Gittin 46

מכלל דעבד כשר אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן אין העבד נעשה שליח לקבל גט לאשה מיד בעלה לפי שאינו בתורת גיטין וקדושין

we may infer that a slave is qualified. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot be appointed an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband, because he does not come within the [provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage. R. Eleazar strongly demurred to this. Your reason, [he said,] is [that the slave cannot be an agent to do for another] a thing which he cannot do for himself. This would imply that he can be an agent for a thing which he can do for himself. How does this square with the fact that a heathen or a Samaritan can give <i>terumah</i> for himself, as we have learnt: 'If a heathen or a Samaritan gives <i>terumah</i> from his own produce, what is so given is genuine <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. III, 9. ');">¹</span>

מתקיף לה ר' אלעזר טעמא במילתא דליתיה הא במילתא דאיתיה כשר

and yet we also learn [in another place]: 'If a heathen gives <i>terumah</i> from the produce of an Israelite even with the latter's permission, what is so given is not regarded as terumah'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. I, 1. ');">²</span>

והא עובד כוכבים והא כותי דאיתנהו בתורת תרומה דנפשייהו דתנן העובד כוכבים והכותי שתרמו משלהם תרומתם תרומה ותנן עובד כוכבים שתרם של ישראל אפי' ברשות אין תרומתו תרומה

The reason is, is it not, that Scripture says, you also shall give your heave-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. ');">³</span>

מאי טעמא לאו משום דכתיב (אתם) (במדבר יח, ג) גם אתם מה אתם ישראל אף שלוחכם ישראל

and we take the superfluous word 'also' to indicate that just as you are Israelites, — so your agents must be Israelites?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the implication is wrong, and so the original idea must also be wrong. ');">⁴</span>

אמרי דבי ר' ינאי לא מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם בני ברית

— In the school of R. Jannai they replied: No! [The proper inference from the word 'also' is]: Just as you are sons of the Covenant, so must your agents be sons of the Covenant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a slave was regarded as a 'son of the Covenant', on the strength of Deut. XXIX, 9ff., Ye are standing all this day before the Lord your God&nbsp;… from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water&nbsp;… to enter into the covenant of the Lord. Thus a slave can be an agent. ');">⁵</span>

אמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אין העבד נעשה שליח לקבל גט אשה מיד בעלה לפי שאינו בתורת גיטין וקידושין ואע"פ ששנינו הרי את שפחה וולדך בן חורין אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot he made an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband because he does not come within [the provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage, and [this] in spite of the fact that we have a teaching: [If a man says to his female slave], 'You are a slave, but your child is free', if she was pregnant at the time she acquires freedom for it [the child].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 25a. ');">⁶</span>

מאי אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר ר' יוחנן תרתי אמר נראים דברים שהעבד מקבל גט לחבירו מיד רבו של חבירו אבל לא מיד רבו שלו

What is the point of [quoting]: 'if she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this refers to a writ of emancipation, how can we derive a ruling from it for a writ of divorce? ');">⁷</span>

ואם לחשך אדם לומר זו הלכה שנויה אם היתה עוברה זכתה לו אמור לו שני גדולי הדור פירשו את הדבר ר' זירא ור' שמואל בר רב יצחק

— When R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine], he said: R. Johanan said two things. [One was the dictum regarding a Get quoted above]. The other was this: It seems a reasonable view that a slave can receive a writ of emancipation on behalf of another slave from the master of that slave but not from his own master.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the slave to be emancipated belongs to the same master as he himself. The reason is that he is regarded as merely the hand of his master, and therefore does not become owner of the writ on behalf of his fellow-slave. ');">⁸</span>

חד אמר הא מני רבי היא דאמר המשחרר חצי עבדו קנה וחד אמר מאי טעמא דרבי בהא קסבר עובר ירך אמו הוא ונעשה כמי שהקנה לה אחד מאבריה:

And if someone should whisper in your ear<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeking to mislead you. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אף הנשים שאינן נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא את גיטה חמותה ובת חמותה וצרתה ויבמתה ובת בעלה

that there is a <i>halachah</i> laid down which contradicts this, [viz.] 'If she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that a slave can accept a writ of emancipation on behalf of another slave even from his own master. ');">¹⁰</span>

מה בין גט למיתה שהכתב מוכיח האשה עצמה מביאה את גיטה ובלבד שהיא צריכה לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם:

reply to him that two great authorities in their generation, R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac, explained the matter. One said that this [teaching] follows the opinion of Rabbi who said that if a man emancipates the half of his slave, the slave acquires [freedom in regard to the one half], and the other said [in further explanation] that the reason of Rabbi [for applying this to the present case] is that he looks upon the embryo as part of the mother, and therefore the master [in freeing the child] as it were made her owner of one of her own limbs.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> והתניא כשם שאין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה כך אין נאמנות להביא גיטה אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן בארץ כאן בחו"ל

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. EVEN THE WOMEN WHOSE WORD IS NOT ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who are not believed'. ');">¹¹</span>

בארץ דלאו אדיבורה דידה קא סמכינן מהימנא בחו"ל דאדיבורה דידה קא סמכינן לא מהימנא

IF THEY SAY THE HUSBAND [OF A CERTAIN WOMAN] IS DEAD ARE ACCEPTED AS BEARERS OF HER GET. NAMELY, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW'S DAUGHTER, HER HUSBAND'S OTHER WIFE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'her rival'. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל אביי אדרבה איפכא מסתברא בארץ דאי אתי בעל מערער משגחינן ביה דאיכא למימר לקלקולא קא מיכוונה לא מהימנא בחוצה לארץ דאי אתי בעל מערער לא משגחינן ביה מהימנא

HER HUSBAND'S BROTHER'S WIFE, AND HER HUSBAND'S DAUGHTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These women are suspect of bearing a grudge against the wife and of harbouring a desire to spite her. ');">¹³</span>

תניא כוותיה דאביי ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"ע אשה נאמנת להביא גיטה מק"ו ומה נשים שאמרו חכמים אין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא גיטה היא שנאמנת לומר מת בעלה אינו דין שנאמנת להביא גיטה

WHY IS A GET DIFFERENT FROM [A REPORT OF] DEATH? BECAUSE THE WRITING AFFORDS PROOF. A WOMAN MAY BE THE BEARER OF HER OWN GET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a place which the husband specifies. ');">¹⁴</span> ONLY SHE IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before a Beth din in the place specified. ');">¹⁵</span> 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [How can you say this] seeing that it has been taught: Just as these women's word is not accepted as evidence that her husband is dead, so they are not accepted as bearers of her Get? — R. Joseph replied: There is no contradiction. The one rule is for Eretz Yisrael, the other for outside Eretz [Yisrael]. In Eretz Yisrael, where we do not rely upon her [word],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because witnesses to the signatures are always available. ');">¹⁶</span> such a woman is permitted to bring the Get: outside Eretz [Yisrael], where we should have to rely upon her [word],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. on the declaration, 'In my presence' etc. ');">¹⁷</span> she is not permitted to bring it. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: in Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we take note of his objection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The declaration 'in my presence' etc., not having been made. ');">¹⁸</span> it could be argued that the woman has been deliberately trying to make mischief, and therefore she should not be trusted, but outside, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we do not pay any attention to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the Get has been certified by virtue of the declaration in my presence etc. ');">¹⁹</span> she should be trusted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she cannot be trying to make mischief. ');">²⁰</span> It has been taught in accordance with the view of Abaye: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Akiba: That a woman may be trusted to bring her own Get may be established <i>a fortiori</i>. For since those women whose word [the Rabbis] declared to be inacceptable as evidence that her husband is dead can be trusted as bearers of her Get, does it not follow that she herself whose word is accepted as evidence that her husband is dead should be trusted to bring her own Get?