (and their intention is that the domain comes into her domain).

And the reason for the matter is this: for indeed one must be precise as to why the Torah decreed thus, that her domain should be like her hand and his domain is not like his hand. Rather, it is certain that his domain is also like his hand, and the fact that it is not effective for her to take from his domain is because the Torah decreed that he must give her the get and not that she should take it from him. Therefore, when the domain is handed over to her domain together with the get, he is giving her the domain together with the get, and it is as if he gave it into her hand, for his domain is like his hand. For it is for this reason that it is not effective even if she took it from his hand or from his person if he did not perform an act of giving, such as bringing his person or his hand close to her. And all of this is because we require that he give and not that she take by herself, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven (and the Pnei Yehoshua there remained with a "needs further study" regarding the words of the Tosafot, see there).

Even if the get was resting upon his hand and she was standing next to him and she took the get from his hand, it is not a get, since he did not assist in its taking, for the reason we explained that we require that he shall give and not that she shall take. However, if he brought his hand close to her, it is a get, for behold he performed an action by the bringing of his hand close, and it is like a giving. And there is one who says that bringing his hand close alone is not effective, for we require the bringing of his hand close and also that he assist in her taking (Bach). And in truth there is a dispute of the Rishonim regarding this, for the Rashba and the Ran wrote that when he brings his hand close to her and she takes it, it is a get (beginning of chapter 8, see there). And the Rosh (ibid. siman 5) wrote that according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, if his hand was open and he brought it close to her and she took it, it is not a get, for we require two things: that he assist her in its taking and also that he bring the get close to her, see there.

The explanation of the matter regarding the reason for their dispute appears to me to be that the Torah decreed that he must give her the get and not that she should take it from him, as it is written, and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 1, law 12. Therefore, he must perform an act of giving. Those who validate it when he brings his hand close hold that this is a physical act in that he brought his body close to her. Those who disqualify it hold that bringing the body close is not called an act. There is a proof for this from what our sages, of blessed memory, said (end of Perek HaGosezal and Zevachim 105b) that "lacking closeness" is not considered "lacking an act," and consequently, closeness is not like an act. Those who validate it would hold that even though this is not an act, nevertheless it is called giving. It appears that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds primarily like the opinion of the Rosh; see there.

And so too, if his hand was closed and the get was inside it, and he opened his hand and she took it from within it, even so it is not a get. For although he assisted in its taking by opening his hand, since he did not bring his body close to her, so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1. And this is according to all opinions. The reason is that even though he performed an action with his body, nevertheless, this is not an action with the get, and ultimately she took the get. But if he opened his hand and brought his body close to her, it follows that the opening is an action with the get because of his drawing close to her. And this is the wording of the Rosh that we cited, that we require two things: that he assist her in its taking and also that he bring the get close to her. Thus far his words. And he means to say that he should assist her in its taking by opening his hand, but this is not an action with the get; however, since he brought his hand close to her, it follows that the opening is an action with the get.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: And if the get is tucked under his belt upon his loins and he constricted his loins and they loosened, and he leaned himself toward her and she took it, we properly apply the verse "and he shall give," but if he constricted his loins and did not lean himself toward her, or if he leaned himself and did not constrict his loins, it is not a giving. And there is one who says that if the get was tied to his hand or to his thigh and he bent his body toward her or leaned his hand until she pulled the get from upon him and he said to her, "Behold, this is your get," behold, this is a get. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters is that certainly what is written, "and he shall give," is not specifically into her hand, and the same applies if he gave it to her with one of the other parts of the body, it is also a giving, for what difference is there in this? Therefore, when the get is tucked under his belt, if he constricted his waist but did not lean himself toward her, even though he performed an action with his body, this is not an action with the get, similar to the opening of his hand that was explained. And likewise, if he leaned himself but did not constrict his waist, it is only a drawing near and not an action, and this is like his hand being open and he drew himself near to her, which is not effective according to the opinion of the Rosh. But if he constricted his waist and also leaned himself toward her, it is like a closed hand which he opened and drew his hand near to her, which is a giving. And all this is according to the opinion of the Rosh. And consequently, according to the opinion of the Rashba, he agrees with the Rosh regarding one who constricted his waist but did not lean himself; but regarding one who leaned himself toward her and did not constrict his waist, he holds that it is a giving, just as in the case of drawing his hand near with an open hand that was explained. And consequently, such is the law regarding a get tied to his hand or to his thigh and he bent his body toward her or leaned his hand until she pulled the get from him, for this is like drawing his hand near with an open hand, which according to the Rashba is a giving and according to the Rosh is not a giving. And it is explained that the "there is one who says" that he brought disagrees also regarding one who leaned himself and did not constrict his waist, but regarding one who constricted and did not lean, he does not disagree. And as for why he did not write the opinion of the "there is one who says" regarding one who leaned himself and did not constrict his waist, and why did he need to depict this law in a case where it was tied to his hand or to his thigh? Because this is the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory, as has been explained, and he holds that the Rambam holds like the Rashba, and therefore they wrote it in the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And from this we learn also regarding the law of one who leaned himself and did not constrict his waist, for this and that are one and the same.

This is the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 1, law 12: A get that was lying on the ground, and he said to her, "Take your get from upon the ground," and she took it, or if it was tied to his hand or his thigh and she pulled it from him, even if he said to her after it came into her hand, "This is your get," it is not a get, as it is said, "and he shall give into her hand," and not that she should take it herself, and behold, neither he nor his agent gave it to her. But if he bent his body toward her or inclined his hand until she pulled the get from upon him, and he said to her, "This is your get," behold, this is a get. Thus far his words. And from this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, learned that his opinion is like the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory, as he wrote; and the Tur similarly understood the opinion of the Rambam, see there.

The Tur wrote: But if he holds the get by one end and extends it to her, and she took it by the other end, it is a get. Thus far his words. That is to say, even according to the opinion of the Rosh. And the reason is that there are two: an action in the body of the get by his holding it by one end, and also he brought the get closer to her by extending it to her. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, holds that this is called only bringing closer and not an action in the get. Therefore, he wrote there that the Tur holds that even according to the approach of the Rosh, who requires two, this applies where she requires two; but if she does not require assistance for her taking, such as this, bringing closer alone is sufficient. In the Shulchan Aruch, he did not mention anything of this. According to this, it is difficult: from where do we know that the Rambam holds like the Rashba? Perhaps in his ruling even the Rosh admits that she does not require assistance in her taking (Bach). However, one could say that when it is tied to his hand, she certainly requires assistance since it is tied (Beit Shmuel, subsection 2). But in truth, his words are astonishing, for in that he holds it by one end so that she may take it by the other end, it is assistance in its taking and there are two (Bach). And it is not similar to if the get were resting in his open hand, where he did no action in the get; but by holding it by its end, it is certainly assistance and is called an action in the get. Furthermore, according to what I wrote, it does not depend at all on whether she requires assistance or does not require assistance, but rather this is the essence of the law: that bringing closer alone is not called giving (and especially since we brought in section 5 clear proof from the Gemara that bringing closer is not called an action, see there).

There is one who wishes to explain the words of the Tur, that he holds the get by its one end and extends it to her into the space of her hands, and before he released the get from his hand, she grasped it by the second end in a manner that even if she had not taken it, the get would have been in her hand by way of his giving (Turei Zahav). But it is impossible to say so, for if so, it is a complete giving, and what is it coming to teach us? And what connection does it have to the laws that have been explained, all of which are deficient givings? Rather, certainly this too is a deficient giving, and were it not for her taking it by the second end, the get would not have reached her hand, as he held it by its one end and not over the space of her hands. And so the commentators of the Tur understood, and such is the primary view. (And the Turei Zahav wishes to resolve with this the words of the Beit Yosef, but it is impossible to say so, for the Beit Yosef says that here there is nothing but mere proximity, see there; and according to the Turei Zahav, it is a complete giving):

The matter is simple: that in "pick up your get from the ground," and likewise in all the laws that were explained where this is not a giving, the husband must take the get from her hand back and give it to her with a complete giving, and say at the time of giving, "this is your get." And in a place where we said that it is a giving, such as with his hand closed and he opened it and brought the hand near, and likewise in "he constricted his loins" and inclined the body toward her, or according to the one who holds that bringing it near alone is effective—even if he did not say to her at the time he brought the hand or the body near, "this is your get," but rather after she took the get, it is also effective, for the statement "this is your get" is effective even after the get has come into her hand (Ran, chapter 8). However, that which was explained in siman 136, that when they are occupied with the matter of the get the statement is not a hindrance at all, for even if he gave it to her in silence it is a get—this is only with a complete giving and not with the inferior givings that were explained (ibid.). And the reason is simple: for it is well and good when he actually gave it from his hand to her hand and they spoke about the business of the get, it is certainly like the statement "this is your get." But in an inferior giving, such as in "he constricted his loins" and inclined his body and she took it, the matter does not prove the completion of the get, and perhaps he did so merely as a joke; therefore, if he said explicitly after her receipt, "this is your get," it proves that it was the completion of the get. But without speaking anything, the action does not prove regarding the business in the matter of the get that his intention in this action was for the sake of the completion of the get. Nevertheless, in practice, one should be stringent even when he did not speak anything and in inferior givings when they are occupied with the matter of the get (see Beit Shmuel, subsection 1, and according to what I wrote, even according to the Rambam one can say so from the perspective of logic, and in practice she is like a doubtful divorcee; and examine this). And know that there is one who wishes to say regarding "pick up your get from the ground" that he said nothing, but nevertheless she is disqualified from the priesthood, for it is no worse than the "scent of a get" which disqualifies from the priesthood (Ba'er Heitev in the name of the Maharil, and so wrote the Knesset HaGedolah). And there is one who says that with his hand closed and he opened it and inclined his hand toward her, he does not need a statement and being occupied with that matter is effective; and that which was explained that he specifically needs a statement, this is only in "he constricted his loins" and brought his body near (Beit Shmuel, end of subsection 2). And it is impossible to say so, for according to the reason we explained, as long as it is not a complete giving, he specifically needs a statement, for without a statement there is no proof that his intention is to complete the giving of the get; and so wrote the great later authorities (see Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 2, in the name of the Be'er Mayim and Gidulei Terumah). And only in practice should one be stringent and judge her as a doubtful divorcee (also, that which the Beit Shmuel wished to make a scribal error in the Rosh requires further study).

It is a simple matter that when the husband gives the get into her hand, he must withdraw his hand from the get and not hold onto it, for if he is still holding its edge, he is still attached to the get and this is not "severance." Therefore, the sages, of blessed memory, said (78b) regarding a get to which a string or a cord is tied, and he gave her the get while the string remained in his hand: if he is able to snap it and bring it to himself—meaning that the string is strong and when he pulls the string the get will be pulled after him—she is not divorced, for this is not "severance." And if not—meaning that the string is weak and thin, and if he pulls the get the string will snap and the get will remain in her hand—behold, she is divorced, and it is not considered as if he is binding the get in his hand, for the string is not part of the get and it does not have the power to pull the get after him, and it is "severance."

And there are opinions among the Rishonim regarding this matter, for some say that specifically if the get is heavy and the string is so thin that even if the get is resting in her hand and she did not clench her hand, the string would snap when he pulls it, then she is divorced. However, if while her hand is open the get would follow the string, but she clenched her hand after he gave it to her, it is not effective and this is not a giving. The reason is that at the time of giving he was able to snap it, and that which she clenched her hand she did herself, and it is like "take your get from upon the ground." And some say that it is properly called a giving, since he began the giving, we properly apply to it "and he shall give," even though she completed the giving (both opinions are in the Rosh, the Ran, and the Rashba, but in Tosafot only the prohibiting opinion was brought, see there, and so wrote the Korban Netanel there).

And one must explain the reasoning of the two opinions, for the permitting opinion holds that it is no worse than the inferior givings that have been explained, such as where he constricted his loins and tilted his body and she took the get, where the entire essence of the taking was done by her and it is valid; and all the more so here, for behold, he placed the entire get into her hand and she only completed the giving. And those who forbid would distinguish that here it is much worse, for since as long as he is able to pull the get back to himself it is not "severance" at all, it turns out that until she clenched her hand it cannot be called a giving at all. And if so, when she clenched her hand, behold, she performed the entire act of giving. And it is not similar to constricting his loins and tilting his body, for at the time she took the get, behold, he was performing an act by constricting and tilting, whereas at the time of the clenching of her hand he does nothing. And it is also not similar to one who says to a woman, "Behold, this is your get, but do not be divorced with it until after thirty days," where the taking effect of the divorce is after thirty days, and behold, he did not give it to her hand then; and of necessity one must say that since he gave it to her before the thirty days, it is called a giving even now, for there, before the thirty days, it was a complete giving. Therefore, even though there is an interruption in between, nevertheless, when the time arrives and the get is in her hand, she is divorced by the first giving. But here, from the beginning there was no giving at all, for as long as her hand is open he can snatch it away, and when she clenched her hand, behold, she performed the entire giving (the Rosh).

And behold, the Rosh and the Tur agreed with the words of those who forbid, and consequently, according to the majority of our gittin which are written on paper, if there is even a thin thread tied to the get and it is in his hand, it is not a get, for he certainly can pull it back to him; and that which she might clench her hand does not avail, as I have written, unless her hand is clenched and he thrusts the get into her hand with force until if he were to pull the thread it would snap, for then she is divorced (Tosafot ibid.), since he performed the entire giving and she did nothing.

And therefore all of our teachers wrote that one must be very careful during the giving of a get that the hand of the woman be open until he places the entire get in her hand and he does not hold its edge, and afterwards she should close her hands; for if she closes her hands before he has ceased holding the edge of the get, it is like a get in her hand and the string is in his hand, which is not a get. Nevertheless, the Tosafot and the Mordechai wrote that post facto it is kosher in such a case, for it is no worse than one who constricted his loins and tilted his body, as has been explained, see there. And there is room to doubt their words, whether they wrote this because they hold as a matter of law like the opinion that permits where she closed her hand and the string is in his hand, as has been explained—and according to this, according to the ruling of the Rosh and the Tur, even post facto it is invalid—or perhaps even according to the opinion that forbids, they permitted in this case.

And behold, it seemingly appears that this is only according to the opinion of those who validate, for according to reason there is no difference between them; but according to this it is difficult, for behold the Rosh and the Tur hold like those who disqualify, and how did the Tur write that when the husband holds one end and she is at the other end and he extends it to her it is a get, as he wrote in section 10? Behold, this is exactly this law, for when she grasped the other end, one end was still in his hand and this is not "severance," and when he released the one end from his hand and she received it, behold she performed the entire act of giving, so how is she divorced? And in truth, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, wondered about this, and it appears that because of this he omitted the ruling of the Tur in the Shulchan Aruch. And our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkei Moshe, distinguished between whether the snatching was with the husband's will or without his will, for if it was with his will it is a "giving." And according to this, it is possible that what the Tosafot and the Mordechai wrote—that after the fact it is valid—is also according to the opinion of those who prohibit. And based on this, he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, section 2, and this is his wording: And all this only deals with a case where she snatched it without the husband's will, but if the husband commands her to snatch, and even if he extended the get to her and she took it at the other side, it is a get. Thus far his words. However, his reasoning is puzzling, for since the reason is that in such a case it is not a "giving," if so, what does his will avail for this?

And in my humble opinion, it appears correct to distinguish between one and the other. For indeed, if we were to say that the giving into her hand specifically requires that her hand be open until he removes his hand from the get, and not that she should grasp its other end while he still grasps its other end—anything of this sort, the sages should have clarified. For most givings are thus: when this one gives to that one, this one grasps the edge of the object and that one grasps the second edge, and the giver removes his hand after the receiver has seized it with his hand and fingers. Rather, it is certain that this is called a good giving; for since as long as he grasps the edge of the get it is not called a giving at all and is still called as being in his hand, when he removes his hand, the giving then takes effect, and the removal of the hand is itself the giving, according to the way of the world. This is not the case when the get is tied to a string and the entire get is in her hand, yet it is not effective because of the string tied to it; certainly, it is not effective that he should release the string from his hand after the closing of her hand, for regarding the essence of the get, nothing new has occurred. According to this, the words of the Tur do not contradict one another. And according to this, the words of the Tosafot and the Mordechai are also well-settled even according to the opinion of those who forbid, for they are not similar to one another. And behold, the Tosafot did not mention the opinion of those who permit at all, and even though there are those who wish to press their words to say they brought both opinions, nevertheless, the observer will see with his eyes that it is not so (and so wrote the Korban Netanel, letter 29). And the Bach also wrote almost this type of reasoning to resolve the words of the Tur, see there (and the words of the Beit Shmuel were not clarified to me). Nevertheless, in practice, one should be stringent regarding the prohibition of a married woman, but in a case of iggun, perhaps one may be lenient. For even if we do not say so, behold we have the opinions of our teachers who are lenient regarding a get on a string with the closing of her hand, and we have the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, that with the husband's will it is indeed a giving, and from the Rambam there is no proof for this (see there, chapter 5, halacha 16).

If he gave her the get while she was sleeping, the get is not completed; for even though we do not require her consent, nevertheless she must know that she was divorced, and she is inferior to a deaf-mute, for a deaf-mute knows how to guard her get, but a sleeping woman has no awareness at all (Rosh, chapter 8, section 4). Therefore, it is not a get until she awakens from her sleep and he says to her, "Behold, this is your get." And he does not need to take it from her and return it to her, for the giving was from his hand, except that it is not effective at a time when she is not of sound mind; and now that she is of sound mind and knows that this is a get, he only needs to tell her that he is divorcing her. However, the get must be in her hand at the time she awakens and he speaks to her. And if the get is not in her hand at the time she awakens, it is not a get until he takes it from her and returns and gives it to her and says to her, "Behold, this is your get." And so it stands to reason, for what he gave her during her sleep is not a giving since it fell from her hand at the time she awakened (ibid.). But if she takes it herself at the time she awakens, it is not effective since it fell from her hand during her sleep (Tur). And when it did not fall from her hand during her sleep, he only needs to say to her, "Behold, this is your get." And without this, it is not effective; even if he said to the witnesses, "See the get that I am giving her," it is nothing; even if the witnesses told her afterward, it is not effective since she was sleeping. And so too, even if he spoke with her concerning the matters of her get before her sleep, it is nothing (Beit Yosef).

If he gave the get to her agent, even if she was asleep at the time of its receipt, it is a get, since the agent is awake and he is like her. For if not so, regarding every agent for receipt, we would need to know that she is awake at the time of his receipt, and we have not found this in any place (see the Ran there). However, if he gave her the get in her courtyard while she was asleep, some say that it is not a get, for a courtyard was included by extension because of "her hand," and she must be awake as when receiving in her hand. Furthermore, it requires a courtyard that is guarded with her knowledge. Furthermore, whenever she does not have a "hand," she does not have a courtyard (Rashba, beginning of chapter 8). Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 3. Nevertheless, there are those who disagree on this (there in the name of his teacher), for in truth a courtyard was also included by extension because of agency, as it is stated in the Gemara that it is no less than agency (Bava Metzia 12). And a courtyard guarded with her knowledge is certainly required, and it can be guarded with her knowledge even during her sleep if it is surrounded and locked and the key is with her. Also, it is not relevant in this case to say that she has no "hand," for she has a hand when she wakes up, and it is in our power to wake her from her sleep, and it is not similar to a shoteh (as appears to me regarding the reasoning of those who disagree, and see there). And one should be stringent like both opinions (however, in Bava Metzia there, it is explained in Rashi that regarding a get it is only because of "her hand," see there).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (78a): If he said to her, "Collect this promissory note," and she read it and it is her get, it is not a get until he says to her, "Behold, this is your get." And even if they spoke initially regarding the matters of the get, it is not effective (Ran), for without having spoken, even without the statement of "promissory note," it is nothing (ibid.). And they explained in the Shas (55a) that if he said beforehand to the witnesses, "See the get that I am giving to her," and he gave it to her in their presence and said to her, "Collect this promissory note," she is divorced. And the Rishonim, of blessed memory, explained the reason for the matter: it is not because we require her intent, but rather because since he said to her, "Collect this promissory note," we are concerned that perhaps in truth his intention was not for the sake of a get and he does not intend to divorce her with this giving. However, when he said to the witnesses beforehand, "See the get that I am giving to her," the matter was clarified that he gave it to her for the sake of a get so that she would be divorced immediately with this giving, and that which he said to her, "Collect this promissory note," was because of embarrassment, so that she should not be ashamed; and as soon as it becomes known to her that this is her get, she is divorced, even if they were not previously occupied with the matter of the get.

