Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer Siman 134

Siman 134

Presented here for study, not as a practical ruling. The Shulchan Aruch rules by Sephardi custom, the Rema's glosses by Ashkenazi custom, and the Kitzur follows Ashkenazi custom. For a practical question, ask your rabbi.

א צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל כָּל מוֹדָעָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַגֵּט. שֶׁאִם מָסַר מוֹדָעָא בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם וְאָמַר: גֵּט שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן לְאִשְׁתִּי דְּעוּ שֶׁאֲנִי אָנוּס לִתְּנוֹ וְלָכֵן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵיכֶם שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּטֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא בָּטֵל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא לָקַח בְּקִנְיָן. הַגָּה: וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים בְּיַחַד, רַק בָּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי זֶה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כְּשֵׁרִים (רִיבָ"שׁ סִימָן רל"ב). אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין אֶת אָנְסוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם הָאֹנֶס שֶׁאָמַר הָיָה שֶׁקֶר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ אַחַר כָּךְ, לֹא אָמְרִינָן שֶׁבִּטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא שֶׁמָּסַר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא וְאָז הִיא בְּטֵלָה, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ קִנְיָן:

1 One needs to nullify all of his possessions before he gives a get. Because if he gives over his belongings in front of two people and says: the get that I want to give to my wife, know that I am forced to give, and therefore, I am saying that in front of you, it should be nullified, so it's nullified, although he did not take from his belongings. The Rama Comments that even though he gave it over in front of two witnesses at different times, only this one and not that one, alone they are kosher (Rivash Siman 232). Even if you say there is not a source for the rape. And even if the rape reported was a lie. And even if you say that it is possible after this, we do not say that this testimony was nullified, until proof is given that this report is nullified. And there is no need for an acquisition.

ב לָכֵן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל קֹדֶם כְּתִיבַת הַגֵּט כָּל מוֹדָעָא שֶׁמָּסַר, וְיֹאמַר כֵּן: הֲרֵינִי מְבַטֵּל כָּל מוֹדָעָא שֶׁמָּסַרְתִּי עַל גֵּט זֶה. וְכֵן אֲנִי מְבַטֵּל כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁגּוֹרֵם כְּשֶׁיִּתְקַיְּמוּ אוֹתָן הַדְּבָרִים בִּטּוּל לְגֵט זֶה. וְכֵן אֲנִי מֵעִיד עַל עַצְמִי שֶׁלֹּא מָסַרְתִּי דָּבָר עַל הַגֵּט שֶׁיְּבֻטַּל הַגֵּט מֵחֲמָתוֹ, וַהֲרֵינִי פּוֹסֵל כָּל עֵד אוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שֶׁמָּסַרְתִּי אוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי שׁוּם דָּבָר שֶׁיְּבֻטַּל מֵחֲמָתוֹ גֵּט זֶה אוֹ שֶׁיּוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט זֶה מֵחֲמַת אוֹתָהּ מוֹדָעָא אוֹ אוֹתוֹ דִּבּוּר. הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּסָגֵי אִם אוֹמֵר שֶׁמְּבַטֵּל מוֹדָעָא וּמוֹדָעָא דְּמוֹדָעָא עַד סוֹף כָּל מוֹדָעֵי (טוּר בְּשֵׁם הָרֹא"שׁ), וְכֵן נוֹהֲגִין, אַךְ טוֹב לְכַתְּחִלָּה לָחוּשׁ וְלוֹמַר כַּסְּבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה:

2 Therefore, he needs to nullify before the writing of the bill of divorce any protest(of annulment) that he has made, and he should say as such: behold I am nullifying any protest I informed on this bill of divorce. And so too I am nullifying any thing that will cause, when they are established, the nullification of the establishment of this bill of divorce. And so too I am testifying on myself that I did not inform any matter that will cause this bill of divorce to be nullified, and behold I am invalidating any witness or witnesses that will testify that I informed or said anything that will cause the bill of divorce to be nullified or that will weaken the power of the bill because of this protest or speech. Rem''a: And there are those that say it is enough if he says he is canceling any protest or protest of a protest until the end of all possible protests. And so too we practice, but it is better a priori to be cautious and to hold like the first position.

ג נָהֲגוּ לְהַצְרִיךְ בִּטּוּל מוֹדָעָא אַף לַמְגָרֵשׁ מֵרְצוֹנוֹ. הַגָּה: וּמִיהוּ, אִם שָׁכַח מִלְּבַטֵּל, כָּשֵׁר (מ"כ בְּשֵׁם הָרֹא"שׁ), מֵאַחַר שֶׁמְּגָרֵשׁ מֵרְצוֹנוֹ (מ"כ בְּשֵׁם מהר"ל). וְנָהֲגוּ עוֹד לְבַטֵּל מוֹדָעָא קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּצַוֶּה לִכְתֹּב קֹדֶם הַנְּתִינָה (בְּמָרְדְּכַי). וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאִם בִּטֵּל הַגֵּט בֵּין כְּתִיבָה לִנְתִינָה לֹא הָיָה מוֹעִיל אַחַר כָּךְ בִּטּוּל מוֹדָעָא לְגָרֵשׁ בְּאוֹתוֹ גֵּט, וְלָכֵן אֵין מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ לֵילֵךְ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן הַגֵּט, אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי מַחֲמִירִין גַּם כֵּן לְבַטֵּל מוֹדָעָא בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינָה (עַיֵּן בְּב"י):

3 They practiced to require a nullification of a protest that even the divorcer made on his own accord. Rem''a: However, if he forgets to nullifying, it is Kosher, since he divorced on his own accord. They practiced also to nullify a protest before he commands to write, before the giving. Despite the fact that there are those that say that even if he cancels the bill of divorce between the writing and the giving, it is not effective after nullification of the protest to divorce with that same bill. Therefore, we do not suggest to him to leave until he gives the bill of divorce. Even in this case, there are those who are stringent to nullify the protest even in the time of giving.

ד אִם נִשְׁבַּע הַבַּעַל לִתֵּן גֵּט, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּתִּירוּ לוֹ קֹדֶם, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דּוֹמֶה לְאֹנֶס; אַךְ עַרְבוּת יִתֵּן, אִם יִרְצֶה, שֶׁאֵין זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְאֹנֶס. הַגָּה: וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם קִבֵּל קִנְיָן לְגָרֵשׁ (פִּסְקֵי מהרא"י סִימָן קע"ג). אֲבָל אִם קִבֵּל עָלָיו קְנָסוֹת אִם לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ, לֹא מִקְּרֵי אֹנֶס, מֵאַחַר דְּתָלָה גִּטּוֹ בְּדָבָר אַחֵר, וְיוּכַל לִתֵּן הַקְּנָסוֹת וְלֹא לְגָרֵשׁ (ב"י בְּשֵׁם תְּשׁוּבָה, וְכֵן הוּא בַּמַהֲרִי"ק וְשָׁם בִּפְסָקִים). וְיֵשׁ מַחֲמִירִין אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא (שָׁם בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א), וְטוֹב לָחוּשׁ לְכַתְּחִלָּה וּלְפָטְרוֹ מִן הַקְּנָס. אֲבָל אִם כְּבָר גֵּרַשׁ מִפְּנֵי זֶה, וַאֲפִלּוּ גֵּרַשׁ מִכֹּחַ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֵעַצְמוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ, הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר, הוֹאִיל וּמִתְּחִלָּה לֹא אֲנָסוּהוּ עַל כָּךְ (תְּשׁוּבַת הָרִיטְבָ"א). יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּלֹא מִקְּרֵי אֹנֶס אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאוֹנְסִין לָאָדָם עַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל אִם אוֹנְסִין לְאַחֵר עַד שֶׁיְּגָרֵשׁ חֲבֵרוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ אָב עַל בְּנוֹ אוֹ לְהֵפֶךְ, לֹא מִקְּרֵי אֹנֶס (תְּשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבַּ"ץ). וְיֵשׁ מַחֲמִירִין בְּאָב עַל בְּנוֹ (ב"י). וְעַיֵּן לְקַמָּן סִימָן קנ"ד מִדִּינִים אֵלּוּ:

4 If the husband takes an oath to give a bill of divorce, they need to make him renounce it beforehand, in order that it not look like he is being compelled. But if it was just a pledge he made, he can give it if he wants, because this is not similar to being compelled. Rem''a: and this is the ruling if he receives an acquisition to divorce. But if he accepts fines if he does not divorce, this is not called compulsion, since his bill of divorce was dependent on another thing and he will be able to give the fine and not divorce. And there are those that are stringent even in a case like that. And it's better to worry a priori and exempt him from the fine. But if he already divorced(her) because of this, and even did so from the strength of the oath he made to divorce, the bill of divorce is kosher, since, from the outset, they did not compel him by this. There are those that say that say that it is not called compulsion unless they compel the man himself, but if they compel someone else until his friend divorces, even a son for his father or vice versa, this is not called compulsion. There are those who are stringent in the case of a father and son. See later on in 152 for these laws.

ה הָא דְּאֵינוֹ גֵּט כְּשֶׁהוּא אָנוּס, הָנֵי מִלֵּי כְּשֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָא. אֲבָל אִם לֹא מָסַר מוֹדָעָא, אִם אֲנָסוּהוּ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, פָּסוּל. וְכַדִּין, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהוֹצִיא וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה, וַאֲנָסוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין עַד שֶׁהוֹצִיא, הָוֵי גֵּט. וּמִצְוָה עַל כָּל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן לְכֹפוֹ לַמְגָרֵשׁ לְבַטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא:

5 This, that is not considered a bill of divorce when he is forced, this is discussing a case when he declared a protest. But, if he did not declare a protest, if they forced him illegally, it is invalid. And legally, for example, if he is obligated to dismiss(divorce her)and he does not want to, and the Beit Din forces him until dismisses, this is a valid bill of divorce. And it is a commandment upon each Beit Din, at all times, to force the divorcer to nullify the protest.

ו מִי שֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָא עַל הַגֵּט, מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּרַם לִהְיוֹת מַמְזֵרִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי הִגִּיעַ הַגֵּט לְיָדָהּ וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ, וְאַחַר זְמַן יָבוֹאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁבִּטֵּל בִּפְנֵיהֶם אוֹ שֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָא בִּפְנֵיהֶם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַגֵּט, וְנִמְצָא הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינָה, אַפִלּוּ הָכִי מְשַׁמְּתִינָן לֵהּ, דְּיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא אִכָּא דְּיָדְעִי בַּמּוֹדָעָא וְלֹא יָדְעֵי בַּבִּטּוּל (תְּשׁוּבַת הָרֹא"שׁ כְּלָל נ"ב, וְכ"כ הַב"י בְּשֵׁם הַתוס'):

6 Someone who delivered a document ("moda'a") invalidating a get (writ of divorce) in advance (typically stating that he is being forced to grant a get against his will, and the get is therefore invalid), the court administers (Rabbinically sanctioned) lashes of "rebellion", for he has caused there to be bastards (mamzerim), for when the get arrives in her hands and she remarries, and after time witnesses arrive who testify that he [had previously] voided the get in their presence, or that he had delivered an invalidating document to them prior to his writing the get, the outcome is that her child from the second marriage is a bastard. Rema: Even if he voided the moda'a at the time he gave the get (and the divorce is therefore valid), we nevertheless ostracize him out of concern that some people will know of the moda'a, but not know of its abrogation (Responsa Rosh rule 52, and similarly Beit Yosef in the name of Tosafot).

ז אֲנָסוּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְגָרֵשׁ, שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, וְאָמַר: רוֹצֶה אֲנִי, וְגַם בִּטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָא, אוֹ לֹא מְסָרָהּ, פָּסוּל; וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן פְּסָלָהּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה:

7 If a Jew forced him to divorce, not in accordance with the law, yet he said, "I want to [divorce]," and he even abrogated the moda'a or he never gave a moda'a, [the get is nevertheless] invalid. Even so, he invalidates her from [marrying into] the priesthood (because of the hint of being a divorced woman).

ח אֲנָסוּהוּ כּוּתִים לְגָרֵשׁ, אִם הוּא חַיָּב לְגָרְשָׁהּ מִן הַדִּין, פָּסוּל, וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן פְּסָלָהּ מֵהַכְּהֻנָּה. וְאִם לֹא הָיָה חַיָּב לְגָרְשָׁהּ מִן הַדִּין, אֲפִלּוּ רֵיחַ גֵּט אֵין בּוֹ וְלֹא נִפְסְלָה מֵהַכְּהֻנָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם קִבֵּל מָעוֹת עַל נְתִינַת הַגֵּט, לֹא אָמְרִינָן מִשּׁוּם זֶה נִתְרַצָּה (הַגָּהוֹת אַלְפָסִי פֶּרֶק הַמְגָרֵשׁ):

8 If non-Jews force him to divorce her, if he has to divorce her from the law, the divorce is invalid, but nevertheless, he has disqualified her from marrying a kohen. But if the law requires him to divorce her, there is not even the scent of a get in it, and she has not been disqualified from marrying a kohen. And even if he received money for giving the get, we don't say that because of this he agreed [to give the get]. (Hagahot Alfasi, ch. hamegaresh).

ט אִם דָּחֲקוּ אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל יְדֵי כּוּתִים, וְהָיוּ הַכּוּתִים מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים: עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְךָ, דִּינוֹ כַּאֲנָסוּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

9 If a Jewish court pressured him by using non-Jews, and the non-Jews were beating him saying: Do what the Jews are telling you to do. He is treated as if he was forced by a Jewish court.

י גֵּט שֶׁמָּסַר הַבַּעַל מוֹדָעָא עַל נְתִינָתוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בִּטֵּל מֵרְצוֹנוֹ, וְאָמַר לָהּ: תִּתְגָּרְשִׁי בַּגֵּט שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לָךְ כְּבָר, אֵין צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִטְּלוֹ מִמֶּנָּה:

10 A get about which a husband gave a notice of invalidation, and he then gave it to her, and then he annulled [the invalidation] of his own accord and then said to her: Be divorced with the get that I already gave you, he doesn't need to go back and take it from her.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter