Gittin 65b — the Talmud in English

However,

the divorce document does not take effect

the divorce does not take effect, since she did not appoint him as her agent to receive the divorce document, to acquire it for her,

until you reach

until you come

Mata Meḥasya.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Elazar prohibits

the woman

immediately,

from the moment the agent departed from her to eat teruma, since perhaps the agent encountered the husband with the divorce document in a nearby place and had already acquired it for her.

And we challenge this:

It is obvious

that she is prohibited immediately, according to Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning,

for

we already learned above that Rabbi Eliezer holds that

he merely indicates a location to him

to the agent, and she is not particular that he receive it specifically in a certain place, since she is not certain that the husband will agree to hand over the divorce document in that place. It follows that it is understood that she becomes immediately prohibited from teruma, out of concern that she has already been divorced; and what does Rabbi Eliezer need to teach us by stating this?

And we answer:

The Mishna needed to teach us that Rabbi Elazar prohibits the woman immediately from the moment the agent departed from her, in a case

where it is necessary,

namely, where she said to him:

Go

go

to the

side of

the east, where he is

where the husband is

in the east.

And he went

the agent went

to the

side of

the west,

for in this manner there is an additional novelty in the fact that she is immediately prohibited from teruma, because

lest you say

I might have said: Indeed, Rabbi Elazar holds that the woman is not particular that the agent receive the divorce document in a specific place, but nevertheless she should not become immediately prohibited from teruma, since

in the west, he is not there

the husband is not there, and there is no concern that perhaps the agent will encounter the husband immediately upon leaving the city;

it teaches us

the Mishna that nevertheless, according to Rabbi Elazar, she is immediately prohibited from teruma, because we are concerned

perhaps while he was going

perhaps while the agent was going to the west, the husband also went there, and

he encountered him

and encountered the agent,

and he gave him the divorce document

and gave him the divorce document, and she is therefore divorced.

We learned concerning an agent who deviated from the words of the sender:

One who says to his agent: Make an eruv for me “an eruv of boundaries” at the end of two thousand cubits of the boundary

with dates,

with dates,

so that I can walk on Shabbat from the place of the eruv an additional two thousand cubits.

And the agent deviated from his agency

and made an eruv for him with dried figs.

Or the sender said to him: Make an eruv for me

with dried figs—

and he made an eruv for him with dates.

Teach

in a beraita

one [teaching]: His eruv is an eruv,

and the agency is effective despite his having deviated from the words of the sender.

And another [teaching] was taught: His eruv is not an eruv!

Since he deviated from the words of the sender.

If so, we have found a contradiction between the beraitot: Does the agency take effect when he deviated from the words of the sender, or not?

And we answer:

Rabba said: It is not difficult:

This

one beraita is according to the view of

the Rabbis.

This

other beraita is according to the view of

Rabbi Elazar.

This

beraita, which says that his eruv is not an eruv, is according to the view of

the Rabbis, who say

above that in the agency of the woman there is

particularity,

and even though the divorce does not depend on her and she does not care, nevertheless we say that the sender is particular that the agent act exactly according to his words; and if the agent deviated, he is not his agent if he changes anything from his words.

This

beraita, which says that his eruv is an eruv, is according to the view of

Rabbi Elazar, who says

that the woman is not particular that the agent act exactly according to her words, but only

he merely indicates a location to him,

for in a matter in which there is no loss, the sender does not care if the agent changes his words slightly; and likewise with an eruv, if the agent deviated, since there is no loss to the sender, his agency is effective and his eruv is an eruv.

And Rav Yosef said:

another answer to resolve the contradiction between the two beraitot:

Both this and that—

both beraitot are according to the view of

the Rabbis.

And the Rabbis said that the sender is particular only concerning a woman who sends an agent to receive the divorce document from a certain place, because it is convenient for her that the agent go specifically to the place she mentioned and not acquire the divorce document for her elsewhere. And thus one should distinguish between the beraitot:

Here,

the beraita that says his eruv is an eruv even when he deviated from the words of the sender is speaking

of

the agent having made the eruv with something other than

his

the sender’s property; we say that the sender is not particular about precisely what they use to make the eruv for him.

Here,

the beraita that says his eruv is not an eruv is speaking of the agent having made the eruv

with that of his fellow

the sender’s fellow. If the sender’s fellow gave him permission to make the eruv with his property, certainly the sender is particular that the agent make the eruv with what he told him, since the sender received permission only concerning that very item.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef: According to your words, that the beraita saying that his eruv is not an eruv speaks of the agent having made the eruv with the property of the sender’s fellow and having deviated from the words of the sender, this is difficult:

But then, what of that which was taught: One who says to his agent, “Make an eruv for me

make an eruv of boundaries

in the tower,” and he made an eruv for him

the agent

in the dovecote

and the Gemara understands in its initial assumption that the agency was to place the eruv in the tower, and the agent deviated and placed it in the dovecote.

Or he said to him: Make an eruv for me

in the dovecote, and he made an eruv for him in the tower.

For one [teaching] was taught: His eruv is an eruv,

and another [teaching] was taught: His eruv is not an eruv.

There,

there you cannot explain the distinction between the beraitot as you said: that the beraita saying that his eruv is an eruv speaks of placing the eruv with the sender’s property, while the beraita saying that his eruv is not an eruv speaks of placing the eruv with the sender’s fellow’s property, since

what distinction between “his” and “his fellow’s” is there

that would allow us to say that his fellow is particular? Would his fellow be particular whether he places the eruv in the dovecote or in the tower?

