Gittin 65b (סה:) — the Talmud in English

However,

the get is not valid

[the get will not take effect], since you are not to be my agent to receive the get, to acquire it on my behalf,

until you reach

[until you come]

Mata Meḥasya.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Elazar prohibits

the woman

immediately,

once the agent has departed from her to partake of teruma, since perhaps the agent encountered the husband with the get in a nearby place and had already acquired it on her behalf.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious

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

as

we already learned above that Rabbi Elazar holds that

she merely indicates a location to him

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 give the get at that place. It therefore follows that she becomes prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately, out of concern that she has already been divorced. Why, then, does Rabbi Elazar need to teach us this?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

as the Mishna needed to teach us that Rabbi Elazar prohibits the woman immediately once the agent departs from her, in a case where

she said to him: Go

[go]

to the

side

east, where he is

[where the husband is]

in the east.

And he went

[the agent]

to the

side

west,

and in this case there is an additional novel point: that she is prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately, because

lest you say

that I would have said: Although Rabbi Elazar holds that the woman is not particular that the agent receive the get in a specific place, nevertheless she should not become prohibited from partaking of teruma immediately, since

in the west, he is not there

the husband, and there is no concern that the agent might encounter the husband immediately upon leaving the city.

It teaches us

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

perhaps while he was going

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

he encountered him

[and encountered] the agent,

and gave him the get

[and gave him the get], and she is consequently divorced.

We learned with regard to an agent who deviated from the instructions of the sender:

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

“with dates,”

with dates,

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

And the agent deviated from his agency

and prepared it for him with dried figs.

Or the sender said to him: Prepare it for me

with dried figs—

and he prepared it for him with dates.

Teach

in one

beraita: His eruv is valid,

and the agency is effective despite the fact that he deviated from the sender’s instructions.

And another [beraita] taught: His eruv is not valid!

Since he deviated from the sender’s instructions.

If so, we have found a contradiction between the baraitot: Does the agency take effect when the agent deviates from the sender’s instructions, or not?

And we answer:

Rabba said: It is not difficult:

This

one

is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

This

other

is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

This

baraita, which says that his eruv is not valid, is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis, who say

above that with regard to the agency of the woman there is

particularity,

and although the divorce does not depend on it and she does not care, nevertheless we say that the sender is particular that the agent carry out his instructions precisely. If the agent deviates, he is not his agent if he changes anything from his instructions.

This

baraita, which says that his eruv is valid, is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, who says

that the woman is not particular that the agent carry out her instructions precisely, but merely

indicates a location to him,

since when there is no loss involved, the sender does not care if the agent deviates slightly from his instructions. Likewise, with an eruv, if the agent deviated, since there is no loss to the sender, his agency is effective and his eruv is valid.

And Rav Yosef said:

There is another answer to resolve the contradiction between the two baraitot:

Both this and that—

the two baraitot—are in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis.

The Rabbis said that the sender is particular only with regard to a woman who sends an agent to receive the get from a certain place, since it is convenient for her that the agent go specifically to the place she mentioned and not acquire the get on her behalf elsewhere. And this is how the baraitot can be distinguished:

Here,

the baraita that says that his eruv is valid even when he deviates from the sender’s instructions is speaking

when

the agent prepared the eruv with something other

than his own

—the sender’s. We say that the sender is not particular about precisely what will be used to prepare his eruv.

Here,

the baraita that says that his eruv is not valid is speaking of a case where the agent prepared it

with his fellow’s

property—the sender’s fellow’s property. If the sender’s fellow gave him permission to prepare an eruv using his property, the sender is certainly particular that the agent use what he instructed him to use, since the sender received permission only to use that particular item.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef: According to your statement that the baraita which says that his eruv is not valid is speaking of a case where the agent prepared it with the property of the sender’s fellow and deviated from the sender’s instructions, this is difficult:

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

[prepare an eruv for Shabbat boundaries]

in the tower,” and he prepared it for him

the agent

in the dovecote

[and the Gemara understands in its initial supposition 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: Prepare it for me

in the dovecote, and he prepared it for him in the tower.

As one [baraita] taught: His eruv is valid,

and another [baraita] taught: His eruv is not valid.

There,

you cannot resolve the distinction between the baraitot as you said: that the baraita which says that his eruv is valid is speaking of a case where he placed the eruv using the property of the sender, whereas the baraita which says that his eruv is not valid is speaking of a case where he placed it using the property of the sender’s fellow. For

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

that would enable us to say that his fellow is particular? Is his fellow particular whether he places the eruv in the dovecote or in the tower?

