## Gittin Daf 29a

###### Gittin 29a:1
[Gittin 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:1)

אֲבָל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ דִּינָא לִקְטָלָא – קָטְלִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but in a Jewish court, once his verdict to be executed has emerged, they execute him.**


###### Gittin 29a:2
[Gittin 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּחָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא! כִּי חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגְמַר דִּינָא, בָּתַר גְּמַר דִּינָא – תּוּ לָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him:** In **a Jewish court as well, it is possible that** the court will **see** fit to **acquit him** afterward and he will be released. Rav Yosef said: When the court **sees** fit to **acquit him,** it is **before the verdict; after the verdict** the court will **not further see** fit to **acquit him,** as it is uncommon for the court to find a reason to acquit him after his verdict has been delivered.


###### Gittin 29a:3
[Gittin 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:3)

לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ ״מְעִידִים אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג! דִּלְמָא בּוֹרֵחַ שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that a mishna (*Makkot* 7a) **supports** Rav Yosef’s opinion: Concerning one who fled from the court after his verdict was issued, the mishna states: **Any place where two** witnesses **arise and say: We testify about so-and-so that his verdict was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so** were **his witnesses,** the *halakha* is that **this** person **should be killed.** It is evident from the mishna in tractate *Makkot* that there is no concern that the court might later have found a reason to release him. The Gemara answers: **Perhaps one who flees is different,** as the court will not reconsider his verdict once he has fled.


###### Gittin 29a:4
[Gittin 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמַע מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרָג״ – יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. מִקּוֹמֶנְטָרִיסִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרַג״ – אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear:** If one **heard from a Jewish court that they were saying:** The **man so-and-so died,** or: The **man so-and-so was killed,** then the court allows **his wife to marry.** If he heard **from a gentile judicial registrar:** The **man so-and-so died,** or: The **man so-and-so was killed,** then the court does **not** allow **his wife to marry.**


###### Gittin 29a:5
[Gittin 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:5)

מַאי ״מֵת״ וּמַאי ״נֶהֱרַג״? אִילֵימָא ״מֵת״ – מַמָּשׁ, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן, כֹּל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What** does it mean when it says: **Died, and what** does it mean when it says: **Was killed? If we say** that it means that he **actually died, and** that he **actually was killed,** such **that** the case **concerning the gentiles** is stated in **a similar manner,** i.e., that he heard from the gentile registrar that the person was actually dead, **why** may the court **not** allow **his wife to marry? Don’t we maintain that** with regard to **any** gentile who **speaks offhandedly,** the Sages **deemed him credible?** Therefore, the gentile should be deemed credible when he says that someone died or was killed.


###### Gittin 29a:6
[Gittin 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:6)

אֶלָּא לָאו ״מֵת״ – יוֹצֵא לָמוּת, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג? וְקָתָנֵי: בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** necessary to explain that when it says: **Died,** it means that he is **going out to die, and** when it says: **Was killed,** it means that he is **going out to be executed. And** it **teaches:** If one heard **in a Jewish court** then the court allows **his wife to marry,** as it is assumed that he was already executed, in support of the statement of Rav Yosef.


###### Gittin 29a:7
[Gittin 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:7)

לְעוֹלָם מֵת מַמָּשׁ וְנֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם אַמַּאי לָא, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא שָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, אֲבָל בְּמִילְּתָא דְּשָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, עָבְדִי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי שִׁקְרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it can be explained that he **actually died, and was actually killed;** and with regard to that which you said: Such **that** the case **concerning the gentiles** is stated in **a similar manner, why** may the court **not** allow his wife to marry? **Don’t we maintain that** with regard to **any** gentile who **speaks offhandedly,** the Sages **deemed him credible?** The answer is that **this** credibility **applies** only **in a matter that is not relevant to** the gentiles; **but in a matter that is relevant to** the gentiles, such as here, where they desire to publicize that they carried out their verdict, it is **common for them to reinforce their false** verdict.


###### Gittin 29a:8
[Gittin 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״ – לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael,** where his only responsibility is to transmit the bill of divorce to the wife, **and** the agent **became sick, this** agent may **send it in the possession of another** agent. **But if** the husband **said to** the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, **take for me such and such an item from her** that I left with her as a deposit, then **he may not send it in the possession of another** agent. This is because it is assumed **that it is not** the **desire** of the husband **that his deposit be in the possession of another** person whom he did not appoint as his agent.


###### Gittin 29a:9
[Gittin 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״חָלָה״ תְּנַן. פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חָלָה״ קָתָנֵי! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חָלָה״ אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Kahana said: We learned** in the mishna that the agent **became sick;** otherwise, he may not appoint a second agent. The Gemara asks: This **is obvious, as** the mishna **teaches** explicitly that the agent **became sick.** The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **the same is true,** i.e., that he may transfer the bill of divorce to another agent, **even though** the agent **did not become sick, and** the reason **that** the mishna **teaches** specifically that **he became sick** is that the mishna **teaches the matter in the manner in which it** typically occurs, as an agent typically fulfills his agency, barring unavoidable circumstances, therefore, Rav Kahana **teaches us** that an agent may appoint another agent only when he becomes sick.


###### Gittin 29a:10
[Gittin 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:10)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה נָמֵי! וְאִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״ – אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא! וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** of his appointment as an agent? **If** this is a case **where** the husband **said to** the agent: **Deliver** this bill of divorce to my wife, then **even though** the agent **did not become sick,** he may **also** appoint an agent in his place, as the husband did not state that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. **And if** this is a case **where he said to** the agent: **You, deliver** this bill of divorce to my wife, then **even** if **he became sick, he also may not** appoint a second agent in his place, as the husband specified that he must be the one to deliver the bill of divorce. **And if** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** then **even** if **he became sick** he **also may not** appoint a second agent, no matter what the husband said.


###### Gittin 29a:11
[Gittin 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* in the *Tosefta* (2:13): If the husband said to an agent: **Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife,** then **this** agent **may send it in the possession of another** agent. However, if the husband said: **You, deliver this bill of divorce to my wife,** then **this** agent **may not send it in the possession of another** agent. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whether** the husband said it **like this or** whether the husband said it **like that, the agent may not designate another agent.** Therefore, Rav Kahana’s statement is difficult.


###### Gittin 29a:12
[Gittin 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:12)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְהוּא דְּחָלָה; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said to his agent: **Deliver** the bill of divorce, without specifying that he must be the one to do so, and Rav Kahana understood the *baraita* as follows: **And this** *halakha*, that he may send it in the possession of another agent, applies only **when** the agent **became sick. And if you wish, say** that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband said: **You deliver, but one who became sick is different,** and it is assumed that under those circumstances the husband would allow him to designate another agent. **And if you wish, say** that the mishna **is** even in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** that an agent is ordinarily not permitted to designate another agent. **But** a case where the agent **became sick is different,** and the agent may designate another agent.


###### Gittin 29a:13
[Gittin 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:13)

תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. וּרְמִינְהוּ, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. אִינְהוּ אִין, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce in Eretz Yisrael, and** the agent **became sick, this** agent may **send it in the possession of another** agent. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (66a): If the husband **said to two** people: **Give a bill of divorce to my wife, or** if he said **to three** people: **Write a bill of divorce and give** it **to my wife,** then **these** people **should write** it **and give** it. The Gemara infers from the mishna: **They** themselves, **yes,** they should do so, **but** one whom they appoint as **an agent** may **not** do so.


###### Gittin 29a:14
[Gittin 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, הָכָא בַּעַל לָא קָפֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: There, what is the reason** that an agent may not be appointed? It is **due to degradation of the husband,** who does not want the matter to become known, and therefore they may not designate another agent. However, **here,** after he has already sent the bill of divorce, the **husband is not particular** that word not spread, and therefore the agent may designate another agent in his place.


###### Gittin 29a:15
[Gittin 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:15)

רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִילֵּי נִינְהוּ, וּמִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** There is a different reason that in the case of the mishna (66a) the agent may not appoint another to write the bill of divorce; it is **because** of the fact **that** in the case there, the husband’s instructions **are** mere **words, and** verbal **directives cannot be delegated to an agent,** i.e., an agent cannot be deputized to give instructions on behalf of another. Therefore, they cannot take their oral instructions and transfer them to another. In the case of the mishna here, the agent is able to give the physical bill of divorce to another agent and thereby transfer his agency.


###### Gittin 29a:16
[Gittin 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:16)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁלִיחַ מַתָּנָה; וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – רַב אָמַר: מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּגֵט. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּגֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the explanations offered by Abaye and Rava? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference **between them** in the case of **an agent** appointed to write a deed of **a gift, and** their disagreement is parallel **to the dispute of Rav and Shmuel. Rav says:** A deed of **gift is not like a bill of divorce,** as the gift giver does not care who writes the deed. Since it is not degrading to him if another agent writes the deed of gift instead of the agent that he appointed, the agent may appoint another agent. **And Shmuel says:** A deed of **gift is like a bill of divorce,** as the mere words instructing the agent to write the deed cannot be transferred to another agent.


###### Gittin 29a:17
[Gittin 29a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:17)

וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But if** the husband **said to** the agent: When you transmit the bill of divorce to my wife, **take for me such and such an item from her,** then the agent may not appoint a second agent, as it is not the desire of the husband that his deposit be in the possession of another. **Reish Lakish says: Here, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** that **a borrower is not allowed to lend** the item that he borrowed to someone else, **and a renter is not allowed to rent out** the item that he rented to someone else. In those cases, the same reasoning applies, i.e., that it is not the desire of the owner that his item be in the possession of another.


###### Gittin 29a:18
[Gittin 29a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:18)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִים אוֹתָהּ! אֶלָּא זִימְנִין דְּגִיטָּא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי – דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בַּבַּיִת״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בָּעֲלִיָּיה; ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren know this** *halakha*, and this is not the novel idea expressed in the mishna. The novel idea expressed in the mishna is as follows: Not only is it not permitted for an agent to appoint another agent in this case, as it violates the desire of the husband, **but sometimes** it happens **that the bill of divorce is also not** valid if a second agent is appointed. This is **because** the first agent **becomes as one that** it **was said to him: Divorce her only in the house, and he divorced her in the attic;** or the husband said: **Divorce her only with** your **right** hand, **and he divorced her with** his **left** hand. Here as well, since the agent violated the instructions the divorce will not be valid.


###### Gittin 29a:19
[Gittin 29a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/29a:19)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָה לְאַפֵּיהּ וְיָהֲבָה לֵיהּ חֵפֶץ, וַהֲדַר שָׁקְלָה מִינֵּיהּ גִּיטָּא; כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּגִיטָּא – גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Everyone** agrees that **when** it happens **that** the wife **went out to** greet **him and gave him the item** that the husband requested, **and then** she **took the bill of divorce from him,** in this case **everyone agrees that the bill of divorce is a proper bill of divorce. When they disagree** is in a case **when** the husband **said to** the agent: