Divorce Chapter 3

כָּל גֵּט שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ וּלְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמִּתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֵינוֹ גֵּט. כֵּיצַד. סוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּתַב גֵּט לְלַמֵּד אוֹ לְהִתְלַמֵּד וּבָא הַבַּעַל וּמָצָא שֵׁם שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בְּגֵט זֶה כִּשְׁמוֹ וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ וְשֵׁם הָעִיר כְּשֵׁם עִירוֹ וּנְטָלוֹ וְגֵרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

A get that is not written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce and for the sake of the woman who is being divorced is not valid. What is implied? A scribe wrote a get to learn [scribal arts] or to teach them, and a husband came and discovered that the get was written with his name; the name of the woman was the same as his wife's name; and the name of the city the same as the name of his city. If he took [this get] and used it to divorce [his wife], the divorce is void.

יֶתֶר עַל זֶה כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֵת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ וּמָצָא בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְטָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְגֵרֵשׁ בּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּשִׁין אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had a get written so that he could divorce his wife and changed his mind. An inhabitant of his city discovered it and told him: "My name is the same as yours, and my wife's name is the same as your wife's." Although [the second man] took it and used it to divorce his wife, it is invalid, despite the fact that it was written in order to effect a divorce.

יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁווֹת וְכָתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה וְנִמְלַךְ וְגֵרֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה אֵינוֹ גֵּט. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ לֹא נִכְתַּב לְשֵׁם זוֹ שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה בּוֹ:

Furthermore, [a get is also void in the following instance:] [A man] had two wives with the same name, and he wrote a get with the intent of divorcing the older one, and changed his mind and used it to divorce the younger one. The divorce is invalid. Although it was written for the sake of the man [initiating] the divorce, it was not written for the sake of the woman who is being divorced.

יֶתֶר עַל כֵּן אָמַר לְסוֹפֵר כְּתֹב וְאֵי זוֹ שֶׁאֶרְצֶה אֲגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ וְכָתַב הַסּוֹפֵר עַל דַּעַת זוֹ וְגֵרֵשׁ בּוֹ אַחַת מֵהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין. וְכָל גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר עָלָיו קֻלְמוֹס לִשְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

Moreover, [in the above situation,] if he tells the scribe: "Write the get, and I will use it to divorce whichever one I desire," and the scribe wrote the get with that intent, and the husband divorced one of his wives, the status of the divorce is a matter of doubt. Whenever a get was not written with the proper intent, it remains void, even if the scribe rewrites the letters with the proper intent.

מִי שֶׁכָּתַב [גֵּט] לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ וְלֹא גֵּרְשָׁהּ וְנִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לֹא יְגָרְשֶׁנָהּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגֵּט פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִם גֵּרְשָׁהּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגֵּט הַיָּשָׁן הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת וְתִנָּשֵׂא בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי נִכְתַּב לִשְׁמָהּ וַהֲרֵי נָתַן לָהּ עַתָּה בְּעֵדִים כְּהִלְכָתוֹ. וְלָמָּה לֹא יְגָרְשֶׁנָהּ בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ גִּטָּהּ קוֹדֵם לִבְנָהּ:

When a man writes a get [with the intent of] divorcing his wife, but he changes his mind and does not divorce her, he may not divorce her with this same get another time should he so desire, if he entered into privacy with her after [the get] was written. If, however, he did divorce her with this old get, the divorce is effective, and she may remarry on this basis without any qualms. For [the get] was written for her sake and was given to her now in the presence of witnesses, as the law requires. Why at the outset should it not be used for divorce? [This is] a Rabbinic decree, lest [people] say: "Her get preceded [the birth of] her son."

