One needs to sign [get] in front of two kosher witnesses, and they should sign one signature under the other (Mordechai Halachos Gitin), both under the last line of the get. But don't leave space that is two lines worth of space between the last line [of the get] and their signature. If they place it so [see statement above], the get is void (Tur). There are those who disagree, and say that it is still made kosher by the witnesses [those who see that the man gave the get] (Rambam). If the second witness signs first, and the first witness signs after, it is still kosher, even though from the beginning, there were two signatures, two lines away from the get (Gittin). Nevertheless, initially, you shouldn't do so. If you say that initially, one should not sign the get if they have been related and now distanced, or if you were the matchmaker (Seder HaGet Bisheim Maharil). It's good to praise the scribe, so the scribe will not come close to the man and his wife, but when this is impossible, you need not be stringent (Maharik 106). And none of the witnesses may be suspects of adultery. There are those that are stringent that he [the witness] cannot have a blemish, and he should not be related to the scribe, and none of the witnesses may be related to the Rabbi officiating the get , and it's also good to be suspicious of all this from the beginning. Also, it is customary to take signers and the witnesses to see that the husband commanding the scribe to write [the get ], so all this will be in the presence of one group of witnesses (Mordechai Halachos Gittin and in the Smag). And the witnesses shouldn't sign unless it is [they are signing] with the quill and ink of the husband, like the scribe, as was explained earlier in the beginning of the siman .
He shall start at the beginning of a line: no blank space shall be left in the margin before their signature[s].
Between the text of the get (writ of divorce) and the signature of the witnesses there should be nothing written which is not relevant to the get. And if there is something written there, such as "inquire as to her welfare," the get is invalid, for maybe the witnesses only signed on to the welfare inquiry [and not the get]. But if he wrote "and inquire as to her welfare," the get is valid, for the phrase is attached to the text above, and the witnesses signed on everything.
If they signed at the top of the get (writ of divorce) or its side, the right or the left or the reverse side, it is invalid.
Even when the witnesses sign at the bottom [of the get], the signatures must be oriented such that the back of the signature (i.e. top of the letters) faces the text of the get. If the feet of the signature face the get, the get is invalid.
[Regarding] all of these gets (writs of divorce) which we have labeled invalid, if there are witnesses to the handing over of the get [to the woman], the get is valid.
If he left over some of the bill of divorce and wrote it on a second page, and the [signatures of] the witnesses are below at the end of the second page, it is valid. This is true for a scroll, because it is recognizable that it was not split, and that the scribe intended to finish it on the second page. However, if this is not recognizable, if it was delivered by witnesses, there is doubt whether she is divorced, as there may have been two bills of divorce and part was split from the end of the page and part was split from the beginning of another page. Rem"a: However, if there are witnesses that it was originally one bill of divorce, and it was delivered with witnesses, it is valid (Hagahot Maimoni 4). If he joined two skins with glue, and wrote a bill of divorce on them, they are invalid due to doubt (A"Z).
If he wrote two divorce documents with two pages in one scroll, one near the other, and the witnesses go from beneath one to the other, in that the name of the witness is under the first and his father ['s name] is under the second, and so is the second witness beneath him, the one that the names of the witnesses are written beneath it is valid. And if he wrote "Reuven son of" under the first and "Yaakov [the] witness" under the second, the second is disqualified. And if he wrote "Reuven" under the first and "son of Yaakov [the] witness" under the second, the second is also valid. gloss: And if it was passed with witnesses next to the one that does not have witnesses, it is valid post factum, for it is not worse than if it did not have witnesses on it at all (Bet Yosef in the name of RaMbaM) and see later section 133:
[In the case of] five [men] who wrote a single Get (divorce document) for their five wives: if they wrote it collectively, for example, they wrote "On day such-and-such of the week, so-and-so divorced so-and-so and so-and-so divorced so-and-so, and as well each one said to his wife 'This will be for you...' " and the entire formula of the Get, and two witnesses sign beneath, then it is a valid Get and it should be given to each [wife] with witnesses of the transfer [of the Get]. If there are no witnesses of the transfer, then whoever is in possession of the document is divorced. However, if he wrote, ''On day such-and-such of the week so-and-so divorced so-and-so..." and he finished the Get and began the next Get underneath in the same scroll, and wrote "And on that day so-and-so divorced so-and-so..." and finished the secccond Get, and so on until he finished all of the Gittin (pl. of Get), and the witnesses [sign] underneath, then if this document was given to each [wife] with witnesses of the transfer, then they are all divorced. If there are no transfer witnesses, and one of the women is in possession of this document, then if it is the one whose Get is last, such that the witnesses [signatures] are read along with it, then she is divorced. And if one of the others was in possession of this document, then she is doubtfully divorced. Comment [by the Rama]: All this is in a case where he wrote "And so-and-so [divorced] so-and-so". But if he wrote in the second, or in any other one, "So-and-so [divorced] so-and-so", then only the last one is valid (Tur).
If he wrote: We so and so and so and so have divorced our wives so and so and so and so, and completed the divorce document, even though it was given to every one of them with witness of the transfer of the divorce document, it is not a valid divorce document, because to women can not be divorced with one document, as it is said (in the Torah): "and he wrote for her" (Deut. 24) and not for her and her peer. (However,) if he repeated and specified them (i.e. the couples being divorced) in the divorce document, and (thus) wrote: so and so has divorced so and so and so and so has divorced so and so at this time, such a divorce document is valid.
When the witness signs he must write his name and his father's name, such as "Yosef son of Yaakov witness". If he wrote: "Yosef Witness", or "son of Yaakov witness" or "Yosef son of Yaakov" but did not write "witness" it is valid. ReM"A Note: some say that since it is sufficient if he wrote "Yosef witness", if so it is not necessary to write "son of Yaakov" and if he made a mistake or changed it, it [the signature] should not be invalidated. (Trumas HaDeshen Siman 228) as will be expounded upon in Siman 128 etc; and one should not rely on this except in times of dire need and in a situation of Iggun [a case of an abandoned wife, where we suspect that the women will be unable to obtain a divorce otherwise]. See Siman 128 [regarding] how a witness who has two names should sign. A witness need not include his nickname with his signature (sic, Siman 234) even in the best case scenario [meaning: as opposed to being preferable to include one's nickname, but if one didn't it would not invalidate the signature]. Also, one should not sign his name or his father's name with a title such as "Rabbi" or "Wise" [sephardic term for "Rabbi"] rather he should write only "so and so son of so and so witness" (Seder Gittin). Anyone about whom there is some doubt regarding how to write [his name properly], it is unfit to have him sign in the first place, as it is not fitting to get into such doubts in the from the start (author's own opinion); therefore, we do not have someone who's father is a sinner sign as a witness, as will be expounded upon in Siman 129, and likewise all other such situations. And in preferable circumstances we are careful with the witnesses signatures with everything which we are careful with in the writing of the bill of divorce, namely, proper writing and separate letters and alike. (Beit Yosef citing an anonymous composition).
If the witness signed "Yosef" only and did not add "witness", it is invalid. Rama: And certainly if he wrote "the son of so-and-so" without adding "witness", it is invalid (Beit Yosef).
The witnesses must both sign in front of the other. If each signed separately, it is invalid. Rama: Some authorities validate a get in which the first two witnesses signed in front of each other and the third witness signed separately (Tur in the name of Rabbenu Tam).
A get written in the script of one languages, whereas its witnesses sign in a different script, is valid, as long as the witnesses are familiar with the language of the writing and its script.
If one of the witnesses signed in one language and the second one signed in another language, it is valid.
The witnesses that sign a writ need to know how to read and how to sign. If they do not know how to read, we read to them and they then sign, provided that they understand the content of the writ. If they do not know how to sign, we mark the paper with saliva et al, such that the mark is temporary, and they trace the mark. Rem"a: Some authorities forbid this practice a priori. Instead we tear blank paper for them [into a stencil of their signatures] and they trace the stencil.
If a writ that signed by disqualified witnesses, even if one is disqualified and the other is acceptable, it is invalid. Even if [qualified] witnesses are present at the delivery of the writ, [it is invalid] because it is internally forged.
It is best for the scribe to not sign as one of the witnesses, as some authorities disqualify this.
If a writ was produced under the auspices of a Samaritan court, and Samaritan witnesses are signatories on it, even if it was written by a Jew and delivered in the presence of Jewish witnesses, and the names of the Samaritan signatories are clearly identifiable as Samaritan (such that there is no concern that they might be [illegitimately] relied upon), it is still invalid. If, however, a woman brought a writ that served for her divorce and she now wishes to remarry, and the signatories names appear Samaritan - if the names are never used by Jews at all, she may remarry, because they are certainly Jews, as the arrangers of the writ would not have mistakenly allowed people with these names to sign unless they were certain that they were Jews. If the names are somewhat similar to Jewish names, we are concerned that arrangers of the writ may have mistaken them for Jews, though they are really Samaritans, and she may not remarry.
If a man gave his wife a writ privately, or even in the presence of one witness, it is not considered a writ. This is the case if the writ is in the scribes handwriting. If the husband wrote the writ in his hand and one witness signed and he gave it to her, it is a invalid writ, and it disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen.
The witnesses on a writ should not take any more payment than their apparent opportunity cost. Rem"a: Some authorities say that we stipulate with the witnesses that if they damage the writ they must pay for it, and with this proviso they may take a large fee, or perhaps [they may take a large fee to compensate for the fact that] the witnesses may not marry the woman who is divorced [with this writ] as is explained earlier (Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 12), and this is our common practice.
Some authorities say that the ink on the writ must dry before the witnesses sign.