The woman is able to make [appoint] an agent to accept her Get from the hand of her husband's agent. What case are we talking about here[?], that she made another agent to accept it from him. But if she said to the agent of her husband, "This Get shall be entrusted to you", or she said to him, "Behold you are an agent who will accept it for me", and there are those who say even if she only said, "You will accept it." (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban and the Rashba), behold this is a doubtful divorce, until the Get will arrive to her hand, and when it arrives to her hand she will surely be divorced. Gloss: The wife said to her agent to accept the Get from the hand of her husband, he does not accept it from the hand of his [the husband's] agent. But if she said: "Accept the Get from my husband, it is possible to accept it from the hand of his agent (Responsa of the Rashba 1,250) And there are those who say that the wife is not able to make an agent to accept [the Get] from the hand of her husband's agent.
A betrothed (through erusin) maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12.5 years), even though she is divorced by receipt of the get into her own hand just as [she is divorced] by her father's receipt [of the get], her father may appoint an agent for receipt, but she may not appoint an agent unless she has no father, or she has been fully married (through nisuin).
A minor, even is she has no father or she has been fully married (through nisuin) cannot appoint an agent for receiving a get, but her father may appoint an agen if she was [only] betrothed (through erusin; but not if she was fully married through nisuin).
If one betrothed (by kiddushin) a minor by the hand of her father, and divorced her while she was still a minor... Rama: while still only betrothed and her father yet alive (Tur), Mechaber: ...her father receives her get, and she may not receive the get without his knowledge [and consent]. But some authorities say that she may indeed receive her get.
If she (a minor) was fully married (by nisuin), her father may not receive her get.
If her father betrothed her while she was a minor, and then he died, or she completed marriage with nisuin; if she recognizes the difference between her get and something else, i.e. when given a stone she throws it away, but when proferred a nut she will take it, and some say when she reaches the age of young girls... Rama: which is about 6 or 7 years old, depending on her mental acuity (Tur), Mechaber: ... she may be divorced by her own acceptance of the get. If she cannot differentiate between a get and other items, yet received a get to her own hand, she is not divorced. But she may be divorced by her father's acceptance of a get, even if she cannot distinguish between a get and other items. There is an authority who argues and says that any girl who cannot distinguish between a get and other items may not be divorced even by the hand of ther father. Rama: See infra in Seder haGet se'if 96 how to write a get for a minor who is being divorced via her father's acceptance of the get.
Everywhere that a Katana is able to accept a get, she has the laws of a courtyard or [the laws of one] being able to acquire whatever is in her four amos of personal space, just as there is [the ability to acquire] to a Gedolah.
when she [the woman accepting the kesubah] has an agent [to accept it for her], she needs to establish him in front of two witnesses. Its necessary that [he the messenger] accepts the get on her behalf in front of two witnesses, even if they are testifying [only] on the agent's work their testimony is accepted on the acceptance of the Get, or [even] if one witness testifies on the agent's work and one witness testifies on [her] acceptance [of the get]. One joins with everyone that testifies about both the agent's work and her acceptance of the Get. REMA: at the preferred Halachic standard [its best] not for the husband to give the get through an agent, until he will be certain in the first place that the agent accepts with witnesses.
whats unique to the requirements of two witnesses [who sign off] on a invoice? its only in a case where there is no proper messenger [between the two parties involved]; But if the messenger is proper, [the invoice] is can be supported with one witness. there are those that seem to disagree on this opinion. THIS IS THE RULING FOR SENDING MESSENGERS
In what circumstances do we say that we need the witnesses of the receiving? When the divorce bill was lost or torn. But if the divorce bill comes from the hand of the proxy of receiving, there is no need for the witnesses of the receiving. And see below in this siman on paragraph 13.
No agent that is sent requires witnesses [to determine his validity], if he and the sender is worthy . And if the sender [of the witness] is a heretic, it is doubtful [if the function could be preformed]. Some say that the agent that is sent could be counted with witnesses. REMA: whats the case that the agent is believed to say that he is included with the witnesses, and there is need to require testimony on this. Its customary its necessary for legal purposes and the witnesses on the legality to be made [also serve the function as] an agent. See later on in Seif 24:
When was it said hat a man's agent doesn't need witnesses? When he hands her a divorce document with witnesses signatures. But if there are no witnesses signatures on it, an the agent goes and hands it to her in front of witnesses, this is a doubtful divorce.
There those that say, that a agent that is sent or a agent that is brought, it is not necessary make him [included in a group] with witnesses, and there are those who differ on this opinion. REMA: multiple subjects [which require explanation] are here, when it is explained in seif 11. There are those that disagree with the law in another way, explaining that a agent that goes- if it is to give her [the woman] the get between him [the husband] and her , and its impossible to return and to give her [the get] before two [witnesses], she is divorced [from then husband] when she accepts from him [the agent] the get (Tur in the name of the Rambam) . There are those that say this is invalid (Tur in the name of the Goaniem). Is it, if the get is fulfilled in the document, from under her hand [???], its not necessary to bring testimony that she accepted it before us, only that she said that she accepted it before two [witnesses] who were fitting. And it is the ruling in regard to a agent's acceptance from the husband.
Neither an emissary appointed to receive a writ of divorce, nor an emissary appointed to deliver the writ need hear from their senders that they have been designated as an emissary. Therefore, both the man and the woman may designate, in the presence of witnesses, an emissary who is in some other place, and the witnesses will then write and sign that such-and-such has been designated as an emissary. Rem"a: See (Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 141:35)
If a husband designated an emissary to deliver the write, he must say to him, "Give this writ to my wife" or he must tell the scribe and the witnesses that they should write and sign the writ, and give it to his wife, or some other language that implies that he will divorce her, such as, 'divorce her' or 'send her away' or 'separate her' or 'divorce her [in Aramaic]' or 'write a letter and give it to her'. If, however, he said, "dismiss her, support her, do with her what is in keeping with our religion, do with her what is lawful, do what is proper with her" he has said nothing. If he said to them, "forsake her, take her out, permit her, leave her be, assist her" it is considered a doubt.
He who says, "write a Get for my wife", they shall write it and give it to the husband, but they should not give it to the wife until he [explicitly] says they should give it to her. And if they gave it to her, it is not a valid Get. In which case does this apply? A healthy person. But for someone who is in danger, that is, someone who was suddenly sick and the sickness was immediately serious, and one who goes out with a [???], even for monetary matters, and one who sails out to sea or travels with a traveling market -- if he says "write a Get for my wife," they shall write it and give it to her, since it is known that he intended for it to be [both] written and given to her.
A healthy man who said: 'write a divorce bill for my wife'; and it was written and it was delivered to her, and then he committed suicide immediately - for example, he threw himself from the roof, or into the sea - this is a effective divorce bill. And if it wasn't written, we still write and deliver it to her all the time while his soul is still within him. If he went to the roof, and a strong wind pushed him and he fell and died - this is not a[n effective] get.
If there is a doubt whether he threw himself or a wind pushed him [off the roof] - if he fell immediately, it is a[n effective] divorce bill; and if he did not fall immediately, behold the doubt remains.
And it is the same regarding someone who was thrown into a pit and said: 'anyone who is able to listen to my voice, go write a divorce bill to my wife', and he makes explicit what are his name and his wife's name, the name of his town and the name of her town, those should write [and deliver] it to her. and even if he was brought up and did not acknowledge [the divorce bill], it is still effective, since it is like [what happens in] a moment of danger: we write and deliver, even if we do not acknowledge [later]. And there are those who say that these words only apply when they saw a figure of a man, or even a faint resemblance, so that one does not suspect it to be a deamon, since usually deamons are found in pits and fields.
If there were three, and he said: All who hear my voice shall write a divorce writ for my wife, one writes it and two sign it. There is no need for the attendance of all of them, because even though he said: "All," it is not the same as if he said: "All of you write."
If many people were standing together, and he said: Take a divorce writ to my wife, any of them who wants may take it on behalf of all of them. See below at the end of Se'if 23. If he said: Two of you shall take it, two of them need to take it. Even if there were a father and his son among them, his intent is also on the son, and the son may become an agent [even] in the presence of his father.
So too if one says to three people: Two of you shall write a divorce writ for my wife and sign it and give it to her, and there were among them a father and his son, whether the son signed it with the other or whether the father signed it with the other, it is a kosher divorce writ.
If he said to a group: All of you take it [to her], it is not a valid divorce writ unless all of them take it [to her]. Nowadays the sages decreed that whoever asks many people to take a divorce writ to his wife, should say: Any of you shall take a divorce writ to my wife.
That which is written in Tikkun Shtarot, "A writ that designates an agent when sending a Get from one place to another," is not needed, since it is written in it that the husband gives permission to make a number of agents, even without the agent getting sick or otherwise prevented. Rem"a: Therefore, if the writ that designates the agent is lost or disqualified, if it is an urgent moment, we give the Get without the writ (Mahari"k, Shoresh 26). The agent is trustworthy with regard to his agency and to say that he was designated as an agent in the presence of witnesses, just like he is trustworthy to say, "it was written and sealed in front of me." Look also later in 142:3. A priori, however, one should write the writ of agency carefully, and be cautious not to use acronyms (in tikkun Mahar"i of Mintz in the name of the Mahara"i). Also one should not change things that are written in the Get, such as if the name "Zanvil" is written with a bet, he should not write in the writ of agency with a vav (G"Z ibid.) etc. The language of the writ of agency can be found in Even Haezer 141:30. The other rules and the order of the agency, look later in the order of the Get. The witnesses to the writ of agency should not be related to each other, nor to the husband or the wive, nor to the witnesses of the Get (Seder Gittin 73). If the witnesses to the writ of agency are invalidated, the entire agency is cancelled because they are testifying to the essence of the agency and that in front of them the husband appointed the agent, which is different than the other possible invalidations of the writ of agency [itself] as it seems to me. The custom is that the Rabbi who is arranging the Get establishes the writ of agency also. Some have the practice that one should establish it with [a beit din of] three. In any case, even if only one of the signatures is recognizable (this is also acceptable). Some have the practice to write a writ (or in the handwriting) (of) [to] the place where it is being given to advise if there is a change in anything having to do with the writ of agency (there, in the name of the Mahara"r Za"kh).
If the husband or the proxy are young in age, it is good to inquire and examine if he brought proof of his agency [that he was made a proxy], since a minor cannot be a proxy nor appoint a proxy. And if he has a beard on his face, there is no problem. Rem"a: But one does not need to check too much the witnesses of the signing, since the witnesses of the delivery are [more important], and it is common to be much older regarding the giving of the divorce bill (Beit Yosef in the name of A"ch). And since we are used to setting aside the witnesses of the delivery, one should be punctilious that they are adults.
It is customary to perform the ceremony of acquiring to the one who appoints a proxy, to make public that he is set on this. And if he says: 'I said this with all intention, and I am completely set on doing this' - there is no need to perform the ceremony of acquiring.
On a document of accepting agency [to act on another's behalf] two witnesses who are fit [in regard to testimony] will sign off on the document. and its necessary that the people [who are signing off on the document] know that they are signing instead of giving [as apposed to getting married without a agent] and even if in the issuing [of the document], its necessary for those signing off [on the document] to know the laws and that people are being used [agency] instead of giving [to the woman personally by the man who is getting married]. see in Tur Even HaEzer 141 reception of a document through agency.
Its necessary to be wary and particular, that the woman that made a agent to accept the document [from the husband] is an adult with two and with signs. and if there is not (women's knowledge) [the women who know if she posses the signs] because it is with the word of the father, it requires a multiplicity of black hair [more then one at least two] and as large as the measure [of those hairs] on the cape [back of neck].
On the moment of giving the divorce bill through an agent for its receiving, a beit din of [three are implied] upstanding [men] should be gathered. [They] must not be related to each other, nor to the husband, nor to the wife, and there is the custom of forewarning that they should not be related to the agent. They are to recognize the signatures on the document of authorization, and afterwards the husband brings the divorce bill, and they read it and give it back to him [husband], and he must nullify all notices, and all disqualifications of the witnesses that would witness anything that would cancel the divorce bill, and he should give it on the hands of the agent and say: "Receive this divorce bill [in place] of Plonit, my wife, and behold she is divorced from me (from this very moment) and she is permitted to any [other] man. And there are those who say that he must not apply on it any conditions. And they [beit din] read the divorce bill again after the delivery [to the agent], and the judges should sign their witnessing (Tur: and their signatures must be recognizable and well known) and they will give it in the hand of the agent. Rem"a: And [regarding] the wording [of the divorce bill/of the document of authorization] that we give him, see the Tur in this siman. And all this is according to the law, however, there are those who say that the right thing is to be strict and not divorce through an agent, at all, and this is how we proceed. (Tur in the name of Harap)
The nusach (proper formula) for the document that designates the delivery agent, needs to be added to that which is written in The Tur Even Haezer:
All are valid to be an agent for a bill of divorce, whether receiving or delivering, men as well as women, besides a deaf-mute, someone who is mentally disabled, a minor, a slave, and a non-Jew. Some say that if a slave is a delivering agent, it is doubtful [whether the bill of divorce is valid].
If the agent was a minor when he was charged with delivering the divorce document, and he came of age and brought it, or if he was deaf-mute and was cured, or if he was mentally disabled and he became sane, or if he was a slave and was freed, or if he was a non-Jew and converted, it [the divorce document] is invalid. However, if he gave it to him [the agent] when he was cured, and he became deaf-mute and was cured again, or if he was sane and had a mental break down and became sane again, it [the divorce document] is valid, because the beginning and the end were valid.
Women and relatives are valid agents for sending a bill of divorce. (Rem"a: Some write that if possible, at the outset the agent should not be related to the man [husband], the woman [wife], or to the judges before whom the bill of divorce is given (in the order of Gittin).) Even those who are rabbinically invalid, in sin [it is a sin to appoint such an agent], are valid agents for sending a bill of divorce. But those Biblically invalid, in sin, are invalid to bring a bill of divorce unless the bill of divorce is upheld by its signers. Some declare it invalid even if it is upheld by its signers. (Rem"a: The law of an apostate, is the same as that of a Biblically invalid witness. So is the sense of the commentary of Alfasi on Gittin.)
If they were invalid [because of sin] when they were appointed agents, and they repented before they delivered [the bill of divorce] to the wife, they are valid.
One who sends a bill of divorce through a non-Jew so that s/he will give it to John/Jane Doe, and the husband appoints John/Jane Doe in writing as an agent to deliver the bill of divorce to his wife, it [the divorce] is valid, because the non-Jew is only performing an insignificant act. Some disagree, and argue that an agent cannot be appointed by writing. I have also not seen this practiced.
One who gives a bill of divorce to an agent and tells him, "Send this bill of divorce to my wife," and the agent says to him [the husband], "I don't know her," and the husband says to him [the agent], "Give it to John/Jane Doe that knows her and s/he will give it to her," the first [agent] is not an agent to give divorce, but to send the bill of divorce to John/Jane Doe. (Rem"a: He can therefore not send it [the bill of divorce] through a [different] agent--Tur). John/Jane Doe is therefore an agent of divorce and gives it [the bill of divorce] to her [the wife], or sends it with another [agent] if he becomes sick or is [otherwise] prevented. If he gives her the bill of divorce, that is, the first [agent] or his agent, there is a doubt of divorce. (Rem"a: If one sends a bill of divorce to his wife and the agent does not know her, he [the agent] should give it to her according to the testimony of two [witnesses] that this is his wife--Tur).
One who gives a bill of divorce to an agent and says to him/her, "Do not give this to her [my wife] until thirty days," if s/he [the agent] sickened or was prevented [from delivering the bill of divorce] during the thirty days, s/he can appoint an agent to give it [the bill of divorce] to her [the wife] after thirty days. This is true even though s/he is not an agent for divorce at that moment, since s/he will become an agent of divorce after thirty days, provided that the husband says to him/her, "She has promised me that I will not be reconciled, if she is married." Some say that s/he [the agent] should not transfer it to a second agent, but rather should transfer his agency to a court, and they do not appoint a second agent until after 30 days.
If one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and says to him/her [the agent], "Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife," or if he says to him/her, "You deliver it, do not send it through another [agent]," but even so, s/he [the agent] sickens or is prevented, or if s/he is given instructions to appoint [additional] agents, s/he appoints agents until many agents. (Rem"a: If it is explained to him/her not to send it through another [agent], s/he cannot appoint an agent, even if s/he sickens or is prevented--this is the sense of the Tur.) Some disagree and say that one who is delivering may send through another [agent], even is s/he does not sicken. For "You go," [the agent is instructed to deliver the bill of divorce personally] s/he cannot send it through another [agent], even if s/he sickens or if it is explained to him/her that s/he is permitted to appoint an agent.
The laws of a second agent are like the laws of a first agent, in that he cannot appoint a [subsequent] agent unless he is coerced or given specific instruction.
When an agent appoints another agent, if s/he must say, "In my presence it [the bill of divorce] was written and it was signed," the appointment must be in the presence of a court. If s/he does not need to say, "In my presence it [the bill of divorce] was written and it was signed," the appointment does not have to be in the presence of a court, but the appointment must be in the presence of witnesses. (Rem"a: See above Shulchan Arukh Even HaEzer 142:9.)
If an agent has made a second [agent], and a second [who has made] a third, the death of the husband cancels [the agency of] all of them. But if the husband remains alive, even if the first agent dies, the agencies of the rest are not cancelled, because the husband is still alive.
If the second agent dies, the first agent may take [the responsibility of agency] from the heirs of the second [agent] and go personally or delegate the task to another.
A proxy for receiving does not have the power to appoint a proxy, even if he was under duress, and even if she gave her permission to appoint another proxy, because [all] he has [are] words, and words are not [able to be] passed onwards. And there are those who permit [this] if she gave him the [express] permission to appoint a proxy. 'And then he can appoint another one without a beit din, just [doing so] in front of two [witnesses]'. (Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashbatz)
If she [the woman desiring a divorce] designated a receiving agent, and she then designated another, even ten one after the other or at one time, she becomes divorced if the bill of divorce is delivered to one of them. This applies even if one of them is given an invalid bill of divorce and another is given a valid one.
An agent who, in his agency, deviated from what [his sender] told him, has done nothing. What is this case? [The sender] said to [the agent]: "Put this [item] in such a place," and he put it in another; or "put this item on the upper floor of the house" and he put it on the lower floor, or the reverse; or "don't give it except with the right [hand]" and he gave it with the left hand, or the reverse. In all these cases the agent has done nothing.
Some say that if he [the husband] says [to the agent], "only divorce her with your right hand," it [the bill of divorce] cannot be sent through an additional [agent], even if [the first agent] sickens, because it is as though he [the husband] explained, "another shall not divorce her, only you."
If [the sender] said to [the agent]: give this bill of divorce to my wife, who is in this place, and [the agent] gave it to her in a different place, the divorce is valid, as this condition is a speculation of place rather than a specific care of the sender.
If [the sender] said to [the agent]: give [the bill of divorce] to her on such-and-such a future day, and he gave it to her in the intervening time, the divorce is not valid. [If the sender said:] only give it to her on such-and-such a day, and he gave it before or after, the divorce is not valid.
A woman who says to her agent: "receive my bill of divorce for me in this place" and he receives it elsewhere, the divorce is not valid. However, if she says "bring me my bill of divorce at this place" and he brings it to her elsewhere, the divorce is valid.
If she [the wife] says to [her agent], "accept my bill of divorce for me in Babylon, and sometimes he [the husband or his agent] is found in Damascus," in any place it is accepted [by the agent] it is a [valid] bill of divorce, as long as when it reaches Babylon it reaches the place she specified.
[If] the husband says to the messenger: Take from her this item and give her this Get , he [the messenger] cannot send it in another's hand. And if he sent it in another's hand, and the wife gave the [other] messenger the item first and afterwards he gave the Get , she is divorced. But if he gave the Get first and afterwards she gave the item, even in the hands of the first messenger it is not a Get . [If the husband] said to him: Give her the Get and take from her this item, he [the messenger] cannot send it in another's hand. And if he sent it in another's hand, it is a Get whether she gave [the item] first or she only gave it afterwards. And there are those who say that when [the husband] says to him: Take from her this item and give her the Get , if he sent it in another's hand, even if she gave him the item first and afterwards he gave her the Get , because she did not give the item to the first messenger before she received the Get from the second messenger, she is not divorced. What should he do [to rectify the situation]? The first [messenger] should take [the Get ] from her hand and return it under the law of divorce, after he has received the item.
When the husband imposes a condition on the agent, such as, "Only divorce her in the house" or "in the attic" and anything similar, if the husband does not give the agent permission to appoint a [different] agent, it [the bill of divorce] should not be sent through another at the outset, because the second might not be specific in agency and the bill of divorce would be invalidated. (Rem"a: In any case, if a second agent was appointed and he was not told of the condition or he replaced it, if the condition was fulfilled the bill of divorce is valid (Riva"sh 316). If the condition was that she renounce all prerogatives she had over him, even though it must be discussed what is included in "all prerogatives", in any case there is reason to be strict about a bill of divorce in which she forgives all prerogatives over him, and then discuss with him what that entails, and so everything similar (Riva"sh 217).)
A messenger bringing a Get from a place that does not need to say "In front of me it was written and in front of me it was signed", he gives [the Get ] to [the wife] and she is divorced through it, and she can [re]marry even if [ Beis Din ] does not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, and she can collect her Ketubah from (???). And if one witness comes to appeal and says [the Get ] is forged, we don't listen to him. If two come and appeal, even if she is already [re]married, she must get divorced. And if the husband comes and appeals, saying: I never divorced her and the Get that was brought to her is forged! [ Beis Din ] confirms [the Get 's] signatures; and if they are not confirmed and nothing is known of the witnesses, she must get divorced and any child [of the second marriage] is a Mamzer , because she was [never] divorced. If the Get was lost, she is doubtfully divorced.
Her mother-in-law or her sister-in-law or her co-wife, even if [now] she was married to someone else, or her Yevama (I believe this refers to her potential co-wife through Yibum ) even if she is her sister (and therefore no Yibum can occur) or the daughter of her husband [from another marriage] are not believed to bring her Get in a place where they don't say "Before me it was written and before me it was signed", because maybe it is forged and they want to ruin her. And if she (one of the previous women, not sure why it says 'he'...) was in a place where they need to say "Before me it was written and before me it was signed", and they said it, they are believed. And if she is in a place that they do not need to say it and they say it, there are those that say that they are believed and there are those that say that they are not believed.
[If] she appointed a messenger to accept [the Get ], and the Get is sent through him and the husband [later] says: It is forged! If the signatures or the sending messengers are confirmed, she is divorced. And if he admits to writing it, but he says that he did not give it to her under the law of divorce but rather for safekeeping, and [her] messenger says he received it for her to be divorced through it, the messenger is believed, even if all three were in the same city. And there are those that say, if the three are in the same city, the husband is believed, because if he wanted it to be under the law of divorce, he would have given it to her. And this [last law] is only when he claims it given for safekeeping, but if he claims it was that he used a messenger to bring it, but wanted to take it back before it reached her, he is not believed. And if they're not in the same city, the messenger is believed and this is when witnesses who were appointed by the receiving messenger come to us [ Beis Din ] and the messenger said that he sent it in front of witnesses. Rem"a: There are those that say this is only when the Get is sent through him [the wife's messenger], but if the Get is not in his hand, he is not believed, even if he has witnesses that saw it in his hand (Tur accord. to Rosh). Mechaber: And according to this logic, it is good to beware divorcing through a messenger when the husband and the wife are in the same city because there is a possibility of destruction (translation is unclear...) because if he claims that he did not give it for divorce, he is believed. Rem"a: And there is no distinction between a messenger for bringing and a messenger for receiving (Rif). However, once there is [written] permission in his hand to be a messenger of divorce, there is no distinction whether the husband is in the city or not (Maharam Padva Siman 3). And if the wife says: In front of me the messenger accepted it for divorce, she is believed. And there are those that say this is only when the Get is [now] in the hand of the wife.
