Gittin 57

אבל בב"ד של ישראל כיון דנפק ליה דינא לקטלא קטלי ליה

but in the case of an Israelite court once it condemns him to execution he is executed. Said Abaye to him: In an Israelite court also it is possible that some circumstance may be found in his favour [after his condemnation]? — Such a circumstance happens before the sentence is pronounced; after the sentence is pronounced it does not happen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., it may happen but rarely (Rashi)]. ');">¹</span>

א"ל אביי ב"ד של ישראל נמי אפשר דחזו ליה זכותא כי חזו ליה זכותא מקמי דליגמר דינא בתר גמר דינא תו לא חזו ליה זכותא

May we say that this view is supported by the following: Whenever two persons come forward and say. We testify against So-and-so that he was condemned to death in such-and-such a <i>Beth din</i>, So-and-so and So-and-so being witnesses against him, such a man has to be put to death'? — Perhaps a condemned man who has escaped is different. Come and hear: If he heard [a report] from an Israelite court that So-and-so died or was put to death, they allow his wife to marry again. [If, however, the report came], from a heathen court that he died or was put to death, they do not allow his wife to marry again. Now what is meant here by 'died' and 'put to death'? Shall I say these terms are to be taken literally? Then why in the case of a heathen court is the wife not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle that [the word of] a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted [in questions relating to marriage]? I must therefore understand the words 'died' and 'put to death' in the sense of 'taken out to die' or 'to be put to death'; and yet it states [that if the report comes] from an Israelite court they do allow the wife to marry again!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which supports R. Joseph. ');">²</span>

לימא מסייעא ליה כ"מ שיעמדו שנים ויאמרו מעידים אנו את איש פלוני שנגמר דינו בבית דינו של פלוני ופלוני ופלוני עדיו ה"ז יהרג דלמא בורח שאני

[The passage means] really 'died' and really 'put to death',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so the passage does not support R. Joseph. ');">³</span>

ת"ש שמע מב"ד של ישראל שהיו אומרים איש פלוני מת איש פלוני נהרג ישיאו את אשתו מקומנטריסים של עובדי כוכבים איש פלוני מת איש פלוני נהרג אל ישיאו את אשתו

and as for your question why in such a case [if the report comes] from a heathen court is she not allowed to marry again, seeing that it is a recognised principle with us that the word of a heathen speaking without ulterior motive is to be accepted, [the answer is that] this applies only to a matter in which the heathen has not participated, but where the matter is one in which they have themselves participated, he is prone to indulge in falsehood.

מאי מת ומאי נהרג אילימא מת ממש ונהרג ממש דכוותיה גבי עובדי כוכבים אמאי אל ישיאו את אשתו הא קיי"ל כל מסיח לפי תומו הימוני מהימני ליה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET IN ERETZ YISRAEL FALLS ILL, HE CAN SEND IT ON BY ANOTHER. IF, HOWEVER, [THE HUSBAND] SAID TO HIM, TAKE FOR ME<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When delivering the Get to her. ');">⁴</span>

אלא לאו מת יוצא למות ונהרג יוצא ליהרג וקתני בב"ד של ישראל ישיאו את אשתו

SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ARTICLE FROM HER, HE MAY NOT SEND IT [THE GET] ON BY ANOTHER, SINCE THE HUSBAND MAY NOT WANT HIS PLEDGE TO BE IN THE HAND OF ANOTHER.

לעולם מת ממש ונהרג ממש דכוותיה גבי עובדי כוכבים אמאי לא והא קיי"ל דכל מסיח לפי תומו הימוני מהימני הני מילי במילתא דלא שייכי בה אבל במילתא דשייכי בה עבדי לאחזוקי שקרייהו:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Kahana said: We have learnt specifically. IF HE FALLS ILL, Cannot I see that for myself? — [Unless R. Kahana had pointed this out] you might think that the same rule applies even if he does not fall ill, and that [the Mishnah] merely mentioned a usual case. Hence he tells us [that this is not so], How [am I to] understand [the Mishnah]? If the husband said to the bearer simply 'take this [Get]', then surely even if he did not fall ill he can send it on by another? If, however, the husband said, 'You take this,' then even if he did fall ill he cannot send it on by another? And if [the Mishnah] follows R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, then even if he fell ill [although the husband merely said 'take'] he cannot [send it on by another], as it has been taught: 'If a man said, Take this Get to my wife, [the bearer] can send it on by another. If he said, You take this Get to my wife, [the bearer] cannot send it on by another. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: In either case one agent cannot appoint another'? — If you like I can answer that he said 'Take,' for [even this formula authorises the bearer to send it on by another] only if he falls ill; or if you like I can say that he said 'You take', for only where he falls ill it is different:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This formula prohibits the agent from sending it on only when he is well, but not when he falls ill. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המביא גט בא"י וחלה הרי זה משלחו ביד אחר ואם אמר לו טול לי הימנה חפץ פלוני לא ישלחנו ביד אחר שאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר:

and if you like I can say that the Mishnah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an agent may not appoint an agent. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב כהנא חלה תנן פשיטא חלה קתני מהו דתימא ה"ה אע"ג דלא חלה והאי דקתני חלה אורחא דמילתא קתני קמ"ל

only where the bearer falls ill it is different.

היכי דמי אי דא"ל הולך אע"ג דלא חלה נמי ואי דא"ל את הולך אפי' חלה נמי לא ואי רשב"ג אפילו חלה נמי לא

We learnt: IF THE BEARER OF A GET IN ERETZ YISRAEL FALLS ILL, HE CAN SEND IT ON BY ANOTHER. Does not this contradict the following? [For we learnt:] 'If a man says to two persons, "Give a Get to my wife," or to three persons, "Write a Get and give it to my wife," they are to write and give it':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 66a. ');">⁷</span>

דתניא הולך גט זה לאשתי ה"ז משלחו ביד אחר את הולך גט זה לאשתי הרי זה לא ישלחנו ביד אחר רשב"ג אומר בין כך ובין כך אין השליח עושה שליח

[which implies, does it not, that] they themselves are [to write it] but not an agent [of theirs]? — Abaye replied: There the reason is that they should not put the husband to shame,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if they tell a third party to write it. more people will know that the husband is unable to write it himself. ');">⁸</span>

איבעית אימא הולך והוא דחלה ואי בעית אימא את הולך וחלה שאני ואי בעית אימא רשב"ג היא וחלה שאני

but here the husband is not particular.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is nothing to be particular about ');">⁹</span>

תנן המביא גט בא"י וחלה הרי זה משלחו ביד אחר ורמינהו אמר לשנים תנו גט לאשתי או לשלשה כתבו גט ותנו לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו אינהו אין אבל שליח לא

Raba said: [The reason there is that he only gave them] verbal instructions, and verbal instructions cannot be transmitted to an agent. Does any difference arise in practice between the two? — It does: in the case of a gift,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man said to two or three persons. 'Write me a deed of gift for So-and-so.' Here the question of saving the face of the donor does not arise, as the donor was not supposed to write out his own deed of gift. (V. B.B., 167b). ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אביי התם טעמא מאי משום בזיון דבעל הכא בעל לא קפיד

their difference being in principle the same as that between Rab and Samuel, Rab holding that a gift is not on all fours with a Get and Samuel holding that it is.

רבא אמר משום דמילי נינהו ומילי לא מימסרן לשליח

IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, TAKE FOR ME SUCH-AND-SUCH AN ARTICLE FROM HER. Resh Lakish said: Here Rabbi meant [merely] to teach us that the borrower may not lend the article he has borrowed further, nor may the hirer hire it out further.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the Mishnah is merely intended to state a prohibition, without affecting the validity of the Get should the bearer send it on by someone else. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו שליח מתנה ובפלוגתא דרב ושמואל רב אמר מתנה אינה כגט ושמואל אמר מתנה הרי היא כגט:

Said R. Johanan to him: This even schoolchildren know. What we should say is that sometimes [if the bearer did send the Get on by another bearer] the Get itself is no Get, because he puts himself in the same position as the bearer who was told by the husband not to divorce the wife except in the lower room and he divorced her in the upper room, or who was told not to divorce her except with the right hand and he divorced her with the left. Now both authorities are agreed that where she goes out to meet him [the second bearer] and gives him the article and then takes from him the Get, it is a perfectly valid Get.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Although the husband may not approve of his pledge being in the possession of a third party, the Get is not invalidated since there has been no departure from the husband's instructions in regard to the delivery of the Get itself.] ');">¹²</span>

ואם אמר לו טול לי הימנה חפץ פלוני: אמר ריש לקיש כאן שנה רבי אין השואל רשאי להשאיל ואין השוכר רשאי להשכיר

Where they differ is in the case where the husband said to the bearer,

אמר לו רבי יוחנן זו אפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעים אותה אלא זימנין דגיטא נמי לא הוי דנעשה כמי שאמר לו אל תגרשה אלא בבית וגירשה בעלייה אל תגרשה אלא בימין וגירשה בשמאל

דכולי עלמא היכא דנפקה לאפיה ויהבה ליה חפץ והדר שקלה מיניה גיטא כולי עלמא לא פליגי דגיטא גיטא מעליא הוי כי פליגי היכא דא"ל