הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְחוּמְרָא, אֲבָל לְקוּלָּא לָא.

The Gemara answers: This matter, the presumption that an agent performs his agency, applies only when its application leads to stringency, as there is a concern that the agent performed his agency. However, when its application leads to leniency, no, the presumption does not apply.

וְלִיהֵמְנָהּ לְדִידָהּ מִדְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ ״גֵּירַשְׁתָּנִי״ – נֶאֱמֶנֶת, חֲזָקָה אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מְעִיזָה פָּנֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי בַּעְלָהּ!

The Gemara asks: But let one deem the wife herself credible, based on the statement of Rav Hamnuna, as Rav Hamnuna says: A woman who said to her husband: You divorced me, is deemed credible, as there is a presumption that a woman would not be insolent in the presence of her husband and lie.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּקָא מְסַיַּיע לָהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָהּ – מְעִיזָּה וּמְעִיזָּה.

The Gemara answers: This matter applies only in a case where there is no factor that supports her claim, However, in a case where there is a factor that supports her claim, as in this case both the husband and the third party claim that the husband sent a bill of divorce, she would indeed be insolent. Therefore, her claim that she was divorced is accepted only if she can produce the bill of divorce.

מתני׳ נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, הִיא וְאָבִיהָ מְקַבְּלִין אֶת גִּיטָּהּ; אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵין שְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם זוֹכוֹת כְּאַחַת, אֶלָּא אָבִיהָ מְקַבֵּל אֶת גִּיטָּהּ בִּלְבַד. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהִתְגָּרֵשׁ.

With regard to a betrothed young woman, she and her father are each eligible to receive her bill of divorce, and the divorce takes effect at the moment that either of them receives the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yehuda said: Two hands do not have the right to acquire an item on behalf of one person as one. Rather, her father alone receives her bill of divorce on her behalf. And there is another principle: Any female who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced.

גמ׳ בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יָדָא יְתֵירְתָּא זָכֵי לָהּ רַחֲמָנָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: בִּמְקוֹם אָבִיהָ, יָד דִּילָהּ לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the Rabbis, who stated the unattributed first opinion in the mishna, and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? The Rabbis hold: The Merciful One grants the betrothed young woman an additional hand, beyond the hand of her father, who can receive the bill of divorce on her behalf. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: In a place, i.e., situation, where her father is alive, her hand is nothing and she is ineligible to receive her bill of divorce.

״וְכָל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת גִּיטָּהּ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קְטַנָּה הַיּוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת גִּיטָּהּ – מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת גִּיטָּהּ – אֵינָהּ מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קְטַנָּה יוֹדַעַת לִשְׁמוֹר אֶת גִּיטָּהּ? כָּל שֶׁמְּשַׁמֶּרֶת גִּיטָּהּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר.

The mishna teaches: And any woman who is unable to safeguard her bill of divorce is unable to be divorced. The Sages taught: A minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce can be divorced, and one who does not know how to safeguard her bill of divorce cannot be divorced. And which is the minor girl who knows how to safeguard her bill of divorce? It is any minor girl who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else.

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כָּל שֶׁמְּשַׁמֶּרֶת דָּבָר אַחֵר מֵחֲמַת גִּיטָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna saying in the statement: Who safeguards her bill of divorce and something else? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this is what he is saying: Any minor who safeguards something else due to her bill of divorce, i.e., she lost her bill of divorce itself but she guards something else that she mistook for her bill of divorce.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ: הָא שׁוֹטָה בְּעָלְמָא הִיא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: כָּל שֶׁמַּבְחֶנֶת בֵּין גִּיטָּהּ לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ objects to this: That minor girl is merely an imbecile, as she keeps something else in lieu of her bill of divorce. Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ says in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: The reference is to any girl who distinguishes between her bill of divorce and something else, and safeguards her bill of divorce and does not safeguard less significant items.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִי: צְרוֹר וְזוֹרְקוֹ, אֱגוֹז וְנוֹטְלוֹ – זוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵין זוֹכֶה לַאֲחֵרִים. חֵפֶץ וּמַחֲזִירוֹ לְאַחַר שָׁעָה – זוֹכֶה בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ וּבֵין לַאֲחֵרִים;

Apropos minors, Rav Yehuda says that Rabbi Asi says: If one gives a child a pebble and he throws it away a nut and he takes it, he is capable of distinguishing between items of value and worthless items, and he acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others. If the child develops to the extent that he is given an item and he returns it to its owners later, because he understands the concept of ownership, he acquires property both for himself and on behalf of others.

כִּי אָמְרִיתָהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לִי: דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא. מַאי ״דָּא וְדָא אַחַת הִיא״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – זוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְאֵין זוֹכֶה לַאֲחֵרִים.

Rav Yehuda continued. When I stated Rabbi Asi’s ruling before Shmuel he said to me: This and that are one. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: This and that are one? Rav Ḥisda says: With regard to both this child and that child, each acquires property for himself but does not acquire property on behalf of others, and there is no distinction in this regard between the developmental stages of a minor.

מְתִיב רַב חִינָּנָא וַורְדָאן: כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בְּמָבוֹי? מַנִּיחַ אֶת הֶחָבִית וְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ לְכָל בְּנֵי הַמָּבוֹי״, וּמְזַכֶּה לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, וְעַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הָעִבְרִים;

Rav Ḥinnana of Vardania raises an objection based on what was taught in a mishna ( Eiruvin 79b): How does one merge the courtyards that open into the alleyway on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. And he may confer possession of the wine to the other residents of the alleyway by means of his adult son or daughter, or by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant.

הַאי שִׁפְחָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאָתְיָא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, מַאי בָּעֲיָא גַּבֵּיהּ? אֶלָּא לָאו דְּלָא אַתְיָא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, וְקָתָנֵי: זוֹכָה לַאֲחֵרִים!

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If she developed two pubic hairs, indicating that she reached majority, what is she doing with the owner of the barrel? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. Rather, is the reference here not to a case where she did not yet develop two pubic hairs, and she is a minor, and it is taught that she can acquire on behalf of others? Apparently, a minor can acquire property on behalf of other people.

שָׁאנֵי שִׁיתּוּפֵי מְבוֹאוֹת, דְּרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The merging of alleyways is different, as it is an ordinance by rabbinic law. The Sages ruled leniently with regard to this rabbinic ordinance and allowed a minor to acquire property on behalf of others.

אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִישְׁתִּיק וַורְדָאן. מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? כָּל דִּתְקוּן רַבָּנַן

Rav Ḥisda said: Rav Ḥinnana of Vardonia was silent and had no response. The Gemara asks: What could he have said in response? The Gemara answers that he could have responded: All ordinances that the Sages instituted,