## Gittin Daf 63a

###### Gittin 63a:1
[Gittin 63a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:1)

בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אִיתְּמַר אִיפְּכָא: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״; וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת – אַלְמָא אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידַהּ הוּא דְּקָא סָמֵיךְ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if the opposite was stated,** i.e., a case where the woman said: **Receive my bill of divorce for me,** and the agent said to the husband: **Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and** the husband **said: Here you are, as she said, and Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav says: Once the bill of divorce reaches** the agent’s **possession, she is divorced,** it would be understandable. **Apparently,** the husband **relies upon her statement** that the agent is an agent of receipt, and he intended to give the agent the status the wife assigned, not the one the agent says she assigned.


###### Gittin 63a:2
[Gittin 63a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:2)

אִי נָמֵי ״לְיָדָהּ״ – אַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ. אֶלָּא הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּעַקְרַיהּ שָׁלִיחַ לִשְׁלִיחוּתֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי הוּא; דְּאָמַר: שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הָוֵינָא, לְהוֹלָכָה לָא הָוֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** if Rav Naḥman ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches **her possession,** she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband **relies on** the agent’s **statement,** and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. **However, here,** in the case cited, where Rav Naḥman rules that she is not divorced, it is not because the husband relies on one statement or the other. Rather, it is **due to** the fact **that** by means of his statement **the agent negates his agency entirely, as he said: I am an agent for receipt,** meaning: **I am not to be an agent for delivery.** He is essentially saying that he is not prepared to go to the trouble of delivering the bill of divorce to her. Therefore, even if he does ultimately deliver the bill of divorce to her, he is an agent neither for the woman nor for her husband. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the question of which statement the husband relies upon.


###### Gittin 63a:3
[Gittin 63a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:3)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר: ״הִתְקַבֵּל גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ אוֹ ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר. טַעְמָא דְּרָצָה, הָא לֹא רָצָה – הָוֵי גֵּט;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says: Come** and **hear** an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman 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 may retract** it. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya infers: **The reason** she is not divorced is that **he seeks** to retract his designation. **However,** if he **did not seek** to retract it, **it is** a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Gittin 63a:4
[Gittin 63a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:4)

וְאַמַּאי? הָא בַּעַל לָאו בַּר שַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He asks: **But why** is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? **Isn’t the husband ineligible to designate an agent for receipt? Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said** to himself: **Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.** His statement: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, does not prevent the divorce from taking effect. **Here too,** in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, **once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.**


###### Gittin 63a:5
[Gittin 63a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:5)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקַבָּלָה, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לְשֵׁם הוֹלָכָה; הָכָא – טָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case where one says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, the principle that **a person knows that agency for receipt cannot** be designated by the husband is in effect, **and he decided to give** the bill of divorce to the agent **for the sake of delivery.** When he told the agent to receive the document, his intent was that the agent should receive the document in order to deliver it to his wife, not that the act of divorce should take effect when the agent receives it. However **here,** in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband **errs** and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.


###### Gittin 63a:6
[Gittin 63a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, קְטַנָּה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״ – אֵינוֹ גֵּט עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ. כִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ – מִיהָא מִגָּרְשָׁה, וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא לָאו שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה שַׁוְּיֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ, מֵימָר אָמַר: תִּיגָּרַשׁ כֹּל הֵיכִי דְּמִגָּרְשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear** an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (65a). In the case of **a minor girl who said** to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not a bill of divorce** that takes effect **until it reaches her possession,** as a minor is incapable of designating an agent. Rava infers: **In any event, once the bill of divorce reaches her possession she is divorced.** He asks: **But why** is that the case? The husband **did not designate him an agent for delivery. Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said** to himself: **Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced,** and the agent is designated as his agent for delivery. **Here too,** in the case mentioned by Rav Naḥman, **once he decided to divorce her, he says: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced.**


###### Gittin 63a:7
[Gittin 63a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:7)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שְׁלִיחוּת לְקָטָן, וְגָמַר וְנָתַן לָהּ לְשׁוּם הוֹלָכָה דִּידֵיהּ; הָכָא – טָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case where the minor girl designated the agent, the principle that **a person knows that there is no agency for a minor** applies, **and he decided to give** the bill of divorce to the agent as an agent **for delivery.** However, **here,** in the case where the agent misrepresented what the woman said, the husband **errs** and relies upon the statement of the agent, who said that he is the woman’s agent for receipt.


###### Gittin 63a:8
[Gittin 63a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״; ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הָבֵא לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; מִשֶּׁהִגִּיעַ גֵּט לְיָדָהּ – מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Come** and **hear** an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:2). With regard to a woman who said to an agent: **Bring me my bill of divorce, and** the agent said to her husband: **Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me;** or a woman who said: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, and** the agent said to her husband: **Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and** the husband **said** to the agent: **Deliver and give** it **to her,** or: **Acquire** it **for her, or: Receive** it **for her, if** the husband **seeks to retract** his designation **he may retract** it. However, **once the bill of divorce reaches her possession,** she is **divorced.**


###### Gittin 63a:9
[Gittin 63a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:9)

מַאי, לָאו קַבָּלָה – אַקַּבָּלָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַהוֹלָכָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that the reference in the *baraita* is to a case where the husband responded with an expression of **receipt,** i.e., acquire it for her, or receive it for her, **to** the agent’s assertions of **receipt,** i.e., your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, **and** where the husband responded with expressions of **delivery,** i.e., deliver and give it to her, **to** assertions of **delivery,** i.e., your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce? The ruling in the *baraita* is that the bill of divorce takes effect once it reaches her possession. The case of an assertion of receipt and a response of receipt contradicts Rav Naḥman’s statement, as in a case where the woman spoke of delivery and the agent said to her husband that his wife spoke of receipt, the woman is not divorced even when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.


###### Gittin 63a:10
[Gittin 63a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:10)

לָא; קַבָּלָה – אַהוֹלָכָה, וְהוֹלָכָה – אַקַּבָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the reference in the *baraita* is to a case where the husband responded with expressions of **receipt,** corresponding to the statement of his wife, **to** the agent’s assertions of **delivery, and** where the husband responded with expressions of **delivery,** corresponding to the statement of his wife, **to** the agent’s assertions of **receipt.** That is why the woman is divorced when the bill of divorce reaches her possession.


###### Gittin 63a:11
[Gittin 63a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:11)

אִי קַבָּלָה אַהוֹלָכָה – מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּא לִידֵיהּ, לְאַלְתַּר לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דְּאַדִּיבּוּרָא דִידֵיהּ קָא סָמֵיךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is a case where the husband responded with expressions of **receipt,** corresponding to the statement of his wife, **to** the agent’s assertions of **delivery,** then **from** the moment **that the bill of divorce reaches** the agent’s **possession let it be a bill of divorce** that takes effect **immediately [*le’altar*],** as the woman’s designation of the agent as an agent of receipt remains in effect. Similar to the conclusion that the Gemara sought to draw from the statement of Rav Naḥman mentioned earlier, the Gemara says: **Conclude from** the fact that the ruling in the *baraita* is that the divorce takes effect only once it reaches the woman’s possession, **that** the husband **relies on** the agent’s **statement** and therefore designates the agent as an agent for delivery.


###### Gittin 63a:12
[Gittin 63a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:12)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״, הָכָא מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הֵילָךְ כְּמָה שֶׁאָמְרָה״?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case discussed by Rav Naḥman, the husband **said to** the agent: **Here you are, as she said,** explicitly tying the designation of the agent to the woman’s statement. **Here does** the husband **say to** the agent: **Here you are, as she said?** Instead he merely hands the bill of divorce to the agent, relying upon the agent’s statement.


###### Gittin 63a:13
[Gittin 63a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְ״אִשְׁתְּךָ אָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְ״תֵן לָהּ״, ״זְכֵי לָהּ״, וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, יַחְזוֹר; ״זְכֵי לָהּ״ וְ״הִתְקַבֵּל לָהּ״ – רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 6:1) that if the woman says to an agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me, and** the agent says to her husband: **Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and** the husband **says: Deliver and give** it **to her,** or: **Acquire** it **for her, or: Receive** it **for her,** once the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent for receipt, if he **seeks to retract** his decision **he cannot retract** it, because the divorce has already taken effect. **Rabbi Natan says:** If the husband said: **Deliver and give** it **to her,** and **he seeks to retract** his designation, then as long as it has not yet reached the woman’s possession **he can retract** it, because the husband designated him an agent for delivery. However, if the husband said: **Acquire** it **for her, or: Receive** it **for her,** and he **seeks to retract** his decision **he cannot retract** it.


###### Gittin 63a:14
[Gittin 63a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:14)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוּלָּן – אִם רָצָה לַחְזוֹר, לֹא יַחְזוֹר. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי שֶׁתְּקַבֵּל לָהּ, אֶלָּא הוֹלֵךְ וְתֵן לָהּ״, רָצָה לַחְזוֹר – יַחְזוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: In all of** those cases, **if he seeks to retract** his decision **he cannot retract** it, because when he hands the document to the agent, the bill of divorce takes effect immediately. **However, if he said to** the agent explicitly: **I do not want you to receive** the bill of divorce **for her; rather, deliver and give** it **to her,** then if **he seeks to retract** his decision **he can retract** it.


###### Gittin 63a:15
[Gittin 63a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:15)

רַבִּי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אִי אֶיפְשִׁי״ אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן; וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, מַאן תַּנָּא קַמָּא – רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **is** apparently identical to that of **the first *tanna*;** what is their dispute? The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **comes to teach us** that the explicit expression: **I do not want** you to receive the bill of divorce for her; rather, deliver and give it to her, is effective in negating the agent’s designation as an agent of receipt and designating him as an agent for delivery. **And if you wish, say** instead that **this teaches us: Who is the first *tanna*** of this *baraita*? It is **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, and the *baraita* then clarifies Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement.


###### Gittin 63a:16
[Gittin 63a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:16)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הֵילָךְ״ – לְרַבִּי נָתָן, כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָאו כִּ״זְכֵי״ דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages. If the husband says: **Here you are,** according **to Rabbi Natan** is **it comparable** to a case **where** the husband said: **Acquire,** and therefore, he cannot retract his designation, **or** is it **not comparable** to a case **where** he said: **Acquire?**


###### Gittin 63a:17
[Gittin 63a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/63a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Come** and **hear** a resolution of this dilemma 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 and cancel the agency, **he can retract** it until it reaches his wife’s hand. However, with regard to **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.