The passuk (Devarim 24:1,3) describes a get as a ספר כריתות, a “book of separation.” To that end, Chazal derive that a get must completely separate between them. A classic example of this is that a get given on condition must have an “end date” for the condition; a man can give a get on condition that his wife not drink wine during the next 30 days, but he cannot give it on condition that his wife not drink wine ever (Gittin 21a, etc.).

Does this extend to financial relations between them? If a woman rented property from her husband, must she terminate the lease for the get to be valid, or does the requirement that the get sever their connection only refer to things within the get’s power to sever, i.e., their original marriage? While I have never heard of such a Halacha, this question arose as I was attempting to answer this question, and I realized that this point was not as as clear as I imagined it was.

  • 1
    what about alimony?
    – Menachem
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 3:25
  • @Menachem You mean, as stipulated by the Kesuvah? That depends on the technical workings of the Kesuvah - does his obligation to support her kick in exactly at the moment of the get, or does it kick in immediately after the get? Or perhaps it kicks in when they’re married, on condition that he doesn’t pay anything until they’re divorced or he predeceases her. If it kicks in after the divorce, then it would not affect this; if it kicks in before or during the divorce, then perhaps that could be argued as a valid proof.
    – DonielF
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 3:43
  • I'm asking if alimony interferes with the complete separation that must occur.
    – Menachem
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 3:51
  • @Menachem If the obligation to pay alimony only exists after the divorce, then there’s no problem. If it exists during the divorce, then the fact that there’s still an obligation to pay alimony could serve as an answer to my question, that financial obligations are not included. As I do not know when it technically comes into effect, I can’t answer you fully.
    – DonielF
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 3:53

2 Answers 2


THe Halacha is as following:

  1. The Gett only stops all obligatory financial obligations that stem D'Orayso/Derabanan (as Joel answered "שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ עָלֶיהָ רְשׁוּת"). All the previous obligations left unfulfilled and not forgiven turn to a debt (like the Kesubah).

  2. The Gett does not prohibit any following voluntary financial relations between the two, such as loans, payments, even partnerships as long as there's no direct contact between the two.

This is explicitly hinted in Shu"A Eh"Ez 119:7-8:

"מי שגירש אשתו מן הנשואין לא תדור עמו בחצר שמא יבואו לידי זנות..."

"היה לה מלוה אצלו עושה שליח לתובעו:"

"One who divorced his wife from the marriage cannot live with her in the [same] courtyard [because] maybe they will come to impropriety"

"If she had a loan by him, she should appoint a messenger to claim it."

Shulchan Aruch Harav explains it even better, but I can't find it right now.


Rambam, Hilchot Geirushin 1:3:

סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת. דָּבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁאֵר לוֹ עָלֶיהָ רְשׁוּת.‏

A bill of divorcement: something that separates between him and her, so that he has no control over her.

According to Rambam, the problem is when he has (indefinite) continuing control/possession (reshut) over her (like in the case of attaching an unending condition to the divorce).

Any other form of connection, such as an unrelated financial agreement, would not mean that she is in his reshut, and would not invalidate the divorce.

  • What has renting his property got to do with control? She can terminate the rent whenever she doesn't pay the husband can't and won't force her to stay. She might be doing something wrong terminating the contract early but this has no repurcussions to her previous marriage.
    – yosefkorn
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 13:29
  • 1
    @yosefkorn I'm not sure if you're arguing with my answer or agreeing with it...
    – Joel K
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 13:30
  • 1
    In other words - if it’s not through marriage, it’s by definition limited, which means that it’s not complete reshus over her. Simple and classy.
    – DonielF
    Commented Oct 9, 2018 at 14:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .