## Gittin Daf 62b

###### Gittin 62b:1
[Gittin 62b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:1)

**הָאוֹמֵר** ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who says** to another: **Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife** as my agent, **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation and cancel the agency, **he can retract** it until the document reaches his wife’s possession. However, in the case of **a woman who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me,** and the husband handed the bill of divorce to her agent, **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, **he cannot retract** it. Once the bill of divorce is transferred to her agent, its legal status is like that of a bill of divorce that was handed directly to her, and the divorce takes effect immediately.


###### Gittin 62b:2
[Gittin 62b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:2)

לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** if the husband **said to** the agent whom the woman designated to receive the bill of divorce: **I do not want [*ee ifshi*] for you to receive** the bill of divorce **for her; rather, deliver** it **and give** it **to her,** then **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation and cancel the agency, **he can retract** it until it reaches his wife’s possession. Since the husband does not agree to have the divorce take effect upon receipt by his wife’s agent, he changes the designation of the agent and designates him as his own agent for delivery. Therefore, the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches his wife’s possession.


###### Gittin 62b:3
[Gittin 62b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:3)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הָאוֹמֶרֶת: ״טוֹל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even** a woman **who** did not instruct the agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me but **says: Take my bill of divorce for me,** thereby designates the agent as an agent of receipt on her behalf. Therefore, **if** after handing the bill of divorce to the agent the husband **seeks to retract** his decision and cancel the agency, **he cannot retract** it.


###### Gittin 62b:4
[Gittin 62b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טַעְמָא דְּלָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, הָא שַׁוֵּיתֵיהּ אִיהִי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna stated that a husband who designates an agent, saying: Receive a bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver a bill of divorce to my wife, can retract that designation. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi** that one may infer: **The reason** that he may retract the designation is **that** the woman **did not designate** the agent as **an agent for receipt. However,** in a case where **she designated him** as **an agent for receipt,** then even if the husband said to that agent for receipt: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his statement, **he cannot retract** it. Rav Aḥa suggests: **Learn from** the mishna that saying: **Deliver, is like** saying: **Acquire.** Therefore, even though the husband said to the agent: Deliver the bill of divorce to my wife, the agent acquires it on behalf of the wife and the divorce takes effect immediately.


###### Gittin 62b:5
[Gittin 62b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:5)

לָא; לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No,** there is no proof, as **actually I** could **say to you that** saying: **Deliver, is not like** saying: **Acquire,** and in a case where the wife appointed an agent for receipt and the husband instructed him: Deliver the bill of divorce, the husband can retract the designation. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not appoint an agent for receipt, **and** it is the case where the husband said: **Receive this bill of divorce on** behalf of **my wife,** that **was necessary for** the *tanna* to teach, as there is a novel element in that case.


###### Gittin 62b:6
[Gittin 62b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:6)

דְּסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּבַעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְטָא גִּיטָּא לִידֵהּ – לָא לֶהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּ״הִתְקַבֵּל וְהוֹלֵךְ״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it might enter your mind to say** that **since the husband is not eligible to designate an agent for receipt,** but only an agent for delivery, when he says to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, **even though the bill of divorce reached her possession,** it **is not** a valid **bill of divorce.** Since the husband designated the agent with language appropriate for an agent of receipt, which he is not eligible to designate, one might conclude that the husband did not designate an agent at all. In addition, the woman, who is eligible to designate an agent of receipt, did not do so. Consequently, there is no mechanism in place to facilitate the divorce. Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that when the husband instructed the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife, it is **as** though **he said: Receive and deliver** the bill of divorce. He designated an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce reaches the woman.


###### Gittin 62b:7
[Gittin 62b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:7)

תְּנַן, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא אַקַּבָּלָה, לָא שְׁנָא אַהוֹלָכָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional proof that the legal status of one who instructs another: Deliver, is like one who instructs another: Acquire. **We learned** in the mishna that in the case of **a woman who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, if** the husband **seeks to retract** his decision to divorce his wife upon receipt of the bill of divorce by the agent, **he cannot retract** it. **What, is it not** that when the husband handed the bill of divorce to the agent, **it is no different** whether he employed an expression **of receipt** and **it is no different** whether he employed an expression **of delivery,** and in both cases he cannot retract his decision? Apparently, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.


###### Gittin 62b:8
[Gittin 62b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:8)

לָא, אַקַּבָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **No,** this ruling that he cannot retract his decision applies only in the case **of receipt,** i.e., if the husband said to the agent: Receive this bill of divorce on behalf of my wife. However, if he said: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife, he can retract his decision.


###### Gittin 62b:9
[Gittin 62b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״; הָא לָא אָמַר ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from the mishna. **Therefore,** if the husband **said to** the woman’s agent of receipt: **I do not want you to receive** the bill of divorce **on her** behalf; **rather, deliver** it **and give** it **to her, if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation, **he can retract** it until it reaches his wife’s possession. The Gemara infers: **The reason** he can retract his designation **is** due to the fact **that he said: I do not want,** thereby canceling the agent’s status as an agent of receipt. **However, if he did not say: I do not want,** but he said: Deliver this bill of divorce, **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his decision **he cannot retract** it. The Gemara suggests: **Learn from** the mishna that saying: **Deliver, is like** saying: **Acquire.**


###### Gittin 62b:10
[Gittin 62b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:10)

דִּילְמָא בְּ״הֵילָךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that suggestion. **Perhaps** the mishna is not referring to a case where the husband said: Deliver [*holekh*]; rather, the mishna is referring to a case **where** the husband said: **Here you are [*heilakh*].** The husband is thereby saying: Here you are and it is yours, which is certainly an expression of acquisition.


