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

Daf Yomi

July 17, 2023 | ื›ืดื— ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 62

ื ื•ืชื ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœืช ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื’ื ื‘ ื’ื ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ืœืคื


may give her food and she may eat it, and there is concern that she will feed others her produce that was not tithed. Now, if there is concern that the wife of the am haโ€™aretz might steal from her husband and give the other woman food without his permission, should there not be concern that she might exchange her own food with that of the other woman? Can she be relied upon not to make the exchange? She certainly cannot be trusted, and there is concern about this possibility. Consequently, it is not only in the cases of a manโ€™s mother-in-law and an innkeeper that there is concern that food may be exchanged.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื ืžื“ื™ืฉื™ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ


Rav Yosef said: There too, the wife of the am haโ€™aretz rules for herself that she is permitted to do this, and she says: The ox may eat from its threshing. She thinks that while she is engaged in preparing food, it is permitted for her to take from the food and it is not considered stealing. Consequently, it cannot be learned from here that every am haโ€™aretz is suspected of exchanging his own food with that of another.


ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืกืžื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ืœืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื™ืกืช ื—ื•ืœื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื—ืœื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืคื™ืฉื ืื• ื‘ืื ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ


ยง The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 3:1) dealing with produce deposited with an am haโ€™aretz: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben แธคasma: A dough kneader who is a แธฅaver may not prepare a loaf to serve as แธฅalla for an am haโ€™aretz while keeping the แธฅalla dough in a state of ritual purity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary dough while keeping the dough in a state of purity, and then take the amount required for แธฅalla from it, and place it in a basket [kefisha] or vessel [anแธฅuta], which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the แธฅalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the แธฅalla.


ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื—ื•ืœื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ


And similarly, an olive presser who is a แธฅaver may not prepare oil from the olives of an am haโ€™aretz that are teruma while keeping the oil in a state of ritual impurity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary olives while keeping the oil in a state of purity, and then take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the แธฅaver. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the teruma.


ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื• ื“ื’ื‘ืœ ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื• ื“ื‘ื“ื“


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that such leniency was granted? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: For the sake of the kneaderโ€™s livelihood and for the sake of the olive presserโ€™s livelihood.


ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื“ื“ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื“ื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ืœ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha in both cases, as had the baraita taught it to us only in the case of a kneader, one might have said the following: The Sages were lenient with the kneader because his payment is not great, and therefore he is poor and in need of help, but with regard to an olive presser, whose payment is great, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. And had the baraita taught us the halakha only in the case of an olive presser, one might have said: The Sages were lenient with the olive presser because this type of work is not common. It is performed only during the olive harvest, and therefore there is great concern about his livelihood. But with regard to a kneader, whose work is common and performed year-round, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. Consequently, it is necessary to state the halakha in both cases.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื—ืœื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืคื™ืฉื ืื• ื‘ืื ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ ื ื’ืขืช ื‘ื” ื”ื“ืจื ืœื˜ื™ื‘ืœื


The Gemara proceeds to clarify several points in the aforementioned baraita, in which the Master said: He may take the amount required for แธฅalla from it, and place it in a basket or vessel, which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the แธฅalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the แธฅalla. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am haโ€™aretz touch the แธฅalla and thereby impart impurity to it. The Gemara explains: This is not a concern, because we say to him: See that you do not touch the แธฅalla, because if you touch it the dough will once again be considered like untithed produce.


ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ืœืชืงื•ื ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื›ืคืช ืœื ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ื”


The Gemara questions this explanation: But let there be a concern lest he does not care that the dough will once again be considered untithed. The Gemara explains: Now that it is evident that his intention was to do things in the right manner, and for this reason he employed a kneader who works in a state of ritual purity, can one say that he does not care whether or not his dough is properly prepared?


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ืจื ื”ื›ื ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื›ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื’ืœืœื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื“ืžื”


The Master said with regard to oil, further in that baraita: He may take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the แธฅaver. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the teruma. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am haโ€™aretz touch the teruma oil and impart impurity to it. Granted, there, in the case of แธฅalla, there is a conspicuous marker, as one places the แธฅalla in a special vessel that is not usually used for dough. But here, what conspicuous marker is there? The Gemara answers: He places the teruma oil in dung vessels, in stone vessels, or in clay vessels, which do not contract ritual impurity.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืงืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืœ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื—ื‘ืจ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why mention specifically the vessels of a แธฅaver? The same would hold true even for the vessels of an am haโ€™aretz, as they do not contract ritual impurity either. The Gemara answers: That is also what the tanna is saying, i.e., the olive presser takes the amount required for teruma and places it in vessels belonging to the am haโ€™aretz that cannot contract ritual impurity and are therefore fit to be used by a แธฅaver.


ืžื—ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžื—ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืœื”ื• ืื—ื–ื•ืงื• ื‘ืขืœืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื—ื–ื•ืงื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืฉืจืชื


ยง The mishna teaches that one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: May one really assist them? But didnโ€™t Rav Dimi bar Shishna say in the name of Rav: One may not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not double the greeting extended to a gentile, saying: Shalom, shalom? The Gemara answers: No, one may not actually help a gentile in his work, but it is necessary to state that one may merely say to them: Be strong, as in that incident where Rav Yehuda said to gentiles in such a situation: Be strong, and Rav Sheshet said to them: Well done. Statements of this kind are certainly permitted.


ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœื’ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืงื“ื™ื ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืจ


It was stated above in the name of Rav that one may not double the greeting of shalom extended to a gentile. The Gemara relates that Rav แธคisda would greet gentiles first so that he would not have to respond to the greeting extended to him with a twofold shalom. Rav Kahana, by contrast, would wait for their greeting, and then say to them: Peace to my master, thereby freeing himself from having to say shalom twice.


ื•ืฉื•ืืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื—ื–ื•ืงื™ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื™ื•ื ื—ื’ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ืœื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื—ื’ื• ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืœื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืคื” ืจืคื” ื•ื‘ื›ื•ื‘ื“ ืจืืฉ


The mishna teaches that one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: Now that it is taught that one may assist them, is it necessary to say that one may extend greetings to them? Rav Yeiva said: This halakha is necessary only on their holidays, as it is taught in a baraita: A person may not enter the home of a gentile on his holiday and extend greetings to him, as it appears that he is blessing him in honor of his holiday. If he encounters him in the market, he may greet him in an undertone and in a solemn manner, so that he does not appear to be rejoicing with him.


ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื•ื• ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ื™ืงื•ื ืžืงืžื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืื•ืจื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื•ืžืงืžื™ ืคืœื’ืื” ื ื™ืงื•ื ืื“ื”ื›ื™ ืืชื ืื™ื”ื• ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ืžืœื›ื™ ืฉืœืžื ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ืžืœื›ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืœืš ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืงืจื• ืžืœื›ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื™ืžืœื•ื›ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ


ยง With regard to the matter of doubling oneโ€™s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: โ€œThrough me kings ruleโ€ (Proverbs 8:15).


ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื ื ืœืš ื“ื›ืคืœื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืœื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœืžืœืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืจื•ื— ืœื‘ืฉื” ืืช ืขืžืฉื™ ืจืืฉ ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ


Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda said to him further: And from where do you know that we must double the greeting of shalom extended to kings? He said to them: As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that one must double the greeting of shalom extended to a king? As it is stated: โ€œAnd the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said: We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Yishai; peace, peace be to youโ€ (Iย Chronicles 12:19), indicating that a king is greeted with a doubled shalom.


ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ื˜ืขื•ื ืžืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื• ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ื˜ืขื•ื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืžืื›ืœ ืœื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืขืฉื‘ ื‘ืฉื“ืš ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืื›ืœืช ื•ืฉื‘ืขืช


Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda said to Geneiva: Does the Master wish to taste something? Geneiva said to them: So says Rav Yehuda that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œAnd I will give grass in the field for your animalsโ€ (Deuteronomy 11:15), and only afterward is it written in that verse: โ€œAnd you shall eat and be satisfied.โ€ I have yet to feed my animal, so I may not eat.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ


MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until the document reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื• ื”ื•ืœืš ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


Therefore, if the husband said to the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: I do not want [ee ifshi] for you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver it and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wifeโ€™s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wifeโ€™s possession.


ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even a woman who did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but says: Take my bill of divorce for me, thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, if after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband seeks to retract his decision and cancel the agency, he cannot retract it.


ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ื•ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


GEMARA: The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi that one may infer: The reason that he may retract the designation is that the woman did not designate the agent as an agent for receipt. However, in a case where she designated him as an agent for receipt, then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his statement, he cannot retract it. Rav Aแธฅa suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื ืฉื•ื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื•ืœืš ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, there is no proof, as actually I could say to you that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, and it is the case where the husband said: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, that was necessary for the tanna to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.


ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื”ื•ืœืš ืœืื• ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื”


This is as it might enter your mind to say that since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt, but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, even though the bill of divorce reached her possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is as though he said: Receive and deliver the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.


ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืฉื•ื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื˜ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื“ื” ืœื ืœื”ื•ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืงืืžืจ


The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. We learned in the mishna that in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. What, is it not that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, it is no different whether he employed an expression of receipt and it is no different whether he employed an expression of delivery, and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœื ืฉื ื ืืงื‘ืœื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืื”ื•ืœื›ื”


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case of receipt, i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.


ืœื ืืงื‘ืœื”


The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the womanโ€™s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the agentโ€™s status as an agent of receipt. However, if he did not say: I do not want, but he said: Deliver this bill of divorce, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ื”ื ืœื ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื•ืœืš ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Perhaps the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [holekh]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: Here you are [heilakh]. The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.


ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ื”ื™ืœืš


ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental halakha of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is obvious that a man can be designated an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wifeโ€™s bill of divorce. And similarly, it is obvious that a woman can be designated an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband. However, with regard to designating a man as an agent for receipt and designating a woman as an agent for delivery, what is the halakha?


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืืฉื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืงื‘ืœืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืžื™ื“ ื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืฉ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ืืฉื” ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืžืื™


The Gemara states: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. What, is it not referring to one and the same agent in both cases, and conclude from it that the agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is to two different agents, an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื• ื”ื•ืœืš ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ืŸ


The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: Therefore, if the husband said to the womanโ€™s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. And isnโ€™t the case here one where it is one agent whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, and conclude from the mishna that an agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื—ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื”


The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: Resolve from the mishna that a man can be an agent for receipt, and that is reasonable, as a father receives a bill of divorce on behalf of his daughter who is a minor because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether a woman can be an agent for delivery, raise the dilemma: What is the halakha? Rav Mari said: Come and hear a resolution based on the mishna (23b): Even the women who are not deemed credible to say that a womanโ€™s husband died, because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce to her. And there, in the case in that mishna, the woman is an agent for delivery.


ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื‘ ืžืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ืชื• ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฉื” ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืฃ ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืืžื ื•ืช ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื ืืžื ื•ืช ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื™ื


Rav Ashi said: Learn a resolution to that dilemma from the latter clause of that mishna as well, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established that the woman acts as an agent for delivery. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกื™ืคื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


ยง It was stated that if a woman says to an agent: Bring my bill of divorce to me, and the agent then says to her husband: Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband hands him the bill of divorce and says: Here you are, as she said; that the amoraโ€™im engage in a dispute as to the halakha. Is the halakha determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the womanโ€™s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื•ืืฉืชืš ืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืœืš ื›ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื”


Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In that case, even if the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this statement that the husband relies on the agentโ€™s statement as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. As, if the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband relies on his wifeโ€™s statement as to what the agentโ€™s status is, then at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced, as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื’ื˜ ืœื™ื“ื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืกืžื™ืš ื“ืื™ ืื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืกืžื™ืš ืžื›ื™ ืžื˜ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื“ื” ืžื™ื”ื ืชื™ื’ืจืฉ


Rav Ashi said: How can these cases be compared?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื



  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 58-64 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

We will continue to discuss different examples of decrees made for the betterment of society (Darchei Shalom). These include who...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 62: Shalom, Shalom!

More on the interactions between Jews and non-Jews -- specifically in the context of shemitah. How much encouragement can a...
daf_icon

Gittin 62: Shalom, Shalom!

More on the interactions between Jews and non-Jews -- specifically in the context of shemitah. How much encouragement can a...
geneiva chess

Game of Thrones

Have you ever sat chatting with a friend when someone you both know, and donโ€™t really like, comes by? It...

Gittin 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 62

ื ื•ืชื ืช ืœื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœืช ื”ืฉืชื ืžื™ื’ื ื‘ ื’ื ื‘ื ื—ืœื•ืคื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ืœืคื


may give her food and she may eat it, and there is concern that she will feed others her produce that was not tithed. Now, if there is concern that the wife of the am haโ€™aretz might steal from her husband and give the other woman food without his permission, should there not be concern that she might exchange her own food with that of the other woman? Can she be relied upon not to make the exchange? She certainly cannot be trusted, and there is concern about this possibility. Consequently, it is not only in the cases of a manโ€™s mother-in-law and an innkeeper that there is concern that food may be exchanged.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ืชื ื ืžื™ ืžื•ืจื™ื ื•ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื ืžื“ื™ืฉื™ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ


Rav Yosef said: There too, the wife of the am haโ€™aretz rules for herself that she is permitted to do this, and she says: The ox may eat from its threshing. She thinks that while she is engaged in preparing food, it is permitted for her to take from the food and it is not considered stealing. Consequently, it cannot be learned from here that every am haโ€™aretz is suspected of exchanging his own food with that of another.


ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื•ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื—ื™ื• ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืกืžื ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื—ืœืช ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื™ืกืช ื—ื•ืœื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื—ืœื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืคื™ืฉื ืื• ื‘ืื ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ


ยง The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 3:1) dealing with produce deposited with an am haโ€™aretz: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben แธคasma: A dough kneader who is a แธฅaver may not prepare a loaf to serve as แธฅalla for an am haโ€™aretz while keeping the แธฅalla dough in a state of ritual purity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary dough while keeping the dough in a state of purity, and then take the amount required for แธฅalla from it, and place it in a basket [kefisha] or vessel [anแธฅuta], which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the แธฅalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the แธฅalla.


ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืช ื–ื™ืชื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืชื™ื ื—ื•ืœื™ื• ื‘ื˜ื”ืจื” ื•ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ


And similarly, an olive presser who is a แธฅaver may not prepare oil from the olives of an am haโ€™aretz that are teruma while keeping the oil in a state of ritual impurity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary olives while keeping the oil in a state of purity, and then take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the แธฅaver. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the teruma.


ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื• ื“ื’ื‘ืœ ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื• ื“ื‘ื“ื“


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that such leniency was granted? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: For the sake of the kneaderโ€™s livelihood and for the sake of the olive presserโ€™s livelihood.


ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ื‘ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื“ื“ ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ืื’ืจื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื“ื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ืœ ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha in both cases, as had the baraita taught it to us only in the case of a kneader, one might have said the following: The Sages were lenient with the kneader because his payment is not great, and therefore he is poor and in need of help, but with regard to an olive presser, whose payment is great, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. And had the baraita taught us the halakha only in the case of an olive presser, one might have said: The Sages were lenient with the olive presser because this type of work is not common. It is performed only during the olive harvest, and therefore there is great concern about his livelihood. But with regard to a kneader, whose work is common and performed year-round, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. Consequently, it is necessary to state the halakha in both cases.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ื—ืœื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืคื™ืฉื ืื• ื‘ืื ื—ื•ืชื ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ ื ื’ืขืช ื‘ื” ื”ื“ืจื ืœื˜ื™ื‘ืœื


The Gemara proceeds to clarify several points in the aforementioned baraita, in which the Master said: He may take the amount required for แธฅalla from it, and place it in a basket or vessel, which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the แธฅalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the แธฅalla. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am haโ€™aretz touch the แธฅalla and thereby impart impurity to it. The Gemara explains: This is not a concern, because we say to him: See that you do not touch the แธฅalla, because if you touch it the dough will once again be considered like untithed produce.


ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœื ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ื” ื”ืฉืชื ืœืชืงื•ื ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืžื™ื›ืคืช ืœื ืื™ื›ืคืช ืœื™ื”


The Gemara questions this explanation: But let there be a concern lest he does not care that the dough will once again be considered untithed. The Gemara explains: Now that it is evident that his intention was to do things in the right manner, and for this reason he employed a kneader who works in a state of ritual purity, can one say that he does not care whether or not his dough is properly prepared?


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื”ื™ืžื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืžื ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ืจ ื•ื›ืฉื‘ื ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื™ื˜ื•ืœ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืืช ืฉืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืฉืฉ ื•ืœื™ื—ื•ืฉ ื“ื™ืœืžื ื ื’ืข ื‘ื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ืจื ื”ื›ื ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื›ืจื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื ื— ืœื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื’ืœืœื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื‘ื ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื“ืžื”


The Master said with regard to oil, further in that baraita: He may take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the แธฅaver. And when the am haโ€™aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am haโ€™aretz will impart impurity to the teruma. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am haโ€™aretz touch the teruma oil and impart impurity to it. Granted, there, in the case of แธฅalla, there is a conspicuous marker, as one places the แธฅalla in a special vessel that is not usually used for dough. But here, what conspicuous marker is there? The Gemara answers: He places the teruma oil in dung vessels, in stone vessels, or in clay vessels, which do not contract ritual impurity.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืงืืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืœ ืขื ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชืžืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ื—ื‘ืจ


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why mention specifically the vessels of a แธฅaver? The same would hold true even for the vessels of an am haโ€™aretz, as they do not contract ritual impurity either. The Gemara answers: That is also what the tanna is saying, i.e., the olive presser takes the amount required for teruma and places it in vessels belonging to the am haโ€™aretz that cannot contract ritual impurity and are therefore fit to be used by a แธฅaver.


ืžื—ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžื—ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœื’ื•ื™ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ืœื”ื• ืื—ื–ื•ืงื• ื‘ืขืœืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื—ื–ื•ืงื• ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืืฉืจืชื


ยง The mishna teaches that one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: May one really assist them? But didnโ€™t Rav Dimi bar Shishna say in the name of Rav: One may not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not double the greeting extended to a gentile, saying: Shalom, shalom? The Gemara answers: No, one may not actually help a gentile in his work, but it is necessary to state that one may merely say to them: Be strong, as in that incident where Rav Yehuda said to gentiles in such a situation: Be strong, and Rav Sheshet said to them: Well done. Statements of this kind are certainly permitted.


ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœื’ื•ื™ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืงื“ื™ื ื•ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืจ


It was stated above in the name of Rav that one may not double the greeting of shalom extended to a gentile. The Gemara relates that Rav แธคisda would greet gentiles first so that he would not have to respond to the greeting extended to him with a twofold shalom. Rav Kahana, by contrast, would wait for their greeting, and then say to them: Peace to my master, thereby freeing himself from having to say shalom twice.


