Mishnah Gittin 9:3

הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאָמַר לָהּ, הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לִפְלוֹנִי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַתִּיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִטְּלֶנּוּ הֵימֶנָּה וְיַחֲזֹר וְיִתְּנֶנּוּ לָהּ וְיֹאמַר לָהּ הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם. וְאִם כְּתָבוֹ בְתוֹכוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּמְחָקוֹ, פָּסוּל: With regard to one who divorces his wife and said to her while handing her the bill of divorce: You are hereby permitted to marry any man except [ella] for so-and-so, Rabbi Eliezer permits her to remarry based on this divorce. And the Rabbis prohibit her from remarrying, as their bond is not entirely severed by this divorce, and she is therefore still considered his wife. What should he do so the divorce may take effect? He should take it from her and hand it to her again, and he should say to her: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. If he wrote his qualification inside the bill of divorce, even if he then erased it, the bill is invalid since it was not written in a valid manner.

הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם אֶלָּא לְאַבָּא וּלְאָבִיךְ, לְאָחִי וּלְאָחִיךְ, לְעֶבֶד וּלְנָכְרִי, וּלְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו קִדּוּשִׁין, כָּשֵׁר. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם, אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין, וּלְכָל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ עָלָיו קִדּוּשִׁין אֲפִלּוּ בַעֲבֵרָה, פָּסוּל: If a man says to his wife while handing her a bill of divorce: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, except to marry my father or to marry your father, to marry my brother or to marry your brother, to marry a slave or to marry a gentile, or to marry anyone to whom she cannot legally become betrothed, the divorce is valid. Since these men cannot betroth her anyway, his qualification is meaningless. If he says to her: You are hereby permitted to marry any man, except for when doing so violates the following: The prohibition against a widow being married to a High Priest; the prohibition against a divorcée or a yevama who performed ḥalitza [ḥalutza] being married to a common priest; a mamzeret or a Gibeonite woman being married to an Israelite man; an Israelite woman being married to a mamzer or to a Gibeonite man; or marrying anyone to whom she can legally become betrothed, even if this betrothal would be a transgression, such as in the aforementioned cases; in all of these cases the divorce is invalid. His statement renders it a partial divorce, as the woman is still not permitted to marry any man who is eligible to betroth her.

שְׁלֹשָׁה גִטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת, הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן, יֶשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִטִּין פְּסוּלִין. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת, הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים, כָּשֵׁר וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: Three bills of divorce are invalid ab initio, but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child. These three bills are: A bill of divorce that the husband wrote in his handwriting but has no signatures of witnesses on the document at all, a case where there are signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, and a case where there is a date written on it, but it contains only one witness. These are the three invalid bills of divorce with regard to which the Sages said: And if she marries, the lineage of the offspring is unflawed. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even though there are no signatures of witnesses on the document, but he handed it to her in the presence of two witnesses, it is a valid bill of divorce. And on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can collect the amount written for her in her marriage contract even from liened property, as Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce only for the betterment of the world. If no witnesses sign a bill of divorce the husband can contest its validity at any time by denying that he wrote it. Nevertheless, the witnesses’ signatures are not an essential part of a bill of divorce.

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שָׁוִין וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, נוֹתֵן שְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לָזוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ, אָבַד אַחַד מֵהֶן, הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָטֵל. חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ כְלָל בְּתוֹךְ הַגֵּט, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִי פְּלוֹנִית, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרִין, וְיִנָּתֵן לְכָל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הָיָה כָתוּב טֹפֶס לְכָל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר: With regard to a case of two men who sent their wives two identical bills of divorce with an agent, as both their names and their wives’ names are identical, and the two bills of divorce were mixed up, the agent should hand both bills of divorce to this wife and both of them to that wife, so that each wife definitely receives her bill of divorce, although it is unclear which one is hers. Therefore, if one of the bills of divorce was lost before it was given to both women, the other is void, because it is unknown which bill of divorce was meant for which woman. With regard to five husbands who wrote a general wording in the bill of divorce, i.e., who wrote one common bill of divorce for their wives with a single formula, writing that so-and-so divorces his wife so-and-so, and so-and-so divorces so-and-so, and the witnesses signed below, in this case all of these bills of divorce that were combined into one bill are valid; and the bill must be handed to each and every wife individually, so they will all be divorced by it. If the scribe was writing a separate formula in the bill of divorce for each and every couple, and the witnesses signed below, the formula with which the witnesses’ signatures are read is valid. In other words, the formula directly underneath which they signed is valid, and the others are not valid.

