שְׁקוֹל מִינָּהּ חֵפֶץ וַהֲדַר הַב לָהּ גִּיטָּא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְיָהֵיב לָהּ גִּיטָּא וַהֲדַר שְׁקַל מִינָּהּ חֵפֶץ; רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַכְשִׁיר בִּשְׁלוּחוֹ וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בּוֹ.

Take an item from her and then give her the bill of divorce, and he went and gave her the bill of divorce and then took the item from her. Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband’s instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent’s agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent’s agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself.

מתני׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְחָלָה – עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ בְּבֵית דִּין וּמְשַׁלְּחוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶם ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאֵין שָׁלִיחַ אַחֲרוֹן צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר: שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי.

With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court.

גמ׳ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימֵי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, בְּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא לָא תִּיבָּעֵי לְכוּ, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן – מִכְּלָל דִּמְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ.

The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: Can an agent of the first agent also appoint another agent, or not? He said to them: You should not raise this dilemma. From the fact that the mishna teaches: The final agent does not need to say, as opposed to: The second agent does not need to say, it can be seen by inference that the second agent can appoint an agent, resulting in the existence of a final agent, not just a second agent.

אֶלָּא כִּי תִּיבָּעֵי לְכוּ: כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ, בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא מִבָּעֲיָא לָן, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי.

Rather, when you raise the dilemma, this is what you should ask: When the second agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court? They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as from the fact that it teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, it is clear that any agent in this role must be appointed in court.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לַאֲבִימֵי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, בְּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: שָׁלִיחַ דְּשָׁלִיחַ, כִּי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ, בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין?

The Gemara cites another version of the discussion. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach like this: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: When the agent of the first agent appoints another agent, does he need to appoint him specifically in court, or can he do so even while not in court?

אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְתִיבָּעֵי לְכוּ אִי מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ בְּעָלְמָא! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָא לָא קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן, דִּתְנַן: אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ הָאַחֲרוֹן – מִכְּלָל דְּשָׁלִיחַ מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ. אֶלָּא כִּי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן – בְּבֵית דִּין אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּבֵית דִּין? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא נַמִי לָא תִּיבָּעֵי לְכוּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר שְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אֲנִי.

He said to them: And you should raise the dilemma as to whether generally the agent of the first agent can appoint another agent. They said to him: We do not raise this dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: The final agent does not need to say, and by inference it can be seen that the second agent can appoint an agent. Rather, when the dilemma was raised to us, it was with respect to whether this must take place in court, or if it can take place while not in court. He said to them: You should also not raise this dilemma, as the mishna teaches: Rather, he says: I am an agent of the court, which shows that the subsequent appointments must take place in court.

אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁלִיחַ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשֶׂה כַּמָּה שְׁלוּחִין. אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: אִם מֵת רִאשׁוֹן – בָּטְלוּ כּוּלָּן.

§ Rabba says: An agent in Eretz Yisrael can appoint several agents, i.e., he can appoint an agent, and the second agent can appoint another agent in his place. All of this can take place outside of court, because when a bill of divorce is sent within Eretz Yisrael there is no need to testify that it was written and signed in the agent’s presence. Rav Ashi says: If the first agent died, then they are all canceled, as all the agents act on the basis of the first agent. With his death, the agency is canceled.

אֲמַר מָר בַּר רַב אַשִׁי: הָא דְּאַבָּא – דְּקַטְנוּתָא הִיא; אִילּוּ מֵת בַּעַל, מִידֵּי מְשָׁשָׁא אִית בְּהוּ? כּוּלְּהוּ מִכֹּחַ מַאן קָאָתוּ? מִכֹּחַ דְּבַעַל קָאָתוּ, אִיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – אִיתְנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, לֵיתֵיהּ לְבַעַל – לֵיתְנְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This statement of my father is from the time of his youth, and it is not correct, as, if the husband dies, even if all of the agents are alive, is there is any significance to any of them? All of them, from whose authority do they come to deliver the bill of divorce? They come from the husband’s authority. Therefore, if the husband is alive, they are all able to act as agents; if the husband is not alive, then they are all not agents. The status of the agents is dependent on the husband, not on the first agent.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁדַר לָהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר שָׁלִיחַ: לָא יָדַעֲנָא לָהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל יְהָבֵיהּ לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוּמִי, דְּאִיהוּ יָדַע לָהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלֵיתְבֵיהּ נִיהֲלָהּ. אֲתָא וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח לְאַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוּמִי, אַשְׁכַּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפָּא וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא וְיָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידָן, דְּכִי יֵיתֵי אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוּמִי נֵיתְבִינֵיהּ לֵיהּ, וְלֵיזִיל וְלֵיתְבִינֵיהּ לָהּ.

§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. The agent said: I do not know her. The husband said to him: Go give the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi, as he knows her, and he will go and give it to her. The agent came and did not find Abba bar Minyumi, and he did not know what to do. He found Rabbi Abbahu and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rav Safra was sitting among them. The agent asked them what he should do. The first three Sages said to him: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us, as when Abba bar Minyumi comes, we will give the bill of divorce to him, and he will go and give it to her.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא: וְהָא שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתָּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אִיכְסוּפוּ.

Rav Safra said to them: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as he was given only the authority to transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi? Therefore, he cannot transfer the agency to another person. These Sages were embarrassed that they ruled improperly.

אֲמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמוּכֵי. אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: בְּמַאי קַפְּחִינְהוּ? מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוּמִי וְלָא אַתְּ״?

Rava said: Rav Safra struck [ kappeḥinhu ] a blow to three ordained Sages, as although he was from Babylonia and not ordained, he was correct. Rav Ashi said: With what did he strike them? He did not conclusively refute their opinion, as, did the husband say to the agent: Abba bar Minyumi should deliver the bill of divorce and not you? Rather, he appointed this agent to deliver the bill of divorce, and added that if he cannot find the wife, then he can transfer the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אֲמַר רָבָא: קַפְּחִינְהוּ רַב סָפְרָא לִתְלָתָא רַבָּנַן סְמוּכֵי בְּטָעוּתָא. אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי: מַאי טָעוּתָא? מַאי קָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ – ״אַבָּא בַּר מִנְיוּמִי וְלָא אַתְּ״.

The Gemara cites another version of the discussion: There are those who say that Rava said: Rav Safra struck three ordained Sages mistakenly. Rav Ashi questioned Rava and said: What was the mistake? After all, what did the husband say to the agent? He said that Abba bar Minyumi should give his wife the bill of divorce, meaning that he and not you should give it, and Rav Safra’s ruling was correct.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁדַר לָהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ: לָא תֵּיתְבֵיהּ נִיהֲלָהּ עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין. אִתְנִיס בְּגוֹ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין,

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was an incident involving a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife with an agent. He said to the agent: Do not give the bill of divorce to her until thirty days have passed. Circumstances occurred within the thirty days that were beyond the agent’s control, and he saw that he would not be able to wait and give the wife the bill of divorce after thirty days, as per the husband’s instructions.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר רָבָא: חָלָה טַעֲמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּאָנוּס, הַאי נַמִי אָנוּס הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְסוֹר מִילָּךְ קַמֵּי דִּידָן, דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מְשַׁוֵּינַן שָׁלִיחַ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ נִיהֲלָהּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: וְהָא שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתָּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא! אֲמַר לְהוּ: כֵּיוָן דִּלְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ, כְּשָׁלִיחַ שֶׁנִּיתָּן לְגֵירוּשִׁין הוּא.

The agent came before Rava and asked what he should do. Rava said: What is the reason that the mishna permits an agent who became sick to appoint another agent in his place? It is because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and in the case of this one as well, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Rava said to the agent: Transfer your words, i.e., your agency, before us and we will serve as a court, so that after thirty days we will appoint an agent and he will give the bill of divorce to her. The Sages said to Rava: But isn’t he an agent who is not granted the ability to effect divorce, as within the thirty days he does not have the authority to divorce her? He said to them: Since it is so that after thirty days he is able to divorce her, he is considered an agent who is granted the ability to effect divorce.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט;

The Sages challenged Rava again: But in any case where an agent does not deliver a bill of divorce immediately, let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, thereby canceling the bill of divorce. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (76b): If, before traveling, a husband gives his wife a bill of divorce and says that it takes effect from now if I do not arrive from now until twelve months have passed, and he died within the twelve months, then this is a valid bill of divorce?

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא פִּיֵּיס! וַאֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכִי אֲמַר אַבָּא מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בְּאוֹמֵר ״נֶאֱמֶנֶת עָלַי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתִי״?

And we discussed this halakha : And let there be a concern that perhaps the husband was mollified and decided not to divorce his wife, and canceled the bill of divorce. And Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what my father, my master, Rav Huna, said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the husband says: My wife is deemed credible to say that I did not arrive. Since the husband abrogated his right to contest the validity of the divorce by granting absolute credibility to his wife, there is no concern that he may have canceled the bill of divorce, as even if he were to claim that he had done so, his claim would not be accepted. By contrast, in this incident, where the wife was never granted such credibility, there is a concern that perhaps he canceled the bill of divorce.

אִיכְסִיף. לְסוֹף אִיגְלַאי מִילְּתָא דַּאֲרוּסָה הֲוַאי. אָמַר רָבָא: אִם אָמְרוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה, יֹאמְרוּ בַּאֲרוּסָה?

Rava was embarrassed that he ruled incorrectly. Ultimately, the matter was revealed that this woman was the husband’s betrothed and that they had not married. Rava said: If they said that there is a concern with regard to a married woman that perhaps he was mollified, would they say the same with regard to a betrothed woman, whom he does not know well? Therefore, my ruling was correct.

אֲמַר רָבָא, הָא וַדַּאי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן:

Rava said: We certainly raise this dilemma: