Gittin 126
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 opinion recorded being that of R. Nathan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who would accordingly hold that 'here you are' is equivalent to 'take possession'. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
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
Come and hear: CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT FOR HER, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. Now the reason why he may retract is because he said, I am not agreeable etc., and if he did not say so he may not retract. Does not this mean, after he says, 'Here you are, the opinion recorded being that of R. Nathan? — No; it means [even] after he says, 'Convey', the opinion recorded being that of Rabbi.
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
Come and hear: '[If a man says], Convey this Get to my wife, if he desires to retract he may do so, but if he says, Here is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here you are'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
התם ספק ממונא לקולא הכא ספק איסורא לחומרא
this Get for my wife, if he desires to retract he may not do so.' What authority do you find for the view that if the husband says 'convey' he is at liberty to retract? R. Nathan; and he lays down that if the husband says 'here you are' he is not at liberty to retract. This proves conclusively that 'here you are' is [according to R. Nathan]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a plus forte raison according to Rabbi. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מ"ט דרב איבעית אימא משום בזיון דבעל
It has been stated: [If the wife says], Receive my Get for me, and [the agent says to the husband], Your wife told me to receive her Get for her, and the husband says, Convey and give it to her, R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna, who had it from Rab, that he becomes both her agent and his agent, and [in case of need]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the husband dies childless before she receives the Get. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אב"א משום חצרה הבא לאחר מיכן
she must perform <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But must not marry the husband's brother, because it is doubtful whether she was not divorced before the husband's death, (v. Glos.). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דקדמה איהי ושויה שליח מעיקרא
This would seem to show that Rab was in doubt whether 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession' or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is equivalent to 'take possession', the man is still agent for the wife, and the Get is valid as soon as it comes into his hands. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
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
Yet how can this be, seeing that it has been stated: [If a man says], Take this <i>maneh</i> to so-and-so to whom I owe it, Rab says that he is responsible for it [till it is delivered]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the creditor did not tell him to send it. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
שלחוה לקמיה דר' אמי שלח להו לא חזרה שליחות אצל הבעל ור' חייא בר אבא אמר נתיישב בדבר
— [There is still a doubt, but] in that case the doubt concerns the ownership of money, and Rab takes the more lenient view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one more favourable to the recipient. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
הדור שלחוה קמיה דר' חייא בר אבא אמר כל הני שלחו לה ואזלי כי היכי דמספקא להו לדידהו הכי נמי מספקא לן לדידן
in this case it concerns a religious offence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possibility of a man marrying the divorced wife of his brother. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
הוה עובדא ואצרכה רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא גט וחליצה תרתי גט מחיים וחליצה לאחר מיתה
Rab said: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband. R. Haninah, however, said that a woman may appoint an agent to receive her Get from the agent of her husband. What is Rab's reason? — If you like I can say, to avoid showing contempt for the husband, and if you like I can say, because of [the resemblance of the agent to] a courtyard which comes [in to her possession] subsequently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the Get had been placed in it. A Get must either be given into a woman's hand or placed in property belonging to her, (v. infra 77a). If the husband threw the Get into a courtyard not belonging to the wife and it subsequently came into her possession while the Get was still there, the Get is not valid. There is a certain analogy between this and the wife appointing an agent to receive from the husband's agent, so that if the latter were permitted, people might think that the former was also permitted. v. supra p. 95, n. 9, ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ההיא דהוו קרו לה נפאתה אזול סהדי כתוב תפאתה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב עשו עדים שליחותן
What difference does it make in practice which reason we adopt? — The difference arises in the case where she had appointed her agent first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is now no analogy with the courtyard. but the reason of contempt still applies. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מתקיף לה רבה מי קאמר להו כתובו חספא והבו לה אלא אמר רבה ודאי אי כתוב סהדי גיטא מעליא ואבד עשו עדים שליחותן
A certain man sent a Get to his wife, and the bearer found her kneading [flour]. He said to her, Here is your Get. She replied You take it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let it be in your hand', i.e., she appointed him her agent for receiving it. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
מתקיף לה רב נחמן מי קאמר להו כתבו ואנחוה בכיסייכו אלא אמר רב נחמן כותבין ונותנין אפי' מאה פעמים:
R. Nahman thereupon said: If [I knew that] R. Haninah is right. I would count this a valid Get. Said Raba to him: And even if R. Haninah is right, would you count this valid? There has been no time for the agent to return to the husband [and report]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 95, n. 3, And consequently the second agency nullifies the first. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
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:
R. Hiyya b. Abba, however, said: We must consider the matter. They again sent to consult R. Hiyya b. Abba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Palestine. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי צריכה שתי כיתי עדים שנים שאומרי' בפנינו אמרה ושני' שאומרים בפנינו קבל וקרע אפי' הן הראשוני' והן האחרוני'
He said: How many more times will they send? Just as they are unable to decide, so we are unable to decide. The danger of forbidden relationship,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., of a man marrying his brother's divorcee. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> is involved, and wherever a sex prohibition is involved, the woman must perform <i>halizah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not marry the husband's brother. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> In a case which actually happened, R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha declared both a new Get and <i>halizah</i> to be required. [Why] both? — A Get [if she desired to marry while the husband] was alive, and <i>halizah</i> [if she wanted to marry] after his death. There was a certain woman named Nafa'atha, and the witnesses to the Get<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were commissioned to write and deliver it. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> wrote it Tafa'atha. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha thereupon said in the name of Rab: The witnesses have discharged their commission.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After delivering it to her, and have no power to make out a new, and proper Get. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> Rabbah strongly demurred to this, saying. Did the husband say to them, Write out a piece of clay and give it to her? No, said Rabbah. [This is not so,] but in truth, if the witnesses had written a proper Get and it had been lost [before being given to her], then we should say that they had discharged their commission. R. Nahman strongly demurred to this, saying: Did he say, Write it and put it in your bag?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it should not be lost. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> The fact is, said R. Nahman, that the Get can be written and given a hundred times [till it comes right]. Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a man said [to the witnesses], Write [the Get] and give it to a bearer, how do we decide? Have they been discharged,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the bearer loses it they must not write another, ');"><sup>24</sup></span> or did he merely want to save them trouble? Rabina asked R. Ashi: Suppose he adds the words, 'And let him take it,' what do we say? — These questions can stand over. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY] 'TAKE FOR ME' [AND HE DOES SO], HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT. Our Rabbis taught: 'Take for me, carry for me,' 'keep for me'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let it be for me in thy hand.' ');"><sup>25</sup></span> are all equivalent to receive. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A WOMAN WHO SAYS [TO AN AGENT] 'RECEIVE MY GET FOR ME' REQUIRES TWO SETS OF WITNESSES, TWO [WITNESSES] TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE SHE TOLD HIM, AND TWO TO SAY, IN OUR PRESENCE HE RECEIVED [THE GET] AND TORE IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point of this is discussed in the Gemara. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> IT IS IMMATERIAL IF THE FIRST SET ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE LAST