This chapter explains how a brought from one place to another is certified and delivered. It begins with transported within , where signatures could usually be authenticated if a later challenge arose. It then introduces the special declaration required for a brought within or across the Diaspora: “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” The chapter examines incomplete declarations, alternate signature authentication, chains of replacement agents, and unusual cases in which the woman herself carries the . The central distinction throughout is between an unsupported challenge, actual proof of forgery, and formal authentication of the ’ signatures.
פרק ז24 halachosMonday, September 28, 2026י״ז בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 90–120 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 24 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
If an agent brings a from one place to another within ,
,
even though he did not witness the writing of the ,
,
and does not know who its are,
but the husband gave him the
״״-
and told him, “Give this to my wife”—
,
he may give it to her in the presence of two ,
The delivery must be established by two . According to the , the agent himself can serve as one of them, so one additional witness can join him.
,
and even though the who signed the are not known to us,
,
she is divorced,
.
and she may remarry on its basis.
The signatures do not need to be independently verified at this stage. In , where courts and were more readily available, the Sages did not impose the special certification procedure required for a transported through the Diaspora.
◇BackgroundWhy is different
In the period reflected by these , Jewish courts met frequently in , making it relatively practical to locate and verify signatures if a later question arose. In the Diaspora, this could be much more difficult, so the Sages established an additional procedure there.
In later practice, the stricter procedure used for brought in the Diaspora came to be followed in as well.
Synopsis
An agent bringing a from one place to another within may deliver it even if he did not witness its writing or know the signing . The woman may rely on the and remarry unless a later challenge changes its status.
Once the husband directly challenges the as forged, the original presumption is no longer enough. The signatures must now be verified.
If the signatures cannot be authenticated
-
and the signing are completely unknown—
she must leave her second husband,
;
and the child is a ;
.
because she is treated as not having been divorced.
If the signatures cannot be authenticated, the treats the woman as not having established that she was divorced from her first husband.
,
If the was lost,
.
her divorce is doubtful.
Because the document is no longer available, there is no way to authenticate its signatures and resolve the husband’s challenge.
,
Therefore, women who are presumed to hate one another
-
are not trusted to bring a for one another within —
,
because perhaps the is forged,
,
and the woman bringing it intends to ruin the other woman’s status,
so that she will remarry
.
and become forbidden to her husband.
The concern is that she will rely on the forged and remarry. If the forgery is then exposed, the resulting adulterous relationship can leave her forbidden both to her first husband and to the second man.
Synopsis
If the husband challenges the authenticity of a brought within , its signatures must be verified. If verification becomes impossible, the woman’s status may become doubtful or severely compromised, which is why women presumed hostile to one another are not trusted to bring such a .
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent brings a from another city in . Everything appears valid, and remarries. Months later, her first husband appears and says, “I never divorced her. That document is forged.” At that point, the original assumption is no longer enough. If the signatures on the can be verified, the challenge fails. If they cannot be verified and the are unknown, the situation becomes extremely serious.
🔎Dig DeeperWhat Happens If the Husband Claims the Is Forged
What Happens If the Husband Claims the Is Forged
The explains that when the husband challenges the and the woman cannot authenticate its signatures, her prior status as a married woman remains in place until she can establish a valid divorce.
The adds an important qualification. Although the speaks as though she is not divorced, this may not be treated as absolute certainty in every respect. For example, if another man later performs with her, she may still require a from him because of the unresolved possibility that the first was valid.
The also records a dispute over whether children from the second marriage are definitely or whether their status is itself doubtful.
These are the women who are presumed to hate one another:
;
her mother-in-law;
This restriction applies in both directions: just as a mother-in-law may not bring the daughter-in-law’s , a daughter-in-law may not bring the mother-in-law’s .
;
her mother-in-law’s daughter;
,
a co-wife of hers,
;
even if that co-wife has since married someone else;
The presumption of hostility remains even after the two women are no longer married to the same man.
,
her ,
Her is the wife of her husband’s brother. If this woman’s husband were to die childless, his brother could become obligated in with her, which could place the two women in the position of being married to the same man.
;
even if that woman is her own sister;
Even though could not actually take place between sisters, since two sisters may not be married to the same man, the Sages did not distinguish within this category.
.
and her husband’s daughter.
.
All other women are qualified.
Synopsis
Several specific family relationships are presumed to involve enough hostility that one woman is not trusted to bring the other’s in . Other women remain qualified.
If an agent is bringing a from one place to another within ,
-
and he becomes ill or is prevented by circumstances beyond his control—
.
he may send it through another agent.
The first agent may appoint a replacement only when illness or another genuine obstacle prevents him from completing the mission himself. If nothing is stopping him, he may not simply transfer the task to someone else.
