משנה: הָאוֹמֶר הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אוֹ הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר יַחֲזִיר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר יַחֲזִיר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. MISHNAH: Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife, or bring this bill of divorce to my wife, may retract if he wants to retract1If the husband appoints an agent, he may annul the agency any time as long as the bill was not delivered.. If a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, he2The husband cannot retract the bill of divorce once it has been delivered to the wife’s agent whose hand acts for her hand. cannot retract even if he wants to retract. Therefore, if the husband said, it is not possible for me that you accept for her but bring and deliver it to her, he may retract if he wants to retract3The husband may refuse to recognize the messenger as the wife’s agent but appoint him as his own agent. Then the messenger acts uniquely as the husband’s agent.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even if she says, take my the bill of divorce for me, he cannot retract even if he wants to retract4Even if the wife’s agency was not spelled out clearly..
הלכה: הָאוֹמֶר הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי כול׳. בְּכָל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. הִתְקַבֵּל כִּזְכֵה. הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. הִתְקַבֵּל כְּהוֹלִךְ. שַׁנְייָה הִיא שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו. הָתִיב רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָֽיְתָה צוֹוַחַת לְהִתְגָּרֵשׁ. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמָּא חָֽזְרָה בָהּ. הָא תַנִּינָן. הִיא עַצְמָהּ מֵבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ. חָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא חָֽזְרָה בָהּ. תַּמָּן הִיא חָבָה לְעַצְמָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא חוֹב לָהּ. HALAKHAH: “Somebody who says, accept this bill of divorce for my wife,” etc. Everywhere you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “obtain,”5If A says to B: “accept this gift for C”, then if B has accepted the gift it is C’s property and A cannot retract the gift. Why can the husband annul the bill of divorce when he empowered the agent to receive the bill of divorce for his wife? but here you say that “accept” is the equivalent of “bring”6The divorce takes effect only by delivery of the bill into the woman’s hand.? There is a difference, for one can obtain something for a person without him being present7In the language of the Babli (11b, Ketubot 11a, Yebamot 118b, Qiddušin 23a, 24a, Eruvin 81b, Baba Meṣi‘a 12a, Ḥulin 63a): “One may give a benefit to a person without his knowledge but one cannot put a detriment on him without his knowledge.” Since a divorce is considered detrimental to the wife, the husband has no power to appoint an agent to receive the bill for his wife; his instruction has to be re-interpreted to mean that he has to deliver the bill to the wife.. Rebbi Shammai objected: Think of it, if she was shouting to obtain a divorce8Then the divorce would be a benefit to her.? I say, maybe she changed her mind. But did we not state9Mishnah 2:8, Note 139.: “A woman herself may bring her bill of divorce”? Could you say that she may have changed her mind10If the husband hands the bill of divorce to his wife and stipulates that the divorce become valid only at the moment she brings the bill to the court at her place of residence which is not his place, can she change her mind, return to her place, and not showing the bill, being then married to her husband without his knowledge?? There, she is damaging herself11By accepting to be her husband’s agent, she accepted the obligation to become divorced; this is with her knowledge and cannot be compared to the agency of a third party. This interpretation is by Rashba (on Yebamot 118b), quoted by Nimmuqe Yosef (on Alfassi Yebamot, end of Chapter 15).; here it is to her detriment.
רַב נַחֲמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר. אָֽמְרָה. הֲבֵא לִי גִיטִּי. וְהָלַךְ וְאָמַר לוֹ. אִשְׁתְּךָ אָֽמְרָה. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִיטִּי. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט. שֶׁהוּא סָבוּר מִדַּעַת הַשָּׁלִיחַ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת. וְהִיא אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ. הָתִיב רִבִּי הוּנָא בַּר חִייָה. וְהָא דְתַנִּינָן. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִיטִּי. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. מֵעַתַּה אֲפִילוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט. שֶׁהִיא סְבוּרָה שֶׁהִיא מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת מִדַּעַת הַשָּׁלִיחַ. וְהִיא אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ. בְּיוֹדֵעַ הֲלָכָה לוֹמַר. הִתְקַבֵּל וּזְכֵה כְּהוֹלִךְ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִיטִּי. אֵינוֹ גֵט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ אֵינוֹ גֵט. שֶׁהִיא סְבוּרָה שֶׁמָּא לְדַעַת הַשָּׁלִיחַ הִיא מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת. וְהִיא אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת אֶלָּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ. בְּיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין הַקָּטָן עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ. 12A similar discussion is in the Babli, 62b–63a, quoting the same authors but in a different setting. (In the Babli, the husband shows that he does not quite believe the agent; here the husband acts on the agent’s word.) Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said: If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he went and said to him13The wife’s agent speaking to the husband., your wife said, accept the bill of divorce for me14Since the wife can empower an agent to accept the bill of divorce for her, “accept” in this context must mean “acquire”. The agent violated the terms of his agency., even after the bill came into her hand it is not a valid bill of divorce, since he15The husband. thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance16Since Deut. 24:1 requires that the husband put the bill of divorce into the wife’s hand, it is a biblical requirement that both husband and wife know the moment of divorce. In the case before us, the defect of the divorce is biblical and cannot be remedied except by a new bill.. Rebbi Huna bar Ḥiyya objected: But did we not state that if a woman said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill of divorce until it reaches her hand17The quote is elliptic; most probably it refers to a text close to Tosephta 4:2 where the wife appoints an agent to receive her bill of divorce and the husband instructs him to deliver the bill into her hand.? Then even if the bill came into her hand it should not be a valid bill! For she thinks that she will be divorced by the acceptance of the agent but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that practice is that “accept” and “obtain” mean “bring”18While the wife can appoint an agent to legally receive the bill in her stead, the husband cannot appoint such an agent and, as explained in the preceding paragraph, for him “receive” means “deliver”. The husband is free to interpret the wife’s instructions in terms of his own vocabulary. {The Babli, obviously dissatisfied with this solution, holds that the husband’s instructions must be followed to the letter but since the wife can be divorced against her will, the husband’s instructions override those of the wife and the latter’s instructions were given only subject to the husband’s approval.}. But did we not state19Mishnah 6:3.: “If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is not a valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand.” Then it should not be a valid bill even if the bill of divorce reaches her hand. For she thinks that maybe she is divorced by the acceptance of the agent, but she can be divorced only by her own acceptance. If he knows that a minor cannot appoint an agent20While an underage girl becomes emancipated from her father’s potestas by marriage (Ketubot 4:2, Note 42), she can become an adult only by reaching the age of puberty. If she is divorced while being underage, she becomes “an orphan during her father’s lifetime” and will need an adult guardian to execute legal acts in her behalf. The husband in this case has to empower the agent to deliver the bill; he cannot rely on the underage wife’s instructions..
רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִשְּׁלוּחֹה שֶׁלְּבַעֲלָהּ. שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁמָעָהּ מִינֵּיהּ וְלָעֲתָהּ בַּתְרֵיהּ אַרְבָּעִים זִמְנֵי. Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman cannot appoint an agent to accept her bill of divorce from her husband’s agent21Quoted in the Babli, 63b, and opposed there by the Galilean R. Ḥanina. Rabbinic practice follows R. Ḥanina. The Babli conjectures that a possible reason for Rav’s statement is that if the wife refuses to accept the bill from the husband’s agent but appoints her agent to receive the bill, she does this only to hinder the husband’s agent to fulfill his mission to deliver the bill to her. In that case, the wife would be entitled to appoint her agent if her appointment precedes her husband’s. Another conjectured reason is that there is a very remote possibility that things can go wrong if the bill is not actually delivered from hand to hand but deposited on her (or her agent’s) property. The basis for the possible complication is a rule which is not alluded to in the Yerushalmi and, therefore, should not be used to explain a statement in that Talmud.. Samuel heard this from him and repeated after him forty times.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁאָֽמְרָה. הֲבֵא לִי. וְאָמַרה לוֹ. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי. אָֽמְרָה. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי. וְהוּא אָמַר לוֹ. הֲבֵא לִי. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי עַל תְּרַוֵּיהֹן. הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט וְאִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְיָדָהּ. מְנַיִין בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחָהּ מִשְּׁלוּחוֹ לִשְׁלוּחָהּ מִשְּׁלוּחָהּ לִשְׁלוּחוֹ מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנָתַן וְנָתַן. מַה תַנֵּי אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי. רִבִּי. דְּתַנֵּי. אָֽמְרָה. הָבֵא לִי גִיטִּי. וְהָלַךְ וְאָמַר לוֹ. אִשְׁתָּךְ אָֽמְרָה. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִיטִּי. הוֹלִיכוֹ לָהּ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ זָכָה לָהּ וְנִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ. אִם רָצָא לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר. הוֹלִיכוֹ לָהּ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. אִם רָצָא לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבְּלוֹ לָהּ אֶלָּא שֶׁתּוֹלִיכוֹ לָהּ. וִקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי. הֵילָךְ מִן דִּיבּוּרִי אִם רָצָא לְהַחֲזִיר יַחֲזִיר. וִקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי נָתָן. הֵילָךְ לִדִיבּוּרָהּ אִם רָצָא לְהַחֲזִיר יַחֲזִיר. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. נַעֲשֶׂה שְׁלוּחוֹ וּשְׁלוּחָהּ. אַסִּי אָמַר. כָּל הֵיכָא דְאָמַר. שְׁלוּחוֹ וּשְׁלוּחָהּ. מְגוּרֶשֶׁת וְאֵינָהּ מְגוּרֶשֶׁת. 22The major source of this paragraph and the next is in Maʻaser Šeni 4:7, Notes 118–129. Since the introduction is different and some essential passages are missing here, it is clear that this passage is derivative. But since the text has suffered some rearrangement, it cannot be a direct copy (as noted in the Introduction.) Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: So far if she said, bring me, but [the agent] said [to the husband] “receive for me”24Since the agent was not appointed by the husband, he cannot legally deliver the bill.. If she said, receive for me but [the agent] said [to the husband] “bring me”? If was found stated in both cases, this is a bill of divorce and if he wants to retract he cannot retract25Probably a text similar to Tosephta 4:2 (Babli 63a) following the three main sources of the Tosephta (a text rejected by S. Lieberman.) While the bill is considered delivered only when the wife receives it, the agent is not empowered to return it to the husband. The Babli, 63a, explicitly states that the divorce is valid from the moment the agent receives the bill.. But did we not state26This inference from the repetition of the expression וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ in Deut. 24:1,3 is missing in other sources; cf. Halakhah 8:1. The Babli, Qiddušin 41a, derives the possibility of divorce by agent (שָׁלִיחַ) from the expression וְשִׁלְּחָהּ in Deut. 24:1 For the general principle that “an agent takes the place of a principal” cf. Qiddušin 2:1 (62a 1.41), Babli 41b. It is not trivial that a bill of divorce can be delivered by an agent since ḥalîṣah cannot be performed by an agent.: “He shall deliver into her hand,” that includes not only her hand, from where through his agent’s hand, into her agent’s hand, from his agent to her agent, and from her agent to his agent; the verse says, “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Who said, “it is impossible for me”? Rebbi! 27Here starts the text from Maʻaser Šeni, Notes 120 ff. The quote in Ma’aser Šeni is from Tosephta Giṭṭin 4:1; the text here, while almost identical, has a totally different meaning. In the Tosephta, the husband instructs the agent to act for him; in the text here, the husband does not say anything but gives the bill to the agent who delivers it to the wife. It then is stated that the act of delivery validates the divorce. As it was stated: “If she said, bring me my bill of divorce, but he said to him, your wife said, accept my bill of divorce for me: If he brought it to her, gave it to her, he acquired it for her, it was received for her; if he wants to retract, he may not28In the Tosephta mss., “not” is missing. retract, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Nathan says, ‘bring it to her, give it to her,’ 29From the text in Maʻaser Šeni, missing here but essential for an understanding of the text. The omission from להחזיר to להחזיר is easily explained.[if he wants to retract, he may retract; ‘acquire it for her, receive it for her’, if he wants to retract, he may not retract. Rebbi says, in any of these cases] he may not retract except if he says, ‘It is impossible for me that you accept it for her, but give it to her.’30If the husband explicitly appoints the agent as his own.” It is difficult for Rebbi, “here you have it from my word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract31If the husband gives the bill and tells the agent to deliver, it should automatically invalidate the wife’s commission and let him retract.. It is difficult for Rebbi Nathan, “here you have it from her word”, if he wants to retract, he may retract32If the husband tells the agent to do for him what the wife instructed him to do, he did not accept the agent as her agent and should be able to retract.! Rav Ḥuna said, he becomes his and her agent33In either case mentioned here, it is not clear whose agent he is; the divorce is questionable and does not permit the wife to remarry. (Babli 63b, Rav Huna in the name of Rav).. Assi said, everywhere we have stated “his and her agent”, she is both divorced and not divorced.
אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאַתְייָן אִילֵּין פְּלוּגָתָא כְאִילֵּין פְּלוּגָתָא. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הָיָה מְדַבֵּר עִם הָאִשָּׁה עַל עִיסְקֵי גִיטָּהּ וְקִידּוּשֶׁיהָ וְנָתַן לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ וְקִידּוּשֶׁיהָ וְלֹא פֵּירַשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר דַּייוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵשׁ. וְאַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּדְרִבִּי נָתָן כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְאַתְּ מַה בְיָדָךְ. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא אָמַר רִבּי חִייָה בַּר אָבִין אָדָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. מַה פְלִיגִין. עַצְמוֹ לְעִנְייָנוֹת אֲחֵרִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה עוֹסֵק בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְייָן גֵּט הוּא. וְהָכָא אֲפִילוּ בָעוֹסְקִין בְּאוֹתוֹ עִנְייָן הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. Rebbi Ḥaggai said before Rebbi Yose: Is not this disagreement the same as that disagreement, as we have stated there34Mishnah Maʻaser Šeni 4:7.: “If a man was talking with a woman about her bill of divorce or her preliminary marriage and gave her the bill of divorce or [some valuable for] preliminary marriage and did not spell it out35There were two witnesses present but the man did not alert them that he was going to divorce or marry, neither did he warn the woman that he was now going to act on his word., Rebbi Yose says it is sufficient36It is sufficient that everybody involved understood what was going on.; Rebbi Jehudah says he has to be explicit.” Then Rebbi follows Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Nathan Rebbi Jehudah. He37R. Yose to R. Ḥaggai. said to him, what do you have in your hand, did not Rebbi Zeïra, Ḥiyya bar Abin, Abba bar Taḥlifa, say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, when do they differ? [If they thought about] other things but if he still was on the same subject, it is a bill of divorce38Even R. Jehudah will agree that if two witnesses are present during the writing of a bill of divorce they do not have to be alerted for the delivery. But this has no implications for our case where the question is the due form of the appointment of an agent. In the Babli, Qiddušin 6a, this is the concurrent opinion of Rav and Samuel.. But here, even if they are still on the same subject there is disagreement.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. אַף לְעִנְייָן מַתָּנָה כֵן. אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן הַתּוֹרָה זִיכָּת אוֹתָהּ בְּגִיטָּהּ וְהִיא עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלָּהּ. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר בְּמַתָּנָה. אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לִיתֵּן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ וּבִיקֵּשׁ לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ חוֹזֵר בּוֹ. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי. אָמַר לֵיהּ וְהֶן הוּא הִין צֶדֶק. אָֽמַר לוֹ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲמָרוֹ הִין צֶדֶק הֲוָה. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for anything that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what is rightfully hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for anything that is not his? In addition, from what Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to retract, he may retract. Rebbi Yose stood near Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”39Lev. 19:36: “Your hîn shall be just”. The הִין is a liquid measure (half a se’ah). But since biblical כֵּן “yes” became rabbinic הֵן, the verse is interpreted to mean that in money matters any “yes” has to be honest. The formal argument is that the verse already mentioned the ephah as correct measure; therefore the smaller hîn requires symbolic interpretation. [This learned pun is in the name of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah in the Babli, Baba meṣiʻa 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7)].? He said to him, at the moment he said it, it was a just “yes”.
אָמַר לוֹ. הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתִּי גֵּט בִּתָּהּ גֵּט אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְהָלַךְ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. אֵינוֹ גֵּט. תְּבָעוֹ הַשָּׁלִיחַ וְאָמַר לוֹ. תֵּן גֵּט לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ. הֵילָךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתִּי גֵּט בִּתָּהּ גֵּט אֲחוֹתָהּ. וְהָלַךְ וּנְתָנוֹ לָהּ. הֲרֵי זֶה גֵט. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְרִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. בְּאוֹמֶרֶת. יְהֵא לִי בְיָדָךְ. If [the husband] said to [another person]: Bring my wife’s bill of divorce, or her daughter’s, or her sister’s, then he went and delivered it to her, it is no divorce40The text is not in good condition. A similarly corrupt text is in Tosephta 4:2, but from both texts the original can be approximated: If the husband said to a third party: Bring my wife’s, or (your or his) daughter’s or (your or his) sister’s, and he went and delivered it to her, it is no divorce since the third party was never appointed an agent for delivery. But if a woman appoints an agent, who goes and requests a bill of divorce from her husband and receives the bill without being appointed the husband’s agent of delivery, it is a perfectly valid divorce the moment the agent takes possession of the bill. (According to Rav Huna, this situation is preferable to one in which the agent also becomes the husband’s agent, unless the husband explicitly invalidates the wife’s commission.). But if [the other] said: Give a bill of divorce to his wife, and [the husband] said, here is my wife’s bill of divorce, or her daughter’s, or her sister’s, and he went and gave it to her, it is a divorce. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Avin in the name of Rebbi Shammai: These are Rebbi’s words. But the Sages say, only if she says, it should be mine in your hand41Rebbi accepts an implicit commissioning while the rabbis require an explicit statement..
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְהוּא שֶׁאָֽמְרָה לוֹ הִיא טוֹל לִי. יְהֵא לִי בְיָדָךְ. חַד בַּר נַשׁ שָׁלַח גֵּט לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָֽמְרָה לֵיהּ. יְהֵא לִי בְיָדָךְ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַב. אָמַר. אִם בָּא לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. מַה וּפְלִיג. שַׁנְייָא הוּא יְהֵא בְיָדָךְ שַׁנְייָא הוּא יְהֵא לִי בְיָדָךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. אֲנָא יְדַע רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא. אִשָּׁה אַחַת עָשָׂת שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִשְּׁלוּחֵי בַעֲלָהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רַב. אָמַר. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב. תַּמָּן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִשְּׁלוּחֵי בַעֲלָהּ. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. אֲנִי אֹמֵר. אַחַר הַדֶּלֶת הָיָה עוֹמֵד וְשָׁמַע אֶת קוֹלָהּ. Rebbi Ḥanina said, practice follows Rabban Gamliel42This should read: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.: if she said “take for me, it should be mine in your hand.43Not only the expression טוֹל לִי mentioned in the Mishnah but any equivalent expression is sufficient to appoint an agent for the wife. The Babli agrees, 63b.” A man sent a bill of divorce to his wife. She told [the agent]: “It should be mine in your hand.” The casecame before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract44Since the bill was never delivered into the wife’s hand, the husband then claimed that there was no divorce; but Rav decided that the appointment of the husband’s agent as the wife’s agent represented delivery of the bill.. Does he disagree45It is not quite clear with what Rav is supposed to disagree. A similar story is told in the Babli, 63b, about a woman whose hands were dirty and who told the husband’s agent to keep the bill, that it should be in his hand. Rav Naḥman, in the generation after Rav, decided that this was no delivery.? There is a difference between “it should be in your hand” and “it should be mine in your hand.46The second version is clearly an acceptance of the bill whereas the first one is not.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. A woman appointed an agent to accept her bill of divorce from the husband’s agents. The case came before Rav, who said, if he wants to retract he cannot retract. Rav’s opinion has switched! There, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A woman cannot appoint an agent to accept her bill of divorce from her husband’s agent21Quoted in the Babli, 63b, and opposed there by the Galilean R. Ḥanina. Rabbinic practice follows R. Ḥanina. The Babli conjectures that a possible reason for Rav’s statement is that if the wife refuses to accept the bill from the husband’s agent but appoints her agent to receive the bill, she does this only to hinder the husband’s agent to fulfill his mission to deliver the bill to her. In that case, the wife would be entitled to appoint her agent if her appointment precedes her husband’s. Another conjectured reason is that there is a very remote possibility that things can go wrong if the bill is not actually delivered from hand to hand but deposited on her (or her agent’s) property. The basis for the possible complication is a rule which is not alluded to in the Yerushalmi and, therefore, should not be used to explain a statement in that Talmud., and here, he says so? I say, he was standing behind the door and heard her voice47The relations between husband and wife were so bad that not only did the husband not want to deliver the bill to his wife who was nearby but the wife did not even want to receive it from the husband’s agent. Since the appointment of an agent by the husband under these circumstances was intended as an insult to his wife, her appointing her own agent was an adequate response. Since the husband was present during the entire proceedings, he must have agreed with his wife’s appointing her own attorney and there could be no reason to invalidate the proceedings. The statement of Rav Huna can be applied only to cases where not both parties are present..