A woman can only appoint a messenger to accept the get and a husband can only appoint a messenger to deliver the get. If the messenger is accepting the get, then the get is effective immediately. If the messenger is delivering the get then the get is effective once it reaches the woman. The relevance: whether or not the husband can change his mind. What happens when the husband uses wording of “accept” instead of “deliver”? What happens if the messenger is sent by the wife to deliver the get to her but he tells the husband that he was appointed to accept the get? In this case, no one properly appointed him to be a messenger so the get isn’t good even once the wife receives it. If the term “heilach” – meaning “here it is” is used by the husband, does everyone agree that it means the get is effective immediately or is there a disagreement about it? Can a man send a messenger to deliver and the woman send a messenger to receive it from the husband’s messenger?
Gittin 63
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Gittin 63
בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אִיתְּמַר אִיפְּכָא: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״; וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת – אַלְמָא אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ הוּא דְּקָא סָמֵיךְ;
Granted, if the opposite was stated, i.e., a case where the woman said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to the husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said: Here you are, as she said, and Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Once the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt, and he intended to give the agent the status the wife assigned, not the one the agent says she assigned.
אִי נָמֵי ״לְיָדָהּ״ – אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּעַקְרַיהּ שָׁלִיחַ לִשְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי הוּא; דְּאָמַר: שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הָוֵינָא, לְהוֹלָכָה לָא הָוֵינָא.
Alternatively, if Rav Naḥman ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband relies on the agent’s statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case cited, where Rav Naḥman rules that she is not divorced, it is not because the husband relies on one statement or the other. Rather, it is due to the fact that by means of his statement the agent negates his agency entirely, as he said: I am an agent for receipt, meaning: I am not to be an agent for delivery. He is essentially saying that he is not prepared to go to the trouble of delivering the bill of divorce to her. Therefore, even if he does ultimately deliver the bill of divorce to her, he is an agent neither for the woman nor for her husband. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the question of which statement the husband relies upon.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּרָצָה, הָא לֹא רָצָה – הָוֵי גֵּט;
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman 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 may retract it. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya infers: The reason she is not divorced is that he seeks to retract his designation. However, if he did not seek to retract it, it is a valid bill of divorce.
וְאַמַּאי? הָא בַּעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!
He asks: But why is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? Isn’t the husband ineligible to designate an agent for receipt? Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said to himself: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced. His statement: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, does not prevent the divorce from taking effect. Here too, in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקַבָּלָה, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לְשֵׁם הוֹלָכָה; הָכָא – טָעֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where one says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, the principle that a person knows that agency for receipt cannot be designated by the husband is in effect, and he decided to give the bill of divorce to the agent for the sake of delivery. When he told the agent to receive the document, his intent was that the agent should receive the document in order to deliver it to his wife, not that the act of divorce should take effect when the agent receives it. However here, in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband errs and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.
אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. כִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ – מִיהָא מִגָּרְשָׁה, וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה שַׁוְּיֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!
Rava said: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (65a). In the case of a minor girl who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a bill of divorce that takes effect until it reaches her possession, as a minor is incapable of designating an agent. Rava infers: In any event, once the bill of divorce reaches her possession she is divorced. He asks: But why is that the case? The husband did not designate him an agent for delivery. Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said to himself: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced, and the agent is designated as his agent for delivery. Here too, in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקָטָן, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לָהּ לְשׁוּם הוֹלָכָה דִּידֵיהּ; הָכָא – טָעֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where the minor girl designated the agent, the principle that a person knows that there is no agency for a minor applies, and he decided to give the bill of divorce to the agent as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband errs and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״; ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
The Gemara states: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta 6:2). With regard to a woman who said to an agent: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the agent said to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me; or a woman who said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to her husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, or: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation he may retract it. However, once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced.
מַאי, לָאו קַבָּלָה – אַקַּבָּלָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַהוֹלָכָה?
What, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the husband responded with an expression of receipt, i.e., acquire it for her, or receive it for her, to the agent’s assertions of receipt, i.e., your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, i.e., deliver and give it to her, to assertions of delivery, i.e., your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce? The ruling in the baraita is that the bill of divorce takes effect once it reaches her possession. The case of an assertion of receipt and a response of receipt contradicts Rav Naḥman’s statement, as in a case where the woman spoke of delivery and the agent said to her husband that his wife spoke of receipt, the woman is not divorced even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.
לָא; קַבָּלָה – אַהוֹלָכָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַקַּבָּלָה.
The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the baraita is to a case where the husband responded with expressions of receipt, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of delivery, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of receipt. That is why the woman is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.
אִי קַבָּלָה אַהוֹלָכָה – מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידֵיהּ, לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דְּאַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ!
The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the husband responded with expressions of receipt, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of delivery, then from the moment that the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession let it be a bill of divorce that takes effect immediately [le’altar], as the woman’s designation of the agent as an agent of receipt remains in effect. Similar to the conclusion that the Gemara sought to draw from the statement of Rav Naḥman mentioned earlier, the Gemara says: Conclude from the fact that the ruling in the baraita is that the divorce takes effect only once it reaches the woman’s possession, that the husband relies on the agent’s statement and therefore designates the agent as an agent for delivery.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״, הָכָא מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״?!
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case discussed by Rav Naḥman, the husband said to the agent: Here you are, as she said, explicitly tying the designation of the agent to the woman’s statement. Here does the husband say to the agent: Here you are, as she said? Instead he merely hands the bill of divorce to the agent, relying upon the agent’s statement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְ״תֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; ״זְכֵי לָהּ״ וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:1) that if the woman says to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says: Deliver and give it to her, or: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, once the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent for receipt, if he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it, because the divorce has already taken effect. Rabbi Natan says: If the husband said: Deliver and give it to her, and he seeks to retract his designation, then as long as it has not yet reached the woman’s possession he can retract it, because the husband designated him an agent for delivery. However, if the husband said: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, and he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן – אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In all of those cases, if he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it, because when he hands the document to the agent, the bill of divorce takes effect immediately. However, if he said to the agent explicitly: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, then if he seeks to retract his decision he can retract it.
רַבִּי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן; וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא – רַבִּי.
The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is apparently identical to that of the first tanna; what is their dispute? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi comes to teach us that the explicit expression: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, is effective in negating the agent’s designation as an agent of receipt and designating him as an agent for delivery. And if you wish, say instead that this teaches us: Who is the first tanna of this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the baraita then clarifies Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֵילָךְ״ – לְרַבִּי נָתָן, כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If the husband says: Here you are, according to Rabbi Natan is it comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, and therefore, he cannot retract his designation, or is it not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
The Gemara states: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma 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 and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s hand. However, with regard to 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.
מַאי, לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא; בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – וְרַבִּי.
What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that if the husband says: Here you are, it is not comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that even in that case the husband cannot retract his decision.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״; הָא לָא אָמַר: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר;
The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the woman’s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason that he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the agent’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, then if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it.
מַאי, לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא; בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – וְרַבִּי.
What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that the husband’s saying: Here you are, is not comparable to his saying: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר. ״הֵילָךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר – רַבִּי נָתָן; וְקָאָמַר בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הֵילָךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara states: Come and hear proof with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Natan from a baraita. If the husband said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if he seeks to retract his decision he can retract it. If he said: Here you are; this bill of divorce is for my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Whom did you hear who said with regard to a case where the husband said: Deliver, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he can retract it? It is Rabbi Natan; and he says in the case of a husband who says: Here you are, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Learn from the baraita that according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, if the husband says: Here you are, it is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the baraita that it is so.
אִתְּמַר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״ – אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: נַעֲשָׂה שְׁלוּחוֹ וּשְׁלוּחָהּ – וְחוֹלֶצֶת.
§ It was stated with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The agent becomes both the husband’s agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife’s agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife’s possession, she performs ḥalitza with the husband’s brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of receipt, in which case she was divorced and is forbidden to the brother.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרַב אִי ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, אִי לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי?! וְהָא אִתְּמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, אָמַר רַב: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר!
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav was uncertain whether a case where the husband said: Deliver, is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, or whether it is not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire? But wasn’t it stated that in a case where one said to his agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, Rav says: The person who designated the agent bears financial responsibility for this money, and if it is lost he is required to pay the debt to his creditor. Nevertheless, if the person who designated the agent seeks to retract his designation and take the money back from the agent, then he cannot retract it, because the creditor acquires the money from the moment that the debtor handed it to his agent of delivery. Apparently, according to Rav, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
הָתָם – סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא, הָכָא – סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof. There is a distinction between the agent for delivery of a bill of divorce and the agent for delivery of the repayment of a loan. There, in the case of repayment of a loan, because there is uncertainty with regard to monetary law, the ruling is lenient, as one does not extract money from another in cases of uncertainty with regard to monetary law. However, here, in the case of divorce there is uncertainty with regard to ritual law and the ruling is stringent.
אָמַר רַב: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ.
§ Rav says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent, and Rabbi Ḥanina says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל;
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav, who said that she cannot appoint an agent to receive a bill of divorce from an agent? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say: It is due to the fact that her unwillingness to receive the document directly from his agent could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם חֲצֵרָהּ הַבָּא לְאַחַר מִיכָּן.
If you wish, say instead that it is a decree issued due to her courtyard that comes into her possession thereafter. If a husband places a bill of divorce in a courtyard that does not belong to his wife, and his wife then purchases the courtyard, the divorce does not take effect, because the husband neither gave the bill of the divorce directly to his wife nor did he place it in her property. Her subsequent purchase of the courtyard is tantamount to her finding and taking the document. In this case too, the woman designated her agent for receipt, who in this sense is comparable to her property or her courtyard, subsequent to her husband’s handing the bill of divorce to his agent of delivery. Were the divorce valid in that case, one might mistakenly conclude that divorce is likewise valid in a case where he placed the document in a courtyard that she subsequently acquired.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּקְדַמָה אִיהִי, וְשַׁוִּיָּה שָׁלִיחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two reasons? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where she first appointed an agent from the outset, before the husband designated his agent for delivery. That case is not at all comparable to the case of a courtyard that a woman purchases after the document is placed there. However, the concern remains that it could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲזַל שְׁלִיחָא אַשְׁכְּחַהּ כִּי יָתְבָה וְקָא לָיְשָׁא, אֲמַר לַהּ: ״הֵילָךְ גִּיטָּךְ״, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״לֶיהֱוֵי בִּידָךְ״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עֲבַדִי בַּהּ עוֹבָדָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found her while she was sitting and kneading. He said to her: Here you are, take your bill of divorce. She said to him: My hands are covered with dough and therefore let the bill of divorce be in your hand, i.e., serve as my agent for receipt. Rav Naḥman said: If it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and she can designate an agent to receive a bill of divorce from her husband’s agent, then I would perform an action with regard to this woman and rule that the divorce takes effect.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְאִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עֲבַדְתְּ בַּהּ עוֹבָדָא?! הָא לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל!
Rava said to him: And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, would you perform an action with regard to this woman? In this case, as the agent did not actually hand her the bill of divorce, the agency was not completed and consequently the agent did not return to the husband and report that he performed the task for which he was designated. By designating him as her agent before he completed the agency on behalf of the husband, the wife nullified the agency of the husband. Therefore, the divorce does not take effect.
שַׁלְחוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל. וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: נִתְיַישֵּׁב בַּדָּבָר.
Rav Naḥman and Rava sent this issue before Rabbi Ami. He sent a response to them: The agency did not return to the husband, and the divorce does not take effect. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: We will consider the matter and then respond.
הֲדוּר שַׁלְחוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר: כֹּל הָנֵי שָׁלְחוּ לַהּ וְאָזְלִי? כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ, הָכִי נָמֵי מְסַפְּקָא לַן לְדִידַן;
Later they again sent this issue before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said: All these times they continue to send questions? Just as the matter is uncertain to them, so too, it is uncertain to us, and I do not have a resolution to the uncertainty.
הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה – חוֹלֶצֶת.