-
Similarly, the second agent—
,
if he becomes ill,
;
may send it through another agent;
.
even through a chain of one hundred agents.
Each later agent may appoint another if he too becomes unable to continue.
The agent does not require
.
when appointing the next agent.
According to the , the replacement agency does not need to be created in the presence of .
The final agent into whose hand the comes
,
gives it to the woman in the presence of two ,
,
and she is divorced through it,
.
even if the first agent has died.
The later agent’s authority ultimately stems from the husband’s original appointment. It does not depend on the continued life of the earlier agent, so the death of the first agent does not end the later agent’s authority.
Synopsis
An agent who becomes unable to continue may appoint another agent, and this chain can continue as necessary. The final agent may complete the delivery even if the original agent has died.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
is carrying a from Yerushalayim to but becomes too sick to continue traveling. He appoints to take it the rest of the way. If also becomes unable to continue, he may appoint . Even if later dies, can still deliver the , because the authority to complete the mission ultimately comes from the husband’s original appointment.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen an Agent May Appoint Another Agent
When an Agent May Appoint Another Agent
Although the does not require when one agent appoints another, the follows a stricter view for this second appointment, and later practice is to have it formally witnessed.
If an agent brings a from one place to another in the Diaspora,
,
or from to the Diaspora,
:
or from the Diaspora to :
these transfers are governed by the special certification procedure associated with a transported within or across the Diaspora.
if the agent was present there
-
when the was written and signed—
he declares in the presence of two people,
״״,
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
By law, a signed document does not require this additional authentication. The requirement to verify signatures is Rabbinic, and in this situation the Sages accepted the agent’s single declaration so that the woman would not be prevented from completing her divorce because the signing were difficult to locate.
,
and afterward the is given to her in their presence,
.
and she is divorced through it.
The declaration comes before the delivery and provides the necessary basis for accepting the .
.
This applies even though the who signed it are not known to us.
His declaration removes the need to locate those merely to authenticate their signatures.
,
Even if the have names that resemble non-Jewish names,
.
we do not suspect the on that account.
A non-Jewish-sounding name alone does not create a concern, because Jews living in the Diaspora commonly used local names.
Synopsis
For a transported within the Diaspora or across the boundary of , an agent who witnessed its writing and signing declares, “It was written and signed in my presence.” That declaration allows the to be accepted without independently verifying the signatures.
🔎Dig DeeperThe Special Declaration for a From the Diaspora
The Special Declaration for a From the Diaspora
explains that Jews living among non-Jews commonly adopted local names, so a witness’s non-Jewish-sounding name does not by itself establish that he was not Jewish.
Some later authorities are more cautious when the particular name would have been exceptionally unusual for a Jew.
When the Agent’s Declaration Defeats the Husband’s Protest
,
If the husband later comes and challenges the ,
.
we disregard his protest.
Once the agent has properly declared, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,” the Sages accepted that declaration with enough force to establish the . A later unsupported protest by the husband therefore does not undo it.
Therefore, even women who are presumed to hate one another
are trusted to bring such a
״״.
and to say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The earlier concern was that a hostile woman might forge a so that the wife would remarry and later become forbidden to both men when the forgery was exposed. Here, because the woman bringing the must personally certify that it was written and signed in her presence, the husband’s unsupported protest would not undo the divorce. The feared scheme therefore would not achieve its purpose.
Synopsis
Once an agent properly declares that the was written and signed in his or her presence, an unsupported protest by the husband is disregarded. Even women normally presumed hostile to one another may therefore bring such a .
and says, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
-
even though he was not required to make this declaration—
,
if the husband later comes and protests,
.
we disregard his protest.
Even where the declaration was not originally required, once the agent made it, the Sages accepted it with the same force as in a case where the declaration was mandatory.
But if the agent was not present
,
when the was written and signed,
it should not be given to the woman
.
unless its signatures have been authenticated.
For a that requires the Diaspora procedure, the agent can replace ordinary signature authentication only if he can truthfully make the required declaration. If he did not witness the writing and signing, the signatures must instead be verified in the normal way.
The agent may be included among the three
.
who authenticate the through its signatures.
Because this authentication is a Rabbinic procedure, the agent may also serve as one of the three judges who accept the signature verification.
,
If the signatures were not authenticated,
-
but the was nevertheless given to her—
the is disqualified
.
until the signatures are authenticated.
Here means that the may not presently be relied upon because the required Rabbinic verification is still missing. It is not void on the level. According to the , if she nevertheless remarried before the signatures were authenticated, she is not required to leave her second husband.
,
But if the husband comes and protests
-
and the signatures have not been authenticated—
.
she is not divorced.
Once the husband actively challenges the and there is neither the agent’s accepted declaration nor independent verification of the signatures, the cannot establish the divorce.
,
If the was lost,
.
her divorce is doubtful.
Since the document is gone, the signatures can no longer be authenticated to resolve the uncertainty.
Synopsis
If the agent cannot make the required declaration, a requiring Diaspora certification must instead have its signatures authenticated. Without either form of validation, the cannot safely be relied upon; if the husband protests and the signatures remain unverified, the divorce is not established.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent brings a from overseas but did not witness its writing or signing, so he cannot honestly say, “It was written and signed in my presence.” He cannot simply hand it over and hope everything is fine. Instead, the signatures must first be authenticated. If the was already delivered without either proper certification or signature verification, it remains disqualified until that problem is corrected.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Special Declaration Is Missing
When the Special Declaration Is Missing
The notes that when the agent makes the declaration even though he was not required to do so, the Sages still give his words enough force to defeat a later unsupported protest by the husband.
He also raises a separate question: does this special credibility extend beyond the woman’s marital status to monetary matters, such as collection of the ? The here establishes the divorce itself; financial consequences may follow different evidentiary rules.
Why the Agent Must Say “It Was Written and Signed in My Presence”
Why did the Sages require the agent to say
״״?
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence” in the Diaspora?
So that the woman will not have to authenticate the
,
if the husband later comes and challenges it,
The declaration is designed to settle the ’s authenticity at the time of delivery. This prevents the woman from becoming dependent on finding the signing later if the husband contests it.
because capable of authenticating it are not readily available
.
when a document has been transported from place to place in the Diaspora.
The difficulty was practical: once the had traveled far from where it was written, locating people who could recognize and verify the signatures could be difficult. The Sages therefore allowed the delivering agent’s declaration to supply the needed assurance in advance.
Synopsis
The declaration “It was written and signed in my presence” was instituted to prevent a woman from later being unable to authenticate a that had traveled from one place to another in the Diaspora.
✦Live ItMake the process easy to verify
Make the process easy to verify
The Sages required the agent to say that the was written and signed in his presence so the woman would not later be stuck trying to find distant to authenticate it. The procedure solves a problem before it appears.
A little structure now can prevent a of confusion later. Saving the receipt, writing down the decision, putting the appointment on the calendar, or confirming who agreed to what may feel unnecessary in the moment—but it can save real stress when memories differ or details lost.
Try today
Document one small thing now that you might otherwise have to reconstruct later.
about which the agent said, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
-
is forged—
.
the is void.
The agent’s special declaration defeats an unsupported protest by the husband, but it cannot override actual proof that the document is forged.
For the Sages did not accept the word of a single person
״״
who said, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
except in order to reject a protest by the husband
,
that is unsupported by evidence,
but when there are who contradict the agent,
.
the agent is not believed.
The Sages gave the single agent special credibility only against an unsupported claim by the husband. They did not give one person’s statement the power to override who actually establish that the is forged.
Synopsis
The agent’s declaration can defeat an unsupported challenge, but not actual evidence of forgery. If establish that the is forged, the is void.
✦Live ItEvidence Before Reaction
Evidence Before Reaction
An unsupported claim is not the same as established evidence. This teaches us to pause before allowing an accusation, rumor, or anxious possibility to overturn what was previously accepted as sound. Responsible judgment asks what is actually known and what is merely being asserted.
That discipline matters in ordinary relationships too. We should neither ignore real evidence nor treat every suspicion as proof. Slowing down long enough to identify the kind of information before us can prevent unnecessary fear, anger, and damage.
Try today
When a troubling claim reaches you, ask, “Is this an assertion, supporting evidence, or verified proof?” before reacting.
The geographic status of the location determines which -certification rules apply.
In Matnos Aniyim
.
the boundaries of are explained.
Textual editions differ over whether the cross-reference here reads Matnos Aniyim or Terumos. The ’s detailed presentation of the boundaries of appears in Terumos, Chapter 1.
.
For the laws of , Babylonia is treated like .
Babylonia was a major center, with extensive travel among its yeshivos and communities. who could recognize and authenticate signatures were therefore readily available there, so the practical concern that produced the special Diaspora declaration did not apply in the same way.
◇BackgroundIslands within the boundary
The elsewhere describes a maritime boundary for determining which islands are treated as part of . Islands within that defined boundary receive the status of , while islands beyond it are treated as part of the Diaspora.
Synopsis
The laws of apply to its rivers and to islands within its boundary. Babylonia is also treated like for these laws because signature authentication was readily available there.
When the Writing and Signing Took Place in Different Lands
If a was written in
-
and signed in the Diaspora—
the agent must say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The determining factor here is where the signatures were made, because the special declaration addresses the difficulty of authenticating those signatures later. Since the signing took place in the Diaspora, the declaration is required.
But if it was written in the Diaspora
-
and signed in —
the agent does not need to say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
Since the signatures were made in , they can be authenticated more readily if a challenge later arises.
Synopsis
Whether the declaration is required depends primarily on where the was signed. A signed in the Diaspora requires the declaration; one signed in does not.
If part of the was written in the agent’s presence,
-
and the entire was signed in his presence—
,
if the part written before him was the beginning of the ,
he may say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
He must witness the complete signing, but he does not need to observe the entire writing. It is enough that the beginning portion of the was written in his presence.
Even if no more was written
,
than a single line in his presence,
,
and even if he merely heard the sound of the pen writing,
-
and the signed in his presence—
he may say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The requirement does not demand continuous visual observation of every stroke. Hearing the writing take place can suffice, provided the agent is present for the signing.
Similarly, if the scribe went out to the marketplace
-
and later returned and completed the —
the agent does not need to be concerned
,
that perhaps another man encountered the scribe and instructed him,
,
and that the scribe completed the document for the sake of that other man,
rather, the agent may say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
Once the writing began in the agent’s presence, he need not suspect without evidence that the scribe later redirected the document for another man.
Synopsis
The agent need not witness every word of the being written. He must witness the full signing, while even a single line from the beginning portion of the writing can be enough.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent is present when the scribe begins writing a and watches the sign it, but he steps out while most of the middle is written. He may still make the required declaration. He does not need to watch every word being written; witnessing the beginning portion and the full signing is enough.
🔎Dig DeeperHow Much of the Writing Must the Agent Witness?
How Much of the Writing Must the Agent Witness?
understands the required single line as the line containing the names of the husband and wife and the date. understands it as the first line of the .
The understands the as requiring a single line from the initial portion of the , without limiting that line to the specific definitions given by Rashi or Tosafot.
Sources: Rashi on ; Tosafot on ; Beit Shmuel, 142.
The agent does not have to watch every stroke of the being written, but he must observe enough to satisfy the rule the Sages established. Careful attention is not the same as anxious perfectionism. The goal is to notice the facts that truly carry responsibility.
In study and daily work, we can waste energy trying to monitor everything equally. A better approach is to identify the decisive details, attend to them fully, and avoid inventing extra requirements. Precision becomes more sustainable when it is guided by purpose.
Try today
Before beginning a task, name the two or three details that actually determine whether it is done correctly.
When the Agent Witnessed Only Part of the Certification
״״
If the agent says, “It was written in my presence,”
״״,
but does not say, “It was signed in my presence,”
״״
or says, “It was signed in my presence,”
״״,
but not, “It was written in my presence,”
״״
or says, “It was written in my presence, and one witness signed in my presence,”
,
but the second witness did not,
-
even if the agent himself was that second witness—
,
the must be authenticated through its signatures,
.
and only afterward may it be given to her.
The Sages gave one agent special credibility only when his prescribed declaration covers the certification as a whole. They did not allow the same person to validate one signature through that declaration and the other by identifying himself as the signer. If a second person joins him to authenticate the unobserved signature, that signature now has ordinary two-person authentication.
But if the agent and one other person testify
,
regarding the signature of the second witness who did not sign in his presence,
the is valid
.
and may be given to her.
Here the missing signature has now been independently authenticated by two people.
,
Needless to say,
if two other people testify
regarding the handwriting of the second witness,
.
the is valid.
Synopsis
If the agent cannot complete the full required declaration, the must instead be validated through ordinary authentication of the ’ signatures.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent watched the being written and saw the first witness sign, but he did not see the second witness sign. Even if the agent himself is the second signer, he cannot combine the special one-agent declaration for the first signature with his separate status as signer of the second. The missing certification must be completed through ordinary authentication.
even though it was not written and signed in their presence,
since the husband gave it to them
,
to give to his wife,
,
they may give it to her,
.
and she is divorced.
Two qualified agents can themselves provide the testimony needed to establish the divorce, so they do not need the special “written and signed in our presence” declaration.
,
because the husband cannot successfully challenge this ,
-
even though its signatures have not been authenticated—
,
because his own agents also serve as the ,
for if these two were to say,
״״,
“She was divorced in our presence,”
,
she would be regarded as divorced,
.
even if the itself were no longer present.
Their joint testimony is strong enough to establish that the divorce took place. That is why separate authentication of the document is unnecessary.
Synopsis
Two qualified agents bringing the together can establish the divorce through their own testimony, so they do not need to say that the was written and signed in their presence.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband hands a to two qualified agents and tells them to deliver it to his wife overseas. Neither one watched the being written or signed. Normally that would create a certification problem, but here the two agents can themselves testify that the husband entrusted them with this for his wife. Their joint testimony is strong enough that they may deliver it without the usual declaration.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Two Agents Bring the Together
When Two Agents Bring the Together
The agrees that two agents can bring a from the Diaspora without making the usual declaration, but he disagrees with the about what happens if the husband later challenges the document.
According to the Tur, the husband’s protest would still require the signatures to be authenticated. The , 142:18, follows the Rambam, while the records the Tur’s position.
This leniency also depends on the two agents being qualified to serve as . If they are relatives or otherwise disqualified from testimony, they cannot rely on their status as a pair of and must use the ordinary certification procedure.
The leniency of the previous applies only when the is considered to be “in the possession of both” men. The precise meaning of that requirement is discussed by the commentators below.
,
But when the is not in their joint possession,
they must say,
״״.
“It was written in our presence and signed in our presence.”
When that condition is absent, they cannot rely simply on the special status of two agents. The required declaration must be made properly, or the signatures must be independently authenticated.
Therefore, if one says,
״״
“It was written in my presence,”
and the other says,
״״,
“It was signed in my presence,”
or even if two say,
״״
“It was written in our presence,”
and one says,
״״-
“It was signed in my presence”—
,
since the is not in the joint possession of both,
it should not be given to the woman
.
until its signatures have been authenticated.
Partial statements divided among different people do not substitute for the required certification. Unless the circumstances qualify for the special two-agent rule, the signatures themselves must be properly authenticated.
Synopsis
The special leniency for two agents applies only when the is considered to be in the possession of both of them. Otherwise, the required certification or independent authentication of the signatures is necessary.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
Two men are connected to the same , but the is not considered to be in the possession of both of them. One says, “I watched it being written,” while the other says, “I watched it being signed.” Those two partial statements do not combine into the special certification required for the . The signatures must instead be independently authenticated.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Is in the Possession of Both
When the Is in the Possession of Both
The phrase that the is “in the possession of both of them” is interpreted differently by the commentators.
appears to understand it literally: both agents are physically holding or jointly possessing the .
The understands the requirement more broadly. It is enough that both men can testify that the husband appointed them and entrusted them with the ; they need not both be physically holding it at that moment. The , 142:18, follows this broader interpretation.
The Rashba goes further: even if the husband appointed only one agent, if another qualified witness observed the appointment and traveled with him, the usual declaration may likewise be unnecessary.
If one person says, “It was written in my presence,”
״״-
and two people say, “It was signed in our presence”—
,
the is valid,
;
even though the is not in their possession;
.
because its signatures have been authenticated.
Once two people establish the signing, the signatures themselves have been properly verified. The special declaration by an agent is no longer needed for that purpose.
Synopsis
If two people establish that the was signed in their presence, the signatures are authenticated and the is valid even if it is not in their possession.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Two Establish the Signing
When Two Establish the Signing
The explains that once two establish the signing, the additional statement that the was written in someone’s presence is legally unnecessary. The includes it because he is preserving the parallel wording of the .
When the Agent Failed to Make the Required Declaration
,
If an agent brings a in the Diaspora,
,
and gives it to the woman privately,
or gives it to her in the presence of two
״״-
but did not say, “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence”—
,
even if she has already remarried,
he should take the back from her
and give it to her again
in the presence of two
and say before them,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The original delivery did not follow the required Diaspora procedure. The preferred correction is therefore to repeat the delivery properly together with the required declaration.
-
But if he does not take it back from her—
,
the is disqualified,
.
until its signatures are authenticated.
Here means that the defect is Rabbinic rather than a -level voiding of the . According to the , if she nevertheless remarried, she is not required to leave her second husband merely because the special certification procedure was omitted.
Authenticating the signatures removes the defect in the Diaspora certification. If the original delivery was also performed privately, however, that is a separate procedural problem: the should still be taken back and delivered to her again before .
Synopsis
If a Diaspora was delivered without the required declaration, the delivery should be repeated properly. If that is not done, the remains Rabbinically disqualified until its signatures are authenticated; a private delivery must also be corrected before when possible.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent delivers a from the Diaspora and forgets to say, “It was written and signed in my presence.” Even though the woman already received the document—and even if she has remarried—the preferred correction is to take the back and perform the delivery again before with the proper declaration. If the signatures are authenticated instead, that fixes the certification problem, though a private delivery may still need to be redone before .
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Agent Failed to Make the Required Declaration
When the Agent Failed to Make the Required Declaration
and other authorities are stricter than the and maintain that if she remarried after such a defective delivery, she must leave her second husband.
The , 142:1, follows the Rambam’s more lenient ruling regarding her after-the-fact status, while still requiring the to be corrected when possible.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence”
-
before he lost the ability to speak—
,
the must be authenticated through its signatures,
.
and afterward it should be given to her.
Since he can no longer make the oral declaration required by the Sages, the must be taken back, its signatures authenticated, and then delivered to her again.
The declaration cannot simply be replaced by a written statement from the agent. Here there is another available method—independent authentication of the signatures—so the prescribed oral procedure is not replaced by writing.
Synopsis
If the agent loses the ability to speak before making the required declaration, the must be taken back, its signatures authenticated, and then delivered again. The declaration cannot simply be replaced with a written statement.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Agent Loses the Ability to Speak
When the Agent Loses the Ability to Speak
The infers from the that writing out the declaration is not sufficient. Although written testimony can sometimes be accepted where no alternative exists, here there is another method available: authenticating the signatures.
A blind person cannot bring this type of from the Diaspora,
because he cannot say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The special declaration depends on the agent having personally observed the writing and signing.
,
Therefore, if the was written and signed in his presence
,
while he was able to see,
-
and afterward he became blind—
he may say before three people,
״״,
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
.
and he may give it to her.
His later blindness does not erase what he personally witnessed while he could see. Although he can still make the special declaration about what he observed, he can no longer count as one of the judges validating the . He therefore makes the declaration before three others.
,
Similarly, if a woman brings such a from the Diaspora,
she requires three people
before whom to say,
״״-
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence”—
,
because the rule allowing the declaration before two people was stated only
,
when the agent is qualified to serve as a witness,
,
because he then joins the other two,
making him one of the three
,
who validate this on the basis of his declaration,
because a witness may serve as a judge
.
in a matter established by Rabbinic law.
Because signature authentication is a Rabbinic requirement, a normally qualified agent can join the other two as a member of the validating . The woman’s or blind agent’s declaration is accepted, but that agent cannot count as one of the three judges; three other people are therefore required.
Synopsis
A blind person cannot ordinarily bring a Diaspora that requires personal observation of its writing and signing. If he witnessed both while sighted and only later became blind, he may make the declaration before three; the same three-person requirement applies when the agent is a woman.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A man watched a being written and signed while he could still see. Before he had a chance to deliver it, he became blind. He can still truthfully say, “It was written and signed in my presence,” because he personally witnessed those events while sighted. But he now makes that declaration before three others, since he can no longer count as one of the judges validating the .
🔎Dig DeeperA Blind Agent and the Required Declaration
A Blind Agent and the Required Declaration
The adds another qualification for a blind agent: when he ultimately gives the to the woman, he must be able to identify her by the sound of her voice. It is not enough for others simply to identify her for him.
An agent who can see, by contrast, may rely on other people to identify the woman.
or is prevented by circumstances beyond his control—
he comes before a
and tells them,
״״,
“This was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
and it is then sent
.
through another agent.
The first agent certifies the before , and a replacement agent is then appointed through that supervised process. This preserves the original certification even though the replacement did not personally witness the writing or signing.
The later agent does not need to say,
״״,
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
rather, he says,
״״,
“I am an agent appointed through the process,”
.
and gives it to her in the presence of .
The second agent did not personally witness the writing or signing. Instead, he identifies himself as the agent appointed through the process after the first agent’s declaration was accepted.
Synopsis
If the original agent becomes unable to continue, he certifies the before a and appoints a replacement there. The second agent does not repeat the original declaration; he identifies himself as the agent appointed through that process and completes the delivery.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
An agent carrying a from overseas becomes seriously ill and cannot finish the trip. He goes before and says, “This was written and signed in my presence.” He then appoints another person there to continue the mission. The replacement does not pretend that he witnessed the original writing; when he reaches the woman, he identifies himself as the agent appointed through that process.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the First Agent Cannot Complete the Mission
When the First Agent Cannot Complete the Mission
According to the , the first agent can make this declaration before two judges, because the qualified agent himself may join them as the third member of the for this Rabbinic validation process.
When a Replacement Agent Also Becomes Unable to Continue
If the second agent becomes ill
-
or is prevented by circumstances beyond his control—
,
he appoints another agent before a ,
.
and this process may continue even through one hundred agents.
Each replacement agent who becomes genuinely unable to complete the mission may appoint another agent. Because this still depends on the special בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם procedure, each later appointment is made within the framework.
The final agent says,
״״,
“I am an agent appointed through the process,”
.
and gives the to her.
The final agent does not need to say that the was written and signed in his presence. He identifies himself as the continuation of an agency whose certification was already established before .
.
This remains valid even if the first agent has died.
Once the later agency has been properly established, its validity does not depend on the first agent remaining alive.
?
Why must these appointments be made before a ?
Because the agent must say,
״״.
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”
The is needed because the first agent’s special declaration must be formally established there. Once that certification is in place, later agents can continue the delivery by identifying themselves as agents appointed through that process.
