This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Gittin 62
נוֹתֶנֶת לָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. הַשְׁתָּא מִיגְנָב גָּנְבָא, חַלּוֹפֵי לָא מְיחַלְּפָא?!
may give her food and she may eat it, and there is concern that she will feed others her produce that was not tithed. Now, if there is concern that the wife of the am ha’aretz might steal from her husband and give the other woman food without his permission, should there not be concern that she might exchange her own food with that of the other woman? Can she be relied upon not to make the exchange? She certainly cannot be trusted, and there is concern about this possibility. Consequently, it is not only in the cases of a man’s mother-in-law and an innkeeper that there is concern that food may be exchanged.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָתָם נָמֵי, מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: תּוֹרָא מִדִּישֵׁיהּ קָאָכֵיל.
Rav Yosef said: There too, the wife of the am ha’aretz rules for herself that she is permitted to do this, and she says: The ox may eat from its threshing. She thinks that while she is engaged in preparing food, it is permitted for her to take from the food and it is not considered stealing. Consequently, it cannot be learned from here that every am ha’aretz is suspected of exchanging his own food with that of another.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָחִיו, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַסָּמָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין חַלַּת עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין עִיסַּת חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
§ The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 3:1) dealing with produce deposited with an am ha’aretz: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasma: A dough kneader who is a ḥaver may not prepare a loaf to serve as ḥalla for an am ha’aretz while keeping the ḥalla dough in a state of ritual purity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary dough while keeping the dough in a state of purity, and then take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket [kefisha] or vessel [anḥuta], which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּרוּמַת זֵיתָיו בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין זֵיתֵי חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְּרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל – נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
And similarly, an olive presser who is a ḥaver may not prepare oil from the olives of an am ha’aretz that are teruma while keeping the oil in a state of ritual impurity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary olives while keeping the oil in a state of purity, and then take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּגַבָּל, וּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּבַדָּד.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that such leniency was granted? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the sake of the kneader’s livelihood and for the sake of the olive presser’s livelihood.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גַּבָּל – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּדָּד – דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בַּדָּד – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל גַּבָּל – דִּשְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha in both cases, as had the baraita taught it to us only in the case of a kneader, one might have said the following: The Sages were lenient with the kneader because his payment is not great, and therefore he is poor and in need of help, but with regard to an olive presser, whose payment is great, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. And had the baraita taught us the halakha only in the case of an olive presser, one might have said: The Sages were lenient with the olive presser because this type of work is not common. It is performed only during the olive harvest, and therefore there is great concern about his livelihood. But with regard to a kneader, whose work is common and performed year-round, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. Consequently, it is necessary to state the halakha in both cases.
אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בָּהּ! דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: חֲזִי, אִי נָגְעַתְּ בַּהּ הָדְרָא לְטִיבְלָא.
The Gemara proceeds to clarify several points in the aforementioned baraita, in which the Master said: He may take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket or vessel, which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the ḥalla and thereby impart impurity to it. The Gemara explains: This is not a concern, because we say to him: See that you do not touch the ḥalla, because if you touch it the dough will once again be considered like untithed produce.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ! הַשְׁתָּא לְתַקּוֹנֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, מִיכְפָּת לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ?!
The Gemara questions this explanation: But let there be a concern lest he does not care that the dough will once again be considered untithed. The Gemara explains: Now that it is evident that his intention was to do things in the right manner, and for this reason he employed a kneader who works in a state of ritual purity, can one say that he does not care whether or not his dough is properly prepared?
אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בַּהּ! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא; הָכָא, מַאי הֶיכֵּרָא אִית לֵיהּ? דְּמַנַּח לֵיהּ בִּכְלֵי גְלָלִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲבָנִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה.
The Master said with regard to oil, further in that baraita: He may take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the teruma oil and impart impurity to it. Granted, there, in the case of ḥalla, there is a conspicuous marker, as one places the ḥalla in a special vessel that is not usually used for dough. But here, what conspicuous marker is there? The Gemara answers: He places the teruma oil in dung vessels, in stone vessels, or in clay vessels, which do not contract ritual impurity.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּחָבֵר? אֲפִילּוּ דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ נָמֵי! הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ, הָרְאוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חָבֵר.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why mention specifically the vessels of a ḥaver? The same would hold true even for the vessels of an am ha’aretz, as they do not contract ritual impurity either. The Gemara answers: That is also what the tanna is saying, i.e., the olive presser takes the amount required for teruma and places it in vessels belonging to the am ha’aretz that cannot contract ritual impurity and are therefore fit to be used by a ḥaver.
מַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי גּוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: מַחְזִיקִין?! וְהָאָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר שִׁישְׁנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין עוֹדְרִין עִם הַגּוֹי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְמֵימְרָא לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״ בְּעָלְמָא – כִּי הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״; רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לְהוּ ״אַשַּׁרְתָּא״.
§ The mishna teaches that one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: May one really assist them? But didn’t Rav Dimi bar Shishna say in the name of Rav: One may not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not double the greeting extended to a gentile, saying: Shalom, shalom? The Gemara answers: No, one may not actually help a gentile in his work, but it is necessary to state that one may merely say to them: Be strong, as in that incident where Rav Yehuda said to gentiles in such a situation: Be strong, and Rav Sheshet said to them: Well done. Statements of this kind are certainly permitted.
וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי: רַב חִסְדָּא מַקְדֵּים וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא. רַב כָּהֲנָא אֲמַר לְהוּ ״שְׁלָמָא לְמָר״.
It was stated above in the name of Rav that one may not double the greeting of shalom extended to a gentile. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda would greet gentiles first so that he would not have to respond to the greeting extended to him with a twofold shalom. Rav Kahana, by contrast, would wait for their greeting, and then say to them: Peace to my master, thereby freeing himself from having to say shalom twice.
וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן. הַשְׁתָּא אַחְזוֹקֵי מַחְזְקִינַן, שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן מִיבַּעְיָא?! אָמַר רַב יֵיבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְיוֹם אֵידָם – דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ, וְיִתֵּן לוֹ ״שָׁלוֹם״. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק – נוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה וּבְכוֹבֶד רֹאשׁ.
The mishna teaches that one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: Now that it is taught that one may assist them, is it necessary to say that one may extend greetings to them? Rav Yeiva said: This halakha is necessary only on their holidays, as it is taught in a baraita: A person may not enter the home of a gentile on his holiday and extend greetings to him, as it appears that he is blessing him in honor of his holiday. If he encounters him in the market, he may greet him in an undertone and in a solemn manner, so that he does not appear to be rejoicing with him.
רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל גְּנִיבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דְּבַר אוֹרְיָין הוּא. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמִקַּמֵּי פָּלְגָאָה נֵיקוּם?! אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא אִיהוּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי, שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ דְּרַבָּנַן אִיקְּרוּ מְלָכִים? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלוֹכוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ With regard to the matter of doubling one’s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: “Through me kings rule” (Proverbs 8:15).
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמְנָא לָךְ דְּכָפְלִינַן ״שְׁלָמָא״ לְמַלְכֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁכּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְמֶלֶךְ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרוּחַ לָבְשָׁה אֶת עֲמָשַׂי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁים וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to him further: And from where do you know that we must double the greeting of shalom extended to kings? He said to them: As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that one must double the greeting of shalom extended to a king? As it is stated: “And the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said: We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Yishai; peace, peace be to you” (I Chronicles 12:19), indicating that a king is greeted with a doubled shalom.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לִיטְעוֹם מָר מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַאֲכָל לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי עֵשֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״.
Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to Geneiva: Does the Master wish to taste something? Geneiva said to them: So says Rav Yehuda that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal, as it is stated in the verse: “And I will give grass in the field for your animals” (Deuteronomy 11:15), and only afterward is it written in that verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied.” I have yet to feed my animal, so I may not eat.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַנִּיזָּקִין
MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until the document reaches his wife’s possession. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.
הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
Therefore, if the husband said to the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: I do not want [ee ifshi] for you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver it and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wife’s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wife’s possession.
לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even a woman who did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but says: Take my bill of divorce for me, thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, if after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband seeks to retract his decision and cancel the agency, he cannot retract it.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת: ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
GEMARA: The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi that one may infer: The reason that he may retract the designation is that the woman did not designate the agent as an agent for receipt. However, in a case where she designated him as an agent for receipt, then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his statement, he cannot retract it. Rav Aḥa suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טַעְמָא דְּלָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, הָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, there is no proof, as actually I could say to you that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, and it is the case where the husband said: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, that was necessary for the tanna to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.
לָא; לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ –
This is as it might enter your mind to say that since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt, but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, even though the bill of divorce reached her possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is as though he said: Receive and deliver the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.
דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּבַעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְטָא גִּיטָּא לִידֵהּ – לָא לֶהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּ״הִתְקַבֵּל וְהוֹלֵךְ״ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. We learned in the mishna that in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. What, is it not that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, it is no different whether he employed an expression of receipt and it is no different whether he employed an expression of delivery, and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
תְּנַן, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא אַקַּבָּלָה, לָא שְׁנָא אַהוֹלָכָה?
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case of receipt, i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.
לָא, אַקַּבָּלָה.
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 on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the 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, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״; הָא לָא אָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!
The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Perhaps the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [holekh]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: Here you are [heilakh]. The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.
דִּילְמָא בְּ״הֵילָךְ״.
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental halakha of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is obvious that a man can be designated an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wife’s bill of divorce. And similarly, it is obvious that a woman can be designated an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband. However, with regard to designating a man as an agent for receipt and designating a woman as an agent for delivery, what is the halakha?
פְּשִׁיטָא – אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה, שֶׁכֵּן בַּעַל מוֹלִיךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ; וְאִשָּׁה הָוְיָא שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִשָּׁה מְקַבֶּלֶת גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ. אִישׁ – לְקַבָּלָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה – לְהוֹלָכָה, מַאי?
The Gemara states: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. What, is it not referring to one and the same agent in both cases, and conclude from it that the agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is to two different agents, an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.
תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו בְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה? לָא, בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁלוּחִין.
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 on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. And isn’t the case here one where it is one agent whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, and conclude from the mishna that an agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well?
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ הוּא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה!
The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: Resolve from the mishna that a man can be an agent for receipt, and that is reasonable, as a father receives a bill of divorce on behalf of his daughter who is a minor because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether a woman can be an agent for delivery, raise the dilemma: What is the halakha? Rav Mari said: Come and hear a resolution based on the mishna (23b): Even the women who are not deemed credible to say that a woman’s husband died, because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce to her. And there, in the case in that mishna, the woman is an agent for delivery.
פְּשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה – שֶׁכֵּן אָב מְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה; אִשָּׁה לְהוֹלָכָה – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, מַאי? אָמַר רַב מָרִי, תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּיטָּהּ – וְהָתָם הוֹלָכָה הִיא.
Rav Ashi said: Learn a resolution to that dilemma from the latter clause of that mishna as well, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established that the woman acts as an agent for delivery. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִסֵּיפָא נָמֵי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּהוֹלָכָה; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
§ It was stated that if a woman says to an agent: Bring my bill of divorce to me, and the agent then says to her husband: Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband hands him the bill of divorce and says: Here you are, as she said; that the amora’im engage in a dispute as to the halakha. Is the halakha determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the woman’s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?
אִיתְּמַר: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אָמַר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״;
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In that case, even if the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this statement that the husband relies on the agent’s statement as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. As, if the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband relies on his wife’s statement as to what the agent’s status is, then at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced, as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ – דְּאִי אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ, מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ מִיהָא תִּיגָּרַשׁ!
Rav Ashi said: How can these cases be compared?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
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
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Los Angeles, United States
Berlin, Germany
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
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
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, 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
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 started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Gittin 62
נוֹתֶנֶת לָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. הַשְׁתָּא מִיגְנָב גָּנְבָא, חַלּוֹפֵי לָא מְיחַלְּפָא?!
may give her food and she may eat it, and there is concern that she will feed others her produce that was not tithed. Now, if there is concern that the wife of the am ha’aretz might steal from her husband and give the other woman food without his permission, should there not be concern that she might exchange her own food with that of the other woman? Can she be relied upon not to make the exchange? She certainly cannot be trusted, and there is concern about this possibility. Consequently, it is not only in the cases of a man’s mother-in-law and an innkeeper that there is concern that food may be exchanged.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָתָם נָמֵי, מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: תּוֹרָא מִדִּישֵׁיהּ קָאָכֵיל.
Rav Yosef said: There too, the wife of the am ha’aretz rules for herself that she is permitted to do this, and she says: The ox may eat from its threshing. She thinks that while she is engaged in preparing food, it is permitted for her to take from the food and it is not considered stealing. Consequently, it cannot be learned from here that every am ha’aretz is suspected of exchanging his own food with that of another.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָחִיו, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַסָּמָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין חַלַּת עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין עִיסַּת חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
§ The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 3:1) dealing with produce deposited with an am ha’aretz: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasma: A dough kneader who is a ḥaver may not prepare a loaf to serve as ḥalla for an am ha’aretz while keeping the ḥalla dough in a state of ritual purity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary dough while keeping the dough in a state of purity, and then take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket [kefisha] or vessel [anḥuta], which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּרוּמַת זֵיתָיו בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין זֵיתֵי חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְּרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל – נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ.
And similarly, an olive presser who is a ḥaver may not prepare oil from the olives of an am ha’aretz that are teruma while keeping the oil in a state of ritual impurity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary olives while keeping the oil in a state of purity, and then take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּגַבָּל, וּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּבַדָּד.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that such leniency was granted? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the sake of the kneader’s livelihood and for the sake of the olive presser’s livelihood.
וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גַּבָּל – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּדָּד – דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בַּדָּד – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל גַּבָּל – דִּשְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha in both cases, as had the baraita taught it to us only in the case of a kneader, one might have said the following: The Sages were lenient with the kneader because his payment is not great, and therefore he is poor and in need of help, but with regard to an olive presser, whose payment is great, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. And had the baraita taught us the halakha only in the case of an olive presser, one might have said: The Sages were lenient with the olive presser because this type of work is not common. It is performed only during the olive harvest, and therefore there is great concern about his livelihood. But with regard to a kneader, whose work is common and performed year-round, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. Consequently, it is necessary to state the halakha in both cases.
אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בָּהּ! דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: חֲזִי, אִי נָגְעַתְּ בַּהּ הָדְרָא לְטִיבְלָא.
The Gemara proceeds to clarify several points in the aforementioned baraita, in which the Master said: He may take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket or vessel, which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the ḥalla and thereby impart impurity to it. The Gemara explains: This is not a concern, because we say to him: See that you do not touch the ḥalla, because if you touch it the dough will once again be considered like untithed produce.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ! הַשְׁתָּא לְתַקּוֹנֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, מִיכְפָּת לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ?!
The Gemara questions this explanation: But let there be a concern lest he does not care that the dough will once again be considered untithed. The Gemara explains: Now that it is evident that his intention was to do things in the right manner, and for this reason he employed a kneader who works in a state of ritual purity, can one say that he does not care whether or not his dough is properly prepared?
אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בַּהּ! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא; הָכָא, מַאי הֶיכֵּרָא אִית לֵיהּ? דְּמַנַּח לֵיהּ בִּכְלֵי גְלָלִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲבָנִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה.
The Master said with regard to oil, further in that baraita: He may take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the teruma oil and impart impurity to it. Granted, there, in the case of ḥalla, there is a conspicuous marker, as one places the ḥalla in a special vessel that is not usually used for dough. But here, what conspicuous marker is there? The Gemara answers: He places the teruma oil in dung vessels, in stone vessels, or in clay vessels, which do not contract ritual impurity.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּחָבֵר? אֲפִילּוּ דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ נָמֵי! הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ, הָרְאוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חָבֵר.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why mention specifically the vessels of a ḥaver? The same would hold true even for the vessels of an am ha’aretz, as they do not contract ritual impurity either. The Gemara answers: That is also what the tanna is saying, i.e., the olive presser takes the amount required for teruma and places it in vessels belonging to the am ha’aretz that cannot contract ritual impurity and are therefore fit to be used by a ḥaver.
מַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי גּוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: מַחְזִיקִין?! וְהָאָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר שִׁישְׁנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין עוֹדְרִין עִם הַגּוֹי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְמֵימְרָא לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״ בְּעָלְמָא – כִּי הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״; רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לְהוּ ״אַשַּׁרְתָּא״.
§ The mishna teaches that one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: May one really assist them? But didn’t Rav Dimi bar Shishna say in the name of Rav: One may not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not double the greeting extended to a gentile, saying: Shalom, shalom? The Gemara answers: No, one may not actually help a gentile in his work, but it is necessary to state that one may merely say to them: Be strong, as in that incident where Rav Yehuda said to gentiles in such a situation: Be strong, and Rav Sheshet said to them: Well done. Statements of this kind are certainly permitted.
וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי: רַב חִסְדָּא מַקְדֵּים וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא. רַב כָּהֲנָא אֲמַר לְהוּ ״שְׁלָמָא לְמָר״.
It was stated above in the name of Rav that one may not double the greeting of shalom extended to a gentile. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda would greet gentiles first so that he would not have to respond to the greeting extended to him with a twofold shalom. Rav Kahana, by contrast, would wait for their greeting, and then say to them: Peace to my master, thereby freeing himself from having to say shalom twice.
וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן. הַשְׁתָּא אַחְזוֹקֵי מַחְזְקִינַן, שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן מִיבַּעְיָא?! אָמַר רַב יֵיבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְיוֹם אֵידָם – דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ, וְיִתֵּן לוֹ ״שָׁלוֹם״. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק – נוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה וּבְכוֹבֶד רֹאשׁ.
The mishna teaches that one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: Now that it is taught that one may assist them, is it necessary to say that one may extend greetings to them? Rav Yeiva said: This halakha is necessary only on their holidays, as it is taught in a baraita: A person may not enter the home of a gentile on his holiday and extend greetings to him, as it appears that he is blessing him in honor of his holiday. If he encounters him in the market, he may greet him in an undertone and in a solemn manner, so that he does not appear to be rejoicing with him.
רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל גְּנִיבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דְּבַר אוֹרְיָין הוּא. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמִקַּמֵּי פָּלְגָאָה נֵיקוּם?! אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא אִיהוּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי, שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ דְּרַבָּנַן אִיקְּרוּ מְלָכִים? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלוֹכוּ וְגוֹ׳״.
§ With regard to the matter of doubling one’s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: “Through me kings rule” (Proverbs 8:15).
אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמְנָא לָךְ דְּכָפְלִינַן ״שְׁלָמָא״ לְמַלְכֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁכּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְמֶלֶךְ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרוּחַ לָבְשָׁה אֶת עֲמָשַׂי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁים וְגוֹ׳״.
Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to him further: And from where do you know that we must double the greeting of shalom extended to kings? He said to them: As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that one must double the greeting of shalom extended to a king? As it is stated: “And the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said: We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Yishai; peace, peace be to you” (I Chronicles 12:19), indicating that a king is greeted with a doubled shalom.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לִיטְעוֹם מָר מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַאֲכָל לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי עֵשֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״.
Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to Geneiva: Does the Master wish to taste something? Geneiva said to them: So says Rav Yehuda that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal, as it is stated in the verse: “And I will give grass in the field for your animals” (Deuteronomy 11:15), and only afterward is it written in that verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied.” I have yet to feed my animal, so I may not eat.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַנִּיזָּקִין
MISHNA: With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until the document reaches his wife’s possession. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.
הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
Therefore, if the husband said to the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: I do not want [ee ifshi] for you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver it and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wife’s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wife’s possession.
לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even a woman who did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but says: Take my bill of divorce for me, thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, if after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband seeks to retract his decision and cancel the agency, he cannot retract it.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת: ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.
GEMARA: The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi that one may infer: The reason that he may retract the designation is that the woman did not designate the agent as an agent for receipt. However, in a case where she designated him as an agent for receipt, then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his statement, he cannot retract it. Rav Aḥa suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טַעְמָא דְּלָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, הָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, there is no proof, as actually I could say to you that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, and it is the case where the husband said: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, that was necessary for the tanna to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.
לָא; לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ –
This is as it might enter your mind to say that since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt, but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, even though the bill of divorce reached her possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is as though he said: Receive and deliver the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.
דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּבַעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְטָא גִּיטָּא לִידֵהּ – לָא לֶהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּ״הִתְקַבֵּל וְהוֹלֵךְ״ קָאָמַר.
The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. We learned in the mishna that in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. What, is it not that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, it is no different whether he employed an expression of receipt and it is no different whether he employed an expression of delivery, and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
תְּנַן, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא אַקַּבָּלָה, לָא שְׁנָא אַהוֹלָכָה?
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case of receipt, i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.
לָא, אַקַּבָּלָה.
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 on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the 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, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״; הָא לָא אָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!
The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Perhaps the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [holekh]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: Here you are [heilakh]. The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.
דִּילְמָא בְּ״הֵילָךְ״.
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental halakha of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is obvious that a man can be designated an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wife’s bill of divorce. And similarly, it is obvious that a woman can be designated an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband. However, with regard to designating a man as an agent for receipt and designating a woman as an agent for delivery, what is the halakha?
פְּשִׁיטָא – אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה, שֶׁכֵּן בַּעַל מוֹלִיךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ; וְאִשָּׁה הָוְיָא שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִשָּׁה מְקַבֶּלֶת גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ. אִישׁ – לְקַבָּלָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה – לְהוֹלָכָה, מַאי?
The Gemara states: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. What, is it not referring to one and the same agent in both cases, and conclude from it that the agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is to two different agents, an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.
תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו בְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה? לָא, בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁלוּחִין.
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 on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. And isn’t the case here one where it is one agent whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, and conclude from the mishna that an agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well?
תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ הוּא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה!
The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: Resolve from the mishna that a man can be an agent for receipt, and that is reasonable, as a father receives a bill of divorce on behalf of his daughter who is a minor because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether a woman can be an agent for delivery, raise the dilemma: What is the halakha? Rav Mari said: Come and hear a resolution based on the mishna (23b): Even the women who are not deemed credible to say that a woman’s husband died, because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce to her. And there, in the case in that mishna, the woman is an agent for delivery.
פְּשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה – שֶׁכֵּן אָב מְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה; אִשָּׁה לְהוֹלָכָה – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, מַאי? אָמַר רַב מָרִי, תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּיטָּהּ – וְהָתָם הוֹלָכָה הִיא.
Rav Ashi said: Learn a resolution to that dilemma from the latter clause of that mishna as well, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established that the woman acts as an agent for delivery. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִסֵּיפָא נָמֵי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּהוֹלָכָה; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
§ It was stated that if a woman says to an agent: Bring my bill of divorce to me, and the agent then says to her husband: Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband hands him the bill of divorce and says: Here you are, as she said; that the amora’im engage in a dispute as to the halakha. Is the halakha determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the woman’s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?
אִיתְּמַר: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אָמַר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״;
Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In that case, even if the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this statement that the husband relies on the agent’s statement as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. As, if the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband relies on his wife’s statement as to what the agent’s status is, then at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced, as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ – דְּאִי אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ, מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ מִיהָא תִּיגָּרַשׁ!
Rav Ashi said: How can these cases be compared?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!