The Gemara concludes: This is a case of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, i.e., a question of whether the woman is still married. And in cases of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, she performs ḥalitza. The ruling is stringent in this case of uncertainty. Therefore, if her husband died childless she may not remarry, due to the possibility that she was not divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that she was divorced and is therefore forbidden to him.
הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וְאַצְרְכַהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא גֵּט וַחֲלִיצָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! גֵּט מֵחַיִּים, וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara says: There was an incident and Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta required the woman to receive both an additional bill of divorce and ḥalitza. The Gemara asks: Two of them? They are mutually exclusive. The second bill of divorce obviates the need for ḥalitza. The Gemara explains: He required a bill of divorce in a case where the husband was alive, and if the husband did not give her a bill of divorce, he required ḥalitza after the husband’s death.
הָהִיא דַּהֲווֹ קָרוּ לַהּ ״נַפְאָתָה״, אֲזוּל סָהֲדֵי כְּתוּב ״תַּפְאָתָה״. אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְרַב: עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was named Nefata whose husband instructed witnesses to write and sign a bill of divorce and to divorce her. The witnesses went and mistakenly wrote Tefata in the bill of divorce. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: The bill of divorce is invalid because the name is wrong. However, the witnesses cannot write another bill of divorce in the correct manner because the witnesses already performed their agency and are no longer agents of the husband.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כְּתוּבוּ חַסְפָּא וְהַבוּ לַהּ״?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: וַדַּאי, אִי כְּתוּב סָהֲדֵי גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא, וַאֲבַד, עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.
Rabba objects to this ruling. Does the husband say to them: Write a worthless earthenware shard and give it to her? He instructed them to write a valid bill of divorce; as long as they did not write a valid bill of divorce they did not perform their agency. Rather, Rabba said: Certainly, if the witnesses wrote a proper bill of divorce and it was lost, one would say that the witnesses performed their agency, and they are not authorized to write another bill of divorce. That is not the case if they wrote an invalid bill of divorce.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כְּתֻבוּ וְאַנְּחוּהּ בְּכִיסַיְיכוּ״?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the husband say to them: Write it and place it in your pockets? He instructed them to write the document and divorce her with it. They did not perform their agency by merely writing a valid bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: In every case of this type, the witnesses write a bill of divorce and give it to the wife even one hundred times.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: ״כִּתְבוּ, וּתְנוּ לְשָׁלִיחַ״, מַהוּ? סַלּוֹקֵי סַלֵּיק לְהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְטִירְחָא דִּידְהוּ חָיֵישׁ?
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where the husband said to witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent, what is the halakha? Did the husband exclude them once they gave the bill of divorce to the agent, and they are no longer eligible to write another bill of divorce? Or perhaps the husband was concerned only about sparing them from their exertions, and that is why he instructed them to hand the document to an agent rather than deliver it themselves. Therefore, their agency remains in effect, and if necessary they can continue writing bills of divorce until the divorce takes effect.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״וְיוֹלִיךְ לָהּ״, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi, elaborating on the previous dilemma: If the husband said to the witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent and he will deliver it to her, what is the halakha? Does the added expression: And he will deliver it to her, indicate that their agency remains in effect until the agent actually delivers the bill of divorce to her? Or perhaps that is not the meaning of the phrase, and their agency ends with the writing? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״טוֹל לִי״, וְ״שָׂא לִי״, וִ״יהֵא לִי בְּיָדֶךָ״ – כּוּלָּן לְשׁוֹן קַבָּלָה הֵן.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision, he cannot retract it. He is an agent for receipt and she is divorced once the bill of divorce reaches his possession. The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:4): If the woman said to an agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, or: Lift my bill of divorce for me, or: The bill of divorce will be in your possession for me, all of them are expressions of receipt, and the divorce takes effect as soon as the bill of divorce reaches the possession of the agent.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, צְרִיכָה שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים – שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ אָמְרָה״, וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ קִבֵּל, וְקָרַע״; אֲפִילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהֵן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים,
MISHNA: A woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires two witnesses who say: In our presence she said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, and two who say: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it. This testimony is effective even if two people are the first pair of witnesses and the same two are the latter pair of witnesses,
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 44: Pigul, Clarified
Zevahim 43: Flour and Frankinscense
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 42: Again, Bloodwork
Zevahim 41: God Loves the Jewish People
Zevahim 40: The Curtains and the Incense
Zevahim 39: Blood on the Inner Altar
Zevahim 38: When Beit Hillel Turns Stringent and Beit Shammai Lenient
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
Zevachim Daf 22-29 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 36: Invalid Offerings
Zevahim 35: A Fetus, Eggs, and the Separation of Animals
Zevahim 34: Pouring and Disposing of the Dregs
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
New York, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Minnesota, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Gittin 63
בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אִיתְּמַר אִיפְּכָא: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״; וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת – אַלְמָא אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ הוּא דְּקָא סָמֵיךְ;
Granted, if the opposite was stated, i.e., a case where the woman said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to the husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said: Here you are, as she said, and Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Once the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt, and he intended to give the agent the status the wife assigned, not the one the agent says she assigned.
