*שקול מינה חפץ והדר הב לה גיטא—Take the object from her and give her the Getafterwards*

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a dispute between ר"י ור"ל in a case where the husband told the שליח הגט, take an object from my wife and afterwards give her the גט. Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

משמע דוקא שהקפיד על לקיחת החפץ תחלה פליגי – It seems that ר"י ור"ל argue only in this case where the husband was insistent that he first take the object, therefore ר"י maintains that it is פסול – אבל הב לה גיטא ושקול מינה חפץ לא¹ – However if the husband would have said, ‘give her the גט and take an object from her’, there would be no dispute, even ר"י would agree that the גט is כשר. תוספות asks: ותימה דבפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פה,א) אמרינן² דלא שנא אמר ליה שקול שטרא והב ליה זוזי – And it is astounding! For in פרק הכותב the גמרא states; ‘it makes no difference, whether he told the שליח**, ‘take** back the שטר חוב and give him the money’ – ולא שנא אמר ליה הב ליה זוזי ושקול שטרא משלם דאמר ליה לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי – Or whether he said, ‘give him the money and take back the שטר’, in either case the שליח must pay, for the sender can say to the שליח, ‘I sent you for my benefit, but not for my ruin’’; the reason the שליח is always liable is – כיון שהזכיר לקיחת השטר אף על פי שהזכיר לבסוף³ – Since the sender mentioned taking the שטר, even though he mentioned taking the שטר back last (he said הב ליה זוזי ושקול שטרא), for the שליח should have understood on his own that before he pays, he should take back the שטר. Similarly the same ruling should be here, since the owner wants the object, the שליח should not have given her the גט, until he retrieved the object. תוספות answers by distinguishing between the two cases: ויש לומר דשאני התם שפרעון המעות תלוין בשטר⁴ – And one can say; that there it is different, for the payment of money is dependent on the שטר – ובהזכרת לקיחת השטר גלי דעתיה שירא⁵ שלא יאמרו סיטראי נינהו: So when he mentioned taking back the שטר, he let it be known that he was concerned that they should not claim these monies are for another debt.

SUMMARY Paying a חוב and retrieving a שטר are intertwined, therefore no matter what he said first, the שליח should have retrieved the שטר first. The same cannot be said regarding a גט and קבלת חפץ.

THINKING IT OVER The inference of תוספות answer (as explained in footnote # 5) is that it is self-understood that the שליח should request the שטר even if the לוה did not tell him. However one may ask that if the לוה would not tell him, the שליח may think that it was a מלוה ע"פ without a שטר. Therefore there is seemingly no indication from the fact that the לוה asked him to retrieve the שטר, that he was concerned for סטראי נינהו, it could merely be that he was informing him that it is a מלוה בשטר!⁶

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly תוספות proof that in the case of הב לה גיטה ושקול וכו' it would be כשר, is because if they argue in that case as well, why did the גמרא state a case where he said (שקול מינה חפץ) והדר הב ליה גיטא, which emphasizes that the husband is מקפיד, when the גמרא could have used a more neutral language [either שקול מינה חפץ והב לא הגיטא (without the 'והדר'), or]; הב לה גיטא ושקול מינה חפץ. ² The case there is where אבימי owed money to חוזאי; he sent the money with חמא. When חמא came, he first gave them the money, and when he asked them to return the שטר, they told him this payment is for another debt, for which we did not write a שטר, and אבימי still owes us the money for the מלוה בשטר. The גמרא ruled that חמא was negligent for not taking the שטר, before paying. חמא was required to pay back אבימי this money. ³ We see from that גמרא that it makes no difference in which order the משלח indicated that he wants the שטר back; it is self-understood that nothing should be given unless the שטר is returned; why here do we differentiate whether he first said take the item or he said it last, in both cases the גט should be פסול. ⁴ The payment and the שטר are intertwined. The שטר forces you to repay the loan (without a שטר the lender has no claim and by leaving the שטר by the מלוה it is as if there was no payment, for he can always claim סיטראי נינהו), therefore once the שליח saw that אבימי mentioned taking the שטר, this indicated that he did not trust the חוזאי, in that case the שליח was negligent. However here the גט is not at all connected to the object the husband wants; therefore if he did not specify to take the object before the גט, the שליח did not do anything against the wishes of the husband. ⁵ Normally when a debt is paid, the payer request that the שטר be returned, therefore even if the לוה would not have told the שליח to take back the שטר, the שליח should have taken it back on his own. However since the לוה told him specifically to take back the שטר, (which seemingly there is no need for the לוה to tell him) this indicates that he was telling the שליח, ‘I do not trust them, so make sure to take back the שטר first’. See (however) ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ See זיו הים.

*רבי יוחנן פוסל בו וכל שכן בשלוחו—Rabi Yochonondisqualifies* it by him and certainly by his agent

OVERVIEW The משנה taught that if the husband says to the שליח הגט, ‘take from her a certain item which is mine’, the שליח may not send it (the גט) with someone else, because אין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר (he does not want his deposit to be in another’s possession). The גמרא cited a dispute in a case where the husband said to the שליח, ‘take the item from her and afterwards give her the גט’, however in fact the שליח gave her the גט first and then retrieved the item from her. ר' יוחנן maintains that whether it was the original שליח who did not follow the directive of the husband, and certainly if it was a second שליח (appointed by the first שליח), the גט is פסול. While ריש לקיש maintains that it is כשר in both cases. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות how to understand this גמרא.

פירש בקונטרס¹ דקפידת הבעל אינו אלא שלא ישאר החפץ ביד האשה – רש"י explained that the husband is only insistent that the item should not remain in his wife’s possession – אבל במה שאמר ליה שיטול הימנה חפץ והוא משלח ביד אחר אין הגט נפסל² – However regarding this which the husband told the שליח that he should take the item from her, and the שליח appointed another שליח to retrieve the item; that will not cause that the גט should be disqualified, for even though the husband may be particular as to who will receive the item from his wife, nevertheless it is not sufficient to disqualify the גט – תוספות clarifies a potential difficulty according to פרש"י: ולא ישלחנו ביד אחר דקתני במתניתין³ היינו טעמא שמא לא ימסור לשני דברים⁴ כהוייתן – And this which our משנה stated; ‘and he should not send it through another שליח’, the reason for this ruling is that perhaps the first שליח may not give over the instructions properly to the second שליח – או השני לא ידקדק בהן ויפסול הגט⁵ – Or perhaps the second שליח will not be that careful to follow those instructions, and the גט will become פסול. This concludes פרש"י (according to תוספות).**** תוספות comments on פרש"י: ולפי זה הא דקתני שאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר היינו ביד אשתו – And according to this interpretation (of רש"י), this which the משנה states (as a reason why לא ישלחנו ביד אחר, is because) ‘he does not want that his deposit should be by someone else’, this אחר refers to his wife, but not to the second שליח – In summation; ר' יוחנן rules that if the husband told the שליח to first take the item and then give the גט, we assume that the husband is מקפיד that the item should not be by the woman (ביד אחר), so therefore if the שליח (the first or the second⁶) gave the גט before retrieving the item, the גט is פסול. The משנה teaches us that the first שליח should not appoint a second שליח in this case, since there is the likelihood that the husband’s instructions will not be followed. תוספות disagrees with פרש"י: וזה⁷ נראה דוחק וגם זה דוחק דלא ישלחנו ביד אחר שלא ישכח לומר כאשר אמר הבעל – And this explanation seems to be strained, and it is also difficult that the reason why לא ישלחנו ביד אחר is because we are concerned that the first שליח should not forget to tell the second שליח the directive which the husband gave him – תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק בן אברהם דכשאמר שקול מינה חפץ והדר הב לה גיטא – And it seems to the ריב"א that when the husband said to the שליח, ‘take the item from her, and afterwards give her the גט’ – שתולה שליחות הגט בחפץ פוסל רבי יוחנן נמי כשמשלח ביד אחר – So the husband made the delivery of the גט dependent on retrieving item, therefore ר"י disqualifies the גט, when the first שליח sends it with another שליח – אפילו לא שינה שליח השני מדעת הבעל ונטל ממנה החפץ קודם נתינת הגט – Even though the second שליח did not change the wishes of the husband and took the item from her before he delivered the גט; it is still פסול – דכיון שתולה שליחות הגט בחפץ כל מה שמשנה מדעת הבעל בחפץ נפסל הגט – For since the delivery of the גט is dependent on retrieving the item, whatever the first שליח changes from the husband’s wishes regarding the item (like appointing another שליח in his stead), will disqualify the גט – והכי פירושו⁸ רבי יוחנן פוסל בו בשליח ראשון כששינה וכל שכן בשלוחו⁹ ואפילו בלא שינוי – And this is the explanation of the גמרא that ר"י is פוסל בו meaning the first שליח, in a case where he changed the order (and gave the גט first), and ר"י is certainly פוסל by the second שליח, even if he did not change, but followed the instructions – ולא ישלחנו ביד אחר אפילו לא ישנה דקפיד הבעל שאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר – And when the משנה stated לא ישלחנו ביד אחר'’, it means even if the second שליח will not change, since the husband is particular about wanting the first שליח only, for אין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר – פירוש¹⁰ ביד השליח השני וריש לקיש כולי כדפירש¹¹ בקונטרס: Which (אחר) means in the hands of the second שליח, however ר"ל maintains, etc. that it is a גט כשר in both instances as רש"י explained.

SUMMARY According to רש"י the ruling of ר"י is when the שליח (either one) was משנה, and the משנה rules that לא ישלחנו ביד אחר, because maybe he will be משנה. According to תוספות when the משנה states לא ישלחנו ביד אחר it will be פסול if he sends it with another שליח, even if he is not משנה.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains that when ר"י ruled וכ"ש בשלוחו it means that it is פסול even if לא שינה.¹² Why therefore did ר"י say that by שלוחו it is כ"ש that it is פסול, why is it a כ"ש, in fact since the שליח שני was not משנה, why should it be פסול at all?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is (seemingly) referring to רש"י ד"ה ואזל who writes, דכי אמר ליה שקול חפץ ברישא קפיד איהו שהיה בדעתו לעכב הגט אם לא תתן לו החפץ ולרדותה בעיגונא עד שתתן. ² See רש"י on the עמוד א' ד"ה דכ"ע where he writes, דאף על גב דאין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר, שליחות דגיטא לא בטיל, ככל שלוחי גיטא שיכולין לעשות שליח, דאגט לא קפיד בעל לדבר זה, דגט אינו תלוי בחפץ, דאפשר שילך ויטול החפץ וישלח הגט ביד אחר, הלכך אפי' שינה בחפץ אין זה שינוי בגט, שהרי קיבל החפץ ואח"כ נתן. ³ According to (תוספות understanding of) רש"י that the גט will not become פסול if it is sent with a second שליח, why does the משנה state that 'לא ישלחנו ביד אחר'; what problem is there by the שליח שני. ⁴ This is referring to the instruction of the husband that he should first take the item and afterwards give her the גט. ⁵ However the husband does not mind who is retrieving the item from the woman, as long as she does not have the item, he is satisfied. However we are concerned that the second שליח will not have been told the instructions properly, or he may not deem them important and he will not take the item first, which will cause the גט to be נפסל. ⁶ Some explanation is required why ר"י rules that פוסל בו וכ"ש בשלוחו, what is the כ"ש?! Perhaps one can say that by שלוחו one may not send even לכתחלה, so therefore it is a כ"ש that if was משנה it is פסול. Alternately by שליח הב' there is the idea of אין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר, and even though it refers (primarily) to the wife, it also can be used as a כ"ש to be פוסל the שליח הב'. ⁷ תוספות (when saying 'וזה') is referring to sרש"י' explanation that אין רצונו שיהא פקדונו ביד אחר, is referring to the wife (instead of referring to the second שליח, as the simple reading of the משנה indicates). ⁸ תוספות is saying somewhat of a novelty (therefore he writes והכי פירושו), that when ר"י is פוסל בו that is if he made a שינוי, and that which he is פוסל בשלוחו, is even if there was no שינוי! However according to רש"י both the פסול בו וכ"ש בשלוחו is only if there was a שינוי. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁰ This is not like רש"י who interprets the אחר to mean the wife. ¹¹ See end of רש"י ד"ה ואזל. ¹² See footnote # 9. ¹³ See זיו הים.

הכי גרס רבינו תם אמר רב אשי מאי טעותא מי קאמר ליה אבא בר מניומי ולא את—This is how ר"ת is גורס; “רב אשי said; what is the mistake, did he say to him, ‘אבא בר מניומי but not you’”

OVERVIEW A person sent a שליח to divorce his wife. When the שליח said, ‘I do not know her’, the husband said, give it to אבא בר מניומי; he knows her and will give it to her’. The שליח could not find אבא when he met three other sages, and they said, ‘give us the גט (and say בפ"נ וכו') and we will give it to אבא’. However רב ספרא said that this שליח is not a שליח שניתן לגירושין and therefore cannot give it over to others (except for אבא). There are two versions of what followed. רבא either said that רב ספרא undermined these three sages, or he said רב ספרא was incorrect in his objection. רש"י maintains that in both versions, רב אשי disagreed with רבא.¹ Our תוספות disagrees.

וקאתי רב אשי לפרש מאי טעותא² ולב' הלשונות רב אשי מכוונים – And in the second version, רב אשי is explaining why sרב ספרא' objection was erroneous as רבא maintained, and according to both versions, רב אשי is consistent that רב ספרא was incorrect stating that he was a שליח שלא ניתן לגירושין –

And when the גמרא stated איכא דאמרי; indicating that this is a different version; that was referring only to רבא, but not to רב אשי.

SUMMARY רב אשי always maintains that he is a שליח לגירושין

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of these two גירסאות?

footnotes: ¹ In the first version רב אשי maintained that רב ספרא was wrong, because the husband never excluded the שליח from being a שליח לגירושין. In the א"ד, רב אשי disagreed with רבא and maintained that רב ספרא was correct that the שליח was not a שליח לגירושין (as רש"י is גורס that מאי קאמר ליה אבא בר מניומי ולא את). ² In both versions רב אשי is saying the same thing (according to תוספות), מי קאמר ליה אבא וכו' ולא את?! The husband never excluded the שליח from being a שליח לגירושין. ³ In the first version רבא supported רב ספרא, however in the א"ד he disagrees with רב ספרא. However רב אשי always disagrees with רב ספרא.