מתני׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר.

With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until the document reaches his wife’s possession. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.

לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אִיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר;

Therefore, if the husband said to the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: I do not want [ ee ifshi ] for you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver it and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation and cancel the agency, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wife’s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wife’s possession.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even a woman who did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but says: Take my bill of divorce for me, thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, if after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband seeks to retract his decision and cancel the agency, he cannot retract it.

גמ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָוְיָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: טַעְמָא דְּלָא שְׁוִיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה, הָא שְׁוִיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה, רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי!

The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi that one may infer: The reason that he may retract the designation is that the woman did not designate the agent as an agent for receipt. However, in a case where she designated him as an agent for receipt, then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his statement, he cannot retract it. Rav Aḥa suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ;

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, there is no proof, as actually I could say to you that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, and it is the case where the husband said: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, that was necessary for the tanna to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.

דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמִינָא הוֹאִיל וּבַעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוְיֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְטָא גִּיטָּא לְיָדָהּ – לָא לֶהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּ״הִתְקַבֵּל וְהוֹלֵךְ״ קָאָמַר.

This is as it might enter your mind to say that since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt, but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, even though the bill of divorce reached her possession, it is not a valid bill of divorce. Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is as though he said: Receive and deliver the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.

תְּנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר; מַאי לָאו לָא שְׁנָא אַקַּבָּלָה, לָא שְׁנָא אַהוֹלָכָה?

The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. We learned in the mishna that in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, he cannot retract it. What, is it not that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, it is no different whether he employed an expression of receipt and it is no different whether he employed an expression of delivery, and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.

לָא, אַקַּבָּלָה.

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case of receipt, i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל ״אִי אִיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר; טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר ״אִי אִיפְשִׁי״, הָא לָא אֲמַר ״אִי אִיפְשִׁי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי!

The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna. Therefore, if the husband said to the woman’s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason he can retract his designation is due to the fact that he said: I do not want, thereby canceling the agent’s status as an agent of receipt. However, if he did not say: I do not want, but he said: Deliver this bill of divorce, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. The Gemara suggests: Learn from the mishna that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.

דִּילְמָא בְּ״הֵילָךְ״.

The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Perhaps the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [ holekh ]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: Here you are [ heilakh ]. The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.

פְּשִׁיטָא, אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה – שֶׁכֵּן בַּעַל מוֹלִיךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה הָוְיָא שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה – שֶׁכֵּן אִשָּׁה מְקַבֶּלֶת גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ. אִישׁ לְקַבָּלָה וְהָאִשָּׁה לְהוֹלָכָה, מַאי?

§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental halakha of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is obvious that a man can be designated an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wife’s bill of divorce. And similarly, it is obvious that a woman can be designated an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband. However, with regard to designating a man as an agent for receipt and designating a woman as an agent for delivery, what is the halakha ?

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר; הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר; מַאי לָאו בְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה! לָא, בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁלוּחִין.

The Gemara states: Come and hear a proof from the mishna. With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. However, in the case of a woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, if the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. What, is it not referring to one and the same agent in both cases, and conclude from it that the agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is to two different agents, an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל ״אִי אִיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר; וְהָא הָכָא דְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ הוּא, וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה.

The Gemara states: Come and hear an additional proof from the mishna: Therefore, if the husband said to the woman’s agent of receipt: I do not want you to receive the bill of divorce on her behalf; rather, deliver it and give it to her, if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it. And isn’t the case here one where it is one agent whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, and conclude from the mishna that an agent who is valid for receipt is valid for delivery as well?

פְּשׁוֹט מִינָּהּ: אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה – שֶׁכֵּן אָב מְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה. אִשָּׁה לְהוֹלָכָה תִּיבָּעֵי לָךְ, מַאי? אֲמַר רַב מָרִי, תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר ״מֵת בַּעְלָהּ״ – נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּיטָּהּ; וְהָתָם הוֹלָכָה הִיא.

The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: Resolve from the mishna that a man can be an agent for receipt, and that is reasonable, as a father receives a bill of divorce on behalf of his daughter who is a minor because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether a woman can be an agent for delivery, raise the dilemma: What is the halakha ? Rav Mari said: Come and hear a resolution based on the mishna (23b): Even the women who are not deemed credible to say that a woman’s husband died, because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce to her. And there, in the case in that mishna, the woman is an agent for delivery.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: מִסֵּיפָא נַמִי שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, וְאוֹקִימְנָא בְּהוֹלָכָה, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

Rav Ashi said: Learn a resolution to that dilemma from the latter clause of that mishna as well, as the latter clause of that mishna teaches: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required by the court to state in its presence: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established that the woman acts as an agent for delivery. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.

אִיתְּמַר: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אָמַר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״,

§ It was stated that if a woman says to an agent: Bring my bill of divorce to me, and the agent then says to her husband: Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband hands him the bill of divorce and says: Here you are, as she said; that the amora’im engage in a dispute as to the halakha . Is the halakha determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the woman’s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ, אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִּידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ, דְּאִי אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִּידָהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ, מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לְיָדָהּ מִיהָא תִּיגָּרֵשׁ!

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In that case, even if the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this statement that the husband relies on the agent’s statement as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. As, if the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband relies on his wife’s statement as to what the agent’s status is, then at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced, as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.

אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: הָכִי הָשְׁתָּא?!

Rav Ashi said: How can these cases be compared?