אִי נָמֵי ״לְיָדָהּ״ – אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּעַקְרַיהּ שָׁלִיחַ לִשְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי הוּא; דְּאָמַר: שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הָוֵינָא, לְהוֹלָכָה לָא הָוֵינָא.
Alternatively, if Rav Naḥman ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband relies on the agent’s statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case cited, where Rav Naḥman rules that she is not divorced, it is not because the husband relies on one statement or the other. Rather, it is due to the fact that by means of his statement the agent negates his agency entirely, as he said: I am an agent for receipt, meaning: I am not to be an agent for delivery. He is essentially saying that he is not prepared to go to the trouble of delivering the bill of divorce to her. Therefore, even if he does ultimately deliver the bill of divorce to her, he is an agent neither for the woman nor for her husband. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the question of which statement the husband relies upon.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּרָצָה, הָא לֹא רָצָה – הָוֵי גֵּט;
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman 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 may retract it. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya infers: The reason she is not divorced is that he seeks to retract his designation. However, if he did not seek to retract it, it is a valid bill of divorce.
וְאַמַּאי? הָא בַּעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!
He asks: But why is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? Isn’t the husband ineligible to designate an agent for receipt? Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said to himself: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced. His statement: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, does not prevent the divorce from taking effect. Here too, in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקַבָּלָה, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לְשֵׁם הוֹלָכָה; הָכָא – טָעֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where one says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, the principle that a person knows that agency for receipt cannot be designated by the husband is in effect, and he decided to give the bill of divorce to the agent for the sake of delivery. When he told the agent to receive the document, his intent was that the agent should receive the document in order to deliver it to his wife, not that the act of divorce should take effect when the agent receives it. However here, in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband errs and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.
אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. כִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ – מִיהָא מִגָּרְשָׁה, וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה שַׁוְּיֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!
Rava said: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (65a). In the case of a minor girl who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a bill of divorce that takes effect until it reaches her possession, as a minor is incapable of designating an agent. Rava infers: In any event, once the bill of divorce reaches her possession she is divorced. He asks: But why is that the case? The husband did not designate him an agent for delivery. Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said to himself: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced, and the agent is designated as his agent for delivery. Here too, in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקָטָן, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לָהּ לְשׁוּם הוֹלָכָה דִּידֵיהּ; הָכָא – טָעֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where the minor girl designated the agent, the principle that a person knows that there is no agency for a minor applies, and he decided to give the bill of divorce to the agent as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband errs and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״; ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
The Gemara states: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a baraita (Tosefta 6:2). With regard to a woman who said to an agent: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the agent said to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me; or a woman who said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to her husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, or: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation he may retract it. However, once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced.
מַאי, לָאו קַבָּלָה – אַקַּבָּלָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַהוֹלָכָה?
What, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the husband responded with an expression of receipt, i.e., acquire it for her, or receive it for her, to the agent’s assertions of receipt, i.e., your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, i.e., deliver and give it to her, to assertions of delivery, i.e., your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce? The ruling in the baraita is that the bill of divorce takes effect once it reaches her possession. The case of an assertion of receipt and a response of receipt contradicts Rav Naḥman’s statement, as in a case where the woman spoke of delivery and the agent said to her husband that his wife spoke of receipt, the woman is not divorced even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.
לָא; קַבָּלָה – אַהוֹלָכָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַקַּבָּלָה.
The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the baraita is to a case where the husband responded with expressions of receipt, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of delivery, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of receipt. That is why the woman is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.
אִי קַבָּלָה אַהוֹלָכָה – מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידֵיהּ, לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דְּאַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ!
The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the husband responded with expressions of receipt, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent’s assertions of delivery, then from the moment that the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession let it be a bill of divorce that takes effect immediately [le’altar], as the woman’s designation of the agent as an agent of receipt remains in effect. Similar to the conclusion that the Gemara sought to draw from the statement of Rav Naḥman mentioned earlier, the Gemara says: Conclude from the fact that the ruling in the baraita is that the divorce takes effect only once it reaches the woman’s possession, that the husband relies on the agent’s statement and therefore designates the agent as an agent for delivery.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״, הָכָא מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״?!
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case discussed by Rav Naḥman, the husband said to the agent: Here you are, as she said, explicitly tying the designation of the agent to the woman’s statement. Here does the husband say to the agent: Here you are, as she said? Instead he merely hands the bill of divorce to the agent, relying upon the agent’s statement.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְ״תֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; ״זְכֵי לָהּ״ וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 6:1) that if the woman says to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says: Deliver and give it to her, or: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, once the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent for receipt, if he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it, because the divorce has already taken effect. Rabbi Natan says: If the husband said: Deliver and give it to her, and he seeks to retract his designation, then as long as it has not yet reached the woman’s possession he can retract it, because the husband designated him an agent for delivery. However, if the husband said: Acquire it for her, or: Receive it for her, and he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן – אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In all of those cases, if he seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it, because when he hands the document to the agent, the bill of divorce takes effect immediately. However, if he said to the agent explicitly: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, then if he seeks to retract his decision he can retract it.
רַבִּי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן; וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא – רַבִּי.
The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is apparently identical to that of the first tanna; what is their dispute? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi comes to teach us that the explicit expression: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, is effective in negating the agent’s designation as an agent of receipt and designating him as an agent for delivery. And if you wish, say instead that this teaches us: Who is the first tanna of this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the baraita then clarifies Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֵילָךְ״ – לְרַבִּי נָתָן, כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages. If the husband says: Here you are, according to Rabbi Natan is it comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, and therefore, he cannot retract his designation, or is it not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
The Gemara states: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma 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 and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s hand. However, with regard to 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.
מַאי, לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא; בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – וְרַבִּי.
What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that if the husband says: Here you are, it is not comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that even in that case the husband cannot retract his decision.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״; הָא לָא אָמַר: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר;
The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the woman’s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason that he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the agent’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, then if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it.
מַאי, לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא; בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – וְרַבִּי.
What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that the husband’s saying: Here you are, is not comparable to his saying: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר. ״הֵילָךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר – רַבִּי נָתָן; וְקָאָמַר בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הֵילָךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara states: Come and hear proof with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Natan from a baraita. If the husband said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if he seeks to retract his decision he can retract it. If he said: Here you are; this bill of divorce is for my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Whom did you hear who said with regard to a case where the husband said: Deliver, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he can retract it? It is Rabbi Natan; and he says in the case of a husband who says: Here you are, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Learn from the baraita that according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, if the husband says: Here you are, it is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the baraita that it is so.
אִתְּמַר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״ – אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: נַעֲשָׂה שְׁלוּחוֹ וּשְׁלוּחָהּ – וְחוֹלֶצֶת.
§ It was stated with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The agent becomes both the husband’s agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife’s agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife’s possession, she performs ḥalitza with the husband’s brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of receipt, in which case she was divorced and is forbidden to the brother.
לְמֵימְרָא דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרַב אִי ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, אִי לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי?! וְהָא אִתְּמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, אָמַר רַב: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר!
