Gittin 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

And to teach that

even a wooden peg in the socket of a hoe -

becomes loose,

even the handle of a hoe loosens its hold in the hoe.

Rav Yosef said: Even a peg in a wall -

becomes loose,

even a peg driven into a wall becomes loose.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Even a reed woven into a basket -

becomes loose,

even a reed woven into a basket becomes loose.

We will return to you, chapter Kol HaGet.

Mishna:

One who sends a bill of divorce to his wife

by means 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 had delivered the bill of divorce to the woman, and said to him: “The bill of divorce that I gave you is hereby nullified!”

b.

Or he sent

the husband

after him,

after the agent,

an agent

of another kind,

and

the second agent

said to him

to the first agent, acting as the husband’s agent:

“The bill of divorce that I gave you is hereby nullified!”

It is hereby nullified.

The Gemara [on the next side] will discuss the meaning of the nullification: whether the bill of divorce itself is nullified, so that it becomes unfit ever to be used for divorce, or whether only the agency for the divorce is nullified, while the bill of divorce itself 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 is hereby nullified”—

d.

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

the agent, acting as the husband’s agent: “

The bill of divorce that I sent you is hereby nullified”:

This

bill of divorce

is hereby nullified.

All this applies specifically when he nullified the bill of divorce before it reached the woman’s possession.

But

once

the

bill of divorce reached her possession

and she had already been divorced through it,

he can no longer nullify it!

The Gemara will explain what novelty the Mishna intends to teach by stating this.

Everything we have said—that the husband or his agent must nullify the bill of divorce in the presence of the agent or in the woman’s presence—applies only after the enactment of Rabban Gamliel [which will be explained shortly].

But

originally,

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

would

the husband

establish a court—

appoint three people—

in another place

[in the place where he was located],

and

he would

nullify it

the bill of divorce before them, without having to inform the agent or the woman.

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

nullify the bill of divorce without the husband or the woman being present,

for the betterment of the world!

For if the husband nullifies it only before a court, and not in the presence of the agent or the woman, there is concern that they may not know of the nullification and may assume that the agency remains in force; the agent will then deliver the bill of divorce to the woman, and she will go and marry on its basis, thereby causing illegitimate children to proliferate among the Jewish people.

Gemara:

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

The Gemara infers from the wording of the Mishna:

From the fact that the wording

“he reached him”

which would mean that the husband intentionally pursued the agent and caught up with him,

it does not teach

in our Mishna.

Rather,

it teaches

“he reached”,

and

the wording used by the tanna implies that

even

if the husband encountered the agent

by chance,

and did not pursue him but met him accidentally, and nullified the bill of divorce, it is nullified.

And

the tanna teaches us through this wording that

we do not say

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

to distress her

the woman alone

is what he

intended,

and that he did not truly intend to nullify it, but only to delay the bill of divorce for a period of time, a month or two, in order to distress her.

We do not say that if he had wanted to nullify it completely, he would have pursued the agent on his own initiative and nullified it in his presence, rather than waiting until he encountered him by chance. Rather, even in such a case the bill of divorce is nullified.

We learned in the Mishna: “Or he sent another agent after him, and said to him: ‘The bill of divorce that I gave you is hereby nullified’; it is hereby nullified”:

And we raise a question:

“Or he sent another agent after him”,

why do I need this?!

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

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

For

lest you say: The agency of the

agent

second

is not more powerful than the agency of the

first

[the agency of the second agent to nullify the bill of divorce is no stronger than that of the first agent to deliver the bill of divorce],

so that

he could

nullify it

[so that he could nullify it]. Therefore

it teaches us

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“He preceded her to his wife”

and said to her: “The bill of divorce that I sent you is hereby nullified; it is hereby nullified”:

And we raise a question:

“Why do I need

this to be taught to us?! Is it not an obvious law that the husband can nullify it in the woman’s presence just as he can nullify it in the agent’s presence? Since the woman knows of the nullification, she will no longer marry on the basis of 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 encountered the agent by chance and nullified the bill of divorce,

to distress her

merely

is what he intends,

but rather we say that he truly intends to nullify the bill of divorce,

this applies

when he says “This bill of divorce is nullified” to the agent, even when he encountered him by chance—

But

when he says this

to her

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

certainly to distress her

merely

is what he intends,

and only to prevent 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 nullified,” his intention is genuine nullification 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 nullified’; it is hereby nullified”:

And we raise a question:

“Why do I need

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

And we answer:

Lest you say

that when do we not say that he intends merely to distress her? When the husband himself nullified it in her presence, because

he himself would not trouble himself merely with the intention of distressing her

[it is unreasonable that he would trouble himself to come to her solely in order to distress her], and therefore he certainly intended to nullify the bill of divorce.

But

if he sent it to her through

an agent, since he does not care if he must trouble himself

[he does not care that the agent must trouble himself],

certainly

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

intends to distress her,

and not to effect genuine nullification of the agency.

It teaches us

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“Once the bill of divorce reached her possession, he can no longer nullify it”:

And we ask:

Is it not obvious

that once she has already received the bill of divorce, it can no longer be nullified, since she is already divorced?!

And we answer:

It is necessary;

our Mishna was needed to teach this only in a case

where he had originally pursued him in order to nullify it,

where the husband had been seeking the agent in order to find him and had pursued him in order to nullify the bill of divorce before it reached the woman’s possession,

for

lest you say: It has become apparent retroactively that

already earlier, before the bill of divorce reached her possession, he

had nullified

it

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

It teaches us

our Mishna that the bill of divorce is not nullified.

The Sages taught:

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

“It is nullified”

the bill of divorce, or said:

“I have no desire for it”—

his words are effective!

For the meaning of these expressions concerns the present: he wishes to nullify the bill of divorce now and henceforth. Therefore his words are effective, and the bill of divorce is nullified.

But if he said:

“It is unfit”,

or said:

“It is not a bill of divorce”—

he has said nothing!

For these expressions do not mean that he wishes to nullify the bill of divorce from now onward; rather, he is assigning it the status of an unfit document, as though it had already been unfit, whereas that is not the case, for it is a valid bill of divorce.

And we ask:

Does this mean

[do you mean to say] that “

nullified

”

is an expression of nullification

from now onward

implied

and therefore this wording is considered an expression of nullification?!

But

this is not so, for

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

that it was

Rabba bar Avuha who said:

A

recipient of a gift

from another person

who said

the recipient

after the gift had come into his possession:

“This gift is hereby nullified”,

or said:

“Let the gift be nullified”, or said:

“

I have no desire for it”—

he has said nothing!

or said: