A may be written only with a substance whose mark endures,
The writing must remain recognizable rather than quickly disappearing. The requirement concerns the durability of the written mark itself.
;
such as ink, ,,, and similar substances;
These are examples of writing materials that leave a lasting impression. refers to a colored substance used for writing or painting, while and are materials that could be combined with other substances to produce durable writing.
◇BackgroundTraditional writing materials
The precise identification of ,, and varies among the commentators. explains them as different colored mineral or powder-based substances used in preparing writing material. Their exact composition is not essential to the ruling; the key point is that they produce writing that remains visible.
,
But if the was written with a substance that does not endure,
-
such as beverages, fruit juices, or similar liquids—
.
it is not a valid .
Because the writing itself will not last, the document lacks the enduring written form required of a .
,
If it was written with lead, a stylus, or charcoal,
,
it is valid,
.
but these should not be used from the outset.
These materials can produce writing sufficiently permanent for the to be valid after the fact, but they are not the preferred materials for preparing one initially.
Synopsis
A must be written with a substance that leaves a lasting mark. Writing that quickly disappears is invalid, while certain less-preferred but durable materials can be accepted after the fact.
Gallnut liquid may be used for writing a from the outset,
.
when writing on paper, hide, or similar surfaces.
Gallnut liquid can produce a recognizable written mark on these materials and may therefore be used initially.
,
But it should not be used on parchment that has itself been treated with gallnuts,
.
because the writing is not distinguishable.
The problem is not that gallnut liquid is inherently unsuitable. Rather, when the writing material and the prepared surface are too similar, the letters do not stand out clearly enough from the parchment.
,.
If it was written that way, it is not a valid .
.
The same rule applies to every comparable case.
Any combination of writing material and surface that prevents the writing from being properly distinguishable creates the same problem.
,
A may be written on any type of material,
.
even on something from which benefit is forbidden.
The physical material on which the is written does not have to be something from which ordinary benefit is permitted.
.
A may also be written on a surface that can be altered or falsified,
A document written on such a surface could potentially be erased and changed without leaving obvious evidence. That possibility does not automatically invalidate a .
,.
provided that it is given to her in the presence of to the delivery.
Here the to the delivery become essential. Because the written document itself is vulnerable to later alteration, the divorce cannot rely only on signatures appearing on that document; must directly observe the actual transfer.
Synopsis
A may be written on many kinds of materials, but the writing must be visible. If the surface can be altered without detection, must observe the delivery.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A is written on a surface from which writing could later be erased and replaced without leaving an obvious mark. The document may still be used, but only if valid actually see the husband deliver that to the woman. Their testimony establishes what was transferred at the time of the divorce, despite the surface’s vulnerability to later alteration.
🔎Dig DeeperWriting on Different Surfaces
Writing on Different Surfaces
The understands the as permitting such a material even from the outset. The , 124:1, follows a stricter opinion associated with , allowing such a only after the fact.
The adds an important limitation: if the material is something that must itself be destroyed, the cannot serve as a valid document.
Sources: Beit Shmuel on , 124:1; , 124:1; Tosafot on 20b; Rama on 124:1.
These examples show how broadly the physical medium of a can vary. It need not be an ordinary sheet of parchment or paper, provided the legal requirements governing the writing and transfer are satisfied.
and he gives her the servant or the cow,
,
or the erased paper or another comparable item,
.
in the presence of .
When the is written on an object or living being, the object carrying the writing itself must be transferred to the woman. For example, if the is written on the cow’s horn, the cow itself must be given to her; the horn may not simply be detached afterward and handed over separately.
Because these surfaces can present concerns about later alteration, the transfer must take place before , as explained in the previous .
◇BackgroundWhy a can use unusual surfaces
An ordinary legal document generally serves as ongoing evidence of a transaction, so a surface that can easily be altered creates a serious evidentiary problem. A , by contrast, functions as the instrument that brings about the divorce when it is properly transferred. This allows it to be written on materials that would not necessarily be suitable for other legal documents, provided the transfer itself is established correctly.
Synopsis
A may be written even on unusual surfaces, including a servant or an animal. The object bearing the itself must be transferred to the woman in the legally required manner.
🔎Dig DeeperUnusual Materials Can Carry a
Unusual Materials Can Carry a
The explains that although simply transferring an animal in this manner would ordinarily not be a sufficient method of acquisition, the situation here is different. The primary purpose of the transfer is not to convey ownership of the cow as an ordinary transaction, but to deliver the written on it.
If the was engraved on a servant’s hand as a tattoo,
,
and the servant was in the woman’s possession,
-
and the ’ signatures were also engraved on his hand—
,
she is divorced,
;
even though she has no who observed the delivery,
.
because the writing cannot be falsified.
Unlike a document written on an erasable surface, a tattoo permanently embedded in the servant’s skin cannot easily be altered into a different . The signed can therefore serve as reliable evidence even without who directly observed its transfer.
This first case assumes that the servant was known to belong to the woman, removing any separate uncertainty about how he came into her possession.
,
Even if the servant was previously established as belonging to the husband,
,
and a is engraved on his hand,
,
and he is now in the woman’s possession,
״״-
and she says, “He was delivered to me in the presence of ”—
;
her divorce is of doubtful validity,
The problem here is no longer the reliability of the writing. The question is whether the servant was actually transferred to her by the husband.
,
because perhaps he entered her possession on his own,
.
since possession of living beings that move independently does not establish ownership.
A movable living being can change location on its own. Merely finding the servant in her possession therefore does not prove that the husband deliberately transferred him to her as the .
Synopsis
A permanently tattooed and signed can establish a divorce without to delivery when the servant is properly shown to be hers. If the servant previously belonged to the husband and his transfer cannot be established, the divorce remains doubtful.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A and its ’ signatures are permanently tattooed on a servant who was known to belong to the husband. Later, the servant is found living with the wife, and she says that her husband gave him to her before . Because the servant could have gone there on his own, her possession alone cannot prove that the required transfer occurred. Her divorce therefore remains doubtful unless there is independent proof of the delivery.
even if it had previously been established that the tablet belonged to her,
,
she is divorced,
The fact that the physical tablet originally belonged to the woman does not by itself invalidate the .
,
because the woman herself may write her own ,
As established earlier, the person who physically writes the does not have to be the husband. The wife herself can prepare the writing, provided the other requirements are satisfied.
Although the surface on which the is written must belong to the husband when it is used for the divorce, her original ownership creates no difficulty here. Since signed the , we assume they verified that she transferred the tablet to the husband for the purpose of the divorce before they signed.
because the is established through the who signed it,
.
when there are no to its delivery.
When no directly observed the transfer, the signatures establish the authenticity and validity of the . Their presence supports the assumption that the requirements necessary for the tablet to be used for the divorce had been properly satisfied.
Synopsis
A signed engraved on a tablet can be valid even when the tablet originally belonged to the woman, because the signed establish that the necessary requirements for using it in the divorce were properly satisfied.
If the was engraved on a board, a stone, or a metal plate,
-,
if he carved out the strokes that form the letters, the is valid,
Here the engraving is done directly in the shape of the letters themselves. The carved lines create the written forms, so this is considered an act of writing.
.
because this is considered writing.
״...״(,),
As the verse states, “Written with an iron pen…” (Jeremiah 17:1),
,.
meaning that it was carved out.
The verse shows that engraving the actual strokes of letters can still be described as writing.
Similarly, if he engraved the strokes from the back of the plate
.
until they projected from the front of the plate,
the is valid.
Although the letters now protrude rather than sink into the surface, they were still formed by working directly on the strokes of the letters themselves.
,
But if he carved out the interior of the letter,
,
until the strokes of the letter appeared raised on either side,
-
like the raised lettering on gold —
,
it is not a valid ,
.
because this is not considered writing.
If he removes the material around the letter so that the letter remains standing in relief, he has shaped the surrounding surface rather than directly forming the letter itself. That is not considered writing.
Synopsis
Engraving counts as writing when the strokes of the letters themselves are formed. If the surrounding material is removed so that the letters merely remain raised, the result is not considered writing.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Imagine two metal plates. On the first, the scribe scratches the actual lines of the letters into the metal; that is considered writing. On the second, he removes the metal around each letter until the untouched letter stands out like lettering on a coin. Since he formed the background rather than the letter itself, that is invalid.
The left plate has carved letter strokes; the right has a raised letter formed by cutting around it. The mark is schematic, not text from a .
If someone incises the form of letters into a hide,
-
or traces the form of letters onto a hide—
.
the is valid.
These are additional ways of forming recognizable letters on the writing surface. The considers both methods sufficient for a valid .
.
A may be written in any script and in any language.
There is no requirement that the itself be written specifically in Hebrew or Aramaic, nor that it use only one particular style of lettering.
,
If a is written using the script of one language,
-.
and its sign using the script of another language, it is valid.
The writing of the and the ’ signatures do not need to use the same script.
,.
This is provided that they understand the language of the writing and its script.
Because this case already departs from the ordinary form of a , the must themselves be able to understand what is written and recognize the script being used.
Synopsis
A can be formed by different writing methods and may be written in any script or language. Even the may sign in a different script, provided they understand the language and writing being used.
🔎Dig DeeperWriting in Different Scripts and Languages
Writing in Different Scripts and Languages
Later authorities debate the first part of this . The , 125:5, records opinions that distinguish between the two methods: some accept incising the form of letters but reject tracing them, while others accept tracing and disqualify incising.
The also records in a responsum that his teacher, , preferred a written in a non–-scroll style of Hebrew script rather than in the formal script used for a . Later practice developed differently, and the standard custom became to use the traditional Assyrian script.
Sources: , 125:5 and 126:1; , Responsa, part 7, no. 507, quoting the Rambam’s responsum and Rav Yosef Migash.
and the second witness signed using the script of another language—
.
the is valid.
Each witness’s signature is an independent act of testimony. The two signatures therefore do not need to be written in the same language or script.
But if part of the itself was written in one language
-
and another part in a different language—
.
it is disqualified.
The itself is one unified document and must therefore be written in a single language. This differs from the ’ signatures, which remain separate statements even when they appear on the same document.
Synopsis
Two may sign in different languages because each signature stands independently. The itself, however, is one document and may not be divided between different languages.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Different Languages May Be Combined
When Different Languages May Be Combined
The explains the distinction between the and its signatures. Each witness signs independently, so one witness may use one language and the other a different one. The itself, however, is a single unit; dividing that unit between different languages creates the defect.
The notes that the standard contains both Hebrew and Aramaic. This does not violate the rule, because these two languages are treated as one language for this purpose, since both were used at Sinai.
the scribe must take care with the wording of the ,
,
so that its words do not carry two possible meanings,
The language must make the act of divorce unmistakable. A wording that can reasonably be understood in two different ways is not sufficiently clear.
:
to the point that a reader might say:
“Perhaps he intended such-and-such,”
,
which would not express divorce,
“or perhaps he intended this other meaning,”
.
which would express divorce.
If the reader must choose between a non-divorce meaning and a divorce meaning, the document has failed to state the divorce with sufficient precision.
Rather, the words in that language must leave no doubt,
,
and must express only one meaning:
.
that a particular man divorced and released a particular woman.
The wording must communicate one clear legal act: that this particular man is divorcing and releasing this particular woman.
Synopsis
A may be written in any language, but its wording must communicate only one clear meaning: that this man is divorcing and releasing this woman.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
Suppose a phrase in the can naturally be read in two ways: one meaning says that the husband is divorcing his wife, while the other describes something unrelated to divorce. Even if the divorce reading is possible, that is not enough. The language must be clear enough that a normal reader is not left deciding between two meanings.
✦Live ItMake the plan unmistakable
Make the plan unmistakable
The allows a in any language, but its words must have one clear meaning: this husband releases this wife. A phrase that could also mean something else cannot do the job.
We sometimes use shorthand when a decision matters to someone else. ‘I’ll take care of it’ can leave the other person guessing about what will happen. If you are agreeing to pick up a child, naming the time and place helps both of you rely on the same plan. Clarity is a small way to respect someone who is counting on your words.
Try today
Clarify one plan today by saying exactly what you will do and when.
Similarly, the writing must be clearly formed in whatever script is being used,
The previous required clarity of meaning; this requires clarity of the actual letter forms.
,
to the point that children who know that script can read it,
The uses ordinary children who know the script as a practical test of whether the letters are clearly recognizable.
,
meaning children who are neither unusually perceptive nor unusually slow,
.
but rather of average ability.
The test is not whether an especially clever child can decipher difficult writing, or whether an unusually weak reader cannot. The standard is an ordinary child who knows the script.
-
The writing should not be crooked or confused,
,
lest one letter resemble another,
.
causing the meaning to change.
Thus, the issue is not simply whether the handwriting looks neat. The letters must be identifiable with enough certainty that one letter cannot reasonably be mistaken for another and thereby change the meaning of the .
Synopsis
The letters of a must be clear enough for an average child familiar with the script to read them. Confused handwriting is unacceptable when one letter could be mistaken for another and thereby change the meaning.
If the contains wording that can have two meanings,
or its writing is distorted or confused
,
to the point that a different meaning could be read from it,
since it can nevertheless be read as referring to divorce
-
and it does contain a meaning of divorce—
.
the is disqualified.
The is not completely void, because its wording or lettering can still be understood as expressing divorce. Nevertheless, since another reasonable reading is also possible, it does not meet the standard of clarity required from the outset.
,
The Jewish people have already adopted the practice of writing a in Aramaic,
,
using the following text,
,
even though it is permitted to write it in any language,
.
even from the outset.
The distinguishes between what is legally permitted and what became accepted Jewish practice. A may technically be written in other languages, but established Jewish practice is to use a fixed Aramaic formula.
◇BackgroundThe standard Aramaic text
The basic Aramaic form of the was already in use in the Talmudic period. Later authorities introduced some minor differences in wording and practice, so the exact standard text used in later communities is not identical in every detail to the wording recorded here.
This background is optional because it does not change the ’s ruling that other languages are technically valid.
Synopsis
A that can reasonably be read in more than one way is disqualified even if one reading clearly expresses divorce. Although any language may be used, established Jewish practice is to write the in a standard Aramaic form.
On such-and-such a day of the week, on such-and-such a day of a particular month,
in such-and-such a year from Creation, or according to the era used for legal documents,
.
according to the system of dating customarily used in a particular place.
The begins by fixing its date and location according to the accepted dating system of that place.
Thus I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, from a particular place,
,
and every other name or nickname by which I, my fathers, my place, or the places of my fathers are known,
The formula identifies the husband broadly enough to encompass the names and identifying designations associated with him and his family.
have willingly, of my own free will and without coercion,
released, dismissed, and divorced you,
,
you, so-and-so daughter of so-and-so, from a particular city,
and every other name or nickname by which you, your fathers, your place, or the places of your fathers are known,
The same broad identification is used for the woman.
who until now have been my wife,
,
and now I release, dismiss, and divorce you,
so that you are free and have authority over yourself
,
to go and marry any man you choose,
,
and no person may restrain you on my behalf from this day onward forever,
.
and you are hereby permitted to every man.
This is the central legal declaration: the husband releases the woman from the marriage and explicitly gives her freedom to marry another man.
And this shall be for you from me a document of divorce,
a of release and a letter of dismissal,
.
in accordance with the law of and .
,:
The sign beneath the text, as previously explained:
.
So-and-so son of so-and-so, witness.
.
So-and-so son of so-and-so, witness.
◇BackgroundNames and places in the standard text
Later practice concerning the way personal names and places are recorded is not identical to every detail of the ’s formula. For example, later authorities discuss whether all known names should be written explicitly and how a person’s current location should be identified when a fixed hometown is no longer meaningful.
This background is optional because it concerns later drafting practice rather than the meaning of the ’s text itself.
Synopsis
The standard identifies the date, place, husband, and wife; states that the husband acts freely; releases the woman from the marriage; authorizes her to marry another man; and concludes with the ’ signatures.
When the is written in this language and according to this formula,
the spelling must be precise so that individual letters do not change the meaning of the declaration.
״״-
he should not write “” with an additional ,
,
lest the reader pronounce it “,”
.
meaning, “There will be a judgment between me and you.”
Instead of introducing the document as “this” , the altered spelling could produce language referring to a legal judgment between the husband and wife.
״״-
Nor should he write “” with an additional ,
,
lest the reader divide it and read it as “,”
.
meaning, “if she committed adultery.”
A small spelling change could thus turn part of the divorce formula into an entirely unrelated conditional statement.
״״-
Nor should he write “” with an additional ,
,
lest the reader divide it and read it as “,”
.
meaning that it is a matter of amusement to me.
״״״-
Nor should he write “” and “” with only two ,
,
lest the reader pronounce them “” and “,”
,
which would mean that he is speaking to two women,
,
with the result that he is not divorcing this woman,
.
but rather addressing two other women.
The required spelling preserves the form addressed to one woman. With only two , the words could be read as addressing two women.
״-
Similarly, he should lengthen the final of “,”
,
lest it resemble a ,
,
causing it to be read as “,”
.
meaning, “On this condition I will release you.”
That would change an unconditional declaration of divorce into wording that could be understood as conditional.
״״-
Similarly, he should lengthen the in “” and “,”
,
lest it resemble a ,
,
causing them to be read as forms that imply the opposite direction of the action,
.
as though he were saying that she released and divorced him.
The direction of the divorce would then be reversed: instead of the husband divorcing the wife, the wording could imply that she divorced him.
-
In this same way, care must be taken with every language and every script in which a is written,
.
so that it does not contain wording capable of two meanings.
The specific Aramaic spellings are examples of the broader rule stated earlier: the ’s words and letters must leave no uncertainty about what is being said.
Synopsis
The spelling and formation of individual letters must be precise, because even a single or can change the meaning, introduce a condition, alter the number of women being addressed, or reverse who is divorcing whom.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A single in the Aramaic text is written so short that it looks like a . Instead of reading as an unconditional statement that the husband is divorcing his wife now, the phrase could be understood as saying that he will divorce her only on a certain condition. The problem is not cosmetic handwriting: the changed letter creates a different legal meaning.
🔎Dig DeeperPrecise Spelling Prevents a Different Meaning
Precise Spelling Prevents a Different Meaning
The disagrees with the ’s strict ruling about these spelling defects. He maintains that such a is disqualified only when the husband objects and claims that the scribe intentionally wrote the wording that way.
The notes that the outcome may also depend on whether the woman has already remarried on the strength of the . The gives another limitation, treating the defect more severely when the husband himself wrote the or specifically instructed the scribe to write it incorrectly.
The , 126:22, records the Rambam’s ruling together with these differing views. It also records a specific exception: if תצבייין and תהוייין were written with only two , the is nevertheless acceptable.
Sources: Raavad and Maggid Mishneh on 4:13; Tur, 126; , 126:22.
These are the spelling and letter-form errors described in the previous . Because these defects can change how the divorce formula is read, the is not acceptable as written.
,
The same applies to every comparable error,
-.
in any language: the is disqualified.
The rule is not limited to Aramaic. Whenever spelling or letter formation in any language creates this kind of ambiguity, the same problem arises.
Synopsis
If the scribe makes spelling or letter-form errors that can change how the is read, the document is disqualified. The same principle applies in every language.
if the affected text is from the standard portion of the ,
.
the is valid.
An erasure or inserted word in the , the standard wording, does not invalidate the document.
,
But if it is from the , the essential individualized portion,
.
it is not a valid .
The contains the essential individualized portions of this particular , so an unexplained alteration there creates a fundamental problem.
But if he later clarified at the end of the
,
that a particular letter was inserted between the lines or written over an erasure,
-,
then even if it is from the , the is valid,
.
as with other legal documents.
Once the irregularity is explicitly recorded at the end of the document, it is no longer an unexplained alteration. The can therefore be authenticated in the same manner as other formal legal documents.
,
Similarly, if a is found torn both lengthwise and crosswise,
-
which is the form of tearing used by a —
,
the is void,
.
as with other legal documents.
This particular pattern is the form of tearing used by a to invalidate a legal document, so the is treated as void.
,
But if the was torn
-
in some manner other than the standard tear—
.
it is valid.
A mere tear does not by itself show the formal invalidation represented by a tear.
Synopsis
An unexplained erasure or insertion in the standard portion does not invalidate a , but one in the essential does. If the alteration is formally noted at the end, even the can remain valid. A formal tear voids the , while an ordinary tear does not.
🔎Dig DeeperErasures, Insertions, and a Torn
Erasures, Insertions, and a Torn
The , 125:19, records a later practice not to rely from the outset on a containing an erasure merely by noting the correction at its end. When no alternative is available, however, later authorities allow greater reliance on who observed the delivery.
Concerning a torn with the formal pattern, the adds that if the document had previously been authenticated by a court, the tear may have been made only to prevent the woman from using the same document a second time to collect her . The records this qualification alongside the ’s ruling.
Sources: , 125:19; Raavad on 4:15; Chelkat Mechokek on 125.
If the became faded, decayed, or full of holes like a sieve—
.
it is valid.
Physical deterioration does not automatically invalidate a . The key question is whether the document can still function as a readable .
,
If it was partially erased or its writing became blurred,
:
but the form of its writing still remains:
,;
if it can still be read, it is valid;
,.
but if it cannot be read, it is not a valid .
The decisive point is readability. If enough of the original writing remains for the document to be read, its deterioration does not prevent it from functioning. If the writing can no longer be read, the has lost the written content necessary to serve as a .
As the next clarifies, this ruling concerns a whose validity is being established from the document itself rather than from who observed its delivery.
Synopsis
Physical damage does not necessarily invalidate a . If the writing remains readable, the can remain valid; if it can no longer be read, it is invalid.
When the is in the woman’s possession with ’ signatures on it,
.
and there are no who observed its delivery.
In that situation, the signed itself must be capable of establishing the divorce. Defects in the document therefore become critical because there are no delivery to establish what was transferred to her.
,
But if there are who testify that the was delivered to her in their presence,
-
and it was valid at that time—
,
the is valid,
When valid personally saw the delivered, the divorce can be established through that witnessed transfer. For that reason, some defects in the document that would prevent relying on the signed alone do not necessarily defeat the divorce.
,
even if the essential individualized portion of the was written over an erasure,
,
or between the lines,
These irregularities would be problematic if the document itself had to stand as the sole proof of the divorce. With valid to the delivery, however, the witnessed transfer establishes the divorce.
or the was torn both lengthwise and crosswise
.
when he gave it to her in their presence.
According to the , the same principle applies even if the already had this formal pattern of tearing at the time of delivery. The must still have been readable and otherwise capable of functioning as a ; cannot rescue a document whose text could no longer be read.
Synopsis
When no saw the delivery, the signed itself must be capable of establishing the divorce. When valid observed the transfer, their testimony can establish the divorce even when certain document defects were already present at the time of delivery.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Delivery Establish the Divorce
When Delivery Establish the Divorce
The emphasizes that the must still have been readable and valid when it was delivered. If it had already faded to the point that it could not be read at the moment of delivery, to that delivery would not rescue it.
He also records the stricter view of the , who maintains that a already torn lengthwise and crosswise before delivery should not be accepted. The Maggid Mishneh does not adopt that position, and the , 125:21, records both views while giving substantial weight to the ’s ruling.
Sources: Maggid Mishneh on 4:17; Rashba as quoted in Maggid Mishneh on 4:17; , 125:21.
for example, they wrote, “On such-and-such a day of the week, so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so,”
,״,
and each man then addressed his own wife with the formula, “Go, so that you shall be…”
,
followed by the entire standard text of the ,
-
and two signed beneath the document—
.
the is valid.
Although all five divorces appear together on a single document, each husband is identified as divorcing his own wife, and the shared formula applies to each couple individually.
.
The document should be given to each woman in the presence of to the delivery.
Each woman must receive the document containing the divorce directed to her.
-
If there are no to the delivery—
,
whichever woman has this scroll in her possession,
.
is divorced.
The signed document in her possession establishes her divorce. The other women, by contrast, lack proof that the document was actually delivered to them.
״״
But if the scribe wrote, “On such-and-such a day of the week, so-and-so divorced so-and-so,”
,
and completed that entire ,
,
and then began another beneath it on the same scroll,
״״״״
writing, “And on this day,” or, “On such-and-such a day of the week, so-and-so divorced so-and-so,”
,
and completed the second ,
,
and continued in this manner until all of the were completed,
-
with the signing beneath the final one—
,
if this scroll was given to each woman in the presence of to the delivery,
.
all of them are divorced.
Here each divorce is written as a separate complete on the same scroll. Even though the sign only at the bottom, witnessed delivery of each properly written is sufficient.
,
But if there are no to the delivery,
:
and the scroll is found in the possession of one of the women:
-
if she is the woman whose appears last, so that the ’ signatures are read together with her —
;
she is divorced;
-
but if the scroll is in the possession of one of the women whose appear earlier—
.
her divorce is of doubtful validity.
The final is directly followed by the ’ signatures, while the earlier do not have that same direct connection to the signatures. Without to delivery, possession of the scroll therefore establishes the last woman’s divorce more securely than it does the earlier ones.
Synopsis
Several divorces can appear on one scroll, but the result depends on how the individual are structured, where the sign, and whether observe each delivery.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Five complete are written one beneath another on a single scroll, with two signing only beneath the fifth. If personally see the scroll delivered to each woman, all five divorces take effect. If there are no delivery and the fifth woman possesses the scroll, her is directly followed by the signatures and she is divorced. If one of the earlier women possesses it, her divorce remains doubtful.
Five complete share a scroll; the signatures immediately follow only the fifth. Witnessed delivery to each woman can establish all five divorces. The rows are placeholders, not actual text.
If the document states, “We, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, have divorced our wives, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so,”
-
and the was completed in that form—
,
even if it was delivered to each woman in the presence of ,
;
it is not a valid ;
Here the women are being divorced together through one collective act expressed in a single , rather than each woman receiving an individually formulated divorce within the document.
,
because two women cannot be divorced through one ,
״״(,;,),
as it is stated, “And he shall write for her” ( 24:1, 3),
.
for her—and not for her together with another woman.
The requires the written act of divorce to be directed individually to the woman being divorced.
,
But if he then specified them individually within the ,
״״-
writing, “So-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, on this particular date”—
.
these divorces are valid.
The individual statements transform the collective wording into separately identified acts of divorce for each couple.
Synopsis
Several couples cannot be divorced together through one collective . If the document separately identifies each husband’s divorce of his own wife, the individual divorces can be valid.
✦Live ItSpeak to each person
Speak to each person
The rules that several couples cannot be divorced by one collective . Within one document, each husband's divorce of his own wife must be stated individually; a general statement about everyone together is insufficient.
A group check-in can be useful, but it does not always tell us how each person is doing. At dinner, a parent may ask everyone how school went and hear a quick ‘fine.’ A few minutes with one child can make room for a fuller answer. We can notice when a general message has done its job and when someone would benefit from a question addressed just to them.
Try today
Ask one person a specific question today and give them time to answer.
If two were written in two columns on a single scroll,
:
one beside the other:
,
if two ’ signatures are read as appearing at the end of this ,
-
and two ’ signatures appear at the end of the other —
,
the arrangement is valid,
Each has its own pair of signatures visibly connected to it. The fact that both share the same physical scroll does not combine them into one document.
and whichever woman has this scroll in her possession
.
is divorced.
Because her individual has its own valid signatures, possession of the scroll can establish her divorce even without to delivery.
Synopsis
Two separate may be written side by side on the same scroll when each has its own pair of ’ signatures. Each remains an independent document, and the woman who possesses the scroll can be divorced through the written for her.
🔎Dig DeeperTwo Written Side by Side
Two Written Side by Side
The notes that if both women receive the scroll in the presence of valid to the delivery, both divorces take effect. In that situation, each woman receives her own properly written through a witnessed transfer.
This highlights the distinction between relying on the signatures themselves and relying on , who observe delivery. When each side-by-side has its own signatures, possession can establish the divorce; witnessed delivery can independently establish it as well.
If there were only two , and their signatures extended from beneath one to beneath the other,
The fact that the signatures physically extend beneath both columns does not mean that they validate both . What matters is which can actually be read together with the completed signatures.
-
if the scroll is in the possession of the woman whose is read together with the ’ signatures—
;
she is divorced;
Her is directly connected to the ’ signatures, so the signed document in her possession can establish the divorce.
but if the scroll is in the possession of the second woman,
-
whose is not read together with the ’ signatures—
,
it is not a valid ,
.
unless it is delivered to her in the presence of .
Her does not have valid signatures visibly connected to it. It can therefore take effect only through who personally observe its delivery.
Synopsis
When two signatures extend beneath side-by-side , only the that can be read together with the completed signatures can rely on them. The other requires to its delivery.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Two are written side by side. A witness begins his signature beneath the first column and completes it beneath the second, and the second witness does the same. If the completed signatures are read as belonging to the first , the woman named in that can rely on the signed document. The second woman cannot rely on those signatures and needs who actually saw her receive her .
The two signature lines cross beneath both columns. In this example they are read with A; B needs witnessed delivery. This is a layout diagram, not an actual or signature.
so that the signatures appear at the end of the first and above the second:
the signatures are visibly connected to the first , not to the second.
,
if the scroll is in the possession of the woman whose ends with those signatures,
.
she is divorced.
,
But the woman whose has the signatures appearing above it at its beginning,
.
is not divorced.
Signatures appearing above the beginning of a are not treated as signatures on that . They relate naturally to the document that ends immediately above them.
,
If the signed at the top of the page of a ,
,
or at its side,
-
or on its reverse side—
.
it is not a valid .
The signatures must appear in the proper relationship to the written . Signatures placed at the top, side, or back do not establish the document as a properly signed .
,.
But if it was delivered to her in the presence of , it is valid.
Even though the signatures are improperly placed, to the actual delivery can establish the divorce independently.
Synopsis
Signatures appearing between two relate to the above them, not the one below. Improperly placed signatures cannot establish the on their own, but to delivery can still validate the divorce.
If the top of one was arranged facing the top of the other ,
,
with the ’ signatures in the middle,
-
so that the signatures appear at the beginning of both —
;
both are void;
The signatures are positioned at the beginning of both texts rather than at the end of either , so neither document is properly established through those signatures.
,
But if the were delivered to the women in the presence of ,
.
both are valid.
to delivery independently establish each divorce, so the defective placement of the signatures no longer prevents the from taking effect.
Synopsis
If the ’ signatures appear at the beginning of both , neither document is valid on the strength of those signatures. If personally observe the delivery of each , both divorces are valid.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
Two are written so that their beginnings face one another, with the signing in the space between them. The signatures are positioned at the beginning of both texts rather than at the end of either , so they cannot validate either document. If later see each actually delivered to the proper woman, however, both divorces can still take effect.
The signatures are at the beginning of both , so they establish neither document by themselves. to each delivery can still establish both divorces.
and wrote that remaining portion in the second column,
-
with the signing below, at the end of the second column—
.
the is valid.
A single may continue from one column into another, provided it is clear that the second column is genuinely the continuation of the first.
,
This applies provided that it is evident from the scroll
that it was not cut apart
and that the scribe intended it this way,
.
namely, to complete the in the second column.
The physical scroll must show that the two sections belong together as one continuous document.
-
But if this is not evident—
,
even if it was delivered in the presence of ,
;
her divorce is of doubtful validity;
to the delivery cannot resolve the uncertainty about whether the document itself was originally written as one .
because perhaps there were originally two separate ,
and part of one was cut away from the bottom of one column,
.
and part of the second was cut away from the top of the other column.
If so, the remaining sections could now appear to be one continuous document even though they originally belonged to two separate . There would then be a concern that part of the document being used was not originally written as part of this woman’s .
Synopsis
A may continue from one column to another when the scroll clearly shows that this was the scribe’s original plan. If it could instead consist of surviving portions of two separate , the divorce remains doubtful even with to delivery.
Picture the CaseA concrete example + illustration
A begins in one column of a scroll and continues naturally at the top of the next column, with the signing at the end. If the intact scroll clearly shows that this was one continuous document, the is valid. If the scroll does not clearly show this, it is possible that there were originally two separate and that portions of each were cut away, leaving the remaining sections looking like one document. In that case, the divorce remains doubtful.
On the intact scroll the continuation is evident. If missing portions might have joined parts of two separate , the continuity is uncertain. All lines are placeholders.
✦Live ItAsk for the missing context
Ask for the missing context
A may continue from one column to the next when the scroll clearly shows it was written that way. If the sections might instead be remnants of two separate , even to delivery cannot resolve that uncertainty about the writing.
A partial account can feel like a complete story. A friend might forward one line from a conversation, leaving out what came before and after it. Before reacting, we can ask for the surrounding context and be honest about what we still do not know. That pause can keep us from responding to a story we assembled ourselves.
Try today
Before drawing a conclusion from a partial account, ask what came before and after.
and after completing it wrote, “Send regards to so-and-so,”
״״,
or, “Greetings to you, so-and-so, my friend,”
,
or something similar,
,
and the signed beneath that greeting,
-
and this is found in the woman’s possession—
,
her divorce is of doubtful validity,
.
because perhaps the signed only in connection with the greeting.
Since the greeting appears as a separate statement after the , the signatures beneath it may refer only to that greeting rather than to the itself. The woman’s possession of the document therefore does not establish with certainty that the was properly signed.
״״,
But if he wrote, “And send regards to so-and-so,”
״״,
or, “Greetings to you, so-and-so, my friend,”
,
or something similar,
,
in a way that connects these words to the text of the ,
-
so that the signed with both in mind—
.
she is divorced.
Because the greeting is written as connected to the words of the rather than as a separate statement, the are understood to have signed both.
-
And if the was delivered to her in the presence of —
,
whether it was written in the first manner or the second,
.
the is valid.
When observe the actual delivery, the uncertainty about what the signing intended no longer prevents the divorce from taking effect.
Synopsis
If a separate greeting is written after the before the sign, there may be doubt whether they signed the or only the greeting. If the greeting is written as a continuation of the , the ’ signatures apply to both; and if valid observe the delivery, the is valid in either case.
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 4 at a glance
Chapter review
Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.
A must be written with a substance that leaves a lasting mark. Writing that quickly disappears is invalid, while certain less-preferred but durable materials can be accepted after the fact.
Engraving counts as writing when the strokes of the letters themselves are formed. If the surrounding material is removed so that the letters merely remain raised, the result is not considered writing.
The standard identifies the date, place, husband, and wife; states that the husband acts freely; releases the woman from the marriage; authorizes her to marry another man; and concludes with the ’ signatures.
When no saw the delivery, the signed itself must be capable of establishing the divorce. When valid observed the transfer, their testimony can establish the divorce even when certain document defects were already present at the time of delivery.
If a separate greeting is written after the before the sign, there may be doubt whether they signed the or only the greeting. If the greeting is written as a continuation of the , the ’ signatures apply to both; and if valid observe the delivery, the is valid in either case.
פרק ד
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-five halachos.