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav was uncertain whether a case where the husband said: Deliver, is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, or whether it is not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire? But wasn’t it stated that in a case where one said to his agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, Rav says: The person who designated the agent bears financial responsibility for this money, and if it is lost he is required to pay the debt to his creditor. Nevertheless, if the person who designated the agent seeks to retract his designation and take the money back from the agent, then he cannot retract it, because the creditor acquires the money from the moment that the debtor handed it to his agent of delivery. Apparently, according to Rav, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
הָתָם – סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא, הָכָא – סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof. There is a distinction between the agent for delivery of a bill of divorce and the agent for delivery of the repayment of a loan. There, in the case of repayment of a loan, because there is uncertainty with regard to monetary law, the ruling is lenient, as one does not extract money from another in cases of uncertainty with regard to monetary law. However, here, in the case of divorce there is uncertainty with regard to ritual law and the ruling is stringent.
אָמַר רַב: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ.
§ Rav says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent, and Rabbi Ḥanina says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל;
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav, who said that she cannot appoint an agent to receive a bill of divorce from an agent? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say: It is due to the fact that her unwillingness to receive the document directly from his agent could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם חֲצֵרָהּ הַבָּא לְאַחַר מִיכָּן.
If you wish, say instead that it is a decree issued due to her courtyard that comes into her possession thereafter. If a husband places a bill of divorce in a courtyard that does not belong to his wife, and his wife then purchases the courtyard, the divorce does not take effect, because the husband neither gave the bill of the divorce directly to his wife nor did he place it in her property. Her subsequent purchase of the courtyard is tantamount to her finding and taking the document. In this case too, the woman designated her agent for receipt, who in this sense is comparable to her property or her courtyard, subsequent to her husband’s handing the bill of divorce to his agent of delivery. Were the divorce valid in that case, one might mistakenly conclude that divorce is likewise valid in a case where he placed the document in a courtyard that she subsequently acquired.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דִּקְדַמָה אִיהִי, וְשַׁוִּיָּה שָׁלִיחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two reasons? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where she first appointed an agent from the outset, before the husband designated his agent for delivery. That case is not at all comparable to the case of a courtyard that a woman purchases after the document is placed there. However, the concern remains that it could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּשַׁדַּר לַהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲזַל שְׁלִיחָא אַשְׁכְּחַהּ כִּי יָתְבָה וְקָא לָיְשָׁא, אֲמַר לַהּ: ״הֵילָךְ גִּיטָּךְ״, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״לֶיהֱוֵי בִּידָךְ״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עֲבַדִי בַּהּ עוֹבָדָא.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found her while she was sitting and kneading. He said to her: Here you are, take your bill of divorce. She said to him: My hands are covered with dough and therefore let the bill of divorce be in your hand, i.e., serve as my agent for receipt. Rav Naḥman said: If it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and she can designate an agent to receive a bill of divorce from her husband’s agent, then I would perform an action with regard to this woman and rule that the divorce takes effect.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְאִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עֲבַדְתְּ בַּהּ עוֹבָדָא?! הָא לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל!
Rava said to him: And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, would you perform an action with regard to this woman? In this case, as the agent did not actually hand her the bill of divorce, the agency was not completed and consequently the agent did not return to the husband and report that he performed the task for which he was designated. By designating him as her agent before he completed the agency on behalf of the husband, the wife nullified the agency of the husband. Therefore, the divorce does not take effect.
שַׁלְחוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל. וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: נִתְיַישֵּׁב בַּדָּבָר.
Rav Naḥman and Rava sent this issue before Rabbi Ami. He sent a response to them: The agency did not return to the husband, and the divorce does not take effect. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: We will consider the matter and then respond.
הֲדוּר שַׁלְחוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר: כֹּל הָנֵי שָׁלְחוּ לַהּ וְאָזְלִי? כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ, הָכִי נָמֵי מְסַפְּקָא לַן לְדִידַן;
Later they again sent this issue before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said: All these times they continue to send questions? Just as the matter is uncertain to them, so too, it is uncertain to us, and I do not have a resolution to the uncertainty.
הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁבָּעֶרְוָה – חוֹלֶצֶת.
