Gittin 32a — the Talmud in English

And to teach that

even a peg in the socket of a hoe

is loose, [

even the handle of a mattock becomes loosened from its hold in the mattock].

Rav Yosef said: even a peg in a wall

is loose, [

even a peg stuck in a wall becomes loose].

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: even a reed in a basket

is loose, [

even a reed woven into a basket becomes loose].

We have returned to the chapter “Kol ha-Get”

Mishna:

One who sends a bill of divorce to his wife

by the hand of an agent for delivery, in order to divorce her:

a.

And he encountered the agent

[he caught up with the agent], before the agent delivered the bill of divorce to the woman, and said to him: “The bill of divorce that I gave you—it is annulled!”

b.

Or he sent

the husband

after him,

after the agent,

an agent

another

and

the second agent

said to him

to the first agent as the husband’s agent:

“The bill of divorce that I gave you—it is annulled!”

It is thereby annulled.

And the Gemara disputed [on page b] the meaning of the annulment: whether the bill of divorce itself is annulled, so that it is disqualified from divorcing with it forever, or whether only the agency for divorce is annulled, but the bill of divorce itself still remains valid.

c. And likewise, if after he sent her the bill of divorce,

the husband preceded

and came

to his wife

before she received the bill of divorce, and said to her: “The bill of divorce that I sent you—it is annulled”—

d.

Or he sent an agent to her, and said to her

the agent, as the husband’s agent: “

The bill of divorce that I sent you—it is annulled”:

Behold,

the bill of divorce

is annulled.

And all this applies specifically when he annulled the bill of divorce before it reached the woman’s hand.

But,

if, once

the

bill of divorce reached her hand

of the woman, and she had already been divorced through it,

he can no longer annul it!

And the Gemara will explain what the novelty is that the Mishna comes to teach us through this.

And all that we said—that the husband or his agent must annul the bill of divorce in the presence of the agent or in her presence, the woman’s—is only after the enactment of Rabban Gamaliel [which will be explained shortly].

But

originally,

before that enactment, the husband did not have to annul the bill of divorce in the presence of the agent or in the presence of the woman; rather, it was sufficient that

the

husband

would establish a court—

appoint three people—

in another place

[in the place where he was],

and

he would

annul it

the bill of divorce in their presence, without needing to notify the agent or the woman of this.

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder instituted that they should not do so,

to annul the bill of divorce not in the presence of the husband or the woman,

for the betterment of the world!

For if the husband annulled it only in the presence of a court and not in the presence of the agent or the woman, there is concern that perhaps they would not know of the annulment and would think that the agency remained in force, and the agent would deliver the bill of divorce to the woman, and she would go and marry through it, and mamzerim would multiply in Israel.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who sends a bill of divorce to his wife and encountered the agent:

And the Gemara deduces from the wording of the Mishna:

From the fact that the wording

“he caught up with him”,

whose meaning is: the husband intentionally pursued the agent and caught up with him—

it does not teach

in our Mishna.

Rather,

it teaches

“he encountered”,

and

the wording used by the tan[n]ay implies that

even

if the husband met the agent

by happenstance,

and did not pursue him, but happened to meet him and annulled the bill of divorce, it is thereby annulled.

And

the tan[n]ay teaches us through this wording that

we do not say

that since the husband did not pursue the agent, but only annulled the bill of divorce when the agent happened to appear before him,

to distress her

the woman alone

is what he

intended, and his intention is not a genuine annulment, but only to delay the bill of divorce for a period of time, a month or two,

in order to distress her.

And we do not say: If he had wished to annul it completely, he would have pursued the agent on his own initiative and annulled it in his presence, and he would not have waited until he met him by chance. Rather, even in such a manner the bill of divorce is annulled.

We learned in the Mishna: Or he sent another agent after him and said to him: The bill of divorce that I gave you—it is annulled; it is thereby annulled:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

“Or he sent an agent after him”,

why do I need this?!

But we already learned that the husband can annul the bill of divorce, and it is obvious that he can annul it even through an agent, for “a person’s agent is like himself.”

And we answer: If this law had not been explicitly taught, I would say that specifically he himself can annul the bill of divorce, but not through an agent.

For

lest you say: The agency of the

agent

latter is not stronger than the agency of the

agent

first

[the agency of the second agent to annul the bill of divorce is not superior to the agency of the first to deliver the bill of divorce],

so that

he could

annul it

[so that he could annul it]. Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that the husband can annul the agency of the first, even through another agent.

We learned in the Mishna:

He preceded and came to his wife

and said to her: The bill of divorce that I sent you—it is annulled; it is thereby annulled:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Why do I need

to be taught this?! Is it not an obvious law that the husband can annul it in the woman’s presence, just as he can annul it in the agent’s presence? Since the woman knows of the annulment, she will no longer marry with that bill of divorce, and there is no concern here on account of the betterment of the world.

And we answer:

Lest you say, when we do not say

that even if the husband met the agent by chance and annulled the bill of divorce,

to distress her

alone

is what he intends, but we say that he truly intends to annul the bill of divorce,

to do so, but instead say that he truly intended to annul the bill of divorce,

this matter

applies when he says “This bill of divorce is annulled” to the agent, even when he met him by chance—

But

when he says this

to her

[to the woman herself], behold, even if he preceded her in order to say this to her,

certainly to distress her

alone

is what he intends, and to delay her for some time from marrying, and no more.

to delay her from marrying for some time, and nothing more.

It teaches us

our Mishna that even when he says to the woman, “This bill of divorce is annulled,” his intention is a genuine annulment of the bill of divorce.

We learned in the Mishna:

Or he sent an agent to her,

and said to her: This bill of divorce is annulled; it is thereby annulled:

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Why do I need

to be taught this?! Is it not obvious? For what difference is there between sending it to her through an agent and saying it to her himself?

And we answer:

Lest you say

when do we not say, “He intends only to distress her”? If the husband himself annulled it in her presence, because

he is the one who did not trouble himself for the purpose of distressing her

[there is no logic that he would trouble himself to come to her solely in order to distress her], and therefore he certainly intended to annul the bill of divorce.

But

if he sent it to her through an

agent, for he does not care that he troubles himself

[he does not care that the agent troubles himself],

certainly

he did not intend to annul the bill of divorce, but only

intends to distress her,

and not a genuine annulment of the agency.

It teaches us

our Mishna that even in such a case it is an annulment, and he did not intend to distress her.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the bill of divorce reached her hand, he cannot annul it:

And we wondered:

It is obvious

that if she has already received the bill of divorce, he can no longer annul it, for she is already divorced!?

And we answer:

It is necessary;

our Mishna did not need to teach this except in a case

where he had pursued him from the outset to annul it,

where the husband had been seeking the agent in order to find him and was pursuing him in order to annul the bill of divorce before it reached the woman’s hand,

for

lest you say: It was revealed retroactively that

already beforehand, before the bill of divorce reached her hand,

his annulment

he annulled it

in his heart, since it is now clear that his pursuit of the agent was because he wanted to annul the bill of divorce, and the bill of divorce should therefore be annulled.

It teaches us

our Mishna that the bill of divorce is not annulled.

The Sages taught:

If the husband said to the agent or to the woman: “

It is annulled

the bill of divorce,” or he said: “

I do not want it”—

his words stand!

For the meaning of these expressions concerns the present: he wishes to annul the bill of divorce now and onward. Therefore his words are effective, and the bill of divorce is thereby annulled.

But if he said: “

It is disqualified,” or he said: “

It is not a bill of divorce”—

he has said nothing!

For the meaning of these expressions is not that he wishes to annul the bill of divorce from now onward, but that he assigns it the status of being disqualified, as though the bill of divorce had already been disqualified, whereas this is not so; rather, it is a valid bill of divorce.

Because these expressions do not mean that he wishes to annul the bill of divorce from now onward. Rather, he is assigning it the status of a disqualified document, as though it had already been disqualified, but that is not the case; it is a valid bill of divorce.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean

[do you wish to say] that “

annulled,”

is an expression of annulling

from now onward

?

It implies

this, and for this reason this expression is considered an annulment!?

And

it is not so, for

Rabba bar Ivo said in the name of Rav Sheshet, and some say

that thus

Rabba bar Avuha said:

A

recipient of a gift

from his fellow,

who said

the recipient

after the gift had come into his possession: “

This gift is annulled,” or he said, “

Let the gift be annulled,” or he said, “

I do not want it”—

he has said nothing!

it”—

he has said nothing!

And this is because the meaning of these expressions is that now he wishes to cancel the acquisition of the gift, after it has come into his possession; yet once he has acquired the gift, he has no power to cancel his acquisition. And if a creditor of the recipient of the gift comes to collect his debt from him, he can collect it from the gift, because it belongs to the recipient of the gift and not to the giver of the gift.

But if, after he received the gift, he said:

“It is canceled”,

or he said

“It is not a gift”—

his words stand,

and the field returns to the giver, and the creditor of the recipient of the gift cannot collect it from him for his debt, because the meaning of these expressions is that the gift had been canceled from the outset, and even before he received it he had not consented to acquire it. And he is believed concerning this, because the admission of a litigant is equivalent to one hundred witnesses; therefore the gift belongs to the giver. And we conclude concerning our question:

thus it follows,

it is established that the expression

“canceled”

indicates from the outset!

And not that he cancels it from now onward; rather, he is informing us now that previously it had already been canceled.

And if so, the beraita is difficult: why, when he says concerning the bill of divorce, “It is canceled,” is this considered a cancellation? For he is not now coming to cancel it from now onward; rather, he is declaring that it had already been canceled previously. If so, his words have no effect, since until now it was certainly a valid bill of divorce.

Abaye said:

It is not difficult, for in fact

“canceled”