And we answer:

There, too,

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

there are the fruits of the tower and

there are

the fruits of the dovecote.

And since this is so, these baraitot do not pose a difficulty to Rav Yosef, as these baraitot too can be reconciled in accordance with Rav Yosef’s statement: The baraita that says that his eruv is valid is speaking of a case where the fruit belongs to him and he is not particular if the agent deviates, whereas the baraita that says that his eruv is not valid is speaking of a case where the fruit belongs to the sender’s fellow. Therefore, he is particular that the agent take it specifically from the place from which his fellow permitted him to take it, and if the agent took it from another place, the eruv is not valid.

Mishna:

The Mishna before us discusses which expressions the husband may use in instructing that a get be written and given to his wife, such that his words are effective.

One who says

to two men:

“Write a get and give it to my wife,”

or he said:

“Divorce her,”

or he said:

“Write a letter

and give it to her”—they shall write the get and sign it

and give it

to his wife, since 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 custom,”

—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” means to provide for her sustenance. “Do for her according to custom” or “Do for her as is proper” means to provide her with food and clothing.

Therefore,

he has said nothing,

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in a beraita: One who says to two men:

“Send away”

my wife, or he said:

“Release,”

or

“Divorce her”—

they shall write and give

a get, since these expressions are expressions of a get. “

“Send her away” is an expression of “and he shall send her away from his house” [Deuteronomy 24]. “Release” is an expression of “a letter of release.” “Divorce her” is an expression of tirukhin, meaning “divorce”

”. But if he said to two men:

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

he has said nothing,

since these are not necessarily expressions of a get.

And further,

it was taught

with regard to this matter:

Rabbi Natan says:

If he said to two men:

“Release”

his wife—

his words are effective,

and they must give her a get, since this is an expression of instruction, like “send her away,” and it is an expression of a bill of release.

But if he said:

“Free her,”

he has said nothing,

since this expression relates to exemption and obligation, and perhaps he intended to lighten the obligations that she is required to fulfill.

Rava said: Rabbi Natan is Babylonian

[from Babylonia]

and

therefore he

was precise

in distinguishing

between

the expression

“free her” and

the expression

“release her,”

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

In contrast,

the tanna of our Mishna

above,

who

[being]

is 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 “free her.” In both expressions he did not intend a bill of release, since piturin is an Aramaic expression and is the translation of sending away.

They raised a dilemma:

If he said in the expression

“Take her out,” what is

the halakha? Do we say that he adopted the language of the verse “and she leaves his house” [Deuteronomy 24], or perhaps the words do not carry the meaning of the verse, since it does not say “and he takes her out of his house,” but rather “and she leaves”—she leaves on her own?

And likewise, if he said:

“Leave her, what is

the halakha? Is this an expression of “a letter of release,” or perhaps since the language of leaving is not written in a get, it is not an expression of a get?

And likewise, if he said:

“Permit her, what is

the halakha? Is this an expression of “permitted to all men,” or perhaps it is an expression of the annulment of vows or the loosening of a belt?

And likewise:

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

Let us

resolve

from a beraita,

at least

[at the very least]

one

of these expressions:

As it was taught:

If he said in the expression:

“Do for her according to law, do for her according to custom, do for her as is proper”—

he has said nothing,

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

Mishna:

At first the Sages would say:

The Sages:

One who is being taken in chains,

who is being led in chains to be executed according to the judgment of the government,

and said

to two men:

“Write a get for my wife,”

even though he did not explicitly say “and give it,”

they shall write and give it,

as he certainly intended that they give her the get; but because he was distraught, he did not complete his statement.

The Sages returned

to say:

Even one who sets sail

[who travels far away] by sea,

and one who leaves with a caravan

on a distant journey involving danger on the roads, and said “Write a get for my wife,” intended that they write it and give it.

Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even

a

dangerously ill person,

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

Gemara:

An incident occurred involving a man named

Geniva,

who

was leaving

for execution;

he was being taken in chains

[he was],

when he was going out

[when he was going out] for execution,

he said

to the people who were there, as a directive before his death:

Give

[give]

four hundred dinars to Rabbi Avina, from the wine

[from the wine]

of the river

[of the river] called

Panya,

which I have.