Gittin 63aגיטין ס״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 63a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
63aס״ג א

בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי והוא אמר הילך כמה שאמרה וא"ר 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.

א"נ 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.

א"ר 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 ה"נ 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.

ת"ש 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.

ת"ר התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אומר הולך ותן לה זכי לה והתקבל לה רצה לחזור לא יחזור ר' 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 ת"ק איבעית אימא אי איפשי אתא לאשמועי' ואיבעית אימא הא קא משמע לן מאן ת"ק 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 לר' 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?

ת"ש 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.