Gittin 63bגיטין ס״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Gittin 63b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
63bס״ג ב

מאי לאו בהילך ור' 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.

ת"ש 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 ור' 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.

ת"ש הולך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור יחזור הילך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור לא יחזור מאן שמעת ליה דאמר בהולך רצה לחזור יחזור ר' נתן וקאמר בהילך רצה לחזור לא יחזור ש"מ הילך כזכי דמי ש"מ

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 ר' 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 ור' 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.

מ"ט 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.

אב"א 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 לדר' 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 דר' אמי שלח להו לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל ור' 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 דר' 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 אפי' מאה פעמים:

Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the hus-band say to them: Write it and place it in your pockets? He instructed them to write the document and divorce her with it. They did not perform their agency by merely writing a valid bill of divorce. Rather, Rav 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.

א"ל 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.

רשב"ג 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 שאומרי' בפנינו אמרה ושני' שאומרים בפנינו קבל וקרע אפי' הן הראשוני' והן האחרוני'

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,