Gittin 125

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

I grant you that if the statement had been in the reverse form, thus, '[If the wife said]. Receive my Get on my behalf, and [he said], Your wife told me to bring it, and the husband says. Here you are as she said,' and if R. Nahman had said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha in the name Rab, 'Once the Get comes into his hand, she is divorced,' then I could infer that he relies upon her word;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if he had taken the agent's word that she told him to bring it, she would not be divorced even when it came into her hand. ');">¹</span>

א"נ לידה אדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך אלא הכא משום דעקריה שליח לשליחותיה לגמרי הוא דאמר שליח לקבלה הוינא להולכה לא הוינא

or again, if he had said, '[Once the Get reaches] her hand [she is divorced]', I could have inferred that the husband relies upon the agent's word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so makes him an agent for conveying it. ');">²</span>

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

As it is, however, the reason why [the Get is not valid] is because the agent completely nullified his agency by saying 'I am willing to be an agent for receiving and not for conveying'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so when the husband says, 'here you are as she said,' he cannot become his agent [or conveying either. For fuller notes v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 440ff ');">³</span>

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

R. Huna b. Hiyya said [in refutation of R. Nahman]: 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. The reason [why the Get is not effective] is that he desires to do so; if he does not [and lets the Get reach her], the Get is valid. Now why should this be, seeing that the husband is not competent to appoint an agent for receiving the Get? The reason must be because we say that once he has made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when he says 'receive' he implies also 'convey'. ');">⁴</span>

הכי השתא התם אדם יודע שאין שליחות לקבלה וגמר ונתן לשם הולכה הכא טעי

So here also, since he made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly, once the Get has reached her, he makes the wife's agent retrospectively his agent for conveying. ');">⁵</span>

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

— Are the two cases comparable? In that case [of the Mishnah], a man knows that he cannot appoint an agent for receiving the Get and decides to give it to the agent for the purpose of conveying; but here he gives it under a misapprehension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thinking that the wife has appointed him her agent for receiving when she has not. ');">⁶</span>

הכי השתא התם אדם יודע שאין שליחות לקטן וגמר ונתן לה לשום הולכה דידיה הכא טעי

Raba said: Come and hear: If a girl under age said, Receive my Get on my behalf, it is not effective until it reaches her hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 65a. ');">⁷</span>

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

Now at any rate [according to this] when it reaches her hand she is divorced, and yet why should this be, seeing that the husband did not make him an agent for conveying?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the girl being a minor has no power to make him an agent for receiving. ');">⁸</span>

מאי לאו קבלה אקבלה והולכה אהולכה

We say however, that since the husband made up his mind to divorce her, he says to himself, Let her be divorced in any way possible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he makes him his agent nor conveying retrospectively. ');">⁹</span>

לא קבלה אהולכה והולכה אקבלה

so here, since he made up his mind to divorce her, he says, Let her be divorced in any way possible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutes R. Nahman. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי קבלה אהולכה מכי מטי גיטא לידיה לאלתר ליהוי גיטא שמעת מינה דאדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך

— But are these two cases comparable? There, a man knows that a minor cannot appoint an agent, and therefore he decides to give it to the agent for the purpose of being conveyed on his own behalf; but here he gives it under a misapprehension.

הכי השתא התם קאמר ליה הילך כמה שאמרה הכא מי קאמר ליה הילך כמה שאמרה

Come and hear: [If a woman says to an agent], Bring me my Get, and [the agent says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, or if the wife says, Receive my Get for me, and he says, Your wife told me to bring her Get, and the husband says to him, Convey and give it to her, take possession on her behalf and receive on her behalf, if he desires to retract he may do so, but once the Get reaches her hand she is divorced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Git. IV. ');">¹¹</span>

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

Now does not here the husband's saying 'receive' correspond to the agent's saying 'receive', and the husband's saying 'convey' to the agent's saying 'convey'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., we suppose that if the agent says he was appointed to receive, the husband says to him 'receive', and if he says he was appointed to bring, the husband says to him 'convey'. The fact that in the former case when the Get reaches her hand she is divorced show's that though the woman had appointed him to bring it to her, when the husband says receive' this is equivalent to 'convey'; all the more so then is the divorce valid if he says, 'here it is as she said'. This refutes R. Nahman.] ');">¹²</span>

רבי אומר בכולן אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור אבל אם אמר לו אי איפשי שתקבל לה אלא הולך ותן לה רצה לחזור יחזור

— No; 'receive' corresponds to 'bring' and convey' to 'receive'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we suppose the husband to be relying on the wife's word, who made him in the first case an agent for receiving and in the second an agent for bringing, and for this reason the woman becomes divorced at least when the Get reaches her hand. ');">¹³</span>

רבי היינו ת"ק איבעית אימא אי איפשי אתא לאשמועי' ואיבעית אימא הא קא משמע לן מאן ת"ק רבי

If 'receive corresponds to 'bring', then [if the husband relies on the wife's word] the Get should be effective as soon as it comes into the agent's hand;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the wife made him agent for receiving. ');">¹⁴</span>

איבעיא להו הילך לר' נתן כזכי דמי או לאו כזכי דמי

[and since this is not so] it shows that he relies on his word?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That he was made by the woman an agent for bringing and when the husband says 'receive' he means 'receive and convey', as inferred supra in the hypothetical case posited by R. Ashi.] ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ש האומר התקבל גט זה לאשתי או הולך גט זה לאשתי רצה לחזור יחזור האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי רצה לחזור לא יחזור

— How can you say so? In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case posited by R. Ashi. ');">¹⁶</span> he says to him, 'Here you are, as she said;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Which on the statement of the agent makes him an agent for conveying, and should we decide, in that case, that the woman is divorced on receiving the Get, this will prove that he relies on the agent's word.] ');">¹⁷</span> in this case does he say, 'Here you are as she said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The husband merely says 'take possession on her behalf' or receive on her behalf', which can only be taken in conjunction with the statement of the agent who said that he was appointed agent for bringing. Had, however, the husband said 'here you are as she said', the divorce, it might indeed be said, would become immediately effective, the husband relying on her word.] ');">¹⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: [If a woman says to an agent], Receive my Get for me, and [he says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, and the husband says, Convey it and give it to her, take possession of it on her behalf, or receive it on her behalf, if he desires to retract he is not at liberty to do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Convey' being equivalent to 'take possession of', so that as soon as it comes into the agent's hand it is effective. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Nathan says: If he says, Convey and give it to her, he can retract,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Convey' not being regarded as equivalent to 'take possession of'. ');">²⁰</span> but if he says, Take possession of it and receive it for her, he cannot retract. Rabbi says, [If he uses] any of these formulas he cannot retract, but if he says, I am not agreeable that you should receive for her, but convey it and give it to her, then if he desires to retract he may do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tosef. Git. IV. ');">²¹</span> Does not Rabbi merely repeat the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first part of his statement. ');">²²</span> — If you like I can say that [he did so because] he desired to add the clause about not being agreeable, or if you like I can say that the repetition is meant to inform us that the first Tanna is Rabbi. The question was raised: According to R. Nathan, is 'here you are' equivalent to 'take possession' or not? 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 A GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.