And we answer:

There, too,

the meaning of the beraitot is not that the sender intended that he place the eruv in the tower or in the dovecote. Rather, the meaning of the beraitot is that the sender intended that the agent take fruit for the eruv, fruit that he has in the tower or fruit that he has in the dovecote, because

there is fruit of the tower and

there is

fruit of the dovecote.

And since this is so, there is no difficulty from these beraitot against Rav Yosef, for these beraitot too can be reconciled according to Rav Yosef’s words: the beraita saying that his eruv is an eruv speaks of a case in which the fruit belongs to him and he is not particular if the agent deviates, whereas the beraita saying that his eruv is not an eruv speaks of a case in which the fruit belongs to the sender’s fellow, and therefore he is particular that the agent take it specifically from a certain place, from which his fellow permitted him to take it; and if the agent took it from another place, it is not an eruv.

Mishna:

The Mishna before us discusses which expressions the husband may say so that they write a divorce document and give it to his wife, and his words are effective.

One who says

to two men:

“Write a divorce document and give it to my wife,”

or he said:

“Divorce her,”

or he said:

“Write a letter”

and give it to her—them shall write the divorce document and sign it

and give it

to his wife, for all these expressions are expressions of divorce; and even the expression “Divorce her” includes writing and giving.

But if the husband said to them

“Release her,”

or he said to them

“Provide for her,”

or he said

“Do for her

according to the ordinance,”—according to the law—or

“Do for her

as is proper”—

none of all these expressions necessarily means divorce.

For one who says “Release her” may intend to release her from her obligations. “Provide for her”—to care for her livelihood. “Do for her according to the ordinance” or “Do for her as is proper”—to give her sustenance and clothing.

Therefore,

he has said nothing,

and if they wrote a divorce document and gave it to her, it is an invalid divorce document.

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in a beraita: One who says to two men

“Send her away,”

his wife, or he said

“Release her,”

or

“Drive her away”—

they shall write and give

a divorce document, since these expressions are expressions of a divorce document. “

“Send her away”—this is an expression of “and he shall send her away from his house” [Deuteronomy 24]. “Release her”—this is an expression of “a letter of release.” “Drive her away”—this is an expression of tirukhim, that is, “divorce.””

But if he said to two men:

“Release her, provide for her, do for her according to the ordinance, do for her as is proper”—

he has said nothing,

since these are not necessarily expressions of a divorce document.

And further,

it was taught

concerning this matter:

Rabbi Natan says: If he said to two men:

“

Release her

my wife”—

his words are effective,

and they must give her a divorce document, for it is an expression of instruction, like “Send her away,” and it is an expression of a deed of release.

But if he said:

“Release her”—

he has said nothing,

since it is an expression of exemption and obligation, and perhaps he intended to lessen the obligations that she owes.

Rava said: Rabbi Natan is a Babylonian

who is Babylonian,

and

therefore he

was precise

in distinguishing

between

the expression

“release her” and

the expression

“release her,”

for in Babylonia they sometimes speak in Aramaic and sometimes in Hebrew. Therefore, when he said “release her,” we say that he emphasized the expression of a deed of release and spoke in Aramaic; and when he said “release her,” we say that he spoke in Hebrew and intended the expression of exemption and obligation.

In contrast,

our tan

above, who

spoke

who was from

the Land of Israel,

and all his speech was only in Hebrew,

was not precise

and did not distinguish between the expression “release her” and the expression “release her,” for in both expressions he did not intend a deed of release, since “release” is an Aramaic expression and is the translation of “sending away.”

They raised a dilemma before them:

If he said in the expression

“Take her out, what is the law?”

Do we say that he adopted the expression of the verse “and she went out from his house” [Deuteronomy 24], or perhaps the meaning of the words is not the expression of the verse, since it is not written “and he took her out from his house,” but rather it is written “and she went out,” by herself?

And likewise, if he said:

“Leave her, what is the law?”

Is it an expression of “a letter of release,” or perhaps since they do not write an expression of leaving in a divorce document, it is not an expression of a divorce document?

And likewise, if he said:

“Permit her, what is the law?”

Is it an expression of “permitted to every person,” or perhaps an expression of permitting vows or permitting a belt?

And likewise:

“Leave her,” what is the law? “Benefit her,” what is the law? “Do for her according to religious law,” what is the law?

Come,

resolve

from a beraita

at least

at the very least

one

of these expressions:

For it was taught: If he said in the expression:

“

Do for her according to religious law, do for her according to the ordinance, do for her as is proper”—

he has said nothing,

and this is not a divorce document. It follows that the expression “Do for her according to religious law” is not a clear instruction for divorce.

Mishna:

At first the Sages would say

the Sages:

One who is going out in chains,

whom they are leading in chains in order to execute him according to the law of the kingdom,

and said

to two men:

“Write a divorce document for my wife,”

even though he did not specify and say “Give it,”

they shall write and give,

for he certainly intended that they give her the divorce document; but because he was distraught, he did not complete his words.

The Sages returned

the Sages

to say: Even one who sets out

who sails

and one who goes out in a caravan

on a distant journey in which there is danger on the roads, and said “Write a divorce document for my wife,” his intention is that they write and give it.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even

a sick person

who is dangerously ill ,

if he said this expression, they shall write and give it.

Gemara:

An incident: There was a man whose name was

Ganiva,

who

was going out

to be executed

was in chains,

he was,

When he was going out

when he was going out

he said

to the people who were there, as a testament:

Give

give

four hundred dinars to Rabbi Avina, from the wine

from the wine

of the river

of the river, whose name was

Panya,

which I have.