אבן העזר קכ״וEven HaEzer 126

Siman 126 of 178 in Even HaEzer — 50 se'ifim

Se’if 1א׳

כּוֹתְבִין הַגֵּט בְּכָל כְּתָב וּבְכָל לָשׁוֹן, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא כְּתַב הַגּוֹיִים בֵּין שֶׁהוּא כְּתַב יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּגוֹן פְּרוֹבִינְצָאל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מִקְצָת הַגֵּט כָּתוּב בְּלָשׁוֹן אֶחָד וּמִקְצָתוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, פָּסוּל. הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַכְשִׁירִין (הָרַאֲבַ"ד). וְנִרְאֶה לִי, דַּאֲפִלּוּ לְמַאן דְּפוֹסֵל, מוֹדֶה דְּמִקְצָתוֹ לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּי כָּשֵׁר, דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם נִתְּנוּ בְּסִינַי וְהָווּ קְרוֹבִים בַּלָּשׁוֹן, וּכְלָשׁוֹן אֶחָד דָּמְיָא, וְלָכֵן נוֹהֲגִין עַכְשָׁו לִכְתֹּב בַּגֵּט מִקְצָת מִלּוֹת לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְרֻבּוֹ לָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית. אִי נַמֵּי, מֵאַחַר דְּרֻבּוֹ לָשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית, וְאֵין בּוֹ רַק מִלּוֹת לְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֵין זֶה מִקְצָתוֹ בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר. אִי נַמֵּי, דְּדַוְקָא בְּתֹרֶף הַצֹּרֶךְ קָאָמַר, אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁמּוֹסִיפִין בַּתֹּרֶף "הֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָם" אוֹ שְׁאָר מִלּוֹת, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין וְאֵינָן רַק כֶּפֶל דְּבָרִים שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִין לְכַתְּחִלָּה. כֵּן נִרְאֶה לִי לְיַשֵּׁב הַמִּנְהָג. וְנָהֲגוּ לְכָתְבוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית וּבִכְתָב אַשּׁוּרִי. הַגָּה: וְאֵין לְהַכְשִׁיר בִּכְתָב אַחֵר, רַק בִּמְקוֹם עִגּוּן וּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּבָא מִמֶּרְחַקִּים וְאֵין שַׁיָּרוֹת מְצוּיוֹת (תְּשׁוּבַת הָרֹא"שׁ כְּלָל מ"ה). וְעַיֵּן לְעֵיל סִימָן קכ"ה סָעִיף ט"ז:

We write the bill [of divorce] in any script and in any language, whether it is a script of the nations or it is a script of Israel, like Occitan and the like. But if part of the bill was written in one language and part of it in another language, it is invalid. Comment: But some validate it (Raavad). It seems to me that even one who invalidates it admits that, if part of it is the holy language and part of it is Aramaic, it is valid, for they both were given at Sinai and they are relatives in language and are considered like one language. Therefore, we currently are accustomed to write a bill [of divorce] some words [in] the holy language and most of it [in] Aramaic. Or, also, since most of it is Aramaic and doesn't have [more] than [some] words [in] the holy language, this is not [considered] "part of it in another language" [so it is valid]. Or, also, [the one who says it is invalid if partially in one language and partially in another] says so specifically about the required individualization, but "you are hereby permitted to all men" or other words which we add to the individualization are not needed and are nothing but duplication of words, which we are accustomed to [l'chat'chila: needs translation]. These [arguments] are seemly to me, to establish the custom. And they have been accustomed to write it in Aramaic language and Assyrian script. Comment: And one should not validate it in another script; [however, one may do so] only in a case of boundness [of the wife to her absent husband if she has no bill of divorce] [and? or?] in a pressing case, such as [a bill of divorce] that was brought from a faraway place and there are no caravans found [to and from that place] (responsum of Rosh, rule 45). And see above, chapter 125 paragraph 16.

Se’if 2ב׳

בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, בָּרְבִיעִי, בַּחֲמִישִׁי, מְלֵאִים יוּ"ד. בַּשֵּׁנִי, וּבַשִּׁשִּׁי, חֲסֵרִים:

"Bashelishi", "barevi'i", [and] "bachamishi" [are written] plene with a yod. "Basheni" and "bashishi" [are written] defective.

Se’if 3ג׳

יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן יִכְתֹּב בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת.

The first day [of the week] he shall write "Be'echad beshabbat".

Se’if 4ד׳

בְּיוֹם רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ יִכְתֹּב: "בְּיוֹם (רִאשׁוֹן) [אֶחָד] לְיֶרַח פְּלוֹנִי". הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּכוֹתְבִין בְּאֶחָד לְיֶרַח (מָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק הַמְגָרֵשׁ), וּמִכֹּחַ זֶה יֵשׁ נִמְנָעִים לָתֵת גֵּט בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ (כָּךְ כָּתוּב בְּסֵדֶר גִּטִּין). בַּשֵּׁנִי, יִכְתֹּב בִּשְׁנֵי יָמִים, בִּשְׁלשָׁה, בְּאַרְבָּעָה, כֻּלָּם לְשׁוֹן זָכָר בְּהֵ"א לְבַסוֹף. הַגָּה: וְיִכְתֹּב: "יָמִים" עַד עֲשָׂרָה: בִּשְׁנֵי יָמִים, בִּשְׁלשָׁה יָמִים וְכוּ', (בְּסֵדֶר גִּטִּין), וּמִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ יִכְתֹּב: יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר, יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, יוֹם וְכוּ' (מָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק הַמְגָרֵשׁ); כָּתַב: יָמִים, לָא מִפְסָל בְּדִיעֲבַד אִם כְּבָר נִתַּן, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק (בֵּית יוֹסֵף). כָּתַב שְׁלוֹשָׁה אוֹ שְׁמוֹנָה מָלֵא בְּוָי"ו (בְּסֵדֶר ר"י מִינְץ), אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב "בַּשֵּׁנִי" רַק שֵׁנִי (בְּסֵדֶר גִּטִּין), אוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רָאשֵׁי תֵּבוֹת, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וְכָתַב י"ב (בְּשֵׁם הָרַב מֶטְרוֹנִי), כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן בְּאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים, בִּשְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים, בִּשְׁלשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים, וְכֵן כֻּלָּם:

On Rosh Chodesh he shall write, "On the first day of such-and-such month." Rem"a: There are those who say that we write , "On day one" of the month (Mordechai), and because of this we withhold from giving the bill of divorce on Rosh Chodesh (this is written in Seder Gittin). On the second, he writes, "On two [Shenei] days," "three [Sheloshah]," "four [Arba'ah]," all in the masculine form with a Hei at the end. Rem"a: He shall write, "days" through ten--"On two days," "On three days," etc. (Seder Gittin)--and from then on he shall write, "day eleven," "day twelve," etc (Mordechai). If he wrote, "days," it is not invalidated post facto if it was already given, and all the more so at a pressing time (Beit Yosef). If he wrote, "three," or, "eight," plene with a Vav (Seder R"I Mintz), or he did not write "On the second," but only "the second" (Seder Gittin), or he wrote acronyms, for example he could not write "twelve" and instead wrote Yud-Bet (Rav Metroni), it is valid. So too [he shall write], "On one and twenty," "On two and twenty," "On three and twenty," and so all of them.

Se’if 5ה׳

בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן הַשָּׁנִים יִכְתֹּב לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה: בִּשְׁנַת חֲמֵשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וְאַחַת לִבְרִיאַת עוֹלָם, שְׁתַּיִם, שָׁלשׁ, אַרְבַּע, כֻּלָּם בְּלֹא הֵ"א לְבַסוֹף. וְכֵן אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה, שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה, עַד עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִשָּׁם וְאֵילָךְ: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת, עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם, עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלשׁ הַמִּנְיָן הַמּוּעָט לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה, וְכֵן לְעוֹלָם. הַגָּה: וְיִכְתֹּב בַּשָּׁנִים מִנְיַן הַמְרֻבֶּה קֹדֶם, אֲבָל בַּיָּמִים יִכְתֹּב מִנְיַן הַמּוּעָט קֹדֶם (וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בַּטּוּר וְכֵן הִיא בַּסְדָרִים) אֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים, שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים וְכוּ'. וְאִם כָּתַב מִנְיַן הַמְרֻבֶּה קֹדֶם, אוֹ לְהֵפֶךְ שֶׁכָּתַב בַּשָּׁנִים מִנְיַן הַמּוּעָט קֹדֶם, כָּשֵׁר (בֵּית יוֹסֵף). כָּתַב לְשׁוֹן זָכָר בִּמְקוֹם לְשׁוֹן נְקֵבָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב חָמֵשׁ וְכָתַב חֲמִשָּׁה, כָּשֵׁר (בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרִי"ל):

The calculation of the years he shall write in the feminine form: "In the year five thousand and one [Achat] to the creation of the world," "two [Shetayim]," "three [Shalosh]," "four [Arba]," all without a Hei at the end. So too [he shall write], "eleven [Achat Esreih]," "twelve [Sheteim Esreih]," until twenty. From then on: "twenty and one [VeAchat]," "twenty and two [VeShtayim]," "twenty and three [VeShalosh]," the smaller counting being in the feminine form, and so on forever. Rem"a: He shall write the years with the greatest value first, but for days he shall write the smallest value first (implied in the Tur and the Sedarim)--"one and twenty," "two and twenty," etc. If he wrote the greater value first, or he did the opposite and wrote the smaller value first in the years, it is valid (Beit Yosef). If he wrote in the masculine form in place of the feminine, for example he should have written, "five [Chameish]," but instead wrote, "five [Chamishah]," it is valid (Mahari"l).

…and 45 more se'ifim in this siman.

Become a premium member

Or start free — a free account opens your first 5 gematria searches in full. Create free account

The daily learning is free on your account, every day.

Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer — Torat Emet 357 edition, via Sefaria — public domain

English: Sefaria Community Translation — CC0

English rendered from the Hebrew for this app — The Gematria's own rendering program. A rendering of the words, not a ruling; practical halacha is learned with a rav