שְׁנֵי גִטִּין שֶׁכְּתָבָן זֶה בְצַד זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים עִבְרִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יְוָנִים בָּאִים מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נִקְרָאִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי בָּאִין מִתַּחַת זֶה לְתַחַת זֶה, שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין: With regard to two bills of divorce that a scribe wrote on the same paper one next to the other, and the signatures of two Hebrew witnesses, i.e., witnesses who signed in Hebrew from right to left, extend from underneath this bill of divorce on the right to underneath that bill of divorce on the left, and the signatures of two Greek witnesses, i.e., who signed in Greek from left to right, extend from underneath that bill of divorce on the left to underneath this bill of divorce on the right, the bill of divorce with which the names of the first two witnesses are read [nikra’in] is valid. The other bill of divorce is invalid, as it is not considered signed by these witnesses. If one witness signed in Hebrew from right to left, and one witness signed beneath him in Greek from left to right, and underneath that signature one witness signed in Hebrew, and beneath him one witness signed in Greek, with the signatures extending from underneath this bill of divorce to underneath that bill of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid.

שִׁיֵּר מִקְצַת הַגֵּט וּכְתָבוֹ בַדַּף הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהָעֵדִים מִלְּמַטָּה, כָּשֵׁר. חָתְמוּ עֵדִים בְּרֹאשׁ הַדַּף, מִן הַצַּד, אוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו בְּגֵט פָּשׁוּט, פָּסוּל. הִקִּיף רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין עִמּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר. רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְצַד סוֹפוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְהָעֵדִים בָּאֶמְצַע, אֶת שֶׁהָעֵדִים נִקְרִין בְּסוֹפוֹ, כָּשֵׁר: If a scribe left out part of the bill of divorce and wrote it in the second column, i.e., the bill of divorce is written in two columns on one paper, and the signatures of the witnesses are beneath the second column, it is a valid bill of divorce. If the witnesses signed at the top of the column, on the side, or on the back of an ordinary, non-folded bill of divorce, it is invalid. If the scribe placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the top of that bill of divorce so that both are written in the same column but with the text in opposite directions, and the witnesses signed in the middle, between the bills of divorce, both bills of divorce are invalid. If he placed the end of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle between them, the bill of divorce with which the witnesses’ signatures are read, i.e., the bill that is written in the same direction as the signatures, is valid. If he placed the top of this bill of divorce next to the end of that bill of divorce, and the witnesses signed in the middle, the bill of divorce at the end of which the witnesses are read, i.e., the upper bill of divorce, is valid.

גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָנִית, יְוָנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְלֹא כָתַב עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. וְכָךְ הָיוּ נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין. כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. גֵּט מְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר. וּבְגוֹיִם, פָּסוּל. וּבְגוֹיִם, חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְךָ, וְכָשֵׁר: With regard to a bill of divorce that was written in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or that was written in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, or in which one witness signed in Hebrew and one witness signed in Greek, or if a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. As for the wording of the signature, if a witness signed: So-and-so, witness, without mentioning his father’s name, it is valid. Similarly, if he did not write his name and instead wrote: Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. If he wrote: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, but did not write the word witness, it is valid. And this is what the scrupulous people of Jerusalem would do, i.e., they would sign without the word witness. As for the names of the husband and wife, if the scribe wrote his surname [ḥanikhato] or nickname and her surname or nickname, it is valid. With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is invalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a valid divorce.

יָצָא שְׁמָהּ בָּעִיר מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. מְגֹרֶשֶׁת, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא שָׁם אֲמַתְלָא. אֵיזוֹ הִיא אֲמַתְלָא. גֵּרַשׁ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל תְּנַאי, זָרַק לָהּ קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ, סָפֵק קָרוֹב לָהּ סָפֵק קָרוֹב לוֹ, זוֹ הִיא אֲמַתְלָא: If a rumor circulated in the city that an unmarried woman is betrothed, she is considered to be betrothed. Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is divorced, she is divorced, provided there is no valid alternative explanation [amatla] for the rumor. What is considered a valid explanation? For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that so-and-so divorced his wife but that the bill of divorce was given to her conditionally. It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man threw her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, to her, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to her and uncertain whether it was closer to him, and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, this is considered a valid explanation.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו: Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her. Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” (Deuteronomy 24:1).