###### Gittin 62b:11
[Gittin 62b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:11)

פְּשִׁיטָא – אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה, שֶׁכֵּן בַּעַל מוֹלִיךְ גֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ; וְאִשָּׁה הָוְיָא שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִשָּׁה מְקַבֶּלֶת גִּיטָּהּ מִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ. אִישׁ – לְקַבָּלָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה – לְהוֹלָכָה, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara proceeds to discuss the fundamental *halakha* of agency with regard to a bill of divorce. It is **obvious** that a **man can be** designated **an agent for delivery, as a husband delivers his wife’s bill of divorce. And** similarly, it is obvious that **a woman can be** designated **an agent for receipt, as a woman receives her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband.** However, with regard to designating **a man** as an agent **for receipt and** designating **a woman** as an agent **for delivery, what** is the *halakha*?


###### Gittin 62b:12
[Gittin 62b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – לֹא יַחְזוֹר. מַאי, לָאו בְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה? לָא, בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁלוּחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna. With regard to **one who says** to another: **Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife** as my agent, **if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation, **he can retract** it. However, in the case of **a woman who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, if** the husband gives that agent the bill of divorce and then **seeks to retract** his decision **he cannot retract** it. **What, is it not** referring to **one** and the same **agent** in both cases, **and conclude from it** that the agent who is **valid for receipt is valid for delivery** as well? The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is possible to explain that the reference in the mishna is **to two** different **agents,** an agent for delivery who is a man and an agent for receipt who is a woman.


###### Gittin 62b:13
[Gittin 62b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לְפִיכָךְ, אִם אָמַר לוֹ הַבַּעַל: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּחַד שָׁלִיחַ הוּא, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כָּשֵׁר לְקַבָּלָה כָּשֵׁר לְהוֹלָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Come** and **hear** an additional proof from the mishna: **Therefore,** if the husband **said to** the woman’s agent of receipt: **I do not want you to receive** the bill of divorce **on her** behalf; **rather, deliver** it **and give** it **to her, if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation, **he can retract** it. **And isn’t** the case **here** one **where it is one agent** whose designation the husband changes from an agent of receipt to an agent of delivery, **and conclude from** the mishna that an agent who is **valid for receipt is valid for delivery** as well?


###### Gittin 62b:14
[Gittin 62b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:14)

פְּשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ אִישׁ הָוֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבָּלָה – שֶׁכֵּן אָב מְקַבֵּל גֵּט לְבִתּוֹ קְטַנָּה; אִשָּׁה לְהוֹלָכָה – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, מַאי? אָמַר רַב מָרִי, תָּא שְׁמַע: אַף הַנָּשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱמָנוֹת לוֹמַר מֵת בַּעְלָהּ, נֶאֱמָנוֹת לְהָבִיא אֶת גִּיטָּהּ – וְהָתָם הוֹלָכָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concedes that this proof is partially effective: **Resolve from** the mishna that **a man can be an agent for receipt,** and that is reasonable, **as a father receives a bill of divorce on** behalf **of his daughter** who is **a minor** because she lacks the halakhic competence to receive it herself. However, with regard to whether **a woman** can be an agent **for delivery, raise the dilemma: What** is the *halakha*? **Rav Mari said: Come** and **hear** a resolution based on the mishna (23b): **Even the women who are not deemed credible to say** that a woman’s **husband died,** because they are suspected of seeking to harm her, **are deemed credible to bring her bill of divorce** to her. **And there,** in the case in that mishna, the woman **is** an agent for **delivery.**


###### Gittin 62b:15
[Gittin 62b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:15)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מִסֵּיפָא נָמֵי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה אֶת גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״; וְאוֹקֵימְנָא בְּהוֹלָכָה; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Learn** a resolution to that dilemma **from the latter clause** of that mishna **as well, as the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches: The woman herself may bring her** own **bill of divorce, provided that she is required** by the court **to state** in its presence: **It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and we established** that the woman acts as an agent **for delivery.** The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** the latter clause of that mishna that a woman can be designated as an agent for delivery.


###### Gittin 62b:16
[Gittin 62b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:16)

אִיתְּמַר: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אָמַר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated** that if a woman says to an agent: **Bring my bill of divorce to me, and** the agent then says to her husband: **Your wife said receive my bill of divorce for me, and** the husband hands him the bill of divorce and **says: Here you are, as she said;** that the *amora’im* engage in a dispute as to the *halakha*. Is the *halakha* determined by what his wife said, in which case the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches the woman’s possession, or is it determined by what the agent said, in which case the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce is handed to the agent?


###### Gittin 62b:17
[Gittin 62b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:17)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ הִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ – דְּאִי אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ, מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ מִיהָא תִּיגָּרַשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav says:** In that case, **even** if **the bill of divorce reached her possession, she is not divorced.** The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** this statement that the husband **relies on** the agent’s **statement** as to what his status is, and hands him the bill of divorce as an agent for receipt. However, since the woman did not designate him as an agent for receipt and the husband lacks the authority to designate him as an agent of receipt, there is no agency and the divorce does not take effect. **As, if** the contrary were the case, that when he hands the bill of divorce to the agent the husband **relies on** his wife’s **statement** as to what the agent’s status is, then **at least when the bill of divorce reaches her possession let her be divorced,** as she designated the agent as an agent of delivery for her husband.


###### Gittin 62b:18
[Gittin 62b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/62b:18)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: How can** these cases **be compared?**