מַאי לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא, בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ וְרַבִּי.

What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that if the husband says: Here you are, it is not comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that even in that case the husband cannot retract his decision.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – יַחֲזוֹר; טַעְמָא דַּאֲמַר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״, הָא לָא אֲמַר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי״, רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר;

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 for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, then if the husband seeks to retract his designation, he can retract it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: The reason that 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, then if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it.

מַאי לָאו בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ וְרַבִּי נָתָן? לָא, בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ וְרַבִּי.

What, is the reference in the mishna not to a case where the husband said to the agent: Here you are, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who apparently holds that the husband’s saying: Here you are, is not comparable to his saying: Acquire? The Gemara rejects this: No, the reference in the mishna is to a case where the husband said to the agent: Deliver, and it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר יַחֲזוֹר, ״הֵילָךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר לֹא יַחֲזוֹר; מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר בְּ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר יַחֲזוֹר? רַבִּי נָתָן, וְקָאָמַר בְּ״הֵילָךְ״ – רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר לֹא יַחֲזוֹר, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: ״הֵילָךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara states: Come and hear proof with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Natan from a baraita . If the husband said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, if he seeks to retract his decision he can retract it. If he said: Here you are; this bill of divorce is for my wife, if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Whom did you hear who said with regard to a case where the husband said: Deliver, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he can retract it? It is Rabbi Natan; and he says in the case of a husband who says: Here you are, that if the husband seeks to retract his decision he cannot retract it. Learn from the baraita that according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan, if the husband says: Here you are, it is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the baraita that it is so.

אִתְּמַר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: נַעֲשָׂה שְׁלוּחוֹ וּשְׁלוּחָהּ, וְחוֹלֶצֶת.

§ It was stated with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The agent becomes both the husband’s agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife’s agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife’s possession, she performs ḥalitza with the husband’s brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of receipt, in which case she was divorced and is forbidden to the brother.

לְמֵימְרָא, דְּמִסַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרַב אִי ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי אִי לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי? וְהָא אִתְּמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, אָמַר רַב: חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ, וְאִם בָּא לַחֲזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר!

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav was uncertain whether a case where the husband said: Deliver, is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, or whether it is not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire? But wasn’t it stated that in a case where one said to his agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, Rav says: The person who designated the agent bears financial responsibility for this money, and if it is lost he is required to pay the debt to his creditor. Nevertheless, if the person who designated the agent seeks to retract his designation and take the money back from the agent, then he cannot retract it, because the creditor acquires the money from the moment that the debtor handed it to his agent of delivery. Apparently, according to Rav, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.

הָתָם סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא, הָכָא סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא – לְחוּמְרָא.

The Gemara rejects this proof. There is a distinction between the agent for delivery of a bill of divorce and the agent for delivery of the repayment of a loan. There, in the case of repayment of a loan, because there is uncertainty with regard to monetary law, the ruling is lenient, as one does not extract money from another in cases of uncertainty with regard to monetary law. However, here, in the case of divorce there is uncertainty with regard to ritual law and the ruling is stringent.

אָמַר רַב: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ, וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: אִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל לָהּ גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ.

§ Rav says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent, and Rabbi Ḥanina says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband’s agent.

מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַב? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל;

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav, who said that she cannot appoint an agent to receive a bill of divorce from an agent? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say: It is due to the fact that her unwillingness to receive the document directly from his agent could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם חֲצֵרָהּ הַבָּא לְאַחַר מִיכָּן.

If you wish, say instead that it is a decree issued due to her courtyard that comes into her possession thereafter. If a husband places a bill of divorce in a courtyard that does not belong to his wife, and his wife then purchases the courtyard, the divorce does not take effect, because the husband neither gave the bill of the divorce directly to his wife nor did he place it in her property. Her subsequent purchase of the courtyard is tantamount to her finding and taking the document. In this case too, the woman designated her agent for receipt, who in this sense is comparable to her property or her courtyard, subsequent to her husband’s handing the bill of divorce to his agent of delivery. Were the divorce valid in that case, one might mistakenly conclude that divorce is likewise valid in a case where he placed the document in a courtyard that she subsequently acquired.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּקָדְמָה אִיהִי וְשָׁוְיָה שָׁלִיחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two reasons? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where she first appointed an agent from the outset, before the husband designated his agent for delivery. That case is not at all comparable to the case of a courtyard that a woman purchases after the document is placed there. However, the concern remains that it could be construed as a display of contempt for her husband.

הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּשְׁדַר לָהּ גִּיטָּא לִדְבֵיתְהוּ, אֲזַל שְׁלִיחָא אַשְׁכַּחָהּ כִּי יָתְבָה וְקָא לָיְשָׁא, אֲמַר לָהּ: הֵילָךְ גִּיטֵּךְ, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לֶיהֱוֵי בִּידָךְ; אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עֲבַדִי בָּהּ עוּבְדָא.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife. The agent went and found her while she was sitting and kneading. He said to her: Here you are, take your bill of divorce. She said to him: My hands are covered with dough and therefore let the bill of divorce be in your hand, i.e., serve as my agent for receipt. Rav Naḥman said: If it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina and she can designate an agent to receive a bill of divorce from her husband’s agent, then I would perform an action with regard to this woman and rule that the divorce takes effect.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְאִם אִיתָא לִדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, עָבְדַתְּ בָּהּ עוּבְדָא? הָא לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל!

Rava said to him: And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, would you perform an action with regard to this woman? In this case, as the agent did not actually hand her the bill of divorce, the agency was not completed and consequently the agent did not return to the husband and report that he performed the task for which he was designated. By designating him as her agent before he completed the agency on behalf of the husband, the wife nullified the agency of the husband. Therefore, the divorce does not take effect.

שְׁלַחוּהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמִי, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל. וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: נִתְיַישֵּׁב בַּדָּבָר.

Rav Naḥman and Rava sent this issue before Rabbi Ami. He sent a response to them: The agency did not return to the husband, and the divorce does not take effect. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: We will consider the matter and then respond.

הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אֲמַר: כָּל הָנֵי שָׁלְחוּ לָהּ וְאָזְלִי! כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמִסַּפְּקָא לְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ, הָכִי נַמִי מִסַּפְּקָא לָן לְדִידָן.

Later they again sent this issue before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said: All these times they continue to send questions? Just as the matter is uncertain to them, so too, it is uncertain to us, and I do not have a resolution to the uncertainty.

הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה, וְדָבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה – חוֹלֶצֶת.

The Gemara concludes: This is a case of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, i.e., a question of whether the woman is still married. And in cases of uncertainty with regard to a matter of forbidden relations, she performs ḥalitza . The ruling is stringent in this case of uncertainty. Therefore, if her husband died childless she may not remarry, due to the possibility that she was not divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that she was divorced and is therefore forbidden to him.

הֲוָה עוּבְדָא, וְאַצְרְכָהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא גֵּט וַחֲלִיצָה. תַּרְתֵּי?! גֵּט מֵחַיִּים, וַחֲלִיצָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

The Gemara says: There was an incident and Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta required the woman to receive both an additional bill of divorce and ḥalitza . The Gemara asks: Two of them? They are mutually exclusive. The second bill of divorce obviates the need for ḥalitza . The Gemara explains: He required a bill of divorce in a case where the husband was alive, and if the husband did not give her a bill of divorce, he required ḥalitza after the husband’s death.

הַהִיא דְּהָווּ קָרוּ לָהּ נְפָאתָה, אֲזוּל סָהֲדֵי כְּתוּב תְּפָאתָה, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who was named Nefata whose husband instructed witnesses to write and sign a bill of divorce and to divorce her. The witnesses went and mistakenly wrote Tefata in the bill of divorce. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: The bill of divorce is invalid because the name is wrong. However, the witnesses cannot write another bill of divorce in the correct manner because the witnesses already performed their agency and are no longer agents of the husband.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַבָּה: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כְּתוֹבוּ חַסְפָּא וַהֲבוּ לָהּ״? אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַבָּה: וַדַּאי אִי כְּתוּב סַהֲדֵי גִּיטָּא מַעַלְיָא וְאָבַד, עָשׂוּ עֵדִים שְׁלִיחוּתָן.

Rabba objects to this ruling. Does the husband say to them: Write a worthless earthenware shard and give it to her? He instructed them to write a valid bill of divorce; as long as they did not write a valid bill of divorce they did not perform their agency. Rather, Rabba said: Certainly, if the witnesses wrote a proper bill of divorce and it was lost, one would say that the witnesses performed their agency, and they are not authorized to write another bill of divorce. That is not the case if they wrote an invalid bill of divorce.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ ״כִּתְבוּ וְאַנְחוּהּ בְּכִיסַיְיכוּ״? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְעָמִים.

Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Rabba. Does the hus-band say to them: Write it and place it in your pockets? He instructed them to write the document and divorce her with it. They did not perform their agency by merely writing a valid bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: In every case of this type, the witnesses write a bill of divorce and give it to the wife even one hundred times.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ לְשָׁלִיחַ״, מַהוּ? סַלּוּקֵי סַלֵּיק לְהוּ, אוֹ דִּילְמָא לְטִירְחָא דִּידְהוּ חָיֵישׁ?

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where the husband said to witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent, what is the halakha ? Did the husband exclude them once they gave the bill of divorce to the agent, and they are no longer eligible to write another bill of divorce? Or perhaps the husband was concerned only about sparing them from their exertions, and that is why he instructed them to hand the document to an agent rather than deliver it themselves. Therefore, their agency remains in effect, and if necessary they can continue writing bills of divorce until the divorce takes effect.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַשִׁי: ״וְיוֹלִיךְ לָהּ״, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi, elaborating on the previous dilemma: If the husband said to the witnesses: Write a bill of divorce and give it to an agent and he will deliver it to her, what is the halakha ? shall stand unresolved.

״רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״ אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר – לֹא יַחֲזוֹר״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״טוֹל לִי״, וְ״שָׂא לִי״, וִ״יהֵא לִי בְּיָדְךָ״ – כּוּלָּן לְשׁוֹן קַבָּלָה הֵן.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, if the husband seeks to retract his decision, he cannot retract it. He is an agent for receipt and she is divorced once the bill of divorce reaches his possession. The Sages taught ( Tosefta 6:4): If the woman said to an agent: Take my bill of divorce for me, or: Lift my bill of divorce for me, or: The bill of divorce will be in your possession for me, all of them are expressions of receipt, and the divorce takes effect as soon as the bill of divorce reaches the possession of the agent.

מתני׳ הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – צְרִיכָה שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים, שְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ אָמְרָה״, וּשְׁנַיִם שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״בְּפָנֵינוּ קִבֵּל וְקָרַע״, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהֵן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים,

A woman who said to an agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, requires two sets of witnesses to confirm that she was divorced when the agent received the bill of divorce. She requires two witnesses who say: In our presence she said to the agent: Receive my bill of divorce on my behalf, and two who say: In our presence the agent received the bill of divorce and tore it. This testimony is effective even if two people are the first pair of witnesses and the same two are the latter pair of witnesses,