ื•ืฉื•ืืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืื—ื–ื•ืงื™ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ืฉื•ืืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื•ืžืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื™ื‘ื ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื ืืœื ืœื™ื•ื ื—ื’ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ื›ื ืก ืื“ื ืœื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉืœ ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื—ื’ื• ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ืฉืœื•ื ืžืฆืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืง ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืคื” ืจืคื” ื•ื‘ื›ื•ื‘ื“ ืจืืฉ


The mishna teaches that one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: Now that it is taught that one may assist them, is it necessary to say that one may extend greetings to them? Rav Yeiva said: This halakha is necessary only on their holidays, as it is taught in a baraita: A person may not enter the home of a gentile on his holiday and extend greetings to him, as it appears that he is blessing him in honor of his holiday. If he encounters him in the market, he may greet him in an undertone and in a solemn manner, so that he does not appear to be rejoicing with him.


ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื•ื• ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื—ืœื™ืฃ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื“ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ื™ืงื•ื ืžืงืžื™ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืื•ืจื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื•ืžืงืžื™ ืคืœื’ืื” ื ื™ืงื•ื ืื“ื”ื›ื™ ืืชื ืื™ื”ื• ืœื’ื‘ื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืœืžื ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ืžืœื›ื™ ืฉืœืžื ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ืžืœื›ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืœืš ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืงืจื• ืžืœื›ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ ืžืœื›ื™ื ื™ืžืœื•ื›ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ


ยง With regard to the matter of doubling oneโ€™s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: โ€œThrough me kings ruleโ€ (Proverbs 8:15).


ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื ื ืœืš ื“ื›ืคืœื™ื ืŸ ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืœื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื›ื•ืคืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœื•ื ืœืžืœืš ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืจื•ื— ืœื‘ืฉื” ืืช ืขืžืฉื™ ืจืืฉ ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ


Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda said to him further: And from where do you know that we must double the greeting of shalom extended to kings? He said to them: As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that one must double the greeting of shalom extended to a king? As it is stated: โ€œAnd the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said: We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Yishai; peace, peace be to youโ€ (Iย Chronicles 12:19), indicating that a king is greeted with a doubled shalom.


ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ื˜ืขื•ื ืžืจ ืžื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื• ืœืื“ื ืฉื™ื˜ืขื•ื ื›ืœื•ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืžืื›ืœ ืœื‘ื”ืžืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืขืฉื‘ ื‘ืฉื“ืš ืœื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืื›ืœืช ื•ืฉื‘ืขืช


Rav Huna and Rav แธคisda said to Geneiva: Does the Master wish to taste something? Geneiva said to them: So says Rav Yehuda that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal, as it is stated in the verse: โ€œAnd I will give grass in the field for your animalsโ€ (Deuteronomy 11:15), and only afterward is it written in that verse: โ€œAnd you shall eat and be satisfied.โ€ I have yet to feed my animal, so I may not eat.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ


MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until the document reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื• ื”ื•ืœืš ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


Therefore, if the husband said to the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: I do not want [ee ifshi] for you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver it and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wifeโ€™s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wifeโ€™s possession.


ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even a woman who did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but says: Take my bill of divorce for me, thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, if after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband seeks to retract his decision and cancel the agency, he cannot retract it.


ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืื•ืžืจืช ื˜ื•ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ


GEMARA: The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi that one may infer: The reason that he may retract the designation is that the woman did not designate the agent as an agent for receipt. However, in a case where she designated him as an agent for receipt, then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his statement, he cannot retract it. Rav Aแธฅa suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ืฉื•ื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื ืฉื•ื™ืชื™ื” ืื™ื”ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื•ืœืš ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, there is no proof, as actually I could say to you that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, and it is the case where the husband said: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, that was necessary for the tanna to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.


ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื”ื•ืœืš ืœืื• ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื”


This is as it might enter your mind to say that since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt, but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, even though the bill of divorce reached her possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is as though he said: Receive and deliver the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.


ื“ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื‘ืขืœ ืœืื• ื‘ืจ ืฉื•ื™ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืžื˜ื ื’ื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื“ื” ืœื ืœื”ื•ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืœืš ืงืืžืจ


The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. We learned in the mishna that in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. What, is it not that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, it is no different whether he employed an expression of receipt and it is no different whether he employed an expression of delivery, and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœื ืฉื ื ืืงื‘ืœื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืื”ื•ืœื›ื”


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case of receipt, i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.


ืœื ืืงื‘ืœื”


The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the womanโ€™s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wifeโ€™s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the agentโ€™s status as an agent of receipt. However, if he did not say: I do not want, but he said: Deliver this bill of divorce, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ื”ื ืœื ืืžืจ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื•ืœืš ื›ื–ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Perhaps the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [holekh]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: Here you are [heilakh]. The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.


ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ื”ื™ืœืš


ยง The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental halakha of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is obvious that a man can be designated an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wifeโ€™s bill of divorce. And similarly, it is obvious that a woman can be designated an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband. However, with regard to designating a man as an agent for receipt and designating a woman as an agent for delivery, what is the halakha?


ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ืœื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืืฉืชื• ื•ืืฉื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืืฉื” ืžืงื‘ืœืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ืžื™ื“ ื‘ืขืœื” ืื™ืฉ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื•ื”ืืฉื” ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืžืื™


The Gemara states: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. What, is it not referring to one and the same agent in both cases, and conclude from it that the agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is to two different agents, an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื• ื”ื•ืœืš ื’ื˜ ื–ื” ืœืืฉืชื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื—ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉื ื™ ืฉืœื•ื—ื™ืŸ


The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: Therefore, if the husband said to the womanโ€™s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. And isnโ€™t the case here one where it is one agent whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, and conclude from the mishna that an agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well?


ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืคื™ื›ืš ืื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื™ ืื™ืคืฉื™ ืฉืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื” ืืœื ื”ื•ืœืš ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ืื ืจืฆื” ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื–ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื ื”ื›ื ื“ื—ื“ ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื•ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœืงื‘ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื”


The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: Resolve from the mishna that a man can be an agent for receipt, and that is reasonable, as a father receives a bill of divorce on behalf of his daughter who is a minor because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether a woman can be an agent for delivery, raise the dilemma: What is the halakha? Rav Mari said: Come and hear a resolution based on the mishna (23b): Even the women who are not deemed credible to say that a womanโ€™s husband died, because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce to her. And there, in the case in that mishna, the woman is an agent for delivery.


ืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืฉ ื”ื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœืงื‘ืœื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื‘ ืžืงื‘ืœ ื’ื˜ ืœื‘ืชื• ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฉื” ืœื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืฃ ื”ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืืžื ื•ืช ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื ืืžื ื•ืช ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื”ื™ื


Rav Ashi said: Learn a resolution to that dilemma from the latter clause of that mishna as well, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established that the woman acts as an agent for delivery. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกื™ืคื ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืืช ื’ื™ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื” ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื‘ืคื ื™ ื ื—ืชื ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ื‘ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”


ยง It was stated that if a woman says to an agent: Bring my bill of divorce to me, and the agent then says to her husband: Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband hands him the bill of divorce and says: Here you are, as she said; that the amoraโ€™im engage in a dispute as to the halakha. Is the halakha determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the womanโ€™s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื•ืืฉืชืš ืืžืจื” ื”ืชืงื‘ืœ ืœื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ื”ื™ืœืš ื›ืžื” ืฉืืžืจื”


Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In that case, even if the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this statement that the husband relies on the agentโ€™s statement as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. As, if the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband relies on his wifeโ€™s statement as to what the agentโ€™s status is, then at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced, as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื’ื˜ ืœื™ื“ื” ืื™ื ื” ืžื’ื•ืจืฉืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืงื ืกืžื™ืš ื“ืื™ ืื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ื“ื™ื“ื” ืงื ืกืžื™ืš ืžื›ื™ ืžื˜ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื“ื” ืžื™ื”ื ืชื™ื’ืจืฉ


Rav Ashi said: How can these cases be compared?


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื



Scroll To Top