רRambam, Clearly
Aa
Hilchos Gerushin · Perek 3Gerushin · Ch. 3
19 left0% read19 halachos left

·

Writing for the couple and identifying the

Writing a for the intended couple, preparing its text, and identifying or recovering the correct document.

פרק ג19 halachosThursday, September 24, 2026י״ג בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 65–85 min

אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.

Chapter progress 0 of 19 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
Halachah 10% through
הלכה א

Written for the Specific Husband and Wife

-

Any that was not written specifically for the husband who is divorcing and specifically for the woman being divorced is not a valid .

A must be written —with this particular divorce in mind. It is not enough for the document’s names and details to happen to match the couple afterward.

How so?

A scribe wrote a as a teaching exercise or in order to practice writing one,

and a husband came and found that the name written in this was the same as his own name,

the woman’s name was the same as his wife’s name,

and the name of the city was the same as his city,

-

and he took that document and used it to divorce his wife—it is not a valid .

Every written detail may match perfectly, but the document was created only for practice. Since it was never written as an act of preparing this couple’s divorce, the later coincidence of names cannot supply the required intent.

Synopsis

Even a perfectly matching is invalid if it was not originally written for this particular husband, this particular wife, and their divorce.

Live ItStart with intention

Start with intention

The in this can have all the correct names and details and still be invalid, because it was never written for this husband, this wife, and this divorce. The action may look exactly right, but its purpose had to be there from the beginning.

That can happen in everyday life too. We can daven, learn, help at home, or sit down with someone while our mind is somewhere else. The action still matters, but sometimes a few seconds of intention changes how fully we are actually present for what we are doing.

Try today

Before one mitzvah or important conversation, pause and ask yourself, “What am I trying to accomplish right now?”

Suggested reflection on 3:1.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה ב

A Written for a Different Couple

There is an even stronger case:

a man had a written in order to divorce his wife,

and another resident of his city found it and said to him, “My name is the same as yours, and my wife’s name is the same as your wife’s,”

-

and the second man took it from him and used it to divorce his own wife—it is not a valid ,

even though the document had been written for the purpose of divorce.

This case goes further than the previous one. Here the document really was written as a , but for a different husband and wife. The requirement of is therefore not merely that the document be intended for some divorce; it must be written for the specific man and woman whose marriage it is meant to dissolve.

Synopsis

A written for an actual divorce cannot be transferred to another identically named couple; it must have been written specifically for the couple who will use it.

הלכה ג

The Must Be Written for the Particular Wife

There is an even further case:

a man has two wives who share the same name,

and he had a written in order to divorce the older wife,

-

but then changed his mind and used it to divorce the younger wife—the is invalid.

Even when the husband is the same and both wives have the same name, the must have been written for the particular wife who is being divorced.

Although it was written specifically for the husband who is divorcing,

it was not written specifically for the woman who was ultimately divorced with it.

applies independently to both sides of the divorce. Correct intent for the husband does not compensate for the fact that the was written for a different wife.

Synopsis

A written for one wife cannot be used to divorce another wife, even when both wives have the same name and the husband is the same.

הלכה ד

Leaving the Wife’s Identity Undecided

There is an even further case:

the husband told the scribe, “Write the , and I will use it to divorce whichever one I choose,”

and the scribe wrote it with that intention,

-

and the husband then used it to divorce one of them—the divorce is of doubtful validity.

At the time of writing, the was not designated for either particular wife. The question is whether the husband’s later choice can clarify retroactively that this was the woman for whom the had been written from the outset. This is an application of , the principle that a later event may, in certain circumstances, clarify an earlier unresolved designation.

Because the validity of the divorce depends on whether that retroactive clarification is legally effective here, the treats the result as a , a doubtful divorce.

-

Any that was written without being specifically intended for the woman being divorced—

even if someone later passes a pen over its letters with the proper intent for her,

is not a valid .

, passing a pen over letters that have already been written is not regarded as a new writing of those letters. The missing therefore cannot be supplied afterward by tracing them.

Synopsis

If a is written while the husband deliberately leaves undecided which wife it is for, the eventual divorce is doubtful. A originally written without the required specific intent cannot later be repaired simply by tracing over its letters.

🔎Dig DeeperLeaving the Wife’s Identity Undecided

Leaving the Wife’s Identity Undecided

The , Rav Yosef Caro, explains how the ’s ruling reflects the uncertainty surrounding in a matter of law. The husband’s later choice cannot establish with certainty that the was written for this particular wife from the outset, yet that possibility also cannot be dismissed.

The result is therefore a : she must take into account the possibility that the divorce took effect, but she cannot rely on the as a definite divorce in order to remarry. Rav Yosef Caro records the Rambam’s ruling in , 131:4, and the discusses the application of here.

Sources: Kessef Mishneh on 3:4; , 131:4; Beit Shmuel on 131:4.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ה

Using an “Old ” After the Couple Reunites

A man had a written in order to divorce his wife,

but changed his mind and did not divorce her,

-

and afterward entered into privacy with her after the had been written for her—

he should not later use that same to divorce her if he again decides to end the marriage.

The problem is not that the document was written for the wrong woman—it was written properly for her. Since they were secluded together after the was written, there is a possibility that marital relations took place after the date appearing in the document. The Sages therefore required a newly written if he later wishes to divorce her.

But if he did divorce her with that old ,

she is divorced,

and she may even remarry on the basis of it without hesitation,

because the had indeed been written specifically for her,

and he is now giving it to her in the presence of as the law requires.

Thus, this is a Rabbinic restriction on using the document in the first place, not a defect that destroys the itself. If it was nevertheless given properly, the divorce takes effect.

Why, then, should he not use it for the divorce from the outset?

It is a Rabbinic decree, lest people say, “Her was dated before her son was born.”

Because the bears the earlier date on which it was written, while the couple were secluded together afterward, a child might be born before the is eventually delivered. Someone later seeing the date on the could mistakenly assume that the divorce had already taken place before the child was born. The Sages therefore prohibited using such an “old ” at the outset, so that the document would not create suspicion about the circumstances of the child’s birth.

Synopsis

If a husband and wife were secluded together after a was written, that old should not later be used because its earlier date could create false suspicions about a child born afterward. If it was nevertheless delivered properly, the rules that the divorce is valid.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A couple have a written but decide not to use it. Later, after they have been alone together, they decide to divorce. The earlier date on that could wrongly suggest they were already divorced if a child is born before it is delivered. The says to write a new ; if the old one was nevertheless delivered properly, the divorce takes effect.

🔎Dig DeeperUsing an “Old ” After the Couple Reunites

Using an “Old ” After the Couple Reunites

The treats this old as valid after the fact because the document was originally written for this very woman and is now being delivered correctly in the presence of . In his view, the fact that time passed between writing and delivery does not itself invalidate the .

Other authorities treat this as an additional problem with the dating of the . Their stricter position is accepted by the , 127:5. The practical disagreement therefore reaches beyond the Rambam’s stated concern that people might mistakenly question the circumstances surrounding a child born after the date appearing in the .

Sources: 3:5; , 127:5.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
Live ItCheck whether things changed

Check whether things changed

The was written properly for this woman, but something important happened afterward: the couple were secluded together again. The document had not become meaningless, yet the changed circumstances meant it should no longer be used in the ordinary way.

We often keep operating from an old plan simply because it once made sense. A schedule, expectation, or way of dealing with someone may have been reasonable months ago, while the situation has quietly changed. Before pushing forward with the old approach, it can help to notice whether you are responding to today’s reality or yesterday’s assumptions.

Try today

Revisit one expectation you have been carrying and ask, “Is this still based on the situation as it is now?”

Suggested reflection on 3:5.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה ו

Whether the Relationship Exists When the Is Written

A man told a scribe, “Write a for a certain woman; it will remain with me, and after I marry her I will divorce her with it,”

-

and the was written, he subsequently married her, and then divorced her with it—it is not a valid .

This is because, when this was written, she was not yet a woman whom he could divorce,

so the document is regarded as though it had not been written for the purpose of divorce.

A must be written at a time when a divorce between this man and this woman is already legally possible. Before any marriage bond exists between them, there is nothing for a to dissolve. His intention to marry her later cannot make the earlier writing count as a written for an existing possibility of divorce.

But if he told the scribe, “Write it for the woman who is already to me; after I marry her fully, I will divorce her with it,”

-

and he then brought her into marriage and divorced her with that —it is valid.

Here the woman is already his : has created a binding marriage relationship, even though the marriage has not yet been completed through . She already requires a to end that bond. The later completion of the marriage therefore does not change the fact that she was already subject to divorce when the was written.

If he had a written for his ,

-

and after performing with her he divorced her using that , the divorce is of doubtful validity,

since she was not fully his wife when he had it written.

A occupies an intermediate legal status before . She is already bound to the through the ’s law of , but she is not yet fully his wife. Because her status at the time of writing is neither like that of an unrelated woman nor like that of a fully married wife, the rules that a written then and used after results in a .

Synopsis

A written before any marriage bond exists is invalid. If has already created a marital bond, a written before can be valid after the fact; for a before , the result is a doubtful divorce.

🔎Dig DeeperWhether the Relationship Exists When the Is Written

Whether the Relationship Exists When the Is Written

This ruling validates the only after the fact. It should not ordinarily be used this way from the outset, because once has taken place after the was written, the document resembles the “old ” discussed in the previous .

The , 132:1, follows the and on 26b:10, who are stricter than the . In their view, the is acceptable only if it was post-dated and bears the date on which it was ultimately given. If it bears the earlier date on which it was written, they consider it more problematic than an ordinary “old .” In the previous , the couple merely entered into privacy after the was written, so marital relations may or may not have taken place. Here, by contrast, definitely occurred after the was written.

Sources: , 132:1; Tur, 132; Tosafot on .

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
The Rebbe ExplainsA marriage begun with an end in mind

A marriage begun with an end in mind

considers a different case from the one the rules on here. What if a man gives a before and says it should take effect when he brings her into full marriage? He suggests there may be no fully established marriage for that to end. This is a tentative suggestion about a delivered before , not the ’s ruling about one written earlier and delivered afterward.

In a related discussion, the Rebbe explains the ’s warning against marrying someone while already intending to divorce her. The calls marriage ‘cleaving’ to one’s wife. Beginning the marriage with a plan to separate therefore leaves a shortcoming in the marriage bond itself. The connection here concerns the beginning of the bond; the Rebbe is not issuing a ruling on ’s proposed case.

Sources
הלכה ז

Preparing the Standard Text of a in Advance

For the benefit of scribes, the Sages permitted a scribe to prepare the standard portions of in advance,

while leaving blank the place for the husband’s name,

the place for the wife’s name,

the place for the date,

-

and the place for the words, “You are hereby permitted to any man”—

These individualized portions are known as the , the essential parts of the that must be written for the particular divorce. The remainder is the standard form, or , which the Sages permitted a scribe to prepare ahead of time so that a could be completed more efficiently when needed.

until he can write those portions specifically for the husband who is divorcing and the woman being divorced,

and afterward the should sign specifically for her and for him.

The permission to prepare the standard form in advance does not remove the requirement of from the individualized portions. Those portions must wait until the particular husband and wife for whom the is being prepared are known, and the ’ signatures are likewise to be made for this particular couple.

Synopsis

To help scribes prepare efficiently, the Sages allowed the standard text to be written in advance, but the essential individualized portions must be left blank and later written specifically for the particular husband and wife.

🔎Dig DeeperPreparing the Standard Text of a in Advance

Preparing the Standard Text of a in Advance

The notes that the does not record the ’s permission here, because most authorities disagree and do not allow a scribe to prepare these standard portions in advance in this manner.

Sources: Beit Shmuel, 131:2; 3:7.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ח

Defective Signatures When the Delivery Was Properly Witnessed

If a scribe wrote the properly, specifically for the woman and the husband,

-

but the signed it without specifically intending it for her,

since it was delivered to her in the presence of , the is disqualified,

Here means that the is disqualified by Rabbinic law rather than entirely void. According to the , the -level divorce can take effect through proper delivery in the presence of even when there is a defect in the signatures. The defective signatures nevertheless make the Rabbinically unacceptable.

because the requirement that sign a was instituted only as a measure for the proper functioning of society.

The signatures provide lasting proof of the divorce if the who observed the delivery later become unavailable. Since signed are not fundamentally required by law for the divorce to take effect, a flaw in their signatures does not automatically nullify the divorce itself.

-

There is an opinion that if the signed without the proper specific intent—

since it is regarded as resembling a document that is internally falsified, the is void.

This does not mean that the signatures are literally forged. Rather, the defect appears within the signed document itself: the signatures presented as validating the are themselves defective.

Similarly, according to that opinion, if one of its signing was disqualified,

-

or it contained only one valid signing witness,

then even if the was delivered in the presence of valid , it is void.

This ruling does not appear correct to me.

Rather, the document is only comparable to one that is falsified; it is not certainly falsified.

Therefore, since it was delivered in the presence of valid , it is disqualified only by Rabbinic law.

The distinguishes between a document whose signatures are defective and one that is actually forged. Because valid personally observed the delivery, the -level mechanism of divorce remains intact; the flawed signatures leave the Rabbinically unacceptable rather than entirely void.

Synopsis

If the itself was written properly but its signatures are defective, valid to the delivery preserve the divorce on the level according to the . The remains Rabbinically disqualified rather than entirely void.

🔎Dig DeeperDefective Signatures When the Delivery Was Properly Witnessed

Defective Signatures When the Delivery Was Properly Witnessed

The , 131:6, follows the and rules that when the signatures lack the proper but the was delivered before valid , the is Rabbinically disqualified rather than completely void.

The , 131, also records the Rambam’s broader conclusion here while noting the opposing view. The disagreement turns on how severely to treat signatures that are defective within the document itself when valid nevertheless observed the actual delivery.

Sources: , 131:6; Tur, 131.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה ט

Identifying a Lost

If someone transporting a lost it and then found it, the following rules apply:

if he lost it in a place where caravans and travelers are not commonly found,

-

even if he found it only after a long period of time,

we presume that the that was found is the same that he lost,

and the woman may be divorced with it.

Where few people pass through, there is little reason to suspect that another similar was dropped in the same place. The original therefore retains its , its presumed identity, even after considerable time has passed.

If it was lost in a place where caravans and travelers are commonly found,

if he found it immediately, before any passerby had remained there for any period of time,

or if he found it in the container in which he had placed it,

-

and he recognizes the length and width of the rolled by visual familiarity,

it retains its presumed identity,

and the woman may be divorced with it.

In a busy location, the possibility that the found document belongs to someone else is more serious. Immediate recovery avoids that concern because there was not enough opportunity for another person to leave a different there. Alternatively, the combination of finding it in its original container and recognizing its physical dimensions identifies it sufficiently as the document that was lost.

Synopsis

A lost may still be used when the circumstances sufficiently identify the found document as the one that was lost. In a quiet place the presumption is stronger; in a busy place, more immediate or specific identifying evidence is required.

Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration

An agent drops a in a quiet passageway and finds it there much later. With few travelers passing through, he can presume it is the one he lost. If he had dropped it in a busy passageway, that presumption would need stronger support, such as finding it immediately or recognizing it in its original container by its dimensions.

Side-by-side illustration: an agent finds a folded document in a quiet passageway with few travelers; in a busy passageway, another finder examines a folded document while people pass by.
Quiet place on the left; busy place on the right. This is an illustration of the setting, not an actual . In a busy place, timing or identifying signs can still establish which document was found.
🔎Dig DeeperIdentifying a Lost

Identifying a Lost

The commentaries question why the requires both that the be found in its original container and that the person recognize its length and width. One might have expected either identifying feature to be sufficient on its own. The does not require both factors together: it allows identification either because the was found in its original container or because the person recognizes the .

The defends the Rambam by distinguishing between stronger and weaker forms of recognition. Recognition based only on the length and width of a rolled document may not be sufficiently distinctive by itself. When it is combined with finding the in the original container, however, the two features together provide sufficient identification.

These reflect the Rambam’s interpretation of the discussions in 27a and 18a. A number of other authorities understand those passages differently. The , 132:4, gives significant weight to those more restrictive views while also recording the Rambam’s position.

Sources: 27a; 18a; , 132:4; Noda B’Yhudah, second edition, 62.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה י

When Another Identically Named Husband Exists

-

If it is established that another man in that place has the same name as the husband named in the ,

The concern is that the found document might belong to the other identically named husband rather than to the person whose was lost. This case assumes that the other man’s wife also has the same name as the woman named in the .

we are concerned that the that was found may belong to that other man,

if another person passed through that place,

even though that person did not remain there.

Once another identically named couple is known to exist, even a passerby creates a realistic possibility that the found is not the one that was lost. Unlike the previous , there is no need for the passerby to have remained there for any length of time.

If the woman was nevertheless divorced with that , her divorce is of doubtful validity.

Because the document may be hers but may instead belong to the other couple, it cannot establish a definite divorce.

-

But if no one passed through that place,

the retains its presumed identity,

even though it is established that two men there have identical names.

The existence of another identically named couple creates a possible competing identity for the document. But if no one passed through the place after this was lost, nothing has occurred to undermine its existing presumption of identity, so the allows us to continue relying on that .

Synopsis

When another identically named couple is known to exist, a passerby is enough to create doubt about a lost ’s identity. If no one passed through the place, the original retains its presumed identity despite the duplicate names.

הלכה יא

Identifying a Lost by a Distinctive Sign

If the know a clearly distinctive identifying sign in the ,

such as saying, “There is a hole in it beside a particular letter,”

-

or saying, “We have never signed another containing these same names”—

These signs identify the document itself rather than relying only on the circumstances in which it was found. A highly distinctive physical feature, or the ’ knowledge that they never signed another with these names, can therefore overcome the concerns that normally arise when a has been lost.

the retains its presumed identity, and the woman may be divorced with it,

even if it was found only after a long period of time,

in a place where caravans and travelers are commonly found,

and it is established that two men there have identical names.

These are precisely the circumstances that created uncertainty in the previous : substantial time passed, many people could have traveled through the area, and another possible owner of a similarly named exists. A siman muvhak, a particularly distinctive identifying sign, is strong enough to identify the despite all of those concerns.

When identify a lost , they must point to a specific identifying sign rather than merely saying that they recognize the document. If their identification depends on the fact that these are their signatures, and other people share their names, later authorities require them to recognize their own signatures as well.

Synopsis

A clearly distinctive identifying sign can establish the identity of a lost even when considerable time has passed, the place is heavily traveled, and another identically named couple exists.

Live ItSeparate facts from impressions

Separate facts from impressions

When a lost could easily be confused with another one, a vague sense of recognition is not enough. A specific, distinctive sign can establish that this really is the document that was lost.

Our minds often move much faster than that. Someone gives a short answer and we think, “He’s annoyed with me,” or something goes wrong and we immediately decide why. Sometimes we are right—but sometimes we have turned an impression into a fact without noticing. Slowing down long enough to ask what we actually know can change both our judgment and our response.

Try today

When you notice yourself assuming what someone meant, identify one fact you know and one part you are only interpreting.

Suggested reflection on 3:11.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
הלכה יב

Two That Became Mixed Together

-

If two men sent two and the documents became mixed together,

This case concerns two men with identical names whose wives also have identical names. Each was written properly for its own couple, but after the documents became mixed together it is no longer known which belongs to which woman.

both should be given to one woman and both should then be given to the other, in the presence of to each delivery.

Each woman thus receives both documents, including the particular that was written for her. The documents can then be taken from the first woman and delivered to the second. Neither woman needs to know which of the two was originally intended for her; what matters is that her own valid is among the documents properly delivered to her.

Therefore, if one of them was lost,

the remaining is void.

The remaining document has not become defective in itself; the problem is that its intended recipient is unknown. Since it may have been written for either woman, it cannot be relied upon as a definite for either one.

Synopsis

When two properly written for identically named couples become mixed together, giving both documents to each woman ensures that each receives her own . If one is lost, the remaining document cannot establish a definite divorce because its intended recipient is unknown.

Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration

Two couples with the same names each have their own , but the two documents mixed up. Giving both documents to each woman, with present for each delivery, ensures each receives the one written for her. If one document disappears first, the remaining cannot establish a definite divorce: no one knows which woman it was written for.

Two scenes: an agent visibly holds two separate folded papers and delivers both to a woman in blue, then delivers those same two papers to a different woman in terracotta. Two witnesses stand beside each delivery.
The same two mixed documents are delivered together to the first woman, then taken and delivered together to the second, with to each delivery. The papers are illustrative, not a depiction of an actual .
🔎Dig DeeperTwo That Became Mixed Together

Two That Became Mixed Together

The explains that if the remaining is actually given to one of the women, the status of that divorce is doubtful. It may indeed be the that was written specifically for her, but it may instead have been written for the other woman.

The , 132:3, records this distinction: when both documents remain, delivering both to each woman resolves the uncertainty. If one has been lost and only one remains, using that document leaves the status of the divorce in doubt.

Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 3:12; , 132:3.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יג

Writing the Names Used Most Commonly

If a man has two names,

-

and similarly if a woman has two names—

when the husband divorces her, the should state the names by which he and she are most commonly called and best known,

The uses the name by which each person is most commonly known.

and it states: “So-and-so, and every name that he has, divorced so-and-so, and every name that she has.”

According to the , once the name is written, this general formulation encompasses the person’s additional names; the does not need to list each one individually.

If instead he wrote his commonly used nickname and her commonly used nickname, the is valid.

A chanichah is a familiar name or nickname by which the person is known. Because such a name can genuinely identify the person, the rules that a using it can be valid even though it is not the person’s formal name.

Synopsis

When a husband or wife has multiple names, the requires the to use the name by which each is most commonly known, together with a general reference to their other names. A commonly used nickname can also identify them sufficiently.

🔎Dig DeeperWriting the Names Used Most Commonly

Writing the Names Used Most Commonly

Other authorities disagree with the ’s approach to multiple names. Rather than relying on the name together with the phrase “and every name that he or she has,” they require the different names by which the husband or wife is known to be stated explicitly. The , in 129:1, records this stricter practice.

The also qualifies the Rambam’s ruling concerning a nickname. He understands it as applying when the nickname is actually used more extensively than the person’s formal name. The discusses both the degree of usage required and whether a written with the nickname is acceptable only after the fact or may even be used from the outset.

Sources: Rama, 129:1; Raavad on 3:13; Beit Shmuel on 129.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Learn in depth
הלכה יד

A Secondary Name Is Not the Same as a Wrong Name

If the uses the name by which the person is not best known,

-

and also states, “and every name that he has,”

the divorce is of doubtful validity.

The name written is genuinely one of the person’s names, so the document is not simply describing someone else. Nevertheless, because it uses a less-recognized name rather than the identifying name required for the , the does not treat the divorce as certainly valid.

But if he misstated his name or her name,

Here shinah, “changed,” means that the gives an incorrect name, not merely a genuine secondary name. This is therefore more serious than the first case.

-

or incorrectly stated the name of his city or the name of her city—

-

even though he also wrote, “and every name that he has” and “and every name that she has”—

it is not a valid .

A general phrase referring to additional names can encompass genuine alternative names; it cannot cure an affirmatively incorrect identification. When the husband, wife, or relevant city is identified incorrectly, the defect strikes at the identity stated in the document itself.

This is a fundamental invalidation, not merely a Rabbinic disqualification; the incorrect identification makes the invalid even on the level.

BackgroundNames of cities in a

The discusses an incorrect name for the husband’s or wife’s city because such places were included as identifying information in the form of under discussion. Later practice changed: it is customary not to identify the husband and wife by their respective home cities in this manner, but rather to record the place where the is given.

Synopsis

Using a genuine but less familiar name creates a doubtful divorce, even when the refers generally to the person’s other names. An actually incorrect name for the husband, wife, or relevant city is a more fundamental defect and invalidates the .

Picture the CaseA concrete example

Chana is also genuinely called Hinda, but almost everyone knows her as Chana. Writing the less familiar name creates a doubtful divorce under the ’s ruling, even with a general reference to her other names. Writing a name that is not hers at all is a more serious defect.

הלכה טו

Who Is Qualified to Write a

Everyone is qualified to write a ,

except for five categories:

a non-Jew, a servant, a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, and a minor.

The next explains why these five are disqualified. For some, the problem concerns the intent or legal capacity required when writing the . Here “servant” means an , a specific status, not an employee. “Deaf-mute” refers to the classical category discussed here; it is not a description of every deaf person. The servant is disqualified for a different reason: the laws of Jewish and divorce do not apply to him in the same way.

Even the woman herself may write her own .

The identity of the person physically writing the document is not what makes the the husband’s instrument of divorce. If the required conditions for its writing are fulfilled, the wife herself can serve as its scribe and the husband can afterward use that document to divorce her.

A Jew who abandoned Judaism for idolatry,

-

or who publicly desecrates —

is regarded like a non-Jew in all respects.

In this context, such a person cannot be relied upon to perform the writing with the required intent. The following develops why the writer’s intent is indispensable.

Although such a Jewish man is disqualified from writing the , that does not mean that his own Jewish marriage cannot be dissolved through a . If he is married to a Jewish woman, the marriage remains significant, and he can give her a properly written to end it.

BackgroundManuscript wording of the ruling

The wording “a Jew who abandoned Judaism for idolatry” follows manuscript versions of the . Some standard printed editions were altered by Christian censorship.

Synopsis

Most people may physically write a , including the wife herself, provided the necessary requirements are met. Five categories are disqualified, and a Jew who abandoned Judaism for idolatry or publicly desecrates is regarded like a non-Jew in all respects.

הלכה טז

Why Certain People Cannot Write a

Why may these five not write a ?

Because the writer must write it specifically for the husband who is divorcing and specifically for the woman being divorced,

The writing of the itself requires the proper . The therefore explains why each of the five categories listed in the previous cannot perform that writing in the required manner.

and a non-Jew writes according to his own intent;

Even if someone instructs him what intention to have, his writing is not treated as reliably performed with the specific intent required for this husband and wife.

a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, and a minor do not possess the required legal capacity of mind;

Their disqualification is not merely a concern that they might fail to think about the correct couple. They do not possess the recognized daas required for this act of intentional writing.

and a servant is not included within the legal framework of and ,

The is disqualified for a different reason: he is not included within the ’s legal framework of Jewish and .

and therefore he is disqualified like a non-Jew in every respect concerning this matter.

-

If one of these five wrote the , it is not a valid ,

even if valid signed it,

and even if it was delivered to her in the presence of valid .

The defect lies in the required writing of the itself. Proper signatures and proper delivery cannot repair a document whose writing was invalid from the outset.

Synopsis

The five categories listed previously cannot perform the required writing of a : some lack the necessary intent or legal capacity, while a servant is outside the relevant framework of and divorce. If one of them writes the , valid signatures and delivery cannot cure the defect.

הלכה יז

When Only the Standard Form Was Written by a Disqualified Person

If one of those five wrote the standard portion of the ,

but left blank the places for the essential individualized portions,

The is the standard wording of the document, while the contains the portions that must be written specifically for this divorce.

namely, the place for the husband’s name,

the place for the wife’s name,

the place for the date,

and the place for the words, “You are hereby permitted to any man,”

-

and an adult, mentally competent Jew wrote those portions specifically for her—

the is valid.

The essential requirement of is satisfied because the individualized portions—the parts that give this its particular legal identity—were written by someone qualified to do so with the proper intent. The earlier writing of the standard form by a disqualified person therefore does not invalidate the completed document according to the .

Synopsis

If a disqualified person writes only the standard form of the , but a qualified adult Jew later writes all of the essential individualized portions with the proper intent, the considers the valid.

Picture the CaseA concrete example

A person who is not qualified to write the essential parts of a copies its standard wording and leaves the individualized spaces blank. A qualified adult Jew later fills in the husband’s and wife’s names, the date, and the required divorce statement specifically for this woman. Under the ’s ruling, the completed is valid because the essential portions were written by the qualified person with the proper intent.

הלכה יח

Allowing Certain Disqualified People to Write the Standard Form

A deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, or a minor may be allowed from the outset to write the standard form of a .

This permission concerns only the , the standard wording. The essential individualized portions must still be written by someone qualified, as stated in the previous .

This is provided that an adult stands over them and supervises their writing.

The adult’s supervision permits them to prepare only the standard form. It does not qualify them to write the essential individualized portions, which must still be written by a qualified person with the required .

-

A non-Jew or a servant, however, should not write even the standard form from the outset,

even if a Jew stands over them and supervises them;

This permission does not extend to a non-Jew or servant, even under Jewish supervision. The limited allowance to prepare the standard text in advance was itself created only as an accommodation for scribes; the therefore does not extend that allowance further to these categories.

because the Sages did not permit the standard portions of to be written from the outset without

except as a special accommodation for scribes, as we explained.

Ordinarily, even advance preparation of the standard form without would not have been permitted from the outset. The Sages made a limited exception for the practical needs of scribes. Because this is an exception rather than a general license, its scope remains narrow.

Synopsis

A supervised deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor may write the standard portion of a from the outset. A non-Jew or servant may not do so, because the permission to prepare such forms without was granted only as a limited accommodation for scribes.

הלכה יט

A Written in Violation of or Yom Tov

If someone writes a on or Yom Kippur, inadvertently violating the day’s prohibition,

-

and gives it to the woman, she is divorced.

Although writing on or Yom Kippur is forbidden, an unintentional violation does not disqualify the writer from producing a valid . The transgression and the validity of the document are separate questions.

If it was deliberately written on Yom Tov and deliberately signed it there,

-

and it was given to her, she is not divorced,

because the are disqualified by law.

In this case, the who signed the have become disqualified on the level, and the does not state that there were separate valid to its delivery. The therefore cannot establish the divorce.

This is different from the case discussed earlier in which defective signatures were accompanied by valid to the delivery. There, the delivery preserved the -level divorce. Here, no such separate valid are stated.

If the itself was deliberately written on Yom Tov,

-

but it was delivered to her on Yom Tov in the presence of valid —

the is disqualified.

Here valid observe the delivery, so there is no -level defect arising from invalid testimony. The is nevertheless Rabbinically disqualified because it was deliberately written through a prohibited act.

The specifically uses Yom Tov in this final case. A person who deliberately desecrates publicly can acquire the more severe status discussed in Halachah 15, which would create a -level problem with his qualification to write the . Deliberate Yom Tov desecration does not itself create that status, allowing the to discuss the lesser Rabbinic defect caused by the prohibited writing.

Synopsis

An unintentionally written on or Yom Kippur can still effect a divorce. When the signing deliberately violate Yom Tov, their -level disqualification prevents the divorce; when only the writing was deliberately performed on Yom Tov but valid observe the delivery, the is Rabbinically disqualified.

Live ItNot every failure is the same

Not every failure is the same

This draws a sharp distinction between something done unintentionally and something done deliberately. The outward act may be similar, but the person’s awareness and choice change its significance.

That distinction can matter in how we look at our own mistakes. Forgetting something, reacting before thinking, and knowingly choosing something we knew was wrong are not identical failures. Treating them all the same can either make us unnecessarily hard on ourselves or let a deliberate choice seem smaller than it was. Growth starts with accurately identifying what happened, and then responding to that—not to a harsher or softer version of it.

Try today

Take one recent mistake and ask, “Was this a lack of awareness, a habit, or a conscious choice?”

Suggested reflection on 3:19.

The Rebbe’s guidance: Bring the daily learning into life
Sources & editorial method

Hebrew text: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Gerushin, Chapter 3. The Hebrew is preserved as the primary text and divided into short learning units.

Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.

Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.

Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.

Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.

Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.

Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.

Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.

The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.

Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.

Chapter 3 at a glance

Chapter review

Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.

  • Even a perfectly matching is invalid if it was not originally written for this particular husband, this particular wife, and their divorce.
  • To help scribes prepare efficiently, the Sages allowed the standard text to be written in advance, but the essential individualized portions must be left blank and later written specifically for the particular husband and wife.
  • When two properly written for identically named couples become mixed together, giving both documents to each woman ensures that each receives her own . If one is lost, the remaining document cannot establish a definite divorce because its intended recipient is unknown.
  • A supervised deaf-mute, mentally incompetent person, or minor may write the standard portion of a from the outset. A non-Jew or servant may not do so, because the permission to prepare such forms without was granted only as a limited accommodation for scribes.
  • An unintentionally written on or Yom Kippur can still effect a divorce. When the signing deliberately violate Yom Tov, their -level disqualification prevents the divorce; when only the writing was deliberately performed on Yom Tov but valid observe the delivery, the is Rabbinically disqualified.
פרק ג

End of chapter.

You have reached the end of all nineteen halachos.