Gittin 29b — the Talmud in English

He should take the object from her and then return and give her the get [

take the object from her and afterward give her the get],

and he went [

the agent or the agent’s agent]

and gave her the get and afterward took the object from her [

he gave her the get, and only afterward took the object from her]; and so they disagreed:

Rabbi Yohanan disqualifies

even

in it [

in the first agent who did so],

and all the more so in his agent

the agent’s agent who did so. And since in this manner the agency is invalid, he should never again send it by means of another, lest the agent not transmit the matters to his agent as they actually were, or lest the agent not act as he was instructed, and the get be invalid.

And Reish Lakish validates

even

in his agent

the agent’s agent who did so,

and all the more so in him [

in the first agent who did so]; and because according to Reish Lakish the husband is not particular about the order, and he stated it only as the ordinary manner of the matter.

In the preceding Mishna, the law of one who brings a get in the Land of Israel and falls ill was explained: that he should send it by means of another. And the following Mishna explains what an agent who brings a get from overseas and falls ill should do, for he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

Mishna:

One who brings a get from overseas and falls ill,

behold he

appoints an agent

another

in court and sends him,

for he must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and the second agent, who did not see the writing and the signing, cannot say this—

and

the first agent

says before them

before 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 her the get: “

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

but he says: “

I am an agent of the court,”

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

Gemara:

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

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

An agent of an agent,

that is, the second agent who was appointed in court,

does he appoint

another

agent

another one

or not?

He said to them

Avimi to the Rabbis:

You should not ask this [

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

as it teaches

in our Mishna: “

The final agent

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

by inference

even a second agent

appoints an agent.

Rather, when you should ask,

but this you should ask:

when he appoints

the second agent

an agent

another one,

in court

only there does he appoint an agent,

or even not in court

can he appoint another agent.

They said to him

the Rabbis to Avimi:

This—

this question that you are stating—

is not a question for us, as it teaches

in our Mishna:

but he says, ‘I am an agent of the court,’

and this implies that he must appoint him in court.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak recited—

the exchange between the Rabbis and Avimi—

thus [

this is how he taught it]:

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

who was appointed in court,

when he appoints an agent

another one,

in court

only there can he appoint a third agent,

or

even

not in court.

He said to them

Avimi to the Rabbis: While you are asking where he appoints him,

you should ask whether he appoints an agent at all,

that is, whether he can appoint another agent at all, even in court.

They said to him

the Rabbis to Avimi:

This—

this question concerning the very appointment of the agency—

is not a question for us, for

behold

we learned

in our Mishna:

the agent “

the final one,” and not the agent “the second,”

and

by inference, an agent appoints an agent.

Rather, our question is: in court

is where he appoints him as an agent,

or

even

not in court.

He said to them

Avimi to the Rabbis:

This—

even this question as well—

you should also not ask, for

here it

teaches: “

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

Rabbah said:

The agent

of the get

in the Land of Israel appoints several agents,

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 all become invalid,

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 statement of Father’s is a matter of immaturity [

this teaching of my father is from his days of immaturity], for one can refute it:

For

if the husband dies, is there any substance in them [

if the husband dies, is there any substance in all these agents]!?

For necessarily,

through whose power do they all come?

They come through the power of the husband [

through whose power do they come? It follows that they come through the power of the husband]!

Therefore: if

the husband is alive [

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

they all exist,

even all the agents who came through his power remain in existence.

And when

the husband is no longer alive, they all no longer exist [

if the husband dies, they all become invalid]. But if the first agent dies, they do not all become invalid, for they do not come through his power, but through the power of the husband.

An incident involving

a certain man who sent a get to his wife [

an incident involving a man who wished to send a get to his wife through a particular person] from overseas to the Land of Israel—

He said

to him, the

agent: I do not know her

his wife [I do not know her], so that I can give her the get.

He said to him

the husband to the agent:

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

go and bring the get to Abba bar Minyumi, who knows her, and he will go and give it to her].

The agent came

to the Land of Israel

and did not find [

he did not find]

Abba bar Minyumi; he found [

and found]

Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa, and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ, and Rav Safra was sitting with them,

and he told them the matters exactly as they had occurred.

They said to him

Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Hanina, and Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥ:

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

the get

and he will go and give it to her, [

say your agency statement before us, and give us the get and say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and we will transmit it to Abba bar Minyumi, so that he 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 get to Abba bar Minyumi and was not made an agent to divorce her—

he is an agent who was not given for divorce,

and an agent of this kind cannot deliver the get to another person!?

They were embarrassed [

the three scholars were ashamed because of Rav Safra’s argument].

He said

about this

Rava: Rav Safra cut down the legs of three ordained scholars [

Rav Safra, who was not ordained, cut down the legs of three ordained scholars], for his response was a decisive response.

Rav Ashi said

about this

Rav Ashi:

and is it so that

in what did he cut them down!?

For Rav Safra’s response is not a response.

For

did he say to him,

did the husband say to the agent:

Abba bar Minyumi

will give the get

and not I!?

And since he was made 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 three ordained scholars by mistake, [

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

Rav Ashi said:

and is there

what mistake

is there here!? For:

What did he say to him,

that is, surely the sender’s intention was:

Abba bar Minyumi and not you!

And if so, he is an agent who was not given for divorce, and he cannot deliver the get to another person.

An incident involving

a certain man who sent a get to his wife [

an incident involving a man who sent a get to his wife] from overseas to the Land of Israel—

He said to him

the sender

to the agent: Do not give it to her until thirty days [

do not give my wife the get until thirty days].

He was afflicted by an accident within thirty days [

an accident happened to the agent within thirty days] that was expected to prevent him from carrying out the agency when the thirty days passed.

The agent came

the agent

before Rava!

Rava said:

But

what is the reason for “falls ill”

that they said in our Mishna that he can 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

he said to him

Rava to the sender:

Transmit your statement before us, so that after thirty days we will appoint an agent and give it to her [

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

The Rabbis said to Rava: But he is an agent who was not given

today

for divorce!?

For the thirty days that the husband established for giving the get have not yet passed.

He said to them

Rava to the Rabbis:

Since after thirty days he can divorce,

since after thirty days this agent can divorce, therefore even before thirty days

he is like an agent who was given for divorce.

an agent appointed for divorce.

The scholars further challenged him from another perspective:

And let us be concerned lest he became reconciled,

that is, lest the husband became reconciled with his wife during these thirty days, while the get was delayed in the agent’s possession, and had relations, with the result that the get is a “stale get,” and it is not valid for divorcing with it!?

Did we not learn,

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

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

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

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

And we raised this objection

in the Gemara there, before the Mishna:

But let us be concerned lest he appeased her

during this period, and after the period the husband will come and challenge it, saying, “I appeased her,” and invalidate the get!?

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

Rav Huna

in the name of Rav: When he says

the husband

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

and he will no longer be able to challenge and invalidate the get; and all the more so, we ourselves will not challenge it.

We have thus learned that if he did not say this, we are concerned lest he appeased her; and if so, how can we give this get, since it is possible that the husband appeased her within thirty days!?

Rava was embarrassed

by the astonishment of the Rabbis, who had given him a decisive answer.

In the end it became clear that the get of

the get of a

betrothed woman was

that same get which had been delivered to an agent to deliver it after thirty days.

Rava said: If they said this concerning a married woman —

who is dear to him, so that we are concerned lest he appeased her —

will they say

the same also

concerning a betrothed woman,

who is not dear to him, such that he would pursue her to appease her!?

Rava said: This is certainly what we need to ask

in this matter there is certainly room for doubt: