Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 11, 2016 | 讗壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 29

Can a messenger sent to bring a get appoint a new messenger in his place? 聽Does it depend on why he wants to do that – because he is unable or simply doesn’t want to? 聽Does it depend on if he is bringing it within Israel or from abroad?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 诇拽讟诇讗 拽讟诇讬 诇讬讛

but in a Jewish court, once his verdict to be executed has emerged, they execute him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 讻讬 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 转讜 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 讚诇诪讗 讘讜专讞 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a mishna (Makkot 7a) supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪拽讜诪谞讟专讬住讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

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.

诪讗讬 诪转 讜诪讗讬 谞讛专讙 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪转 讬讜爪讗 诇诪讜转 讜谞讛专讙 讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜拽转谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

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.

诇注讜诇诐 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 注讘讚讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 砖拽专讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诇讬 讛讬诪谞讛 讞驻抓 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞诇讛 转谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞诇讛 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 statement is difficult.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讛讜讗 讚讞诇讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讜讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬

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.

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讛讻讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽驻讬讚

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诇讬讞 诪转谞讛 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专讘 讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讻讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讙讟

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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诇讬 讛讬诪谞讛 讞驻抓 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讻专 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讻讬专

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讬讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讜讙讬专砖讛 讘注诇讬讬讛 讗诇 转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讙讬专砖讛 讘砖诪讗诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讛 诇讗驻讬讛 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讛讚专 砖拽诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讙讬讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛

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:

砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讛 讞驻抓 讜讛讚专 讛讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 讜讛讚专 砖拽诇 诪讬谞讛 讞驻抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘砖诇讜讞讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讻砖讬专 讘砖诇讜讞讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讜

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 Yo岣nan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband鈥檚 instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yo岣nan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent鈥檚 agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent鈥檚 agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讞诇讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪砖诇讞讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞 讗讞专讜谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讚砖诇讬讞 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞

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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讻讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讚砖诇讬讞 讻讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讗讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诇讬讞 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讛 讻诪讛 砖诇讜讞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇讜 讻讜诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 讚拽讟谞讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讜 诪转 讘注诇 诪讬讚讬 诪砖砖讗 讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讻讞 诪讗谉 拽讗转讜 诪讻讞 讚讘注诇 拽讗转讜 讗讬转讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讬转讬讛 诇讘注诇 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讬讛讘讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讚讗讬讛讜 讬讚注 诇讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗转讗 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 诇讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪住讜专 诪讬诇讱 拽诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚讻讬 讬讬转讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 谞讬转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讛

搂 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 岣nina bar Pappa and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讬讻住讜驻讜

Rav Safra said to them: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诇转诇转讗 专讘谞谉 住诪讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪讗讬 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转

Rava said: Rav Safra struck [kappe岣nhu] 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诇转诇转讗 专讘谞谉 住诪讜讻讬 讘讟注讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转

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鈥檚 ruling was correct.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讬讞 诇讗 转讬转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗转谞讬住 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 instructions.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诇讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讜住 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住讜专 诪讬诇讱 拽诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚诇讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪砖讜讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讻砖诇讬讞 砖谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

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鈥檛 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?

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬

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.

讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗专讜住讛 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘讗专讜住讛

Rava was embarrassed that he ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that this woman was the husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

Rava said: We certainly raise this dilemma:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 29

讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 诇讬讛 讚讬谞讗 诇拽讟诇讗 拽讟诇讬 诇讬讛

but in a Jewish court, once his verdict to be executed has emerged, they execute him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 讻讬 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 诪拽诪讬 讚诇讬讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 讙诪专 讚讬谞讗 转讜 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙 讚诇诪讗 讘讜专讞 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a mishna (Makkot 7a) supports Rav Yosef鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖诪注 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪拽讜诪谞讟专讬住讬诐 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 诪转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 谞讛专讙 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

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.

诪讗讬 诪转 讜诪讗讬 谞讛专讙 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜 讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪转 讬讜爪讗 诇诪讜转 讜谞讛专讙 讬讜爪讗 诇讬讛专讙 讜拽转谞讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬砖讬讗讜 讗转 讗砖转讜

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.

诇注讜诇诐 诪转 诪诪砖 讜谞讛专讙 诪诪砖 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 讙讜讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讻诇 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讬诪讜谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚砖讬讬讻讬 讘讛 注讘讚讬 诇讗讞讝讜拽讬 砖拽专讬讬讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诇讬 讛讬诪谞讛 讞驻抓 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 砖讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讞诇讛 转谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 讞诇讛 讗讜专讞讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜诇讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讜讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讗

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.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬砖诇讞谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 statement is difficult.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讜讛讜讗 讚讞诇讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗转 讛讜诇讱 讜讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞诇讛 砖讗谞讬

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.

转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇讞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬诐 转谞讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 诇砖诇砖讛 讻转讘讜 讙讟 讜转谞讜 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 砖诇讬讞 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇 讛讻讗 讘注诇 诇讗 拽驻讬讚

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬诇讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪讬诇讬 诇讗 诪讬诪住专谉 诇砖诇讬讞

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 砖诇讬讞 诪转谞讛 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专讘 讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讻讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讙讟

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.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讟讜诇 诇讬 讛讬诪谞讛 讞驻抓 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讛砖讜讗诇 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讻专 专砖讗讬 诇讛砖讻讬专

搂 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬谞讜拽讜转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘谉 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗讜转讛 讗诇讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讙讬讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讜讙讬专砖讛 讘注诇讬讬讛 讗诇 转讙专砖讛 讗诇讗 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讙讬专砖讛 讘砖诪讗诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讛 诇讗驻讬讛 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讞驻抓 讜讛讚专 砖拽诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讙讬讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛

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:

砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讛 讞驻抓 讜讛讚专 讛讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 讜讛讚专 砖拽诇 诪讬谞讛 讞驻抓 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘砖诇讜讞讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪讻砖讬专 讘砖诇讜讞讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讜

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 Yo岣nan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband鈥檚 instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yo岣nan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent鈥檚 agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent鈥檚 agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讞诇讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪砖诇讞讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讜讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞 讗讞专讜谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讘驻谞讬 谞讻转讘 讜讘驻谞讬 谞讞转诐 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讚砖诇讬讞 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞

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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讻讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讬讞 讚砖诇讬讞 讻讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讗讬 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 讛砖诇讬讞 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讻诇诇 讚砖诇讬讞 诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 砖诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讻讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗谞讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诇讬讞 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讛 讻诪讛 砖诇讜讞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇讜 讻讜诇谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讗 讚拽讟谞讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讜 诪转 讘注诇 诪讬讚讬 诪砖砖讗 讗讬转 讘讛讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讻讞 诪讗谉 拽讗转讜 诪讻讞 讚讘注诇 拽讗转讜 讗讬转讬讛 诇讘注诇 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讬转讬讛 诇讘注诇 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜

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鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讬讛讘讬讛 诇讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讚讗讬讛讜 讬讚注 诇讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗转讗 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞 诇讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪住讜专 诪讬诇讱 拽诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚讻讬 讬讬转讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 谞讬转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬转讘讬谞讬讛 诇讛

搂 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 岣nina bar Pappa and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讬讻住讜驻讜

Rav Safra said to them: But isn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诇转诇转讗 专讘谞谉 住诪讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪讗讬 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转

Rava said: Rav Safra struck [kappe岣nhu] 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽驻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诇转诇转讗 专讘谞谉 住诪讜讻讬 讘讟注讜转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 讗转

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鈥檚 ruling was correct.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讬讞 诇讗 转讬转讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讗转谞讬住 讘讙讜 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 instructions.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讞诇讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讜住 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住讜专 诪讬诇讱 拽诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚诇讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪砖讜讬谞谉 砖诇讬讞 讜讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讘转专 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诪爪讬 诪讙专砖 讻砖诇讬讞 砖谞讬转谉 诇讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讛讜讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

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鈥檛 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?

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 驻讬讬住 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谞转 注诇讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘讗转讬

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.

讗讬讻住讬祝 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗专讜住讛 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讗诪专讜 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讬讗诪专讜 讘讗专讜住讛

Rava was embarrassed that he ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that this woman was the husband鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

Rava said: We certainly raise this dilemma:

Scroll To Top