One who brings a get within Eretz Yisrael is not required to say: “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.” If there are protesters against it, it should be validated through its signatures.  One who brings a get from overseas and is unable to say: “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence” —- if there are witnesses on it, it should be validated through its signatures.

Both gittin and [documents of] emancipation of slaves correspond in regard to being taken [from Eretz Yisrael] and being brought [there]. This is one of the ways in which gittin correspond to [documents of] emancipation of slaves.

Every document which has a Cuthean witness on it is void, except for gittin and [documents of] emancipation of slaves. It once occurred that they brought before Rabban Gamliel in Kefar Usnai a get whose witnesses were Cutheans, and he validated [it].  All documents which are processed in gentile courts, although their signatories are gentiles, are valid, except for gittin and [documents of] emancipation of slaves. R' Shimon says: These are also valid; they were not mentioned [as being void], except when they were made by private individuals.

One who says: “Give this get to my wife” or “this document of emancipation to my slave” —- if he wants to retract in both of those [cases], he can retract; [these are] the words of R' Meir. The Sages, however, say: In [cases of] gittin, but not in [cases of documents of] emancipation of slaves, because [we] can benefit a person in his absence, but [we] cannot cause detriment to a person, except in his presence; for if he wants to refrain from supporting his slave, he is permitted, but to refrain from supporting his wife, he is not permitted. He said to them: But he is disqualifying his slave from [eating] terumah, just as he is disqualifying his wife! They said to him: [This is] because he is his possession.  If someone says: “Give this get to my wife” or “this document of emancipation to my slave,” and he dies, they shall not give [it] after [his] death.  [If one says:] “Give a hundred [zuz] to So-and-So,” and he dies, they shall give [it] after [his] death.

[If] one brought a get from overseas, and said: “It was written in my presence,” but not: “It was signed in my presence”; [or] “It was signed in my presence,” but not: “It was written in my presence”; [or] “All of it was written in my presence, and half of it was signed in my presence”; [or] “Half of it was written in my presence, and all of it was signed in my presence,” it is void. [If] one says: “It was written in my presence,” and one says: “It was signed in my presence,” it is void. If two say: “It was written in our presence,” and one says: “It was signed in my presence,” it is void. R' Yehudah, however, validates [it]. If one says: “It was written in my presence,” and two say: “It was signed in our presence,” it is valid.

[If] it was written by day and signed by day, [or written] by night and signed by night, [or written] by night and signed by day, it is valid. [If it was written] by day and signed by night, it is void. R' Shimon [however] validates it, for R' Shimon used to say: All documents which were written by day and signed by night are void, except for gittin.

[We] write [it] with anything: with ink, with orpiment, with red pigment, with gum, with ferrous sulfate, or with anything which is lasting. [We] do not write [it] with liquids, nor with fruit juice, nor with anything which is not lasting.  [We] write [it] upon anything: on the leaf of an olive tree; or on the horn of a cow, and he gives her the cow; or on the hand of a slave, and he gives her the slave. R' Yose the Galilean says: [We] do not write [it] on a living creature, nor on food.

[We] do not write [it] on something attached to the ground. [If] he wrote it on something attached, and [then] detached it, completed it, and gave it to her, it is valid. R' Yehudah invalidates [it], unless its writing and completion are done when [it is] detached.  R' Yehudah ben Beseira says: [We] do not write [it] on paper which has been erased, nor on unfinished parchment, because it can be forged; the Sages, however, validate [these].

All are qualified to write a get, even a deaf-mute, a mentally deranged person, and a minor. A woman may write her own get, and a man may write his own receipt, for the validity of the document is [dependent] only upon those who sign it.  All are qualified to bring a get, except a deaf-mute, mentally deranged person, a minor, a blind person, and a gentile.

[If] a minor received [it], and [then] became of age; [or] a deaf-mute, and he [then] became able to hear; [or] a blind person, and he [then] became able to see; [or] a mentally deranged person, and he [then] became sane; [or] a gentile, and he [then] became a proselyte —- [he is] not valid. However, [if it was] a hearing person [who received it], and he [then] became a deaf-mute, and then regained his hearing; [or] a seeing person, and he [then] became blind, and [then] regained his sight; [or] a sane person, and he [then] became mentally deranged, and [then] regained his sanity —- [he is] valid. This is the general rule: Anyone who is mentally competent at the beginning and at the end is valid.

Even those women who are not trusted to say: “Her husband died” are trusted to bring her get: her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law's daughter, her co-wife, her husband's brother's wife, and her husband's daughter. What is the difference between a get and [testimony of] death? That the written document is evidence.  The woman herself may bring her own get, only she must say: “It was written in my presence and signed in my presence.”

Any get which is written without specific intent for a particular woman is void. How [is this exemplified]? [If a man] was passing through the street and heard the sound of scribes dictating: “So-and-so is divorcing So-and-so from such and such a place,” and he said: “That is my name and that is my wife's name,” it is void for executing a divorce with it.  Moreover, [if] he wrote [a get] with which to divorce his wife, and he changed his mind, [and] a man of his city met him and said to him: “My name is like your name, and my wife's name is like your wife's name,” it is void for executing a divorce with it. Moreover, [if] he had two wives whose names were alike, [and] he wrote [a get] to divorce the elder, he cannot divorce the younger with it.  Moreover, [if] he said to the scribe: “Write [a get]; I will divorce whichever one I will want,” it is void for executing a divorce with it.