The Mishna said that one who is convicted in a court is not fully presumed dead. There are two versions of Rav Yosef’s limitation of this Mishna – whether specifically in a Jewish court or specifically in a Gentile court. The sources that were brought to question one understanding are then brought to support the other. Can a messenger who is meant to deliver a get appoint a new messenger in his/her place? Does it depend on what motivated this – because the messenger is unable or simply doesn’t want to? How is it different if they are bringing the get within Israel or from abroad? If the husband asked the messenger to bring something back from his wife, the messenger cannot appoint a different messenger to bring it instead as one does not necessarily trust others with his items. If the Mishna is specifically referring to a messenger who gets sick, what were the circumstances by which the husband send the messenger (i/e/ what wording did he use) and how can this be understood in light of the debate between the rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding appointing a new messenger? In the Mishna in Gittin 66a, there is a case where the messengers cannot appoint another messenger. How can that case be reconciled with our Mishna? Can a messenger who was appointed by another messenger appoint a third messenger? Does the appointing of a new messenger need to take place in a court? What if the first messenger dies, does that cancel the other messengers? There are two stories in which messengers were appointed by the court on behalf of the original messenger and there were differences of opinion about whether this was legitimate or not because of the circumstances.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Gittin 29
אֲבָל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ דִּינָא לִקְטָלָא – קָטְלִי לֵיהּ.
but in a Jewish court, once his verdict to be executed has emerged, they execute him.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּחָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא! כִּי חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגְמַר דִּינָא, בָּתַר גְּמַר דִּינָא – תּוּ לָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.
Abaye said to him: In a Jewish court as well, it is possible that the court will see fit to acquit him afterward and he will be released. Rav Yosef said: When the court sees fit to acquit him, it is before the verdict; after the verdict the court will not further see fit to acquit him, as it is uncommon for the court to find a reason to acquit him after his verdict has been delivered.
לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ ״מְעִידִים אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג! דִּלְמָא בּוֹרֵחַ שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a mishna (Makkot 7a) supports Rav Yosef’s opinion: Concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict was issued, the mishna states: Any place where two witnesses arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his verdict was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, the halakha is that this person should be killed. It is evident from the mishna in tractate Makkot that there is no concern that the court might later have found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: Perhaps one who flees is different, as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמַע מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרָג״ – יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מִקּוֹמֶנְטָרִיסִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרַג״ – אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear: If one heard from a Jewish court that they were saying: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court allows his wife to marry. If he heard from a gentile judicial registrar: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court does not allow his wife to marry.
מַאי ״מֵת״ וּמַאי ״נֶהֱרַג״? אִילֵימָא ״מֵת״ – מַמָּשׁ, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן, כֹּל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara clarifies: What does it mean when it says: Died, and what does it mean when it says: Was killed? If we say that it means that he actually died, and that he actually was killed, such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.
אֶלָּא לָאו ״מֵת״ – יוֹצֵא לָמוּת, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג? וְקָתָנֵי: בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
Rather, is it not necessary to explain that when it says: Died, it means that he is going out to die, and when it says: Was killed, it means that he is going out to be executed. And it teaches: If one heard in a Jewish court then the court allows his wife to marry, as it is assumed that he was already executed, in support of the statement of Rav Yosef.
לְעוֹלָם מֵת מַמָּשׁ וְנֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם אַמַּאי לָא, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא שָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, אֲבָל בְּמִילְּתָא דְּשָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, עָבְדִי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי שִׁקְרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that he actually died, and was actually killed; and with regard to that which you said: Such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? The answer is that this credibility applies only in a matter that is not relevant to the gentiles; but in a matter that is relevant to the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is common for them to reinforce their false verdict.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״ – לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
MISHNA: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, where his only responsibility is to transmit the bill of divorce to the wife, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her that I left with her as a deposit, then he may not send it in the possession of another agent. This is because it is assumed that it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another person whom he did not appoint as his agent.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״חָלָה״ תְּנַן. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חָלָה״ קָתָנֵי! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חָלָה״ אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rav Kahana said: We learned in the mishna that the agent became sick; otherwise, he may not appoint a second agent. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as the mishna teaches explicitly that the agent became sick. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., that he may transfer the bill of divorce to another agent, even though the agent did not become sick, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically that he became sick is that the mishna teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, as an agent typically fulfills his agency, barring unavoidable circumstances, therefore, Rav Kahana teaches us that an agent may appoint another agent only when he becomes sick.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה נָמֵי! וְאִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״ – אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא! וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא!
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of his appointment as an agent? If this is a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then even though the agent did not become sick, he may also appoint an agent in his place, as the husband did not state that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. And if this is a case where he said to the agent: You, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then even if he became sick, he also may not appoint a second agent in his place, as the husband specified that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, then even if he became sick he also may not appoint a second agent, no matter what the husband said.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ.
The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (2:13): If the husband said to an agent: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. However, if the husband said: You, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then this agent may not send it in the possession of another agent. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whether the husband said it like this or whether the husband said it like that, the agent may not designate another agent. Therefore, Rav Kahana’s statement is difficult.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְהוּא דְּחָלָה; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said to his agent: Deliver the bill of divorce, without specifying that he must be the one to do so, and Rav Kahana understood the baraita as follows: And this halakha, that he may send it in the possession of another agent, applies only when the agent became sick. And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: You deliver, but one who became sick is different, and it is assumed that under those circumstances the husband would allow him to designate another agent. And if you wish, say that the mishna is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that an agent is ordinarily not permitted to designate another agent. But a case where the agent became sick is different, and the agent may designate another agent.
תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וּרְמִינְהוּ, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. אִינְהוּ אִין, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ לָא!
We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (66a): If the husband said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if he said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, then these people should write it and give it. The Gemara infers from the mishna: They themselves, yes, they should do so, but one whom they appoint as an agent may not do so.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, הָכָא בַּעַל לָא קָפֵיד.
Abaye said: There, what is the reason that an agent may not be appointed? It is due to degradation of the husband, who does not want the matter to become known, and therefore they may not designate another agent. However, here, after he has already sent the bill of divorce, the husband is not particular that word not spread, and therefore the agent may designate another agent in his place.
רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִילֵּי נִינְהוּ, וּמִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
Rava said: There is a different reason that in the case of the mishna (66a) the agent may not appoint another to write the bill of divorce; it is because of the fact that in the case there, the husband’s instructions are mere words, and verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Therefore, they cannot take their oral instructions and transfer them to another. In the case of the mishna here, the agent is able to give the physical bill of divorce to another agent and thereby transfer his agency.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁלִיחַ מַתָּנָה; וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – רַב אָמַר: מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּגֵט. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּגֵט.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the explanations offered by Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of an agent appointed to write a deed of a gift, and their disagreement is parallel to the dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Rav says: A deed of gift is not like a bill of divorce, as the gift giver does not care who writes the deed. Since it is not degrading to him if another agent writes the deed of gift instead of the agent that he appointed, the agent may appoint another agent. And Shmuel says: A deed of gift is like a bill of divorce, as the mere words instructing the agent to write the deed cannot be transferred to another agent.
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר.
§ The mishna teaches: But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her, then the agent may not appoint a second agent, as it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another. Reish Lakish says: Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that a borrower is not allowed to lend the item that he borrowed to someone else, and a renter is not allowed to rent out the item that he rented to someone else. In those cases, the same reasoning applies, i.e., that it is not the desire of the owner that his item be in the possession of another.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִים אוֹתָהּ! אֶלָּא זִימְנִין דְּגִיטָּא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי – דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בַּבַּיִת״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בָּעֲלִיָּיה; ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren know this halakha, and this is not the novel idea expressed in the mishna. The novel idea expressed in the mishna is as follows: Not only is it not permitted for an agent to appoint another agent in this case, as it violates the desire of the husband, but sometimes it happens that the bill of divorce is also not valid if a second agent is appointed. This is because the first agent becomes as one that it was said to him: Divorce her only in the house, and he divorced her in the attic; or the husband said: Divorce her only with your right hand, and he divorced her with his left hand. Here as well, since the agent violated the instructions the divorce will not be valid.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָה לְאַפֵּיהּ וְיָהֲבָה לֵיהּ חֵפֶץ, וַהֲדַר שָׁקְלָה מִינֵּיהּ גִּיטָּא; כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּגִיטָּא – גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ:
The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees that when it happens that the wife went out to greet him and gave him the item that the husband requested, and then she took the bill of divorce from him, in this case everyone agrees that the bill of divorce is a proper bill of divorce. When they disagree is in a case when the husband said to the agent:
שְׁקוֹל מִינַּהּ חֵפֶץ וַהֲדַר הַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא; וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וִיהַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא, וַהֲדַר שְׁקַל מִינַּהּ חֵפֶץ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַכְשִׁיר בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בּוֹ.
Take an item from her and then give her the bill of divorce, and he went and gave her the bill of divorce and then took the item from her. Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband’s instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent’s agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent’s agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְחָלָה – עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ בְּבֵית דִּין וּמְשַׁלְּחוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶם: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאֵין שָׁלִיחַ אַחֲרוֹן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי.
MISHNA: With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהו,ּ שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן״, מִכְלָל דִּמְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ;
GEMARA: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: Can an agent of the first agent also appoint another agent, or not? He said to them: You should not raise this dilemma. From the fact that the mishna teaches: The final agent does not need to say, as opposed to: The second agent does not need to say, it can be seen by inference that the second agent can appoint an agent, resulting in the existence of a final agent, not just a second agent.
אֶלָּא כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ: כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא מִבַּעְיָא לַן, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי״.
Rather, when you raise the dilemma, this is what you should ask: When the second agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court? They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as from the fact that it teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, it is clear that any agent in this role must be appointed in court.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ, כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין?
The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach like this: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: When the agent of the first agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court?
אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְתִיבְּעֵי לְכוּ אִי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ בְּעָלְמָא! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דִּתְנַן: ״אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן״, מִכְּלָל דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ; אֶלָּא כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי״.
He said to them: And you should raise the dilemma as to whether generally the agent of the first agent can appoint another agent. They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: The final agent does not need to say, and by inference it can be seen that the second agent can appoint an agent. Rather, when the dilemma was raised to us, it was with respect to whether this must take place in court, or if it can take place while not in court. He said to them: You should also not raise this dilemma, as the mishna teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, which shows that the subsequent appointments must take place in court.
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁלִיחַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עוֹשֶׂה כַּמָּה שְׁלוּחִין. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם מֵת רִאשׁוֹן – בָּטְלוּ כּוּלָּן.
§ Rabba says: An agent in Eretz Yisrael can appoint several agents, i.e., he can appoint an agent, and the second agent can appoint another agent in his place. All of this can take place outside of court, because when a bill of divorce is sent within Eretz Yisrael there is no need to testify that it was written and signed in the agent’s presence. Rav Ashi says: If the first agent died, then they are all canceled, as all the agents act on the basis of the first agent. With his death, the agency is canceled.
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאַבָּא, דְּקַטְנוּתָא הִיא! אִילּוּ מֵת בַּעַל, מִידֵּי מְשָׁשָׁא אִית בְּהוּ?! כּוּלְּהוּ מִכֹּחַ מַאן קָאָתוּ – מִכֹּחַ דְּבַעַל קָאָתוּ; אִיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – אִיתַנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, לֵיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – לֵיתַנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This statement of my father is from the time of his youth, and it is not correct, as, if the husband dies, even if all of the agents are alive, is there is any significance to any of them? All of them, from whose authority do they come to deliver the bill of divorce? They come from the husband’s authority. Therefore, if the husband is alive, then they are all able to act as agents; if the husband is not alive, then they are all not agents. The status of the agents is dependent on the husband, not on the first agent.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר שָׁלִיחַ: לָא יָדַעְנָא לַהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל יַהֲבֵיהּ לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, דְּאִיהוּ יָדַע לַהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלִיתְּבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. אֲתָא וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידַן, דְּכִי יֵיתֵי אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי נִיתְּבִינֵיהּ לֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלִיתְּבִינֵיהּ לַהּ.
§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. The agent said: I do not know her. The husband said to him: Go give the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi, as he knows her, and he will go and give it to her. The agent came and did not find Abba bar Minyumi, and he did not know what to do. He found Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rav Safra was sitting among them. The agent asked them what he should do. The first three Sages said to him: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us, as when Abba bar Minyumi comes, we will give the bill of divorce to him, and he will go and give it to her.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא: וְהָא שְׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אִיכְּסוּפוּ.
Rav Safra said to them: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as he was given only the authority to transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi? Therefore, he cannot transfer the agency to another person. These Sages were embarrassed that they ruled improperly.
אָמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמִוכֵי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמַאי קַפְּחִינְהוּ? מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי וְלָא אַתְּ״?!
Rava said: Rav Safra struck [kappeḥinhu] a blow to three ordained Sages, as although he was from Babylonia and not ordained, he was correct. Rav Ashi said: With what did he strike them? He did not conclusively refute their opinion, as, did the husband say to the agent: Abba bar Minyumi should deliver the bill of divorce and not you? Rather, he appointed this agent to deliver the bill of divorce, and added that if he cannot find the wife, then he can transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמִוכֵי, בְּטָעוּתָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי טָעוּתָא? מַאי קָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי״ – וְלָא אַתְּ!
The Gemara cites another version of the discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: Rav Safra struck three ordained Sages mistakenly. Rav Ashi questioned Rava and said: What was the mistake? After all, what did the husband say to the agent? He said that Abba bar Minyumi should give his wife the bill of divorce, meaning that he and not you should give it, and Rav Safra’s ruling was correct.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לָהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשָׁלִיחַ: לָא תִּיתְּבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין. אִתְּנִיס בְּגוֹ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין.
The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. He said to the agent: Do not give the bill of divorce to her until thirty days have passed. Circumstances occurred within the thirty days that were beyond the agent’s control, and he saw that he would not be able to wait and give the wife the bill of divorce after thirty days, as per the husband’s instructions.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אָמַר רָבָא: חָלָה טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנִוס, הַאי נָמֵי [הָא אֲנִיס] (אָנוּס הוּא). אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידַן, דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מְשַׁוֵּינַן שָׁלִיחַ, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אֲמַר לְהוּ: כֵּיוָן דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ, כְּשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא.
The agent came before Rava and asked what he should do. Rava said: What is the reason that the mishna permits an agent who became sick to appoint another agent in his place? It is because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and in the case of this one as well, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rava said to the agent: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us and we will serve as a court, so that after thirty days we will appoint an agent and he will give the bill of divorce to her. The Sages said to Rava: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as within the thirty days he does not have the authority to divorce her? He said to them: Since it is so that after thirty days he is able to divorce her, he is considered an agent who is granted the ability to effect divorce.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו – אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
The Sages challenged Rava again: But in any case where an agent does not deliver a bill of divorce immediately, let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, thereby canceling the bill of divorce. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (76b): If, before traveling, a husband gives his wife a bill of divorce and says that it takes effect from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have passed, and he died within the twelve months, then this is a valid bill of divorce?
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בְּאוֹמֵר ״נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי״!
And we discussed this halakha: And let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, and canceled the bill of divorce. And Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what my father, my master, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the husband says: My wife is deemed credible to say that I did not arrive. Since the husband abrogated his right to contest the validity of the divorce by granting absolute credibility to his wife, there is no concern that he may have canceled the bill of divorce, as even if he were to claim that he had done so, his claim would not be accepted. By contrast, in this incident, where the wife was never granted such credibility, there is a concern that perhaps he canceled the bill of divorce.
אִיכְּסִיף. לְסוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דַּאֲרוּסָה הֲוַאי. אָמַר רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה – יֹאמְרוּ בַּאֲרוּסָה?!
Rava was embarrassed that he ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that this woman was the husband’s betrothed and that they had not married. Rava said: If they said that there is a concern with regard to a married woman that perhaps he was mollified, would they say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whom he does not know well? Therefore, my ruling was correct.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וַדַּאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן –
Rava said: We certainly raise this dilemma:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Richmond, CA, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Bronx, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Gittin 29
אֲבָל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ דִּינָא לִקְטָלָא – קָטְלִי לֵיהּ.
but in a Jewish court, once his verdict to be executed has emerged, they execute him.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּחָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא! כִּי חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגְמַר דִּינָא, בָּתַר גְּמַר דִּינָא – תּוּ לָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.
Abaye said to him: In a Jewish court as well, it is possible that the court will see fit to acquit him afterward and he will be released. Rav Yosef said: When the court sees fit to acquit him, it is before the verdict; after the verdict the court will not further see fit to acquit him, as it is uncommon for the court to find a reason to acquit him after his verdict has been delivered.
לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ ״מְעִידִים אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג! דִּלְמָא בּוֹרֵחַ שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a mishna (Makkot 7a) supports Rav Yosef’s opinion: Concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict was issued, the mishna states: Any place where two witnesses arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his verdict was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, the halakha is that this person should be killed. It is evident from the mishna in tractate Makkot that there is no concern that the court might later have found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: Perhaps one who flees is different, as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמַע מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרָג״ – יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מִקּוֹמֶנְטָרִיסִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרַג״ – אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear: If one heard from a Jewish court that they were saying: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court allows his wife to marry. If he heard from a gentile judicial registrar: The man so-and-so died, or: The man so-and-so was killed, then the court does not allow his wife to marry.
מַאי ״מֵת״ וּמַאי ״נֶהֱרַג״? אִילֵימָא ״מֵת״ – מַמָּשׁ, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן, כֹּל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara clarifies: What does it mean when it says: Died, and what does it mean when it says: Was killed? If we say that it means that he actually died, and that he actually was killed, such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.
אֶלָּא לָאו ״מֵת״ – יוֹצֵא לָמוּת, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג? וְקָתָנֵי: בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
Rather, is it not necessary to explain that when it says: Died, it means that he is going out to die, and when it says: Was killed, it means that he is going out to be executed. And it teaches: If one heard in a Jewish court then the court allows his wife to marry, as it is assumed that he was already executed, in support of the statement of Rav Yosef.
לְעוֹלָם מֵת מַמָּשׁ וְנֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם אַמַּאי לָא, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא שָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, אֲבָל בְּמִילְּתָא דְּשָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, עָבְדִי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי שִׁקְרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that he actually died, and was actually killed; and with regard to that which you said: Such that the case concerning the gentiles is stated in a similar manner, why may the court not allow his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that with regard to any gentile who speaks offhandedly, the Sages deemed him credible? The answer is that this credibility applies only in a matter that is not relevant to the gentiles; but in a matter that is relevant to the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is common for them to reinforce their false verdict.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״ – לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
MISHNA: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, where his only responsibility is to transmit the bill of divorce to the wife, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her that I left with her as a deposit, then he may not send it in the possession of another agent. This is because it is assumed that it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another person whom he did not appoint as his agent.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״חָלָה״ תְּנַן. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חָלָה״ קָתָנֵי! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חָלָה״ אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: Rav Kahana said: We learned in the mishna that the agent became sick; otherwise, he may not appoint a second agent. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as the mishna teaches explicitly that the agent became sick. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the same is true, i.e., that he may transfer the bill of divorce to another agent, even though the agent did not become sick, and the reason that the mishna teaches specifically that he became sick is that the mishna teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, as an agent typically fulfills his agency, barring unavoidable circumstances, therefore, Rav Kahana teaches us that an agent may appoint another agent only when he becomes sick.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה נָמֵי! וְאִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״ – אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא! וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא!
The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of his appointment as an agent? If this is a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then even though the agent did not become sick, he may also appoint an agent in his place, as the husband did not state that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. And if this is a case where he said to the agent: You, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then even if he became sick, he also may not appoint a second agent in his place, as the husband specified that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, then even if he became sick he also may not appoint a second agent, no matter what the husband said.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ.
The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita in the Tosefta (2:13): If the husband said to an agent: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. However, if the husband said: You, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, then this agent may not send it in the possession of another agent. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whether the husband said it like this or whether the husband said it like that, the agent may not designate another agent. Therefore, Rav Kahana’s statement is difficult.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְהוּא דְּחָלָה; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said to his agent: Deliver the bill of divorce, without specifying that he must be the one to do so, and Rav Kahana understood the baraita as follows: And this halakha, that he may send it in the possession of another agent, applies only when the agent became sick. And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: You deliver, but one who became sick is different, and it is assumed that under those circumstances the husband would allow him to designate another agent. And if you wish, say that the mishna is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that an agent is ordinarily not permitted to designate another agent. But a case where the agent became sick is different, and the agent may designate another agent.
תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וּרְמִינְהוּ, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. אִינְהוּ אִין, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ לָא!
We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, and the agent became sick, this agent may send it in the possession of another agent. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (66a): If the husband said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if he said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, then these people should write it and give it. The Gemara infers from the mishna: They themselves, yes, they should do so, but one whom they appoint as an agent may not do so.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, הָכָא בַּעַל לָא קָפֵיד.
Abaye said: There, what is the reason that an agent may not be appointed? It is due to degradation of the husband, who does not want the matter to become known, and therefore they may not designate another agent. However, here, after he has already sent the bill of divorce, the husband is not particular that word not spread, and therefore the agent may designate another agent in his place.
רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִילֵּי נִינְהוּ, וּמִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
Rava said: There is a different reason that in the case of the mishna (66a) the agent may not appoint another to write the bill of divorce; it is because of the fact that in the case there, the husband’s instructions are mere words, and verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Therefore, they cannot take their oral instructions and transfer them to another. In the case of the mishna here, the agent is able to give the physical bill of divorce to another agent and thereby transfer his agency.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁלִיחַ מַתָּנָה; וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – רַב אָמַר: מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּגֵט. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּגֵט.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the explanations offered by Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in the case of an agent appointed to write a deed of a gift, and their disagreement is parallel to the dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Rav says: A deed of gift is not like a bill of divorce, as the gift giver does not care who writes the deed. Since it is not degrading to him if another agent writes the deed of gift instead of the agent that he appointed, the agent may appoint another agent. And Shmuel says: A deed of gift is like a bill of divorce, as the mere words instructing the agent to write the deed cannot be transferred to another agent.
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר.
§ The mishna teaches: But if the husband said to the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, take for me such and such an item from her, then the agent may not appoint a second agent, as it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another. Reish Lakish says: Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that a borrower is not allowed to lend the item that he borrowed to someone else, and a renter is not allowed to rent out the item that he rented to someone else. In those cases, the same reasoning applies, i.e., that it is not the desire of the owner that his item be in the possession of another.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִים אוֹתָהּ! אֶלָּא זִימְנִין דְּגִיטָּא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי – דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בַּבַּיִת״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בָּעֲלִיָּיה; ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren know this halakha, and this is not the novel idea expressed in the mishna. The novel idea expressed in the mishna is as follows: Not only is it not permitted for an agent to appoint another agent in this case, as it violates the desire of the husband, but sometimes it happens that the bill of divorce is also not valid if a second agent is appointed. This is because the first agent becomes as one that it was said to him: Divorce her only in the house, and he divorced her in the attic; or the husband said: Divorce her only with your right hand, and he divorced her with his left hand. Here as well, since the agent violated the instructions the divorce will not be valid.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָה לְאַפֵּיהּ וְיָהֲבָה לֵיהּ חֵפֶץ, וַהֲדַר שָׁקְלָה מִינֵּיהּ גִּיטָּא; כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּגִיטָּא – גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ:
The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees that when it happens that the wife went out to greet him and gave him the item that the husband requested, and then she took the bill of divorce from him, in this case everyone agrees that the bill of divorce is a proper bill of divorce. When they disagree is in a case when the husband said to the agent:
שְׁקוֹל מִינַּהּ חֵפֶץ וַהֲדַר הַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא; וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וִיהַב לַהּ גִּיטָּא, וַהֲדַר שְׁקַל מִינַּהּ חֵפֶץ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַכְשִׁיר בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בּוֹ.
Take an item from her and then give her the bill of divorce, and he went and gave her the bill of divorce and then took the item from her. Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband’s instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent’s agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent’s agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְחָלָה – עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ בְּבֵית דִּין וּמְשַׁלְּחוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶם: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאֵין שָׁלִיחַ אַחֲרוֹן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי.
MISHNA: With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהו,ּ שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן״, מִכְלָל דִּמְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ;
GEMARA: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: Can an agent of the first agent also appoint another agent, or not? He said to them: You should not raise this dilemma. From the fact that the mishna teaches: The final agent does not need to say, as opposed to: The second agent does not need to say, it can be seen by inference that the second agent can appoint an agent, resulting in the existence of a final agent, not just a second agent.
אֶלָּא כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ: כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא מִבַּעְיָא לַן, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי״.
Rather, when you raise the dilemma, this is what you should ask: When the second agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court? They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as from the fact that it teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, it is clear that any agent in this role must be appointed in court.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ, כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין?
The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach like this: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: When the agent of the first agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court?
אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְתִיבְּעֵי לְכוּ אִי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ בְּעָלְמָא! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דִּתְנַן: ״אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן״, מִכְּלָל דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ; אֶלָּא כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – בְּבֵית דִּין, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לְכוּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי״.
He said to them: And you should raise the dilemma as to whether generally the agent of the first agent can appoint another agent. They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: The final agent does not need to say, and by inference it can be seen that the second agent can appoint an agent. Rather, when the dilemma was raised to us, it was with respect to whether this must take place in court, or if it can take place while not in court. He said to them: You should also not raise this dilemma, as the mishna teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, which shows that the subsequent appointments must take place in court.
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁלִיחַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עוֹשֶׂה כַּמָּה שְׁלוּחִין. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם מֵת רִאשׁוֹן – בָּטְלוּ כּוּלָּן.
§ Rabba says: An agent in Eretz Yisrael can appoint several agents, i.e., he can appoint an agent, and the second agent can appoint another agent in his place. All of this can take place outside of court, because when a bill of divorce is sent within Eretz Yisrael there is no need to testify that it was written and signed in the agent’s presence. Rav Ashi says: If the first agent died, then they are all canceled, as all the agents act on the basis of the first agent. With his death, the agency is canceled.
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא דְּאַבָּא, דְּקַטְנוּתָא הִיא! אִילּוּ מֵת בַּעַל, מִידֵּי מְשָׁשָׁא אִית בְּהוּ?! כּוּלְּהוּ מִכֹּחַ מַאן קָאָתוּ – מִכֹּחַ דְּבַעַל קָאָתוּ; אִיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – אִיתַנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, לֵיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – לֵיתַנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This statement of my father is from the time of his youth, and it is not correct, as, if the husband dies, even if all of the agents are alive, is there is any significance to any of them? All of them, from whose authority do they come to deliver the bill of divorce? They come from the husband’s authority. Therefore, if the husband is alive, then they are all able to act as agents; if the husband is not alive, then they are all not agents. The status of the agents is dependent on the husband, not on the first agent.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר שָׁלִיחַ: לָא יָדַעְנָא לַהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל יַהֲבֵיהּ לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי, דְּאִיהוּ יָדַע לַהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלִיתְּבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. אֲתָא וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, וְיָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידַן, דְּכִי יֵיתֵי אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי נִיתְּבִינֵיהּ לֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלִיתְּבִינֵיהּ לַהּ.
§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. The agent said: I do not know her. The husband said to him: Go give the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi, as he knows her, and he will go and give it to her. The agent came and did not find Abba bar Minyumi, and he did not know what to do. He found Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rav Safra was sitting among them. The agent asked them what he should do. The first three Sages said to him: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us, as when Abba bar Minyumi comes, we will give the bill of divorce to him, and he will go and give it to her.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא: וְהָא שְׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אִיכְּסוּפוּ.
Rav Safra said to them: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as he was given only the authority to transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi? Therefore, he cannot transfer the agency to another person. These Sages were embarrassed that they ruled improperly.
אָמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמִוכֵי. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמַאי קַפְּחִינְהוּ? מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי וְלָא אַתְּ״?!
Rava said: Rav Safra struck [kappeḥinhu] a blow to three ordained Sages, as although he was from Babylonia and not ordained, he was correct. Rav Ashi said: With what did he strike them? He did not conclusively refute their opinion, as, did the husband say to the agent: Abba bar Minyumi should deliver the bill of divorce and not you? Rather, he appointed this agent to deliver the bill of divorce, and added that if he cannot find the wife, then he can transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמִוכֵי, בְּטָעוּתָא. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי טָעוּתָא? מַאי קָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי״ – וְלָא אַתְּ!
The Gemara cites another version of the discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: Rav Safra struck three ordained Sages mistakenly. Rav Ashi questioned Rava and said: What was the mistake? After all, what did the husband say to the agent? He said that Abba bar Minyumi should give his wife the bill of divorce, meaning that he and not you should give it, and Rav Safra’s ruling was correct.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לָהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשָׁלִיחַ: לָא תִּיתְּבֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין. אִתְּנִיס בְּגוֹ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין.
The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. He said to the agent: Do not give the bill of divorce to her until thirty days have passed. Circumstances occurred within the thirty days that were beyond the agent’s control, and he saw that he would not be able to wait and give the wife the bill of divorce after thirty days, as per the husband’s instructions.
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אָמַר רָבָא: חָלָה טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנִוס, הַאי נָמֵי [הָא אֲנִיס] (אָנוּס הוּא). אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידַן, דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מְשַׁוֵּינַן שָׁלִיחַ, וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלַהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אֲמַר לְהוּ: כֵּיוָן דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ, כְּשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא.
The agent came before Rava and asked what he should do. Rava said: What is the reason that the mishna permits an agent who became sick to appoint another agent in his place? It is because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and in the case of this one as well, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rava said to the agent: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us and we will serve as a court, so that after thirty days we will appoint an agent and he will give the bill of divorce to her. The Sages said to Rava: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as within the thirty days he does not have the authority to divorce her? He said to them: Since it is so that after thirty days he is able to divorce her, he is considered an agent who is granted the ability to effect divorce.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו – אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.
The Sages challenged Rava again: But in any case where an agent does not deliver a bill of divorce immediately, let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, thereby canceling the bill of divorce. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (76b): If, before traveling, a husband gives his wife a bill of divorce and says that it takes effect from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have passed, and he died within the twelve months, then this is a valid bill of divorce?
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בְּאוֹמֵר ״נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי״!
And we discussed this halakha: And let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, and canceled the bill of divorce. And Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what my father, my master, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the husband says: My wife is deemed credible to say that I did not arrive. Since the husband abrogated his right to contest the validity of the divorce by granting absolute credibility to his wife, there is no concern that he may have canceled the bill of divorce, as even if he were to claim that he had done so, his claim would not be accepted. By contrast, in this incident, where the wife was never granted such credibility, there is a concern that perhaps he canceled the bill of divorce.
אִיכְּסִיף. לְסוֹף אִיגַּלַּאי מִילְּתָא דַּאֲרוּסָה הֲוַאי. אָמַר רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה – יֹאמְרוּ בַּאֲרוּסָה?!
Rava was embarrassed that he ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that this woman was the husband’s betrothed and that they had not married. Rava said: If they said that there is a concern with regard to a married woman that perhaps he was mollified, would they say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whom he does not know well? Therefore, my ruling was correct.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וַדַּאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן –
Rava said: We certainly raise this dilemma:
