To still focus on Hebrew, Rema did not want a get to include embarrassing names. If a husband had left Judaism and returned, Rema thought we should not write “and all names or nicknames he has,” because it alludes to his non-Jewish name. In se’if sixty-two, AH suggested this is an example of deracheha darchei no’am, the ways of the Torah are pleasant, and should not (where possible) make people uncomfortable.
Where that name is inescapable, because the local non-Jews all know him that way, Rema still thought we could leave it out, where other authorities held we would have to make oblique reference, any name or nickname he has.
Di-Mitkerei or Ha-Mechuneh
Se’if fifty-four explains these two terms we have been using. De-mitkerei, says AH, works for all kinds of appellations, where ha-mechuneh fits only where the new name has some link to the original name. If a man named Reuven started being called Shim’on, ha-mechuneh wouldn’t work and would invalidate a get, a reason the practice has become to write de-mitkerei in all cases of doubt.
Ha-mechuneh implies change, hiding, covering, AH says in se’if fifty-five, with a few prooftexts, one from Yeshayahu 44;5, be-shem Yisra’el yechuneh, where the verse speaks of one who does not act Jewishly, but calls himself so. The Gemara uses the word kinui mostly for a derogatory name substituted for the real name of objects of idolatry, or approximate words to establish a vow, nazik instead of nazir, shekukah for shevu’ah, konam instead of korban. The word has been changed, but is recognizable.
Beit Yosef thought we had to use de-mitkerei if the name is clearly related to the original (Ber for Dov, because Dov is Hebrew for bear).
Here, in se’if fifty-six, AH finally lets us know how Michel came to be a nickname for Yechiel. People would say Ichel for Yechiel (he says; today, I think they would have said Chiel), and Ichel became Michel. The wonders of human language.
Rema, as we said before and as AH repeats here, disagreed, relegated all non-Hebrew names to ha-mechuneh, regardless of how similar. AH suggested non-Hebrew names tend to be more directly connected to the original than Hebrew ones, except where there are exceptions. Still, these are the rules for Ashkenazim, and it is how it is in all the sifrei shemot, the name manuals (which had lists of names and how to write them, a continuing issue today for ketubbot and gittin).
Se’if sixty has Levush’s explanation for why we don’t include family names, they do not identify a person well enough (since the whole family has that name; I included it here because it stands in such contrast to our daily experience, where first names are often shared, but the combination of first and last names much more rarely so).
Names For Illness
Se’if sixty-eight repeats the reminder of the change of custom regarding names of people in grave danger [is there any other kind?]. While the original custom gave the person a new name completely, with halachot of what to do about the old name, I will skip to AH se’if eighty-two, where he discusses the later practice, to add a second name to the original, and use both together going forward.
If the two names stuck, both belong in the get, but if the recovered ill man returns to his original name (although he signs with both and is called to the Torah with both), we would write the two together, then de-mitkerei the original. The get would be valid without de-mitkerei, and AH finds it unnecessary if some people call him both names.
Where the new name becomes really part of his name, except now people call him any of the four possibilities (just the new name, just the old, the new one first, the old first), AH in se’if eighty-three calls for writing all of them, as de-mitkerei, who is called. If most people call him or her only the original name, and the get was written with only that name, AH in se’if eighty-five leans to accepting the get, but calls for great thought and consideration.
[Meaning, I think: where it’s easy, rewrite the get. Often, it wasn’t easy, and then rabbis had to rule on the woman’s status based only on this get.]
Where It Matters Too Much
For our last point this time, AH considers examples of a get invalid “only” rabbinically (his example here was where one of the parties’ fathers’ names was wrong, Shmuel instead of Shim’on, let’s say) where it seems we nonetheless insist on another get before the woman can remarry. With rabbinic problems, we usually do not push our concerns, yet sometimes it is significant enough to call for more drastic action.
I’ll stop here, after se’if ninety. Next time, our last for this siman, I will run through the next forty se’ifim, taking out only the points I happen to find most interesting. It’ll be a sprint through the rest of Even HaEzer 129.