אָמַר לְסוֹפֵר כְּתֹב גֵּט לִפְלוֹנִית וְיִהְיֶה עִמִּי לִכְשֶׁאֶשָּׂאֶנָּה אֲגָרְשֶׁנָּה בּוֹ וְנִכְתַּב וּנְשָׂאָהּ וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בּוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּט. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה בַּת גֵּרוּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּשֶׁנִּכְתַּב גֵּט זֶה וְנִמְצָא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם גֵּרוּשִׁין. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ כְּתֹב אוֹתוֹ לַאֲרוּסָתִי לִכְשֶׁאֶשָּׂאֶנָּה אֲגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּכְנָסָהּ וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בּוֹ כָּשֵׁר. כְּתָבוֹ לִיבִמְתּוֹ וְאַחַר שֶׁיִּבְּמָהּ גֵּרְשָׁהּ בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק גֵּרוּשִׁין הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָהּ אִשְׁתּוֹ גְּמוּרָה כְּשֶׁכְּתָבוֹ:

[The following rules apply when a man] tells a scribe, "Write a get for the sake of so and so, and it will remain in my possession. When I marry her, I will divorce her with it." If [the scribe] writes [such a get], and the man marries her and then he divorces her with it, the divorce is void. [The rationale is] that the woman could not be divorced when the get was written. Thus, it is considered not to have been written for the sake of divorce. If, however, [the man] tells [the scribe]: "Write [a get] for the woman who is consecrated to me. After I consummate the marriage, I will divorce her," should he consummate the marriage and divorce her with such [a get], the divorce is binding. If a man had [a get] written for his yevamah, and he divorced her with it after he performed the rite of yibbum, the status of the divorce is doubtful, for she was not his wife in an absolute sense when [the get] was written.

מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת סוֹפֵר הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים לְסוֹפֵר שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב טָפְסֵי גִּטִּין וְיַנִּיחַ מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן וּמְקוֹם הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֵם לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ וּלְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמִּתְגָּרֶשֶׁת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַחְתְּמוּ הָעֵדִים לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמָהּ:

In order to assist scribes, our Sages permitted them to write the standard texts of gittin [beforehand] and leave empty the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the time and the place for [the sentence]: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man." Thus, he can write [these parts of the get] for the sake of the man who gives the get and for the sake of the woman who receives it. Afterwards, he should have the witnesses sign for the sake of [the husband and the wife].

סוֹפֵר שֶׁכָּתַב הַגֵּט לִשְׁמוֹ וְלִשְׁמָהּ כְּהִלְכָתוֹ וְחָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הוֹאִיל וּמְסָרוּ לָהּ בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. (אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל) לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁאִם חָתְמוּ הָעֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא כִּמְזֻיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵעֵדָיו פָּסוּל אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד בִּלְבַד כָּשֵׁר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְסַר בְּעֵדִים הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל. וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לִי דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָּא כִּמְזֻיָּף לֹא מְזֻיָּף וַדַּאי וְהוֹאִיל וְנִמְסַר בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה כְּשֵׁרִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם:

[The following rule applies if] a scribe wrote a get for the sake of the husband and the wife as required, and the witnesses signed without having that intent. Since [the husband] gives it to [his wife] in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer, the get is valid [according to Scriptural law]. It is, however, {unacceptable [by Rabbinic decree]. Why is [it merely unacceptable and] not void?} Because the requirement for witnesses to sign the get [was instituted] only as a measure to aid society. There is an opinion that states that if the witnesses signed without the proper intent, since it as if it were a forgery, the get is void. Similarly, they maintain that if one of the witnesses was unacceptable, or if it was signed by one acceptable witness only, it is void even though it was transferred in the presence of witnesses. This ruling does not appear [correct] to me. For although [the get] resembles a forgery, it is not an absolute forgery. [Hence,] since it was transferred in the presence of acceptable witnesses, it is [merely] deemed unacceptable by Rabbinic decree.

הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאוֹ. אִם אָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּרוֹת מְצוּיוֹת אֲפִלּוּ מְצָאוֹ לְאַחַר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהַגֵּט שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ הוּא הַגֵּט שֶׁנִּמְצָא וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ בּוֹ. אָבַד בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּרוֹת מְצוּיוֹת אִם מְצָאוֹ מִיָּד וַעֲדַיִן לֹא שָׁהָה אָדָם שָׁם מִן הָעוֹבְרִים אוֹ שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ בַּכְּלִי שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בּוֹ וְיֵשׁ לוֹ טְבִיעוּת עַיִן בְּאָרְכּוֹ וְרָחְבּוֹ שֶׁל גֵּט שֶׁהָיָה כָּרוּךְ הֲרֵי הוּא בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ בּוֹ:

[The following rule applies when a person] bringing a get loses it, and then it is discovered. If he lost it in a place not frequented by caravans - even if he found it after a long time had passed - we presume that the get that he lost is the get that was found and [the woman] may be divorced with it. [However, different rules apply if a get] was lost in a place frequented by caravans. If it was discovered immediately, before any of the passersby had tarried there, or if it was found in the container in which it was [originally] placed, and the agent can recognize the length and the width of the get that was rolled up within, we can presume that [it is the same get], and [the woman] may be divorced with it.

הֻחְזַק בְּאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם אִישׁ אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ כִּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁבַּגֵּט חוֹשְׁשִׁים שֶׁמָּא גֵּט זֶה הַנִּמְצָא שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֵר הוּא הוֹאִיל וְעָבַר אָדָם שָׁם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה. וְאִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה בּוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. אֲבָל אִם לֹא עָבַר אָדָם שָׁם הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻחְזְקוּ שָׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין:

When it was established that there was another man in that place whose name was the same as the name written in the get, if another man passes by the place [the get was lost] - even if he did not tarry there - we suspect that the get that was found belongs to the other person. If the woman is divorced with this get, the status of the divorce is doubtful. If, however, another person has not passed by this place, we presume that [the get that was discovered was the one that was lost], even though there are two people with the same name.

הָיָה לָעֵדִים בַּגֵּט סִימָן מֻבְהָק כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָמְרוּ נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית. אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חָתַמְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גֵּט אֶחָד שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שֵׁמוֹת כְּשֵׁמוֹת אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּחֶזְקָתוֹ וְתִתְגָּרֵשׁ בּוֹ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ אַחַר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה וּבְמָקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּרוֹת מְצוּיוֹת וְהֻחְזְקוּ שָׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין:

If the witnesses knew of a clearly distinctive sign by means of which they could recognize the get - e.g., they said it had a hole next to a particular letter, or they said: "We signed only one get with these names" - we presume that [the get that was discovered was the one that was lost], and [the woman] may be divorced with it. [This ruling applies] even when [the get] was discovered after a long time had passed, [it was lost in] a place frequented by caravans, and it was established that there were two [men] with the same names.

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ שְׁנֵי גִּטִּין וְנִתְעָרְבוּ נוֹתְנִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לָזוֹ וּשְׁנֵיהֶן לָזוֹ בְּעֵדֵי מְסִירָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הַשֵּׁנִי בָּטֵל:

[The following rules apply when] two men [with the same names] sent gittin together, and they were interchanged [and it is no longer known who sent which get]. Both gittin should be given to each of the women in the presence of witnesses who observe the transfer. [In this manner, both divorces are acceptable.] Therefore, if one of the gittin was lost, the second get is void.

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. כְּשֶׁמְּגָרֵשׁ כּוֹתֵב שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֶׁהֵן רְגִילִין בּוֹ וִידוּעִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר וְאוֹמֵר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גֵּרֵשׁ אִשָּׁה פְּלוֹנִית וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ. וְאִם כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ כָּשֵׁר:

[The following rules apply when] a man has two names and a woman has two names. When a divorce is initiated, [the husband] should write the names that he and his wife use most frequently and that they are most popularly known by. [The get] should say: "So and so, or by whatever names that he is called, divorces so and so or by whatever names she is called." If he writes [the husband's] or [the wife's] nickname, [the get] is acceptable.

כָּתַב הַשֵּׁם שֶׁאֵינָם יְדוּעִים בּוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר וְכָתַב כָּל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. שִׁנָּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ שְׁמָהּ וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ אוֹ שֵׁם עִירָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב כָּל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט:

If the name that was less popularly known was written [in the get], and it was also written: "or by whatever names he is called," the get is not acceptable. If the name of [the husband] or [the wife,] or the city in which either of them lives is written incorrectly, the get is void, despite the fact that the phrase "or by whatever names he is called" was also written in the get.

הַכּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִכְתֹּב אֶת הַגֵּט חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה. עַכּוּ"ם וְעֶבֶד וְחֵרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן. אֲפִלּוּ אִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ כּוֹתֶבֶת אֶת גִּטָּהּ. יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהֵמִיר לְעַכּוּ"ם אוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעַכּוּ"ם לְכָל דְּבָרָיו:

All are fit to write a get, with the exception of five: a gentile, a servant, a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor. A woman may even write her get herself. When a Jew becomes an apostate to false gods, or he desecrates the Sabbath in public, he is regarded like a gentile with respect to all matters [and is not fit to write a get].

וְלָמָּה אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֵלּוּ הַחֲמִשָּׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ הַכּוֹתֵב לִכְתֹּב לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ וּלְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמִּתְגָּרֶשֶׁת וְהָעַכּוּ"ם עַל דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ הוּא כּוֹתֵב. וְחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אֵינָן בְּנֵי דֵּעָה. וְהָעֶבֶד אֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת גִּטִּין וְקִדּוּשִׁין לְפִיכָךְ הוּא פָּסוּל כְּעַכּוּ"ם לְכָל דְּבָרָיו. וְאִם כָּתַב הַגֵּט אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה אֵלּוּ אֵינוֹ גֵּט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתְמוּ בּוֹ עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִים וְנִמְסַר לָהּ בִּכְשֵׁרִים:

Why are these five individuals [prevented] from writing gittin? Because a get must be written for the sake of the man initiating the divorce and the woman receiving the divorce, and a gentile writes with his own intent. A deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person and a minor are not of [sufficient] mental capacity. And the laws of divorce and marriage do not apply to a servant; therefore, [in this area] he is disqualified; he is like a gentile in all respects. If one of these five individuals writes a get, it is void, even if it was signed by acceptable witnesses and given in the presence of acceptable witnesses.

כָּתַב אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה אֵלּוּ טֹפֶס הַגֵּט וְהִנִּיחַ מָקוֹם הַתֹּרֶף שֶׁהוּא מְקוֹם הָאִישׁ וּמְקוֹם הָאִשָּׁה וּמְקוֹם הַזְּמַן וּמְקוֹם הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם וּכְתָבָן הַפִּקֵּחַ הַגָּדוֹל הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי לִשְׁמוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט כָּשֵׁר:

When one of these five individuals writes the standard portion of the get and leaves the essential portions - i.e., the place for the man's [name], the woman's [name], the date and the sentence: "Behold, you are permitted [to marry] any man" - unwritten, and these were written by an adult mentally competent Jew with the proper intent, the get is acceptable.

מֻתָּר לְהָנִיחַ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן לִכְתֹּב טֹפֶס הַגֵּט לְכַתְּחִלָּה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָּדוֹל הַפִּקֵּחַ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּן. אֲבָל הָעַכּוּ"ם וְהָעֶבֶד אֵין כּוֹתְבִין הַטֹּפֶס לְכַתְּחִלָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּן שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לִכְתֹּב טָפְסֵי גִּטִּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת סוֹפֵר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

At the outset, one may allow a deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person or a minor to write the standard portions of a get, provided they are supervised by a mentally competent adult. A gentile or a servant, by contrast, should not be allowed to write the standard portions of a get at the outset, even when supervised by a Jew. For permission to write the standard portions of a get at the outset was granted only as assistance to scribes, as we have explained.

הַכּוֹתֵב גֵּט בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בִּשְׁגָגָה וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת. כְּתָבוֹ וַחֲתָמוֹ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם בְּזָדוֹן וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ אֵינָהּ מְגֹרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהֲרֵי הָעֵדִים פְּסוּלִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כְּתָבוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב בְּזָדוֹן וְנִמְסַר לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִים בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט פָּסוּל:

When a man writes a get on the Sabbath or on Yom Kippur, without knowing of the transgression, and gives it to [his wife], the divorce is effective. If it was written and signed on that day as a willful transgression and given to her, the divorce is not effective. For the witnesses [who signed] are disqualified by Scriptural law. If it was written on a holiday as a willful transgression and given to her in the presence of acceptable witnesses on the holiday, the get is unacceptable [by virtue of Rabbinic decree].