And from the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 1, law 9, we learned another reason for this. This is his wording there: And from where do we know that he only gives it to her as a matter of divorce? As it is said, "a scroll of severance and he shall place it in her hand," that he should give it as a scroll of severance. But if he gave it to her as a promissory note or a mezuzah, etc., it is not a get. And if he said to her afterward, "behold, this is your get," behold, this is a get. If he said to the witnesses, "see the get that I am giving to her," and then returned and said to her, "collect this promissory note," behold, this is valid, for he already informed the witnesses that he is giving it as a matter of divorce, and that which he said "promissory note" was because he was ashamed before her. Thus far his words. And so it is found in the Sifrei (Devarim, Piska 269): "And he shall place it in her hand and send her from his house," until he says to her, "this is your get." From here they said: One who throws a get to his wife and said to her, "collect this document," etc., she reads it and behold it is her get, it is not a get until he says to her, "behold, this is your get." See there.

And there is a practical difference between the previous reason and the reason of the Rambam, for according to the previous reason it is a case of uncertain divorce, as we do not know if his intention was for the sake of divorce or not. But according to the reason of the Rambam, even if his intention was such, it is not effective until he says explicitly to her or to the witnesses that he is giving it as a divorce, and it is a decree of the verse. In practice, it is obvious that one must be stringent like the first opinion. And perhaps the derivation of the Sifrei is merely an asmakhta, for there are many derivations in the Sifrei that are only an asmakhta (see Tosafot Shabbat 91a). However, all the laws there in that same passage in the Sifrei are all from the Torah; see there.

Some say that the effectiveness of saying to the witnesses, "See the get that I am giving to her," only applies when he did not say it to them in her presence. However, if he said it to them in her presence and afterwards gave it to her and said, "Collect this promissory note," she is certainly not divorced. For we see that he is not ashamed before her to tell her that he is giving her this get, and since he afterwards said to her that it is a promissory note, perhaps he nullified his previous words and did not give it to her for the sake of a get with which she should be divorced now. Furthermore, it is not effective even if he subsequently says to her, "Behold, this is your get," for we fear that perhaps he nullified the get and is not returning to divorce her with it, as is written in siman 141. And it is not similar to what was written regarding one who says to her, "Collect this promissory note," and did not previously say to the witnesses, where it is effective when he says, "Behold, this is your get," for there we attribute it to the fact that he said so because of shame and we do not fear the nullification of the get. But here, behold, he has no shame, and perhaps he nullified it entirely (Beit Shmuel, subsection 8). Therefore, the law of this get is that she requires a second get, and if she received kiddushin from another, she requires a get from this one and from that one, and she is disqualified from the priesthood if he died and did not give her another get (Tur in the name of the Ramah).

When he said to her, "Take this promissory note," which is not effective until he says to her, "Behold, this is your get," as has been explained, he does not need to take the get from her hand and return and give it to her, for this was a proper giving, except that he did not clarify that he was divorcing her. Nevertheless, it is certain that the get must be in her hand or in her domain when he returns and says to her, "Behold, this is your get," for this is the essence of the get's taking effect. And some say that specifically when he said to her beforehand, "Take this promissory note," he does not need to take it from her and deliver it to her, for he gave it to her only as a deposit; but if he said to her, "Acquire this promissory note," and she acquired it through the previous giving to use as a cover for the opening of her flask, it is not effective for him to say to her afterward, "Behold, this is your get," unless he took it from her hand and returned and gave it to her (ibid.) and said to her, "Behold, this is your get." And even though she had acquired it, she certainly consented to give it back to him.