Gittin 124

מתני׳ <big><strong>האומר</strong></big> התקבל גט זה לאשתי או הולך גט זה לאשתי אם רצה לחזור יחזור האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SAYS [TO ANOTHER], RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, OR, CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT [BEFORE THE WIFE RECEIVES IT] HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS [TO A MAN], RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, [AND HE DOES SO]. IF [THE HUSBAND] DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The woman becomes divorced as soon as the Get came into the hands of her agent. ');">¹</span>

לפיכך אם אמר לו הבעל אי איפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה אם רצה לחזור יחזור

CONSEQUENTLY [WHAT IS THE HUSBAND TO DO?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case if he wants to retain the possibility of retracting. ');">²</span>

רשב"ג אומר אף האומרת טול לי גיטי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור:

IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because now he is no longer the wife's agent but his agent. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לרב אשי טעמא דלא שויתיה איהי שליח לקבלה הא שויתיה איהי שליח לקבלה רצה לחזור לא יחזור ש"מ הולך כזבי דמי

R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY]. TAKE FOR ME,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'receive for me'. ');">⁴</span>

לא לעולם אימא לך הולך לאו כזכי דמי והתקבל גט לאשתי איצטריכא ליה

[AND HE DOES SO]. HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT.

דס"ד אמינא הואיל ובעל לאו בר שויה שליח לקבלה הוא אע"ג דמטא גיטא לידה לא להוי גיטא קמ"ל דהתקבל והולך קאמר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Aha the son of R. 'Awia said to R. Ashi: The reason why [in the first case the husband may retract] is because she [the wife] did not make [the man] her agent for receiving [the Get], from which we infer that if she had made him the agent for receiving [the Get], the husband would not be at liberty to retract. This would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of' [would it not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise, the Get would still belong to the husband and he could withdraw it so long as it had not reached the wife's hand, v. supra 14a. ');">⁵</span>

תנן האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור מאי לאו לא שנא אקבלה לא שנא אהולכה

— No; I may still maintain that 'convey' is not equivalent to 'take possession',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the bearer is the husband's agent and not the wife's, and the husband may retract in any case. ');">⁶</span>

לא אקבלה

and nevertheless it was necessary to specify the case where the husband said, Receive this Get on behalf of my wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which we should naturally infer that the case dealt with is one where the wife did not make him her agent. ');">⁷</span>

ת"ש לפיכך אם אמר לו הבעל אי איפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה אם רצה לחזור יחזור טעמא דאמר אי איפשי הא לא אמר אי איפשי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור ש"מ הולך כזכי דמי

For I might have argued that since the husband is not competent to make him an agent for receiving the Get,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the principle that a disadvantage cannot be imposed on a man without his consent. ');">⁸</span>

דילמא בהילך

therefore even if the Get reached her hand it would not be valid, and we are therefore told that in saying 'receive' he also implied 'and convey'.

פשיטא איש הוי שליח להולכה שכן בעל מוליך גט לאשתו ואשה הויא שליח לקבלה שכן אשה מקבלת גיטה מיד בעלה איש לקבלה והאשה להולכה מאי

We learnt: IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE A GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO. Does not this apply equally whether the husband [on handing the Get] used the expression of 'receiving' or of 'conveying'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if he used the latter, this would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of'. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ש האומר התקבל גט זה לאשתי או הולך גט זה לאשתי אם רצה לחזור יחזור האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור מאי לאו בחד שליח וש"מ כשר לקבלה כשר להולכה לא בשני שלוחין

— No; only if he said 'receive'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the bearer still remains the agent of the wife. ');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע לפיכך אם אמר לו הבעל אי איפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה אם רצה לחזור יחזור והא הכא דחד שליח הוא וש"מ כשר לקבלה כשר להולכה

Come and hear: CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT HERE, CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. The reason is, is it not, that he Says. 'I am not agreeable', but if he does not say, 'I am not agreeable'. then if he desires to retract he may not do so, which would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession'? — Perhaps we should read, Here you are.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','[H], instead of [H] 'take'. By saying 'here you are', he accepts the man as the agent of the wife. ');">¹¹</span>

פשוט מינה איש הוי שליח לקבלה שכן אב מקבל גט לבתו קטנה אשה להולכה תיבעי לך מאי אמר רב מרי ת"ש אף הנשים שאין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא את גיטה והתם הולכה היא

It goes without saying that a man may be an agent for conveying the Get, seeing that a husband may himself convey a Get to his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whatever a man may do his agent may do for him. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אשי מסיפא נמי שמע מינה דקתני סיפא האשה עצמה מביאה את גיטה ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם ואוקימנא בהולכה ש"מ:

A woman may [similarly] be an agent for receiving, seeing that a woman receives a Get from the hand of her husband. What of a man becoming agent for receiving and a woman agent for conveying? — Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE OR CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY NOT DO SO. Does not this mean, where there is the same agent for both, which would show that the one who is qualified for conveying is also qualified for receiving? — No; we speak of two agents.

איתמר הבא לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אמר הילך כמה שאמרה

Come and hear; CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. Now here he says this to the same agent [as she appointed], and this shows that he is qualified to receive as to convey. We can conclude from this that a man is qualified to receive, [as is also natural,] since a father may receive a Get on behalf of his minor daughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 46b. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב אפילו הגיע גט לידה אינה מגורשת שמע מינה אדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך דאי אדיבורא דידה קא סמיך מכי מטי גיטא לידה מיהא תיגרש

Whether a woman may become an agent for conveying is still a question. R. Mari said: Come and hear: 'Even the women whose word cannot be taken if they report her husband to be dead can be trusted to bring her her Get;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 24b. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב אשי הכי השתא

'and there they are agents for conveying. R. Ashi said: We could infer the same from the last clause [of that Mishnah], which runs, 'A woman herself may bring her Get, only she is required to declare, in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed;' and we explained this to mean that she conveyed it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. and 5a. ');">¹⁵</span> It has been stated: '[If a woman says to her agent]. Bring me my Get, and [he says to the husband]. Your wife said to me, Receive my Get on my behalf, and the husband said, Here you are as she said,' in such a case R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu, who had it from Rab, that even when the Get reached her hand it would not be valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the wife had not made him an agent for receiving the Get and the husband had not made him an agent for taking the Get. ');">¹⁶</span> From this we should conclude that the husband was relying on his [the agent's] word,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he really supposed the wife to have told the agent to receive the Get. ');">¹⁷</span> since if he was relying on the wife's word,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is to say, if he had allowed for the possibility of his wife having told the agent to bring the Get, and had accordingly made him his agent for conveying it. ');">¹⁸</span> she would at any rate be divorced when the Get reached her hand. Said R. Ashi: Is that so?