If the divorce document came from the woman's hand and she says, "This messenger gave it to me for the divorce process", and the messenger says, "Yes, I have given it to her for the divorce process," and the husband says, "It was only given to her as a deposit," the messenger is trustworthy and she is divorced. And if the divorce document was lost and there are no witnesses who saw the document in her hand, even though the husband says, "The messenger gave it for the divorce process," and the messenger says, "it was given to her," this is a divorce in doubt, since she held up as a married woman, and here there is only one witness and a husband. And even if the woman says, "In my midst it was given to him for the divorce process and the messenger gave it to me," since the husband and the messenger are assisting her it is possible that they will scorn her and perhaps she will not be divorced.
A messenger of receiving that receives a Get for a woman, and sends it to her in front of two witnesses, and it reaches her and she takes it, and therefore the Get has passed into her hand, but she doesn't know if her husband sent it to her or her receiving messenger received it, or [if it was from] the messenger of the husband, she is [nevertheless] divorced. And if the husband comes a protests that he didn't write it, or that it was an annulled Get , we confirm it through its signatures, because there are witnesses that the Get that was given to her came from her messenger because his hand is like her hand (i.e. he can accept it for her), and even though she didn't know, the witnesses knew. And if it is not confirmed, she is not divorced. And there are those that say that if the three of them are in the same city, we are worried that maybe the husband will say: I gave it to her [only] for safekeeping. And even if they are not in the same city, there are those that say that a messenger is only believed when the Get is in his hand (so it seems from the Tur in the name of the Rosh) because he is like a Shlish (???) which is explained in Choshen Mishpat Siman 56.
Since the divorce document which is sent to his wife is not a legal divorce document until it reaches her hand, he is liable in her nourishment and in all the stipulations of her marriage license until it reaches her hand or it is accepted by the hand of the messenger. And if he dies before it arrives, there is no divorce after death.
One who sends a Get to his wife and annuls it before it gets to her, it is annuled. But if it reached her, he is not able to annul it, even [if it had reached her] within the time of speaking [a greeting to someone]. Rem"a: There are those that say that a Mumar [someone who denies a specific Mitzvah] is not able appoint a messenger to bring a Get to his wife, because we are concerned that he will annul it (Mahariv Siman 126). And even if he accepts upon himself a Cherem or a vow that he will not annul it, it does not help, because we are concerned that maybe he will violate his oath. And there are those that say that a Mumar can make an initial messenger as a messenger a reception [of the Get ] and say to the messenger: Accept this Get for my wife so-and-so and with it she will be divorced etc. And then he gives it to the messenger and afterwards he takes it back from the messenger and makes him into a messenger of bringing [the Get ] and says: Bring this Get to my wife etc. (??? Siman 237 and his ruling in Siman 42), and this is our practice. But he should not make a messenger initially as a messenger of bringing and then afterwards [make] a messenger of reception. And this has all already been explained above in Siman 140 Se'if 11.
Ideally, he [the husband] may not nullify it [the bill of divorce] except in the presence of the agent or in her [the wife's] presence. However, he may still nullify it when he is not in their presence, as long as he is before two [witnesses]. (Rem"a: The husband is not to be trusted that he nullified it, unless the wife or agent back him up, or he has witnesses (Be'er Yosef and in the commentary of Asher"i in the chapter of the sender). Some say that he must nullify an agent before the two [witnesses] together, but not separately. However, if he is nullifying the bill of divorce, even after it is written he may nullify it [before the two witnesses] even separately (Riva"sh 232).)
If it was sent through two or ten agents, there is no issue with nullifying [the agents] separately. Those who are nullified have their agency nullified, and cannot fulfill it even if they are appointed another time. With ten who are appointed agents, whether to write and give the bill of divorce or to deliver it, if some are nullified, the rest are not. Some say, that with agency, if one is nullified the rest are.
