הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאָמַר, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נֶחְתָּם, בְּפָנַי נֶחְתָּם אֲבָל לֹא בְּפָנַי נִכְתָּב, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב כֻּלּוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם חֶצְיוֹ, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב חֶצְיוֹ וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם כֻּלּוֹ, פָּסוּל. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתָּם, פָּסוּל. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נֶחְתָּם, פָּסוּל. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּפָנַי נִכְתָּב, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתָּם, כָּשֵׁר: With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from a country overseas and says: The bill of divorce was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence; or if he said: It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence; or: All of it was written in my presence and half of it was signed in my presence, i.e., he observed the signing of only one witness; or: Half of it was written in my presence and all of it was signed in my presence, in all these cases the document is invalid. If one agent bringing a bill of divorce says: It was written in my presence, and one other agent says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid. If two agents say: It was written in our presence, and one says: It was signed in my presence, it is invalid. And Rabbi Yehuda deems the document valid. If one agent says: It was written in my presence, and two agents say: It was signed in our presence, it is valid.
נִכְתַּב בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם, בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה, בַּלַּיְלָה וְנֶחְתַּם בַּיּוֹם, כָּשֵׁר. בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה, פָּסוּל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַגִּטִּין שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ בַיּוֹם וְנֶחְתְּמוּ בַלַּיְלָה, פְּסוּלִין, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים: If a bill of divorce was written during the day and signed on the same day; or if it was written at night and signed on that same night; or if it was written at night and signed on the following day, then it is valid. The new calendar day begins at night, so that in all of these cases the writing and the signing were performed on the same date. However, if it was written during the day and signed on that same night, it is invalid, as the writing and the signing were not on the same calendar day. Rabbi Shimon deems the bill of divorce valid. The mishna explains the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: As Rabbi Shimon would say: All documents that were written during the day and signed at night are invalid because the date recorded in the document is a day prior to the day the document takes effect, except for women’s bills of divorce. Since a bill of divorce is not used to collect money, it is of no concern if the date that appears on it is before the time when it was signed.
בַּכֹּל כּוֹתְבִין, בִּדְיוֹ, בְּסַם, בְּסִקְרָא, וּבְקוֹמוֹס, וּבְקַנְקַנְתּוֹם, וּבְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁל קְיָמָא. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא בְמַשְׁקִים, וְלֹא בְמֵי פֵרוֹת, וְלֹא בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם. עַל הַכֹּל כּוֹתְבִין, עַל הֶעָלֶה שֶׁל זַיִת, וְעַל הַקֶּרֶן שֶׁל פָּרָה, וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ אֶת הַפָּרָה, עַל יָד שֶׁל עֶבֶד, וְנוֹתֵן לָהּ אֶת הָעָבֶד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וְלֹא עַל הָאֳכָלִין: One may write a bill of divorce with any material that can be used for writing: With deyo, with paint [sam], with sikra, with komos, with kankantom or with anything that produces permanent writing. However, one may not write with other liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything that does not produce permanent writing. Similarly, with regard to the document itself, one may write on anything, even on an olive leaf, or on the horn of a cow. And the latter is valid if he gives her the entire cow. Likewise, one may write a bill of divorce on the hand of a slave, and that is valid if he gives her the slave. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and says: One may not write a bill of divorce on any living thing, nor may it be written on food.
אֵין כּוֹתְבִין בִּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. כְּתָבוֹ בִמְחֻבָּר, תְּלָשׁוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתִיבָתוֹ וַחֲתִימָתוֹ בְּתָלוּשׁ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לֹא עַל הַנְּיָר הַמָּחוּק וְלֹא עַל הַדִּפְתְּרָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לְהִזְדַּיֵּף. וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין: One may not write a bill of divorce on anything that is attached to the ground. If one wrote it on something that was attached to the ground, and afterward he detached it, signed it, and gave it to her, then it is valid. Rabbi Yehuda deems a bill of divorce invalid unless its writing and its signing were performed when it was already detached. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: One may not write a bill of divorce on erased paper or on unfinished leather [diftera], because writing on these surfaces can be forged. And the Rabbis deem valid a bill of divorce that was written on either of these items.
הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִכְתֹּב אֶת הַגֵּט, אֲפִלּוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. הָאִשָּׁה כוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וְהָאִישׁ כּוֹתֵב אֶת שׁוֹבְרוֹ, שֶׁאֵין קִיּוּם הַגֵּט אֶלָּא בְחוֹתְמָיו. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן וְסוּמָא וְנָכְרִי: Anyone is qualified to write a bill of divorce, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. Additionally, a woman may write her own bill of divorce and give it to her husband so that he can present it to her. And a man may write his own receipt, which must be given to him by the woman to confirm that he has paid her the value of her marriage contract. This is because the ratification of a bill of divorce is only through its signatories, and it is irrelevant who wrote it. Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or a blind person, or a gentile.
קִבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל, חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ, סוּמָא וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה, נָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, פָּסוּל. אֲבָל פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ, פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ, שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה, כָּשֵׁר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְדַעַת, כָּשֵׁר: If a minor received the bill of divorce and then reached the age of majority, or one received it when he was a deaf-mute and then became able to hear, or one received it when he was blind and then became able to see, or one received it when he was an imbecile and then became halakhically competent, or one received it when he was a gentile and then converted, in all of these cases he is unfit to bring the bill of divorce. However, if one received it when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and then again became able to hear; or if one received it when he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see; or one received it when he was halakhically competent, and then became an imbecile, and then again became halakhically competent, in all of these cases he is fit to bring the bill of divorce. This is the principle: Anyone who is halakhically competent in the beginning and in the end is fit, even if there was time in the interim when he was unfit.
אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּטָּהּ, חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר, בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתָּם: There are instances in which a woman’s testimony that another woman’s husband has died is not deemed credible (Yevamot 117a). If there is a presumption that due to their familial relationship the two women hate each other, there is concern that the woman is testifying falsely in order to harm the other woman. By doing so, she can cause the other woman to remarry. If her original husband then proves to be living, she will be required to leave her second husband. This mishna teaches: Even the women who are not deemed credible to testify on behalf of a woman and say: Her husband died, and she is permitted to remarry, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce. The relatives of the woman who are not deemed credible to testify that her husband has died are: Her mother-in-law; and her mother-in-law’s daughter; and her rival wife, i.e., another wife of her husband’s; and her yevama, i.e., her husband’s brother’s wife; and her husband’s daughter. The mishna explains: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death, that certain women are deemed credible to testify about one but not the other? With regard to a bill of divorce, it is so that the writing proves that the husband is divorcing his wife, and the testimony is needed only to supplement the bill of divorce. Similarly, the woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as the Gemara will explain.