Gittin 63

בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי והוא אמר הילך כמה שאמרה ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב כיון שהגיע גט לידו מגורשת אלמא אדיבורא דידה הוא דקא סמיך

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.

אי נמי לידה אדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך אלא הכא משום דעקריה שליח לשליחותיה לגמרי הוא דאמר שליח לקבלה הוינא להולכה לא הוינא

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.

אמר רב הונא בר חייא תא שמע האומר התקבל גט זה לאשתי או הולך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור יחזור טעמא דרצה הא לא רצה הוי גט

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.

ואמאי הא בעל לאו בר שויא שליח לקבלה הוא אלא אמרינן כיון שנתן עיניו לגרשה מימר אמר תיגרש כל היכי דמגרשה הכא נמי כיון שנתן עיניו לגרשה מימר אמר תיגרש כל היכי דמגרשה

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.

הכי השתא התם אדם יודע שאין שליחות לקבלה וגמר ונתן לשם הולכה הכא טעי

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.

אמר רבא תא שמע קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה כי מטי גיטא לידה מיהא מגרשה ואמאי והא לאו שליח להולכה שוייה אלא אמרינן כיון שנתן עיניו לגרשה מימר אמר תיגרש כל היכי דמגרשה הכא נמי כיון שנתן עיניו לגרשה מימר אמר תיגרש כל היכי דמגרשה

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.

הכי השתא התם אדם יודע שאין שליחות לקטן וגמר ונתן לה לשום הולכה דידיה הכא טעי

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.

תא שמע הבא לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי והוא אמר הולך ותן לה זכי לה והתקבל לה רצה לחזור יחזור משהגיע גט לידה מגורשת

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.

מאי לאו קבלה אקבלה והולכה אהולכה

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.

לא קבלה אהולכה והולכה אקבלה

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.

אי קבלה אהולכה מכי מטי גיטא לידיה לאלתר ליהוי גיטא שמעת מינה דאדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך

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.

הכי השתא התם קאמר ליה הילך כמה שאמרה הכא מי קאמר ליה הילך כמה שאמרה

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.

תנו רבנן התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אומר הולך ותן לה זכי לה והתקבל לה רצה לחזור לא יחזור רבי נתן אומר הולך ותן לה רצה לחזור יחזור זכי לה והתקבל לה רצה לחזור לא יחזור

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.

רבי אומר בכולן אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור אבל אם אמר לו אי איפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה רצה לחזור יחזור

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.

רבי היינו תנא קמא איבעית אימא אי איפשי אתא לאשמועינן ואיבעית אימא הא קא משמע לן מאן תנא קמא רבי

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.

איבעיא להו הילך לרבי נתן כזכי דמי או לאו כזכי דמי

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?

תא שמע האומר התקבל גט זה לאשתי או הולך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור יחזור האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי רצה לחזור לא יחזור

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.

מאי לאו בהילך ורבי נתן לא בהולך ורבי

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.

תא שמע לפיכך אם אמר לו הבעל אי אפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה רצה לחזור יחזור טעמא דאמר אי אפשי הא לא אמר אי אפשי רצה לחזור לא יחזור

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.

מאי לאו בהילך ורבי נתן לא בהולך ורבי

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.

תא שמע הולך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור יחזור הילך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור לא יחזור מאן שמעת ליה דאמר בהולך רצה לחזור יחזור רבי נתן וקאמר בהילך רצה לחזור לא יחזור שמע מינה הילך כזכי דמי שמע מינה

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.

אתמר התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אומר הולך ותן לה אמר רבי אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב נעשה שלוחו ושלוחה וחולצת

§ 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.

למימרא דמספקא ליה לרב אי הולך כזכי דמי אי לאו כזכי דמי והא אתמר הולך מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו אמר רב חייב באחריותו ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר

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.

התם ספק ממונא לקולא הכא ספק איסורא לחומרא

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.

אמר רב אין האשה עושה שליח לקבל לה גיטה מיד שליח בעלה ורבי חנינא אמר אשה עושה שליח לקבל לה גיטה מיד שליח בעלה

§ 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.

מאי טעמא דרב איבעית אימא משום בזיון דבעל

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.

איבעית אימא משום חצרה הבא לאחר מיכן

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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דקדמה איהי ושויה שליח מעיקרא

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.

ההוא גברא דשדר לה גיטא לדביתהו אזל שליחא אשכחה כי יתבה וקא לישא אמר לה הילך גיטך אמרה ליה ליהוי בידך אמר רב נחמן אם איתא לדרבי חנינא עבדי בה עובדא

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.

אמר ליה רבא ואם איתא לדרבי חנינא עבדת בה עובדא הא לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל

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.

שלחוה לקמיה דרבי אמי שלח להו לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל ורבי חייא בר אבא אמר נתיישב בדבר

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.

הדור שלחוה קמיה דרבי חייא בר אבא אמר כל הני שלחו לה ואזלי כי היכי דמספקא להו לדידהו הכי נמי מספקא לן לדידן

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.

הוי דבר שבערוה ודבר שבערוה חולצת

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.

הוה עובדא ואצרכה רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא גט וחליצה תרתי גט מחיים וחליצה לאחר מיתה

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.

ההיא דהוו קרו לה נפאתה אזול סהדי כתוב תפאתה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב עשו עדים שליחותן

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.

מתקיף לה רבה מי קאמר להו כתובו חספא והבו לה אלא אמר רבה ודאי אי כתוב סהדי גיטא מעליא ואבד עשו עדים שליחותן

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.

מתקיף לה רב נחמן מי קאמר להו כתבו ואנחוה בכיסייכו אלא אמר רב נחמן כותבין ונותנין אפילו מאה פעמים

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.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן כתבו ותנו לשליח מהו סלוקי סליק להו או דילמא לטירחא דידהו חייש

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.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ויוליך לה מהו תיקו

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.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף האומרת טול לי גיטי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור תנו רבנן טול לי ושא לי ויהא לי בידך כולן לשון קבלה הן

§ 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.

מתני׳ האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי צריכה שתי כיתי עדים שנים שאומרים בפנינו אמרה ושנים שאומרים בפנינו קבל וקרע אפילו הן הראשונים והן האחרונים

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,