משנה: קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל. חֵרֵשׁ וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ. סוֹמֶא וְנִתְפַּתַּח. שׁוֹטֶה וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה נָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּייֵר פָּסוּל. אֲבָל פִּיקֵּח וְנִתְחָרַשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה פִּיתֵּחַ וְנִסְתַּמָּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתַּח שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּא וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה כָּשֵׁר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּדַעַת כָּשֵׁר. MISHNAH: If the minor received it and became an adult, the deaf-and-dumb and started talking, the blind and became seeing, the insane and became sane, the Gentile and converted, it remains invalid122Since Deut. 24:1 requires that the husband hand the divorce document over to his wife, he can be represented in this transaction only by a duly appointed representative. But since an incompetent person cannot be a representative, nor a Gentile be an agent in a Jewish religious transaction, any such delivery could not be considered as the husband’s..
But if a hearing person became deaf-and-dumb, then regained his hearing, a seeing person became blind, then regained his vision, a sane person became insane, then regained his sanity, it is valid. This is the principle: Whenever the beginning and the end was in full competence, it is valid123Even if there was an interval in which delivery could not be made, on condition that the responsible person remember his appointment as the husband’s representative..
הלכה: קִיבֵּל הַקָּטָן וְהִגְדִּיל כול׳. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אִימִּי בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי אַבָּא. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. עֶבֶד שֶׁהֵבִיא אֶת הַגֵּט פָּסוּל. אָמַר רִבִּי אַסִּי. אִילוּלֵי רִבִּי בָּא כְּבַר הָיִינוּ לְהַתִיר אֶת אֶשֶׁת אִישׁ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ רִבִּי אַסִּי הָא דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. לֹא שְׁמִיעַ מִילֵּיהוּן דְּרַבָנִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל הָעֶבֶד גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר וְאַל יְקַבֵּל כְּװָתֵיךְ. סָֽבְרִין מֵימַר. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא אַל יְקַבֵּל. הָא אִם עָבַר וְקִיבֵּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְכֹהֶנֶת הָֽייְתָה וְלֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶן מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ פְּסוּל. HALAKHAH: “If the minor received it and became an adult,” etc. There came a case before Rebbi Immi that a slave brought a bill of divorce; [he declared it] valid124In the Babli, 23a, this was a theoretical question and R. Assi was the opponent.. Rebbi Abba said to him, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya125R. Ḥiyya the Elder. state that if a slave brought a bill of divorce, it would be invalid? Rebbi Assi126This is the Babylonian name of R. Yasa, the constant companion of R. Immi. The version of the Geniza ms. which reads “R. Immi” for all occurrences of “R. Assi” is preferable. said, if not for Rebbi Abba, we would have permitted a married woman127A woman who receives an invalid bill of divorce remains married to her husband.! Even if you say that Rebbi Assi did not accept what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, did he not accept what the rabbis said? Let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya128R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, student of R. Joḥanan and teacher of R. Ze‘ira. In the Babli, 23b, this is quoted by Rav Samuel bar Jehudah in the name of R. Joḥanan. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave could accept a bill of manumission [for delivery]129He can bring another slave’s bill of manumission since he himself may be manumitted. In the Babli this is restricted to another owner’s slave. but he should not accept [a bill of divorce] as we do130Translation of the Geniza text, supported by the Leiden ms. in Qiddušin 1:3, 60a 1. 50. Since a slave cannot legally marry, he cannot divorce and like a Gentile is barred from acting in a divorce proceeding. R. Immi, who initially accepted the bill of divorce, must have held with R. Meïr that the slave’s hand is his master’s hand (Qiddušin 1:3, 60a 1. 49).. They thought, he formulated “he should not accept,” therefore, if he transgressed and accepted, it would be valid131It is not formulated as an absolute impossibility.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: It happened that she was a Cohen’s wife132Since a Cohen may not be married to a divorcee (Lev. 21:7), in all cases in which there may be the slightest doubt about the validity of a divorce given by a Cohen, the court will force the husband to give a second, unquestionably valid divorce. and they were not afraid of a hint of invalidity133They declared the bill of divorce in the hand of the slave as non-existent and permitted the wife to stay married to her Cohen husband..