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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 14, 2016 | 讛壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 63

A woman can only appoint a messenger to accept the get and a husband can only appoint a messenger to deliver the get. 聽If the messenger is accepting the get, then the get is effective immediately. 聽If the messnger is delivering the get then the get is effective once it reaches the woman. 聽The relevance: can the husband change his mind. 聽What happens when the husband uses wording of “accept” instead of “deliver”? 聽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? 聽In this case, no one properly appointed him to be a messenger so the get isn’t good even once the wife receives it. 聽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. 聽Can a man send a messenger to deliver and the woman send a messenger to receive it from the husband’s messenger?

Study Guide Gittin 63

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 住诪讬讱

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Once the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讛 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚注拽专讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讬谞讗 诇讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讛讜讬谞讗

Alternatively, if Rav Na岣an ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case cited, where Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛转拽讘诇 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讟注诪讗 讚专爪讛 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讛 讛讜讬 讙讟

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘专 砖讜讬讗 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛

He asks: But why is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? Isn鈥檛 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 Na岣an, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转 诇拽讘诇讛 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖诐 讛讜诇讻讛 讛讻讗 讟注讬

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鈥檚 agent for receipt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 拽讟谞讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛 诪讬讛讗 诪讙专砖讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 砖讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛

Rava said: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转 诇拽讟谉 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 讛讜诇讻讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讟注讬

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鈥檚 agent for receipt.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讙讜专砖转

The Gemara states: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讘诇讛 讗拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛

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鈥檚 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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

诇讗 拽讘诇讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗拽讘诇讛

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鈥檚 assertions of delivery, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent鈥檚 assertions of receipt. That is why the woman is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.

讗讬 拽讘诇讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱

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鈥檚 assertions of delivery, then from the moment that the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 possession let it be a bill of divorce that takes effect immediately [le鈥檃ltar], as the woman鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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鈥檚 possession, that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement and therefore designates the agent as an agent for delivery.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛讻讗 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case discussed by Rav Na岣an, the husband said to the agent: Here you are, as she said, explicitly tying the designation of the agent to the woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 砖转拽讘诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专

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.

专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬诇讱 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛转拽讘诇 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讬诇讱 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讛讜诇讱 讜专讘讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘注诇 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 砖转拽讘诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讬诇讱 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讛讜诇讱 讜专讘讬

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讛讬诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讛讜诇讱 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜拽讗诪专 讘讛讬诇讱 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗转诪专 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞注砖讛 砖诇讜讞讜 讜砖诇讜讞讛 讜讞讜诇爪转

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鈥檚 agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife鈥檚 agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife鈥檚 possession, she performs 岣litza with the husband鈥檚 brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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鈥檛 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.

讛转诐 住驻拽 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讻讗 住驻拽 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛

Rav says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband鈥檚 agent, and Rabbi 岣nina says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband鈥檚 agent.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬讻谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讚诪讛 讗讬讛讬 讜砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诪注讬拽专讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讻讬 讬转讘讛 讜拽讗 诇讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讬诇讱 讙讬讟讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讚讬 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗

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 Na岣an said: If it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina and she can designate an agent to receive a bill of divorce from her husband鈥檚 agent, then I would perform an action with regard to this woman and rule that the divorce takes effect.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讚转 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇

Rava said to him: And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

砖诇讞讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 谞转讬讬砖讘 讘讚讘专

Rav Na岣an 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 岣yya bar Abba says: We will consider the matter and then respond.

讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 讜讗讝诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 诇讚讬讚谉

Later they again sent this issue before Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讞讜诇爪转

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 岣litza. 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鈥檚 brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that she was divorced and is therefore forbidden to him.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗爪专讻讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 转专转讬 讙讟 诪讞讬讬诐 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara says: There was an incident and Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta required the woman to receive both an additional bill of divorce and 岣litza. The Gemara asks: Two of them? They are mutually exclusive. The second bill of divorce obviates the need for 岣litza. 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 岣litza after the husband鈥檚 death.

讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讛 谞驻讗转讛 讗讝讜诇 住讛讚讬 讻转讜讘 转驻讗转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 注砖讜 注讚讬诐 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

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 Yitz岣k 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻转讜讘讜 讞住驻讗 讜讛讘讜 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讗讬 讻转讜讘 住讛讚讬 讙讬讟讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讗讘讚 注砖讜 注讚讬诐 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻转讘讜 讜讗谞讞讜讛 讘讻讬住讬讬讻讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the hus-band 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 Na岣an said: In every case of this type, the witnesses write a bill of divorce and give it to the wife even one hundred times.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 诪讛讜 住诇讜拽讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讟讬专讞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讞讬讬砖

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讬讜诇讬讱 诇讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 讟讜诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诇 诇讬 讜砖讗 诇讬 讜讬讛讗 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜诇谉 诇砖讜谉 拽讘诇讛 讛谉

搂 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗诪专讛 讜砖谞讬诐 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 拽讘诇 讜拽专注 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讛谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Gittin 63

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 63

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讗诇诪讗 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 住诪讬讱

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 Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: Once the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讛 讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚注拽专讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诇砖诇讬讞讜转讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讬谞讗 诇讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讛讜讬谞讗

Alternatively, if Rav Na岣an ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. However, here, in the case cited, where Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛转拽讘诇 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讟注诪讗 讚专爪讛 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讛 讛讜讬 讙讟

Rav Huna bar 岣yya says: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘专 砖讜讬讗 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛

He asks: But why is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? Isn鈥檛 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 Na岣an, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转 诇拽讘诇讛 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇砖诐 讛讜诇讻讛 讛讻讗 讟注讬

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鈥檚 agent for receipt.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 拽讟谞讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛 诪讬讛讗 诪讙专砖讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗 诇讗讜 砖诇讬讞 诇讛讜诇讻讛 砖讜讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 转讬讙专砖 讻诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讙专砖讛

Rava said: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an, once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗讚诐 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转 诇拽讟谉 讜讙诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 讛讜诇讻讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讟注讬

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鈥檚 agent for receipt.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 诪砖讛讙讬注 讙讟 诇讬讚讛 诪讙讜专砖转

The Gemara states: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讘诇讛 讗拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛

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鈥檚 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 Na岣an鈥檚 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.

诇讗 拽讘诇讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗拽讘诇讛

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鈥檚 assertions of delivery, and where the husband responded with expressions of delivery, corresponding to the statement of his wife, to the agent鈥檚 assertions of receipt. That is why the woman is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.

讗讬 拽讘诇讛 讗讛讜诇讻讛 诪讻讬 诪讟讬 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗诇转专 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讚讬讘讜专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 住诪讬讱

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鈥檚 assertions of delivery, then from the moment that the bill of divorce reaches the agent鈥檚 possession let it be a bill of divorce that takes effect immediately [le鈥檃ltar], as the woman鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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鈥檚 possession, that the husband relies on the agent鈥檚 statement and therefore designates the agent as an agent for delivery.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛讻讗 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬诇讱 讻诪讛 砖讗诪专讛

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case discussed by Rav Na岣an, the husband said to the agent: Here you are, as she said, explicitly tying the designation of the agent to the woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讝讻讬 诇讛 讜讛转拽讘诇 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 砖转拽讘诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专

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.

专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 讗讬驻砖讬 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 statement.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬诇讱 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛转拽讘诇 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讗讜 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讬诇讱 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讛讜诇讱 讜专讘讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘注诇 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 砖转拽讘诇 诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专

The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讬诇讱 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讗 讘讛讜诇讱 讜专讘讬

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讜诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 讛讬诇讱 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讘讛讜诇讱 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 讬讞讝讜专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜拽讗诪专 讘讛讬诇讱 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗转诪专 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讗砖转讱 讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讜诇讱 讜转谉 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞注砖讛 砖诇讜讞讜 讜砖诇讜讞讛 讜讞讜诇爪转

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鈥檚 agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife鈥檚 agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife鈥檚 possession, she performs 岣litza with the husband鈥檚 brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband鈥檚 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讬 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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鈥檛 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.

讛转诐 住驻拽 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讛讻讗 住驻拽 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗砖讛 注讜砖讛 砖诇讬讞 诇拽讘诇 诇讛 讙讬讟讛 诪讬讚 砖诇讬讞 讘注诇讛

Rav says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband鈥檚 agent, and Rabbi 岣nina says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband鈥檚 agent.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讬讜谉 讚讘注诇

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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞爪专讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬讻谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讚诪讛 讗讬讛讬 讜砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诪注讬拽专讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚砖讚专 诇讛 讙讬讟讗 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讗砖讻讞讛 讻讬 讬转讘讛 讜拽讗 诇讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讬诇讱 讙讬讟讱 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讚讬 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗

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 Na岣an said: If it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina and she can designate an agent to receive a bill of divorce from her husband鈥檚 agent, then I would perform an action with regard to this woman and rule that the divorce takes effect.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讘讚转 讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇

Rava said to him: And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

砖诇讞讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讝专讛 砖诇讬讞讜转 讗爪诇 讛讘注诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 谞转讬讬砖讘 讘讚讘专

Rav Na岣an 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 岣yya bar Abba says: We will consider the matter and then respond.

讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 讜讗讝诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇谉 诇讚讬讚谉

Later they again sent this issue before Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讜讚讘专 砖讘注专讜讛 讞讜诇爪转

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 岣litza. 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鈥檚 brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that she was divorced and is therefore forbidden to him.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗爪专讻讛 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讙讟 讜讞诇讬爪讛 转专转讬 讙讟 诪讞讬讬诐 讜讞诇讬爪讛 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara says: There was an incident and Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta required the woman to receive both an additional bill of divorce and 岣litza. The Gemara asks: Two of them? They are mutually exclusive. The second bill of divorce obviates the need for 岣litza. 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 岣litza after the husband鈥檚 death.

讛讛讬讗 讚讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讛 谞驻讗转讛 讗讝讜诇 住讛讚讬 讻转讜讘 转驻讗转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 注砖讜 注讚讬诐 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

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 Yitz岣k 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讛 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻转讜讘讜 讞住驻讗 讜讛讘讜 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讚讗讬 讗讬 讻转讜讘 住讛讚讬 讙讬讟讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讗讘讚 注砖讜 注讚讬诐 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻转讘讜 讜讗谞讞讜讛 讘讻讬住讬讬讻讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the hus-band 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 Na岣an said: In every case of this type, the witnesses write a bill of divorce and give it to the wife even one hundred times.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诇砖诇讬讞 诪讛讜 住诇讜拽讬 住诇讬拽 诇讛讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讟讬专讞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讞讬讬砖

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讬讜诇讬讱 诇讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 讟讜诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 讗诐 专爪讛 诇讞讝讜专 诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诇 诇讬 讜砖讗 诇讬 讜讬讛讗 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讻讜诇谉 诇砖讜谉 拽讘诇讛 讛谉

搂 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讗诪专讛 讛转拽讘诇 诇讬 讙讬讟讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讗诪专讛 讜砖谞讬诐 砖讗讜诪专讬诐 讘驻谞讬谞讜 拽讘诇 讜拽专注 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讜讛谉 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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,

Scroll To Top