In what circumstances is a get nullified? Only when he nullified it explicitly. But if he did not nullify it explicitly, even if he demonstrated that he wanted it to be nullified, such as if the messenger told him "I have not yet given it to her" and he replied "Blessed is the Good One who does good!" or something similar, it is not nullified. And in addition, even if he had attempted to run after the messenger in order to nullify it, but he did not reach him until the get was in her hand, it cannot be nullified. Rem"a: Similarly, if he said to the messenger, "bring me back this get and I will give you a different one," that is only demonstrated desire and does not nullify the get. If he sent a letter after the messenger telling him not to deliver the get, that constitutes nullification because a get can be nullified in writing. If he sent a get to his wife and told the messenger: "if my wife wants to come to me, I will honor the marriage, but if not, release her with the get" and then left the city, the messenger may deliver the get, because the wife did not come to her husband because he had left the city. And even if the husband was in the city, if he could not make up with her, the messenger may deliver the get, because what he said originally, "if she comes to me, I will honor it" is nothing but idle words, and is only demonstration of desire, which is nothing.
With which phrases may a get be nullified? He could say "It is nullified!" "It is nothing," "This get will be ineffective," will not release her," "will not leave," "will not send her away," "will not divorce," "will be as a shard of pottery," or "Behold! It is as a shard of pottery." If he said any of those phrases or other similar ones, it is nullified. But if he said "this get is not a get," or "is not effective," "does not release," "does not send away," "does not divorce," "is as a shard of pottery," it is as if he said nothing. If he said "this get is nullified" but did not say "it" or said "this get has been nullified, in the past tense as in "had turned and gone" (Song of Songs 5:6), this is ambiguous.
There is one [opinion] who says, if [the husband] says: it [the Get ] should be invalidated, it is annulled. [If] he said: Don't go forever, it is annulled and it is as if he said: today you are not my wife, but tomorrow [he says]: you are my wife. (Beis Yosef in the name of the Teshuvat HaRan Siman 43)
If he did not reveal his intent that he wanted to annul [the Get ], and he says one of the phrases which is not effective in annulling the Get , nevertheless [if] he protests in order to invalidate it, [ Beis Din ] needs to confirm its signatures.
One who sends a Get in the possession of a messenger, he can go back [on sending the messenger, and still] divorce her with it when he wants, because he did not annul the law of the Get , but rather the law of the messenger. Therefore, if the Get was in the hand of the husband and he annulled it, for example he said: This Get is annulled, he cannot ever divorce with it. And so too, even he specified at the time of his annulment, and it was in the possession of the messenger [at the time], and he said: The Get that I sent, behold, it is annulled from being a Get ! He cannot divorce with it, and if he did [try to] divorce, she is doubtfully divorced.
One who sent a Get to his wife, and went back on it and annulled it in front of two other [people], and so too one who sent information about the Get [to his wife], we flog him with Makkat Mardut (lit. rebellious lashes) because he caused there to be Mamzerim .
A messenger who brought a Get , we do not worry that maybe the husband annulled it or maybe he sent a message, and it is given to the woman on the assumption that he is alive, even if he was left old or sick. And there are those who say specifically a sick man is in the hands of heaven [and we assume he's alive], but an injured person who is mortally wounded, he is considered on death row (HaGaot Alfasi). But if he was left on death row, [the messenger] should not give it to her, because the majority of people on death row die. But if he gave it to her, she is doubtfully divorced. And there is [an opinion] who says, that which we said about an old person [that we assume he is still alive] is specifically when he is less than eighty and greater than one hundred (not sure why...) but if he is between eighty (Tur in the name of Rem"a) and one hundred, he is considered one on death row.
A city which was surrounded by soldiers from his own kingdom and they were sieged, or a ship which is being tossed at sea, and one who goes to court for case of capital punishment, they are assumed to be alive [after the fact] and if a Get from one of them was in the possession of a messenger, he can give it to his wife and she is assumed divorced. But a city which was captured before, or a city surrounded by soldiers of another kingdom, or a ship that is lost at sea, or one sent to death from a case of capital punishment in the courthouses of Kutim (presumably referring to non-Jews), or one hauled by a wild animal, or washed away by a river or one who a pillar fell upon, we place upon them the stringencies of the living and of the dead, and if a Get from one of them was in the possession of a messenger, he should not give it to his wife, and if he did give it to her, she is doubtfully divorced. But if it is known that the husband died before the Get reached her, it is not a [valid] Get .