Gittin

we may infer that a slave is qualified. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot be appointed an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband, because he does not come within the [provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage. R. Eleazar strongly demurred to this. Your reason, [he said,] is [that the slave cannot be an agent to do for another] a thing which he cannot do for himself. This would imply that he can be an agent for a thing which he can do for himself. How does this square with the fact that a heathen or a Samaritan can give terumah for himself, as we have learnt: 'If a heathen or a Samaritan gives terumah from his own produce, what is so given is genuine terumah,  and yet we also learn [in another place]: 'If a heathen gives terumah from the produce of an Israelite even with the latter's permission, what is so given is not regarded as terumah'?  The reason is, is it not, that Scripture says, you also shall give your heave-offering,  and we take the superfluous word 'also' to indicate that just as you are Israelites, — so your agents must be Israelites?  — In the school of R. Jannai they replied: No! [The proper inference from the word 'also' is]: Just as you are sons of the Covenant, so must your agents be sons of the Covenant. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: A slave cannot he made an agent by a woman to receive a Get on her behalf from her husband because he does not come within [the provisions of the Jewish] law in regard to divorce and marriage, and [this] in spite of the fact that we have a teaching: [If a man says to his female slave], 'You are a slave, but your child is free', if she was pregnant at the time she acquires freedom for it [the child].  What is the point of [quoting]: 'if she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it'?  — When R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine], he said: R. Johanan said two things. [One was the dictum regarding a Get quoted above]. The other was this: It seems a reasonable view that a slave can receive a writ of emancipation on behalf of another slave from the master of that slave but not from his own master.  And if someone should whisper in your ear  that there is a halachah laid down which contradicts this, [viz.] 'If she was pregnant, she acquires freedom for it,'  reply to him that two great authorities in their generation, R. Zera and R. Samuel b. Isaac, explained the matter. One said that this [teaching] follows the opinion of Rabbi who said that if a man emancipates the half of his slave, the slave acquires [freedom in regard to the one half], and the other said [in further explanation] that the reason of Rabbi [for applying this to the present case] is that he looks upon the embryo as part of the mother, and therefore the master [in freeing the child] as it were made her owner of one of her own limbs. MISHNAH. EVEN THE WOMEN WHOSE WORD IS NOT ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE  IF THEY SAY THE HUSBAND [OF A CERTAIN WOMAN] IS DEAD ARE ACCEPTED AS BEARERS OF HER GET. NAMELY, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW, HER MOTHER-IN-LAW'S DAUGHTER, HER HUSBAND'S OTHER WIFE,  HER HUSBAND'S BROTHER'S WIFE, AND HER HUSBAND'S DAUGHTER.  WHY IS A GET DIFFERENT FROM [A REPORT OF] DEATH? BECAUSE THE WRITING AFFORDS PROOF. A WOMAN MAY BE THE BEARER OF HER OWN GET,  ONLY SHE IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE,  'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' GEMARA. [How can you say this] seeing that it has been taught: Just as these women's word is not accepted as evidence that her husband is dead, so they are not accepted as bearers of her Get? — R. Joseph replied: There is no contradiction. The one rule is for Eretz Yisrael, the other for outside Eretz [Yisrael]. In Eretz Yisrael, where we do not rely upon her [word],  such a woman is permitted to bring the Get: outside Eretz [Yisrael], where we should have to rely upon her [word],  she is not permitted to bring it. Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: in Eretz Yisrael, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we take note of his objection,  it could be argued that the woman has been deliberately trying to make mischief, and therefore she should not be trusted, but outside, where if the husband comes and challenges [the Get] we do not pay any attention to him,  she should be trusted.  It has been taught in accordance with the view of Abaye: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Akiba: That a woman may be trusted to bring her own Get may be established a fortiori. For since those women whose word [the Rabbis] declared to be inacceptable as evidence that her husband is dead can be trusted as bearers of her Get, does it not follow that she herself whose word is accepted as evidence that her husband is dead should be trusted to bring her own Get?