In this daf, we continue our deep dive into the sugya of a woman who brings her own get. The Gemara brings a beautiful proof for Abaye's shitta from a baraita, showing that when a wife brings her get from chutz la'Aretz, she must declare " בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם" (it was written in my presence and signed in my presence). Rav Ashi further bolsters Abaye's view by showing how the very lashon of our Mishnah is precisely formulated to support this. We also explore Rav Yosef's counter-argument and how he structures the different clauses of the Mishnah between chutz la'Aretz and Eretz Yisrael.
We then move into a fascinating discussion on the mechanics of kinyan and agency. The Gemara asks a powerful kasha: once the get reaches the wife's hand, she should be divorced immediately! Why does she need to act as an agent to bring it? The Gemara works through several yesodoshdik answers, analyzing cases where the husband sets conditions, such as requiring her to place the get on the ground, or appointing her as an agent for delivery who then appoints an agent for receipt.
וּמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ,
And from the very place that you came to challenge Abaye, i.e., from that inference itself, the opposite is proven:
מָה לְהַלָּן צְרִיכוֹת שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ: ״בְּפָנֵינוּ נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנֵינוּ נֶחְתַּם״,
just as there, in the case of other agents, they must say: "It was written in our presence and it was signed in our presence,"
אַף הִיא צְרִיכָה שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״.
so too, she herself must say: "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence." This proves that the case must be one of bringing a get from outside Eretz Yisrael, supporting Abaye.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי:
Rav Ashi said: Our Mishnah is also precisely formulated in a way that supports Abaye, as it teaches:
הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה גִּיטָּהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא צְרִיכָה לוֹמַר כּוּ׳;
"The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, provided that she is required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence";
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
learn from it that the Mishnah is referring specifically to a case outside Eretz Yisrael, where such a declaration is required.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מְצִיעֲתָא בָּאָרֶץ?!
The Gemara asks: And according to Rav Yosef, who holds that the Mishnah is in Eretz Yisrael, is it possible that the first clause and the last clause of the Mishnah discuss a case in חוצה לארץ, while the middle clause discusses a case in Eretz Yisrael?!
אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, מְצִיעֲתָא בָּאָרֶץ.
The Gemara answers: Yes; the first clause and the last clause discuss a case in חוצה לארץ, while the middle clause discusses a case in Eretz Yisrael.
מִמַּאי?
The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Yosef infer this?
מִדְּקָתָנֵי: מָה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה – שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ;
From that which is taught in the middle clause: What is the difference between a bill of divorce and death? That the writing of the get proves the divorce;
וְלָא קָתָנֵי: שֶׁהַכְּתָב וּפֶה מוֹכִיחַ.
and it does not teach: "that the writing and the mouth (the verbal declaration) prove" it. This indicates that the middle clause is in Eretz Yisrael, where no declaration is needed.
הָאִשָּׁה עַצְמָהּ מְבִיאָה וְכוּ׳:
We learned in the Mishnah: The woman herself may bring her own bill of divorce, and she must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.
אִשָּׁה, מִכִּי מָטֵי גִּיטָּהּ לְיָדָהּ אִיגָּרַשָׁה לַהּ!
The Gemara asks: With regard to this woman, from the moment her bill of divorce reaches her hand, she is divorced! Why does she need to bring it and testify?
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״לֹא תִּתְגָּרְשִׁי בּוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי״.
Rav Huna said: This is a case where he says to her: "You will not be divorced with it except in the presence of such-and-such a court." Thus, she is not divorced immediately upon receiving it.
סוֹף סוֹף, כִּי מָטְיָא הָתָם – אִיגָּרַשָׁה!
The Gemara objects: Ultimately, when she arrives there, at that court, she is divorced immediately! Why must she make the declaration?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא:
Rather, Rav Huna bar Manoach said in the name of Rav Acha the son of Rav Ika:
דְּאָמַר לַהּ: כִּי מָטֵית הָתָם, אַתְנְחֵיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְשִׁקְלֵיהּ.
It is a case where he said to her: "When you arrive there, place it on the ground and take it."
אִי הָכִי, הֲוָה לֵיהּ: ״טְלִי גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע״,
The Gemara challenges: If so, it is a case of: "Take your bill of divorce from off the ground,"
וְאָמַר רָבָא: ״טְלִי גִּיטִּיךְ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!
and Rava said: If a husband says, "Take your bill of divorce from off the ground," he has said nothing and she is not divorced, because the Torah requires "and he shall give it into her hand."
אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לַהּ: הֱוַי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה עַד דְּמָטְיַת הָתָם, וְכִי מָטְיַת הָתָם הֱוַי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה, וְקַבִּלִי אַתְּ גִּיטִּיךְ.
Rather, it is a case where he said to her: "Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, be an agent for receipt, and receive your bill of divorce yourself."
וְהָא לֹא חָזְרָה שְׁלִיחוּת אֵצֶל הַבַּעַל!
The Gemara challenges: But the agency has not returned to the husband! An agent for delivery must be able to return to the sender and report that the mission was completed, which is impossible here.
דְּאָמַר לַהּ: הֱוַי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה עַד דְּמָטְיַת הָתָם, וְכִי מָטְיַת הָתָם שַׁוַּי שָׁלִיחַ לְִקַבָּלָה.
Rather, it is a case where he said to her: "Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint an agent for receipt on your behalf to receive it from you."
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִיָּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעְלָהּ.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: A woman can appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband's agent.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה עוֹשָׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטָּהּ מִיָּד שְׁלִיחַ בַּעֲלָהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
But according to the one who says: A woman cannot appoint an agent to receive her bill of divorce from the hand of her husband's agent, what can be said?
טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, וְהָכָא בַּעַל לָא קָפֵיד.
The Gemara answers: What is the reason for that opinion? Because there is degradation to the husband when she appoints an agent to take it from his agent, but here, the husband is not particular since he himself instructed her to do so.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל;
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says the reason is due to the degradation of the husband;
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מִשּׁוּם חֲצֵרָהּ הַבָּאָה לְאַחַר מִיכָּן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
but according to the one who says it is a Rabbinic decree due to the case of her courtyard that comes afterward, what can be said?
דְּאָמַר לַהּ: הֱוַי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה עַד דְּמָטְיַת הָתָם, וְכִי מָטְיַת הָתָם שַׁוַּי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה, וְקַבִּלִי אַתְּ גִּיטִּיךְ מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara answers: It is a case where he said to her: "Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, appoint another agent for delivery, and receive your bill of divorce from him."
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דְּאָמַר לַהּ: הֱוַי שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹלָכָה עַד דְּמָטְיַת הָתָם, וְכִי מָטְיַת הָתָם אֵימַר קַמֵּי בֵּי דִינָא ״בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם״, וּמְשַׁוֵּי בֵּי דִּינָא שָׁלִיחַ, וְלִיתְּבוּהּ נִיהֲלִיךְ.
And if you wish, say instead that he said to her: "Be an agent for delivery until you arrive there, and when you arrive there, say before the court: 'It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,' and the court will appoint an agent to deliver it, and they will give it to you."
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט
May we return to you, "He who brings a bill of divorce" (the first perek of Gittin).
כׇּל גֵּט שֶׁנִּכְתַּב שֶׁלֹּא לְשׁוּם אִשָּׁה, פָּסוּל.
Any bill of divorce that was written not for the sake of the specific woman being divorced is invalid.
כֵּיצַד, הָיָה עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמַע קוֹל סוֹפְרִים מַקְרִין: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת פְּלוֹנִית מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״,
How so? If one was passing in the marketplace and heard the voice of scribes reciting: "A certain man divorces a certain woman from a certain place,"
וְאָמַר: זֶה שְׁמִי וְזֶה שֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי; פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.
and he said: "This is my name and this is my wife's name," and he took that document, it is invalid to divorce her with it because it was not written for her sake.
יָתֵר מִיכֵּן – כָּתַב לְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְנִמְלַךְ,
More than that: If he wrote a get to divorce his wife and changed his mind,
מְצָאוֹ בֶּן עִירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ: שְׁמִי כְּשִׁמְךָ וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי כְּשֵׁם אִשְׁתְּךָ; פָּסוּל לְגָרֵשׁ בּוֹ.
and a resident of his city found him and said to him: "My name is like your name and my wife's name is like your wife's name," and the first husband gave it to him, it is invalid to divorce with it.
The Gemara concludes the debate between Abaye and Rav Yosef regarding whether a woman bringing her own get must make the declaration of " בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם," establishing that this requirement applies specifically in chutz la'Aretz. The Gemara then analyzes how a woman can act as a delivery agent for her own get without becoming divorced immediately upon receiving it. After rejecting explanations involving conditions of location or placing the get on the ground, the Gemara establishes that the husband appointed her as a delivery agent with instructions to appoint a receiving agent upon her arrival, resolving this based on the principles of agency and the husband's consent.
In the closing of Maseches HaMevia Get, the Gemara wrestles with a fascinating scenario: a husband appoints his wife to be the very messenger who delivers her own get. To make this work halachically, she must navigate a delicate transition of roles, shifting from being his agent of delivery to becoming the recipient of her own freedom. The Sages analyze every step of this process to ensure that the agency is perfectly defined, showing us how much care must be taken when one person holds multiple, seemingly conflicting responsibilities.
This teaches us a profound lesson in our own avodah. In our daily lives, we are constantly asked to wear different hats. At one moment, you are a parent or a teacher, representing authority and guidance; the next moment, you must be a humble learner, ready to receive. Sometimes you are the giver, and sometimes you must learn how to be the receiver. The yetzer hara loves to blur these lines, causing us to bring the ego of a 'giver' into a situation where we actually need to listen and receive, or to act with the passivity of a 'receiver' when Hashem is calling on us to step up and lead.
Like the woman in our Gemara, we must have the self-awareness to know exactly which role we are playing at any given moment. When you enter a room, ask yourself: 'What does the Aibershter need from me right now? Am I here to deliver a message of strength to someone else, or am I here to open my heart and receive a lesson?' Keeping these roles clear in our minds prevents confusion and ensures our actions are done with absolute truth and purity.
Today, before you enter a difficult conversation or transition from your work to your home, take ten seconds to pause and ask yourself: 'Which role am I playing right now, and how can I fulfill it purely for the sake of Heaven?'