-
But if the has already been authenticated through its signatures—
,
even if one agent gives it to another agent,
,
and even if one hundred agents transfer it among themselves privately,
-
until the reaches her hand—
.
the is valid.
Once the signatures themselves have been independently authenticated, the special declaration is no longer needed, so the reason for requiring later appointments before falls away.
,
Even though the husband did not state explicitly,
and did not tell the agent,
״
“Send it through another person
״-
if you become ill or are prevented from continuing”—
.
the agent may still appoint another agent.
This implied authority exists only when illness or another genuine obstacle prevents the agent from completing the mission. If he is able to continue normally, he may not appoint a replacement unless the husband expressly authorized him to do so.
Synopsis
If a replacement agent also becomes unable to continue, he may appoint another agent, and the chain may continue as necessary. is required while the depends on the special Diaspora declaration, but not once the signatures have been independently authenticated.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
The original agent becomes ill after certifying the before . A second agent is appointed through that process, but he too becomes unable to travel. He appoints a third agent before . The final agent does not claim to have witnessed the writing; he identifies himself as the continuation of the agency established through .
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Replacement Agent Also Becomes Unable to Continue
When a Replacement Agent Also Becomes Unable to Continue
The emphasizes this limitation: the ability to substitute another agent without explicit permission applies only when the original agent is genuinely prevented from completing the mission himself.
A can pass through many agents, but each step has to preserve a valid chain of authority. When one agent cannot continue, the next person must be properly appointed so that the mission does not become disconnected from its source.
Handoffs in life also fail when everyone assumes someone else knows what to do. You forward the email, mention something quickly, or say, “They’ll take care of it,” but no one clearly owns the next step. A good handoff means the other person knows the task, accepts it, and can actually carry it forward.
Try today
For one responsibility you are handing off, make sure the next person clearly knows they own it.
the agent does not need to be present together with him before the ;
rather, he may tell the court,
״״,
“So-and-so is my agent,”
.
even though that person is not present.
According to the , the person being appointed does not have to stand there at the moment the agency is created.
Similarly, an agent may appoint another agent
,
even when that second agent is not present,
.
and this may continue even through one hundred agents.
The physical presence of each future agent is not required when the appointment is made.
Synopsis
According to the , an agent may be appointed even while absent, and one agent may appoint another in the same way. Physical presence at the moment of appointment is not required.
🔎Dig DeeperAppointing an Agent Who Is Not Present
Appointing an Agent Who Is Not Present
The disagrees with the and maintains that if the later agent did not personally hear the earlier agent make the required declaration, he must receive written authorization establishing his appointment.
The , 142:10, records the Rambam’s position and even allows the first agent to authorize the to appoint whichever replacement agent they choose. The records the Rivash’s stricter view.
Although the physically enters her hand, the husband expressly defines her role as a rather than as the recipient of the divorce. His condition therefore postpones the divorce until the later agent gives that same back to her.
she is trusted to say before them,
״״,
“It was written in my presence and signed in my presence,”
and they take the from her
and give it to an agent
,
to give it back to her,
.
in accordance with the husband’s instruction.
Only when the is later returned to her through the newly appointed agent does the husband’s specified act of divorce become complete.
Synopsis
A husband may make his wife the temporary delivery agent of her own . His explicit instruction means her first possession is only as an agent; the divorce takes effect later when another agent gives the back to her as he directed.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband places a directly into his wife’s hand—but tells her, “You are not receiving this now as your divorce. You are my agent to carry it to a certain . They will appoint someone else to give it back to you.” She is literally holding her own , yet she is not divorced yet. Only when the newly appointed agent later gives that same back to her does the divorce take effect.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Wife Herself Carries the as an Agent
When the Wife Herself Carries the as an Agent
The explains that she must still make the usual declaration even in this unusual case because the Sages kept the certification procedure uniform. They did not create a special exception merely because the woman who will ultimately receive the is temporarily serving as its delivery agent.
The wife can physically hold her own and still not yet be divorced, because the husband explicitly gave it to her in the role of an agent carrying it to . The meaning of the act depends not only on what she is holding, but on the role she was given in that moment.
An action can mean very different things depending on the role you are filling. At work you may be giving feedback as a teammate, while at home the same tone can feel like criticism. Sometimes confusion comes from doing the right action in the wrong role—or forgetting what the other person expects from us.
Try today
Before one important conversation, ask yourself, “What role am I supposed to be filling here?”
When the husband explicitly imposed this condition upon her;
The unusual procedure of the previous applies only because the husband specifically defined her first possession of the as agency rather than as receipt of the divorce.
,
But if he did not impose such a condition,
,
but simply gave her her ,
-
and the is presently in her possession—
,
she does not need to make any declaration,
,
and she is presumed to be divorced,
since the in her possession
is written according to
.
and are signed upon it.
When the woman simply possesses a properly written and signed , we do not invent an additional concern that perhaps it is invalid merely because its signatures have not yet been independently authenticated.
,
Even though we do not recognize the handwriting of the ,
-
and the signatures have not been authenticated—
we do not suspect her
,
of having forged the ,
.
because she would not deliberately ruin her own status.
A forgery would expose her to severe consequences once discovered, so she is not presumed to have created that danger for herself.
,
Furthermore,
the who signed the
,
are treated as though their testimony had already been examined in ,
.
unless someone comes forward to challenge it.
A properly written and signed is left in its established presumption of validity unless a real challenge arises. We do not require authentication merely because the signatures are unfamiliar.
,
Therefore, we leave the with its presumption of validity,
,
and she may remarry,
;
without fearing that it may later turn out to be forged;
just as we presume a to be valid
-
when an agent brings it—
,
until the husband challenges it,
or until he brings proof
.
that it is forged or void.
The rule is to rely on the ’s established appearance of validity until an actual reason arises to question it.
,
For if we were to begin suspecting these possibilities and others like them,
we would also have to suspect
-
even a that the husband gives in our presence—
,
perhaps he nullified it before giving it,
or perhaps disqualified signed it
,
so that it is defective from within,
.
or perhaps it was not written , for this particular divorce.
does not undermine an apparently valid through an endless series of unsupported possibilities.
,
Just as we do not suspect these possibilities and similar ones,
but preserve the ’s established presumption
,
until it becomes known that it is void,
so too we do not suspect
the agent
or the woman herself
,
when the is in her possession,
because the laws governing matters of prohibition
.
are not the same as the laws governing monetary claims.
The evidentiary rules governing marital prohibitions are not identical to those governing monetary claims. In financial matters, a person’s personal interest can prevent reliance on his own assertion without additional proof; here, the existing presumption of the signed can still be relied upon.
Synopsis
When the husband simply gives the woman a properly written and signed and it remains in her possession, she is presumed divorced even before the signatures are independently authenticated. relies on the document’s established presumption of validity rather than inventing unsupported suspicions.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A woman comes to holding a properly written and signed that her husband gave her. No one there recognizes the signatures. That alone does not mean the must be treated as suspicious. Unless someone raises a real challenge, the keeps its presumption of validity, and we do not invent possibilities such as “maybe she forged it” or “maybe the were invalid” without evidence.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Is Simply Found in Her Possession
When the Is Simply Found in Her Possession
The connects this ruling with the ’s later rule that a woman who produces a can be believed even though its signatures have not yet been independently authenticated.
The disagrees with this broader reliance on the document in the woman’s possession. The , 142:13–14, records both approaches.
When a properly written and signed is in the woman’s possession, the does not require us to imagine every possible hidden problem. We rely on the ’s established presumption unless a real challenge arises.
It is easy to lose confidence in something solid by constantly asking, “But what if…?” Maybe the plan is wrong, maybe the conversation went badly, maybe one small detail means everything is falling apart. Some questions need investigation; others are only possibilities with no evidence behind them. Not every imagined concern deserves equal weight.
Try today
Notice one worry based only on “maybe” and ask whether there is any actual evidence for it.
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 7 at a glance
Chapter review
Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.
An agent bringing a from one place to another within may deliver it even if he did not witness its writing or know the signing . The woman may rely on the and remarry unless a later challenge changes its status.
If the husband challenges the authenticity of a brought within , its signatures must be verified. If verification becomes impossible, the woman’s status may become doubtful or severely compromised, which is why women presumed hostile to one another are not trusted to bring such a .
For a transported within the Diaspora or across the boundary of , an agent who witnessed its writing and signing declares, “It was written and signed in my presence.” That declaration allows the to be accepted without independently verifying the signatures.
The agent’s declaration can defeat an unsupported challenge, but not actual evidence of forgery. If establish that the is forged, the is void.
The agent need not witness every word of the being written. He must witness the full signing, while even a single line from the beginning portion of the writing can be enough.
If a Diaspora was delivered without the required declaration, the delivery should be repeated properly. If that is not done, the remains Rabbinically disqualified until its signatures are authenticated; a private delivery must also be corrected before when possible.
If a replacement agent also becomes unable to continue, he may appoint another agent, and the chain may continue as necessary. is required while the depends on the special Diaspora declaration, but not once the signatures have been independently authenticated.
When the husband simply gives the woman a properly written and signed and it remains in her possession, she is presumed divorced even before the signatures are independently authenticated. relies on the document’s established presumption of validity rather than inventing unsupported suspicions.
פרק ז
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all twenty-four halachos.