Gittin 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

He should first take the object from her and then give her the bill of divorce [

take the object from her and afterward give her the bill of divorce]

and he went [

the agent or the agent’s agent]

and gave her the bill of divorce and afterward took the object from her [

he gave her the bill of divorce and only afterward took the object from her]; and this is how they disagreed:

Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates

even

it [

when the first agent did this],

and all the more so his agent

the agent of the agent who did this. Since in this manner the agency is void, he may never again send it through another agent, lest the agent fail to convey his instructions to his agent exactly as they were given, or lest the agent not act as he was instructed, and the bill of divorce will be invalid.

And Reish Lakish validates

even

through his agent

the agent of the agent who did this,

and all the more so through him [

through the first agent who did this]. This is because, according to Reish Lakish, the husband is not particular about the order; he merely stated the ordinary procedure.

The previous Mishna explained the law concerning one who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael and falls ill, that he should send it through another. The following Mishna explains what an agent who brings a bill of divorce from overseas should do if he falls ill, since he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

Mishna:

With regard to one who brings a bill of divorce from overseas and falls ill,

he

appoints

another

agent in court and sends it through him, since he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” whereas the second agent, who did not see the writing and the signing, cannot say this—

And the first agent

says

the first agent

before them

before the members of the court: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

And the final agent need not say

when he brings the bill of divorce to her: “

It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence”;

rather, he says: “

I am an agent of the court,” since presumably the court carried out the matter properly.

and presumably the court performed the matter in its proper valid manner.

Gemara:

The Sages said to Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Ask Rabbi Abbahu [

ask your father, Rabbi Abbahu, the following question]:

The agent of an agent,

i.e., the second agent appointed in court,

does he appoint

another

agent

another

or not?

He said to them

Avimi said to the Sages:

You need not ask this [

you have no need to ask this], since this law can be resolved from our Mishna:

As it teaches

in our Mishna: “

The final agent

need not say, ‘It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,’” and it does not teach: “The second agent

”;

by inference, even a second agent

may appoint an agent.

Rather, what you need to ask

but this is what you should ask:

When

the second agent

appoints an agent

another agent,

in court

is he able to appoint an agent only in court,

or even outside court

can he appoint another agent outside court?

The Sages said to him

the Sages said to Avimi:

This—

this question that you are proposing—

we need not ask, as it teaches

in our Mishna:

“Rather, he says, ‘I am an agent of the court,’” which indicates that he must appoint him in court.

and this implies that he must appoint him in court.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught—

regarding the exchange between the Sages and Avimi—

as follows [

this is how he taught it]:

The Sages said to Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Ask Rabbi Abbahu: The agent of an agent,

who was appointed in court,

when he appoints an agent

another

in court

can he appoint a third agent only in court,

or

even

not in court.

He said to them

Avimi said to the Sages: Before you ask where he appoints him,

you should ask whether he may appoint an agent at all,

i.e., whether he can appoint another agent at all, even in court.

They said to him

the Sages said to Avimi:

This—

this question concerning the very appointment of the agency—

we do not need to ask, for

after all,

we learned

in our Mishna:

The agent “

final”

and not “second,”

by inference, an agent may appoint an agent.

Rather, what we need to ask is: In court

is it only in court that he can appoint him as an agent,

or

even

not in court?

He said to them

Avimi said to the Sages:

This—

this question as well—

you need not ask either, for

here it

teaches: “

Rather, he says, ‘I am an agent of the court.’”

Rava said:

An agent

of a bill of divorce

in Eretz Yisrael may appoint many agents, i.e., he may appoint a second agent, and the second may appoint a third, and so on indefinitely, and he does not require a court.

that is, he appoints a second agent, and the second one appoints a third, and so on forever, and he does not need a court.

Rav Ashi said: If

the

first agent dies, they are all nullified, since all the agents derive their authority from the first agent, and when he dies his agency is nullified, together with that of all who follow him.

because all the agents come through the power of the first one, and when this one dies, his agency is annulled, and with it all those who come after him.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: This teaching of Father is childish [

this teaching of my father is from his youth], for it can be refuted:

For

if the husband died, would there be any substance to all of them [

if the husband died, would any of these agents have legal substance]!?

It must necessarily be that

from whose authority do they all derive

They derive their authority from the husband [

from whose authority do they derive? It follows that they derive their authority from the husband]!

Therefore:

if the husband is alive [

if the husband still exists], even if the first agent is no longer alive, then

all of them exist,

and all the agents who derived their authority from him remain in existence.

But when

the husband is no longer alive, none of them exists [

if the husband died, they are all nullified]. But if the first agent died, they are not all nullified, since they do not derive their authority from him, but from the husband.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife [

an incident involving a man who wished to send a bill of divorce to his wife through a particular person] from overseas to Eretz Yisrael—

He

said to the

agent: “I do not know her

I do not know your wife [I do not recognize her], so that I can give her the bill of divorce.”

He said to him

the husband said to the agent:

“Go and give it to Abba bar Minyumi, for he knows her, and let him go and give it to her” [

go and bring the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi, who recognizes her, and let him go and give it to her].

The agent came

the agent came to Eretz Yisrael

but did not find [

he did not find]

Abba bar Minyumi; he found [

and found]

Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, with Rav Safra sitting with them,

and he told them the matter exactly as it had occurred.

They said to him

Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥanina, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to him:

“Convey your statement before us, so that when Abba bar Minyumi comes, we will give it to him

him

and let him go and give it to her,” [

state your agency before us, give us the bill of divorce, and say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and we will give it to Abba bar Minyumi, who will be an agent of the court], as is explained in our Mishna, that an agent who comes from overseas appoints an agent in court.

He said to them [

to the three scholars who were ordained and were called “Rabbi”]

Rav Safra [

who was not ordained and was called “Rav”]:

But

this agent, who was sent only to deliver the bill of divorce to Abba bar Minyumi and was not appointed as an agent to divorce her—

he is an agent who was not appointed for divorce,

and an agent of this kind cannot deliver the bill of divorce to another person!

They were embarrassed [

the three scholars were humiliated by Rav Safra’s argument].

Rava said

about this:

“Rav Safra cut down the legs of the three ordained scholars” [

Rav Safra, who was not ordained, cut down the legs of three ordained scholars], since his answer was decisive.

Rav Ashi said

about this,

Rav Ashi:

But

with what did he cut them down!?

Rav Safra’s answer is not conclusive.

For

did he say to him,

did the husband say to the agent:

“Abba bar Minyumi

shall give the bill of divorce

and not you!?”

Since he was appointed as an agent to divorce her, he can appoint an agent in court, as explained in our Mishna.

Some say

that this is how the incident occurred:

Rava said: “Rav Safra cut down the legs of the three ordained scholars by mistake,” [

Rav Safra defeated them by mistake], for he too was the husband’s agent for divorce!

Rav Ashi said:

But

what mistake

is there here!? After all:

What did he say to him,

i.e., surely the sender’s intention was:

“Abba bar Minyumi, and not you!”

If so, he is an agent who was not appointed for divorce, and he cannot deliver the bill of divorce to another person.

There was an incident involving

a certain man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife [

an incident involving a man who sent a bill of divorce to his wife] from overseas to Eretz Yisrael—

He said to him

the sender said to the agent:

“Do not give it to her until thirty days have passed” [

do not give my wife the bill of divorce until thirty days have passed].

He was prevented by circumstances within the thirty days [

an unavoidable circumstance befell the agent within the thirty days], which was expected to prevent him from carrying out the agency once the thirty days had passed.

The agent came

the agent

before Rava!

Rava said:

But

what is the reason that, when he falls ill,

our Mishna says that he may appoint an agent in court? It is

because he is under duress,

and if so,

this one too is under duress,

and he can appoint another agent in court.

Therefore,

Rava said to him

Rava said to the sender:

“Convey your statement before us, so that after thirty days we will appoint an agent and give it to him” [

state your agency before us, give us the bill of divorce, and say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and we will appoint another agent, who will be an agent of the court].

The Sages said to Rava: “But he is an agent who has not been appointed

today

for divorce!”

since the thirty days stipulated by the husband for giving the bill of divorce have not yet passed.

He said to them

Rava said to the Sages:

“Since after thirty days he can divorce,

since after thirty days this agent will be able to divorce her, therefore even before thirty days

he is an agent who has been appointed for divorce.”

an agent appointed for divorce.

The Sages raised another objection against him:

“But let us be concerned lest he reconciled with her,”

i.e., perhaps the husband reconciled with his wife during these thirty days while the bill of divorce remained in the agent’s possession, and he had relations with her. If so, the bill of divorce is a “dated bill of divorce,” and it is unfit for divorce

!? Did we not learn

that we did not learn in the Mishna below, on 76b:

One who gives a get to a woman and says to her: This is your get, on condition that the divorce take effect

from now, if I do not come from now until twelve months, and he dies within twelve months, it is a valid get

, since he said “from now” while he was still alive and able to divorce her, and he indeed did not come, so the condition that he stipulated, “if I do not come

And we raised the following objection

in the Gemara there, before the Mishna:

But let us be concerned lest he became reconciled with her

during this period, and afterward the husband will come and protest, saying, “I became reconciled with her,” and thereby invalidate the get?

And Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is what Abba Mari said

Rav Huna

in the name of Rav: It is referring to one who says

the husband

“She is trusted by me to say that I did not come,”

and he will no longer be able to protest and invalidate the get; and all the more so, we ourselves will not raise such an objection.

We have thus learned that if he did not say this, we are concerned lest he became reconciled with her. If so, how can we deliver this get? Perhaps the husband became reconciled with her within the thirty days!?

Rava was embarrassed

by the Rabbis’ decisive response to his question.

Ultimately, it became clear that the

get was for

a betrothed woman

—that same get which had been given to an agent to deliver after thirty days.

Rava said: If they said this with regard to a married woman—

who is dear to him, so that we are concerned lest he became reconciled with her—

shall they say

the same

with regard to a betrothed woman

, who is not dear to him to the extent that he would pursue reconciliation with her!?

Rava said: This is certainly the question we raised

—this matter certainly requires examination: