Gittin

MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS [TO ANOTHER], RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, OR, CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT [BEFORE THE WIFE RECEIVES IT] HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS [TO A MAN], RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, [AND HE DOES SO]. IF [THE HUSBAND] DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.  CONSEQUENTLY [WHAT IS THE HUSBAND TO DO?]  IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO.  R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY]. TAKE FOR ME,  [AND HE DOES SO]. HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT. GEMARA. R. Aha the son of R. 'Awia said to R. Ashi: The reason why [in the first case the husband may retract] is because she [the wife] did not make [the man] her agent for receiving [the Get], from which we infer that if she had made him the agent for receiving [the Get], the husband would not be at liberty to retract. This would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of' [would it not]?  — No; I may still maintain that 'convey' is not equivalent to 'take possession',  and nevertheless it was necessary to specify the case where the husband said, Receive this Get on behalf of my wife.  For I might have argued that since the husband is not competent to make him an agent for receiving the Get,  therefore even if the Get reached her hand it would not be valid, and we are therefore told that in saying 'receive' he also implied 'and convey'. We learnt: IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE A GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO. Does not this apply equally whether the husband [on handing the Get] used the expression of 'receiving' or of 'conveying'?  — No; only if he said 'receive'.  Come and hear: CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT HERE, CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. The reason is, is it not, that he Says. 'I am not agreeable', but if he does not say, 'I am not agreeable'. then if he desires to retract he may not do so, which would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession'? — Perhaps we should read, Here you are. It goes without saying that a man may be an agent for conveying the Get, seeing that a husband may himself convey a Get to his wife.  A woman may [similarly] be an agent for receiving, seeing that a woman receives a Get from the hand of her husband. What of a man becoming agent for receiving and a woman agent for conveying? — Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE OR CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY NOT DO SO. Does not this mean, where there is the same agent for both, which would show that the one who is qualified for conveying is also qualified for receiving? — No; we speak of two agents. Come and hear; CONSEQUENTLY IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. Now here he says this to the same agent [as she appointed], and this shows that he is qualified to receive as to convey. We can conclude from this that a man is qualified to receive, [as is also natural,] since a father may receive a Get on behalf of his minor daughter.  Whether a woman may become an agent for conveying is still a question. R. Mari said: Come and hear: 'Even the women whose word cannot be taken if they report her husband to be dead can be trusted to bring her her Get;  'and there they are agents for conveying. R. Ashi said: We could infer the same from the last clause [of that Mishnah], which runs, 'A woman herself may bring her Get, only she is required to declare, in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed;' and we explained this to mean that she conveyed it. It has been stated: '[If a woman says to her agent]. Bring me my Get, and [he says to the husband]. Your wife said to me, Receive my Get on my behalf, and the husband said, Here you are as she said,' in such a case R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu, who had it from Rab, that even when the Get reached her hand it would not be valid.  From this we should conclude that the husband was relying on his [the agent's] word,  since if he was relying on the wife's word,  she would at any rate be divorced when the Get reached her hand. Said R. Ashi: Is that so?