They write the name of the man and the woman on the get (that is, the divorce document). If one of them has two names, then they write the name by which they are usually called and is most well known, and they write: man so-and-so, and all names that he has, divorced woman so-and-so and all names that she has. And, if [the scribe] wrote his or her surname, then [the get] is valid. Rem"a: And all the more so if he only wrote the main name, it is valid, and therefore one need not be precise for all the nicknames. And there are those that say not to write all the names that a person is called. Rather, if he has two names, then a person should write: so-and-so that is called such-and-such (Rabbeinu Tam, and the Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramba"n and the Rashb"a), and such is the practice and one should not change this. And even if [such] a get was written [i.e., without indicating the names], one should not divorce with it, even though it says: "every name [that this person has]" until [the scribe] writes both names (Kuntres). If [the scribe] only wrote one name, even if it is a secondary name, and [the husband] divorced with it, it is valid (Tur).
If [the scribe] wrote the name that is not most well known, and he wrote: "[and] any other name that he has," [the get] is invalid. However, if both names are written explicitly in the get, there is no difference if one is written before the other.
If [the scribe] changed his or her name, or the name of his or her city, even if he wrote: "[and] any name that he has," or, "[and] any name that she has," it is not a valid get.
If [the husband] is in one place, and [the husband] sends the get to [be delivered in] another place, and in each of these places he has a different name, [the scribe] writes [in the get] the name [that the husband has] where the get is being delivered, and [the scribe] writes the name [that the husband has] in the location that [the get] is being written [also in the get, but with the prefix]: "who is [also] called..."; And if [the scribe] writes [in the get] the name [that the husband has] where the get is being delivered and then includes the name [that the husband has] in the location that [the get] is being written, with [the following expression beforehand:] "And any [other] name [that he has]," [the get] is valid. Rem"a: However, if [the scribe] makes the name [that the husband has] in the location that [the get] is being written, the main [name], and [the scribe] writes the name [that the husband has] in the location that [the get] is being delivered [also in the get, but with the prefix]: "who is [also] called..."; or [with the expression:] "and any [other name that he has]," [the get] is invalid. (The Beit Yosef wrote that this is implied from the language of the Tur)
An apostate should not divorce with his secular (lit. idol-worshipping name) but rather with his Jewish name. If he wrote the secular name as the primary name, and then prefaced the Jewish name by the term "who is also called," the get is kosher. Rama: It is preferable to write the Jewish name "and any name and surname which he has" (Semag, Semak, Kol Bo, and Terumat haDeshen chapter 235). If he wrote the secular name and added "and any name and surname which he has, " the get is invalid (Rivash, chapter 43, and Tur). If he had a nickname while still Jewish, we write the Jewish name and add "who is nicknamed so-and-so, and any name and surname he has" (Seder Gittin).
A stranger ( non Jew) who writes/uses his foreign name is kosher, even if he becomes a permanent resident.
אִם כָּתַב: פְּלוֹנִי הֶחָכָם, אוֹ הָרַב, אוֹ הַנָּשִׂיא, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ כֵּן וְגַם אֵינוֹ בַּר הָכִי, הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר שְׁמוֹ בְּפֵרוּשׁ If he wrote: Ploni(anonymous) the sage, or the Rabbi, or the President, despite the fact that we don't call him that or he does not qualify for that title, the Get is kosher, since his name was stated explicitly. Gloss: But a priori, we don't write Rabbi or Sage, even if he, or his father is a Rabbi or Sage and are qualified as such. Rather, we wrote: So and so or the son of so and so(and then the order of the get). And, we don't write the holy son. Rather, we write if he is a Levite or Kohen-So and so, the son of so and so, the Kohen or Levite. And if he has a nickname, we write that down afterward. But, if he has two names, we write on one "as he is called," and we write afterward: Kohen or Levite. And if one did not write Kohen or Levite, there are those that say it is rendered invalid. Since they were accustomed to writing it, there are those though who permit. And it seems to them to rule leniently in an exceptional situation, but a priori, one should write it. And if there is a doubt if he is a Kohen or Levi, two gittin need to be written. We don't write on the get: So and so, son of(bar) so. Rather, we write: So and so, son of(ben) so and so.
Now, they practice in all of their gets, they write: "and any name that I have or my father (has) or my town (has). But in our states, we don't practice like his. Rather, if he has two names, we write the names explicitly, as was explained.
If the name of the father of the man or woman was not named, it is Kosher. Gloss: And all the moreso, if his name was mentioned but not his nickname. But a priori, we write also the nicknames of his father. And if the father and the son each have one nickname, ideally, we write each one. However, if they didn't write these until the end: So and so, the son of so who is also known as so and so, it is Kosher. But if only the son has a nickname, it should be written before the name of the father and if it was written afterward, it is invalid. Therefore, a convert, an illegitimate child(of unknown fatherhood), or a child taken from the street(with no known parents), we only write their names.
[The name] "Joseph, son of Simon," which was changed and written as, "Joseph, son of Samuel" is invalid. And there is one who says that if she already remarried [after having been divorced with the invalid document], she does not leave her current marriage. Rem"a: This applies only if he was also known by the second name, but otherwise, she leaves. When writing a document for the son of an apostate, we write it for him using his father's name, even though he is called up to read from the Torah and signs documents himself using his grandfather's name. He should not sign the document, "son of an apostate."
If one did not write the name of the man and woman in the document, it is invalid, and the sons [of the wife to a future husband] are born of a prohibited union.
One who is known by one name in the Galilee and one name in Judea, and he and is wife are in an area where he is only know by one of those names, whether it is one of the two aforementioned names or another name, he should preferably write all of his names, or write the name by which he is known there and write, "and all others" to include the names from the other places. If he wrote nothing but the name by which he is known in the place where he and is wife are, it is valid.
If he wrote a name by which he is known elsewhere and wrote, "and all others," for the place of writing and delivering, it is nullified.
One who has two names writes, "Reuven who is called Shimon." If he wrote, "Reuven Shimon," some say it is invalid. Rem"a: But if he is called by two names at once or he is called up to the Torah like this, it is valid. If he is called one thing by Jews and called something else by Kuthites [non Jews who lived in Israel. Samaritans.], he writes, "'Jewish name' who is called 'Kuthite name'" (Magid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban Ch. 3). But if their [the two names] topics are pretty much one thing, he only writes, 'Jew name' as was explained (128:3)
One who has two names, and the second is derived from the first as a nickname, e.g. Yitzchak [has the nickname] "Chakin", Aharon [has the nickname] "Arnin," etc., he need not write the nickname at all, unless there is someone else named Yitzchak or Aharon. Rem"a: This also applies to Yaakov [with the nickname] "Yekl" (Piskei Mahara"i #105) and Perets [with the nickname] "Pertsin" (Beit Yosef). It seems it also applies to Avraham [with the nickname] "Avralan," and those like it. However, if he wants to write it, it does no harm. However, any shortening of a name which is itself a name on its own, such as Elchanan [being shortened to] "Chanan," is written, as are others like it.
If the second name is derived from a Hebrew name, such as "Yehudah Leon," we write, "Yehudah, who is called Leon," and if it does not resemble the Hebrew name at all, he should write, "who is nicknamed." Rem"a: The explanation of his words is that "Leon" means lion, and Yehudah is called "the lion cub Yehudah" (Genesis 49:9). According to this, one should write, "Yehudah, who is called Leib." However, there are those who say that whenever both names are in Hebrew, we write, "who is called," and if one is in a foreign language, we write, "who is nicknamed" (Hagahot Maimoni 3, Sefer Mitsvot Katan, and Kol Bo). There is no difference whether it [the foreign name] is derived from the [Hebrew] name or not, and therefore we write, "Yehudah, who is nicknamed Leib" and all the like, and such is the practice in these countries. Any family name is not written at all, whether it is Hebrew or a foreign language (Seder Gittin), and such is the practice. One who has a Hebrew name by which he is called to read from the Torah, and who also has a name in a foreign language, we treat the Hebrew name as the main one, and regarding the second one we write, "who is called." The same applies to a woman--we treat the Hebrew name as the main one. There are those who say that one who has two names, if he is typically called by both and nonetheless one of them takes more priority, we write, "So-and-so, who calls himself so-and.-so." If he is not typically called by the second, we write, "who is called" (Seder Gittin). Any nickname which is a disgrace to the divorcer, we do not write it in the bill of divorce (D"A). Therefore, for an apostate who returned, we do not write, "and any other name by which he is known" (M"K). Any nickname by which he is not known alone, but rather he is called by [that nickname] together with the main name, there is no need to write that nickname (T"H #235). However, if the Cutheans call him by that nickname alone, even though Jews do not call him that, there are those who say that we do write, "and any other name," even though we do not write that in any other document, and so too regarding family names (ibid.). It seems to me that one should not write that nickname at all, as is the practice regarding family names.
If the second name is in the vernacular, and it is all one [name; e.g. given name and surname], for example Chaim Biban"t, we write, "Chaim who is called Biban"t." All nicknames are written as "who is nicknamed [so-and-so]" whether it is in Hebrew or in the vernacular. Rama: It has already been explained that it is not customary to do this.
Someone whose name was changed due to illness, even though people always address him with his original name, despite this the changed name is the primary name... Rama: even if it [the changed name] is in the vernacular and the original name is in Hebrew (in Seder Gittin) Mechaber: ...and we write it [the changed name] first, and afterward, "who is called so-and-so," using the original name. This is true only where they sometimes address him by the second (new) name, but if they never call him by the second name, he writes only the first (original) name. There is an authority who requires two writs of divorce with two names (i.e. one divorce for each name). If he has a definitive name with which he is called to the Torah, and with which he signs his letters and contracts, that name is primary. Rama: If he is called to the Torah with both (either of the) names, we write the second (new) name as primary, and identify the original name by "who is called," but a witness who has two names and is signing a document should use both names without [writing] "who is called." Someone whose name was changed due to illness, and he has a new nickname because of the new name, they write [both] the new name and its nickname before the original name. If he also has a nickname attached to the original name, they write it at the end (Seder Gittin). If his name was changed twice, they write the third name first, then the second, and then the first, and each name is written with its associated nickname (Ibid.).
There is an authority who says that when giving two writs of divorce to a woman (e.g. due to doubts about the correct name), he should not give them both simultaneously, but rather one after the other. Rama: We should avoid giving two gets except when there is great need. He should give the get which the Rabbi feels is more kosher first, along with all of his questions and his reading of the order of the get, and afterward he should give the second one, also with the order of the get, and he should state to those present at the time of the delivery the reason as to why he is giving two gets (in the Seder [Gittin] of Ri Minz), and the Rabbi should say to the husband that he should have in mind to divorce her with each get. But if he gave them both together in one ceremony, it is valid. Mechaber: There is no custom to write "the Priest" or "the Levite" or any nickname, but rather "so-and-so the son of so-and-so and any other name and 'chanicha' (nickname or surname) which I or my father have" [without writing the actual nicknames or surname]. Rama: It has already explained that in these locales, the custom is otherwise.
In the divorce of a convert he writes "so-and-so the son of our father Abraham."
Someone whose name is Gershom and they wrote in the divorce Gershon, or vice versa, it is not valid.
If it is unknown whether his name is Eliyah or Eliyahu, he should write Eliyahu, but if he wrote Eliyah it is not invalid. Rama: If he signs his name or is called to the Torah by the name Eliyah, they write Eliyah, and similarly with other such names (from tradition, dating to R"A from Prague -- possibly R. Eliezer ben Isaac from Prague, late 12th and early 13th centuries).
The name Shmarya should not be written Shmaryahu with a vav at the end.
The name Mattitya should not be written Mattityahu with a vav.
The name Yonatan should not be written Yehonatan, unless it is known that he signs his name that way or is called that way to read from the Torah.
The name David is written without a yud (after the vav). Rama: Gedalyahu [is written Gedalyahu] unless he says that his name is definitely Gedalya ("found written").
The name Chizkiyah should be written without a yud in the beginning of the word (between the chet and the zayin) and without a vav at the end (i.e. not Chizkiyahu). unless it is known that his name is Chizkiyahu. Despite this, even [if his name is actually Chizkiyahu and] he wrote Chizkiyah, it is kosher, but not vice versa.
The name Hillel, there is one who says that it should be written "malei" (full) with a yud. Rama: Other like words should be written similarly [malei]; even though [grammatically] it should be written "chaaser" [lacking, without a yud], it does no harm if he writes it malei.
The name Shabtai, should be written without an aleph.
The name Binyamin should be written without the last yud [between the mem and the nun sofi].
The name Yerachmiel, even though it is not found in Scripture, nevertheless if he persistently called himself Yerachmiel and specifically enunciated the chirik (under the mem), it is written that way [with the yud after the mem]. Rama: Something which is found in Scripture sometimes written malei, and sometimes written chaaser, we follow the majority [of locations in Scripture] (Seder Gittin). Any nickname in the vernacular, for example in the language of Ashkenaz, and he can transliterate [for the letter "T"] either tav or tet, we write tet, for the tav can be enunicated loosely (i.e. "sav") and all similar [transliterations] (Terumat haDeshen chapter 231). Any word in which it is doubtful whether to write [the letter] chet or kaf, we write kaf (ibid.), for example Michel Ichel, for in nicknames the letter chet is enunciated the same as kaf. However, for a woman called Rechlein, we write only Rachel, for that is the primary name (Rechlein is a diminutive form; Mahariv chapter 200), and similar cases are handled in like manner. If he dealt [with these spelling issues] otherwise, it is still valid ex post facto.
We do not divide the name of the man or the name of woman on to two lines, but it is possible to divide some names that bear such division similar to Chedor Laomer (although Scripture Genesis 14:1 has this as a single word, Talmud divides it). Rama: and similarly Imanu El. But if he wrote it as a single undivided word, he did not lose (Seder Gittin).
The name Yedidiah, if divided into two words is kosher. Rama: As long as it is on one line. Mechaber: Pedatzur and Aminadav - one word.
The custom with women's names, there is one authority who says that Beilah should be written with an aleph (feminine grammatical forms frequently end in ...ah"), and likewise any name that is not in the holy tongue (Hebrew). But if it is in Hebrew, it is written with a heh (at the end). For instance, Chomah the daughter of Abaye (in the Talmud) or Chovah, for the name is in Hebrew. But if it is not in Hebrew, it is written with an aleph at the end. The same is true for men's nicknames, any nickname which is in Hebrew is written with heh, and those that are not in Hebrew are written with an aleph. Rama: nevertheless if he changed and wrote heh instead of aleph, it is valid. Any nickname which changes pronunciation depending on the locale, for example Leib, for there are some countries where it is pronounced lightly, as Leib, and in some countries they say Leiba or Leiva, and similarly with the nickname Volf (Wolf), which is pronounced that way in these (Rama's) countries, and in other places it is pronounced Volfa or Volvlein; or the nickname Mendel, that some say Mendeel, and similar names; and likewise with the reading of words, for example in some countries they read Gumfrecht as Gimfracht, or [some locales] interchange the letters vet or feh or vav, for example Zanvil (with a vet) or Zanvvil (with two vavs); Feibish or Veibish, that some countries speak in a looser tongue; [in all these cases] we follow the pronunciation of people in the country wherein the get is being delivered. But it is not necessary to be precise in these matters how the names and nicknames are written, for everyone wrote according to the pronunciation of their country. Therefore the order of divorces varies from country to country in this matter, and the main point as I wrote above is how it appears to me proper to rule. If the pronunciation of the countries is not known, one should not change from the words of the predecessors. Despite this, if he changed the spelling of one of these items, it is still valid ex post facto, so it appears to me.