The Gemara concludes: This is a case of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, i.e., a question of whether the woman is still married. And in cases of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, she performs ḥalitza. The ruling is stringent in this case of uncertainty. Therefore, if her husband died childless she may not remarry, due to the possibility that she was not divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that she was divorced and is therefore forbidden to him.
הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וְאַצְרְכַהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא גֵּט וַחֲלִיצָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! גֵּט מֵחַיִּים, וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara says: There was an incident and Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta required the woman to receive both an additional bill of divorce and ḥalitza. The Gemara asks: Two of them? They are mutually exclusive. The second bill of divorce obviates the need for ḥalitza. The Gemara explains: He required a bill of divorce in a case where the husband was alive, and if the husband did not give her a bill of divorce, he required ḥalitza after the husband’s death.
הָהִיא דַּהֲווֹ קָרוּ לַהּ ״נַפְאָתָה״, אֲזוּל סָהֲדֵי כְּתוּב ״תַּפְאָתָה״. אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְרַב: עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was named Nefata whose husband instructed witnesses to write and sign a bill of divorce and to divorce her. The witnesses went and mistakenly wrote Tefata in the bill of divorce. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: The bill of divorce is invalid because the name is wrong. However, the witnesses cannot write another bill of divorce in the correct manner because the witnesses already performed their agency and are no longer agents of the husband.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבָּה: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כְּתוּבוּ חַסְפָּא וְהַבוּ לַהּ״?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: וַדַּאי, אִי כְּתוּב סָהֲדֵי גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא, וַאֲבַד, עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.
Rabba objects to this ruling. Does the husband say to them: Write a worthless earthenware shard and give it to her? He instructed them to write a valid bill of divorce; as long as they did not write a valid bill of divorce they did not perform their agency. Rather, Rabba said: Certainly, if the witnesses wrote a proper bill of divorce and it was lost, one would say that the witnesses performed their agency, and they are not authorized to write another bill of divorce. That is not the case if they wrote an invalid bill of divorce.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כְּתֻבוּ וְאַנְּחוּהּ בְּכִיסַיְיכוּ״?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין, אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the husband say to them: Write it and place it in your pockets? He instructed them to write the document and divorce her with it. They did not perform their agency by merely writing a valid bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: In every case of this type, the witnesses write a bill of divorce and give it to the wife even one hundred times.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: ״כִּתְבוּ, וּתְנוּ לְשָׁלִיחַ״, מַהוּ? סַלּוֹקֵי סַלֵּיק לְהוּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְטִירְחָא דִּידְהוּ חָיֵישׁ?
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where the husband said to witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent, what is the halakha? Did the husband exclude them once they gave the bill of divorce to the agent, and they are no longer eligible to write another bill of divorce? Or perhaps the husband was concerned only about sparing them from their exertions, and that is why he instructed them to hand the document to an agent rather than deliver it themselves. Therefore, their agency remains in effect, and if necessary they can continue writing bills of divorce until the divorce takes effect.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: ״וְיוֹלִיךְ לָהּ״, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi, elaborating on the previous dilemma: If the husband said to the witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent and he will deliver it to her, what is the halakha? Does the added expression: And he will deliver it to her, indicate that their agency remains in effect until the agent actually delivers the bill of divorce to her? Or perhaps that is not the meaning of the phrase, and their agency ends with the writing? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״טוֹל לִי״, וְ״שָׂא לִי״, וִ״יהֵא לִי בְּיָדֶךָ״ – כּוּלָּן לְשׁוֹן קַבָּלָה הֵן.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision, he cannot retract it. He is an agent for receipt and she is divorced once the bill of divorce reaches his possession. The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:4): If the woman said to an agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, or: Lift my bill of divorce for me, or: The bill of divorce will be in your possession for me, all of them are expressions of receipt, and the divorce takes effect as soon as the bill of divorce reaches the possession of the agent.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, צְרִיכָה שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים – שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ אָמְרָה״, וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ קִבֵּל, וְקָרַע״; אֲפִילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהֵן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים,
MISHNA: A woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires two witnesses who say: In our presence she said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, and two who say: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it. This testimony is effective even if two people are the first pair of witnesses and the same two are the latter pair of witnesses,
