Mishnah 1 deals with a person whose mind has become temporarily unhinged, and with the question of how to relate to instructions he gives about writing a get, as well as with the law of one who has lost the ability to speak and cannot communicate verbally.
"Mi she'achazo kordiakos":
"Mi she'achazo kordiakos ve'amar: kisvu get le'ishti" - one who was seized by kordiakos, a form of temporary madness, and while in that state said that a get should be written for his wife, and even if he added "kisvu u'tenu" (write it and give it) - "lo amar kelum" - his words have no substance whatsoever and are not valid at all. And even after he recovers, the get may not be written on the strength of that instruction; rather, a fresh instruction must be received from him.
He gave the instruction while sane and afterward became insane:
"Amar: kisvu get le'ishti, ve'achar kach nishtatah, vechazar ve'amar: al tichtevu" - a man who was completely sane and instructed that a get be written for his wife, and afterward his mind became unhinged, and while in that state he retracted and said that the get should not be written. The Mishnah rules: "ein devarav ha'acharonim kelum" - his second statement, made at a time when he was insane, is meaningless. Therefore, even once he recovers, the get may be written on the strength of his first instruction, which was given while he was of sound mind; and although during his temporary madness he said that he did not want the get written, that carries no weight, and we rely on his original words.
One who lost the ability to speak:
A further case: a man who lost the ability to speak and cannot communicate through direct speech. "Ve'amru lo: nichtov get le'ishtecha?", "Ve'hirkin be'rosho" - they asked him whether they should write a get for his wife, and he nodded his head in the affirmative. This signal may not be relied upon immediately, since it is possible that he was stricken with some other illness or with a form of madness of which we are unaware. Therefore "bodkin oso shelosha pe'amim" - he must be tested three times in order to verify that his mind is sound.
"Im amar al lo lo ve'al hen hen - harei elu yichtevu ve'yitnu" - if to questions that properly call for a negative answer he answered in the negative, and to questions that properly call for an affirmative answer he answered in the affirmative, then the get may be written and given on the strength of his signals.
The commentators explain that even if he was asked only about writing the get and not about giving it, the get may be given on the strength of his instruction to write. The reason: this case resembles the cases we learned in the previous chapter regarding a sick man, where if he said only to write, it may also be given on that basis, since the fact that he did not specify the giving stems from his being preoccupied with his illness and with the danger he is in. From this we assume that he wants the get to be given as well, and the same reasoning applies to the case before us.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned three laws: an instruction to write a get given during a period of temporary madness is entirely void, and even after recovery it may not be relied upon; the cancellation of an instruction, given at a time of insanity, does not cancel an instruction given earlier while sane; and one who lost the ability to speak and nodded his head is tested three times, and if he answered properly to negative and affirmative questions, they may write the get and give it.