אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. אָמַר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יֹאמְרוּ לַאֲחֵרִים וְיִכְתְּבוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בֵּית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר;

or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. If he said to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, these people should tell others, and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אִישׁ אוֹנוֹ מִבֵּית הָאֲסוּרִין: מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי, בְּאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלֹשָׁה ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לַאֲחֵרִים וְיִכְתְּבוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן בֵּית דִּין.

And it is that halakha that Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono brought up from prison in the name of Rabbi Akiva, who was incarcerated there: I received a tradition from my teachers that in a case where a man says to three people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that these people should tell others and those others will write the document, because he designated the three people as a court.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, נוֹמֵינוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ: אַף אָנוּ מְקוּבָּלִין, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ וְיִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ.

Rabbi Yosei said: We said [ nomeinu ] to the agent, Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono: We too received a tradition. However, it is a different one, that even if a man said to the High Court [Sanhedrin] in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

אָמַר לַעֲשָׂרָה ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב וּשְׁנַיִם חוֹתְמִין, ״כּוּלְּכֶם כְּתוֹבוּ״ – אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב וְכוּלָּם חוֹתְמִין, לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן – הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט בָּטֵל.

If a man said to ten people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, one of the ten writes the bill of divorce and two sign it. If he said: All of you write the document, one of them writes the bill of divorce and all of them sign it. Therefore, if one of them died, then this is a bill of divorce that is null and void, as he directed all of them to participate in the process.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, שָׁלְחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, וְאָמְרוּ לַסּוֹפֵר וְכָתַב וְחָתְמוּ הֵן, מַהוּ? שָׁלַח לְהוּ: תֵּצֵא, וְהַדָּבָר צָרִיךְ תַּלְמוּד.

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: After Rav’s death, they sent a question from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: In a case where a man said to two people: Write and give a bill of divorce to my wife, and they told the scribe and he wrote the bill of divorce and they signed it, what is the halakha ? He sent this response to them: If the woman remarried on the basis of this bill of divorce, she should leave her second husband, and the matter requires study. It is necessary to clarify the halakha , as there is fundamental uncertainty with regard to this matter.

מַאי ״הַדָּבָר צָרִיךְ תַּלְמוּד״? אִילֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָווּ לְהוּ מִילֵּי, וּמִסַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ: מִילֵּי אִי מִימְסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ אִי לָא מִימְסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ?

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The matter requires study? What aspect of this question requires study? If we say that the uncertainty arises due to the fact that these are verbal directives, as the husband merely gave them instructions and did not hand them anything tangible, and Shmuel is uncertain whether verbal directives, instructions given to one agent, are transferred to another agent or whether verbal directives are not transferred to another agents; this leads to the question of whether the agents designated by the husband to write the bill of divorce can designate the scribe to write it. That cannot be the question.

וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר רַבִּי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימְסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ!

The Gemara explains why not: But didn’t Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Shmuel was not uncertain concerning this issue.

אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל הָא קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לֵיהּ: הַאי ״כְּתוֹבוּ״, אִי כְּתַב יָדָן אִי כְּתַב הַגֵּט.

Rather, this is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, the question is whether he was referring to their signatures, in which case they could designate the scribe to write the document, or whether he was referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce, in which case it would be incumbent upon them alone to write and sign the document.

וְתִיפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין: אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ!

The Gemara asks: But let Shmuel resolve the dilemma from the mishna: If a man said to two people: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or if a man said to three people: Write a bill of divorce and give it to my wife, these people should write the document themselves and give it to her. Apparently, they must write the bill of divorce themselves.

הִיא גּוּפָא קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לֵיהּ: ״כְּתוֹבוּ״, כְּתַב יָדָן הוּא אוֹ כְּתַב הַגֵּט הוּא? פְּשִׁיטָא דִּכְתַב הַגֵּט הוּא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, נוֹמֵינוּ לַשָּׁלִיחַ: אַף אָנוּ מְקוּבָּלִין, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אָמַר לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ וְיִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ לָהּ;

The Gemara answers: The proper interpretation of the mishna itself is the dilemma that Shmuel is raising: When the man told the two people: Write the bill of divorce, was he referring to their signatures, or was he referring to writing the text of the bill of divorce? The Gemara explains: It is obvious that it is referring to the writing of the bill of divorce, as it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: We said to the agent, Rabbi Ḥanina of Ono: We too received a tradition; that even if a man said to the High Court in Jerusalem: Give a bill of divorce to my wife, that the members of the court should learn to write, and should write the document themselves, and give it to his wife.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּתַב הַגֵּט הוּא – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּתַב יָדָן הוּא, מִי אִיכָּא בֵּי דִּינָא דְּלָא יָדְעִי מִחֲתַם חֲתִימַת יְדַיְיהוּ?! אִין, אִיכָּא בֵּי דִּינָא חֲדַתָּא.

Granted, if you say it means the writing of the bill of divorce, that they must write the actual bill of divorce, this works out well, as a certain degree of expertise is necessary in order to write a bill of divorce correctly. However, if you say that it means their signatures, is there a court whose members do not know how to sign their signatures? The Gemara responds: Yes, there is a new court, whose members have not yet learned to sign a unique signature that will be recognizable to the public.

וְאִי סְבִירָא לָן דְּהַאי ״כְּתוֹבוּ״ – כְּתַב יָדָן הוּא, הָא כְּתַב הַגֵּט כָּשֵׁר? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר רַבִּי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימְסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ!

The Gemara asks: But if we hold that this instruction: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, is the writing of the bill of divorce by a scribe valid? But didn’t Shmuel say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent.

אָמְרִי: אִי סְבִירִי לָן דִּ״כְתוֹבוּ״ – כְּתַב יָדָן הוּא, כְּתַב הַגֵּט נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״אִמְרוּ״, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִמְרוּ״. וּמִי מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִמְרוּ״? וְהָתְנַן: כְּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד – כָּשֵׁר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: חָתַם סוֹפֵר שָׁנִינוּ,

The Sages say in response that if we hold that the phrase: Write the bill of divorce, is a reference to their signatures, the writing of the bill of divorce becomes as one who says to those agents: Tell another to write it. And Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, that the agent can designate another to write the document. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei concede in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (87b): If a bill of divorce has the writing of a scribe, and the scribe identifies his handwriting, and one witness verifies his signature, it is valid as though two witnesses testified to ratify their signatures. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: We learned in the mishna that this is the halakha with regard to the scribe’s signature and not the scribe’s writing.

וַאֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִילֵּי לָא מִימְסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ;

And Rav Ḥisda said: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Yosei, who said: Verbal directives cannot be delegated to an agent, and there is no concern that the scribe signed the document without the husband instructing him to do so.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִמְרוּ״, נָפֵיק מִינָּהּ חוּרְבָה, דְּזִימְנִין דְּאָמַר לְהוּ לִשְׁנַיִם

And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of one who says: Tell another to write it, a pitfall will result from it. As sometimes, it happens that one said to two people: