In this daf, we continue our learning on the previous sugya regarding whether we are concerned that a Jewish court might find a reason to acquit a condemned man after his verdict has already been finalized. The Gemara brings proofs and challenges to Rav Yosef's ruling that once a verdict is issued by a Jewish court, it is highly uncommon for them to reverse it, unlike a non-Jewish court where we do not assume execution has taken place until it is carried out.
We then move on to a new Mishnah that discusses a shliach (messenger) bringing a get in Eretz Yisrael who falls ill. The Mishnah teaches the halachos of when this shliach is permitted to appoint a second shliach in his place to deliver the get to the wife, and when he is forbidden from doing so, such as when the husband has a personal deposit of objects with the wife that he wants this specific messenger to retrieve.
אֲבָל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק לֵיהּ דִּינָא לִקְטָלָא – קָטְלִי לֵיהּ.
But in a court of Israel, once his verdict has gone out for execution, they execute him, and we do not worry that they might find a reason to acquit him.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּחָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא!
Abaye said to him: In a court of Israel also, it is possible that they will see a merit for him and reverse the verdict!
כִּי חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא – מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִיגְמַר דִּינָא, בָּתַר גְּמַר דִּינָא – תּוּ לָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא.
Rav Yosef replied: When they see a merit for him, it is only before the verdict is finalized; after the verdict is finalized, they no longer see a merit for him, as it is highly uncommon to find a defense after that point.
לֵימָא מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ ״מְעִידִים אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו״ – הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג!
The Gemara suggests: Let us say a Mishnah supports him: 'Any place where two witnesses stand up and say, "We testify about man so-and-so that his verdict was finalized in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses," behold, this person shall be executed' immediately, showing we do not worry that the original court later found a merit to acquit him.
דִּלְמָא בּוֹרֵחַ שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps a runaway is different, because once he flees, the court will no longer look for merits on his behalf.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁמַע מִבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרָג״ – יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
Come and hear a proof: If one heard from a court of Israel who were saying, "Man so-and-so died," or "Man so-and-so was killed," they may marry off his wife.
מִקּוֹמֶנְטָרִיסִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מֵת״; ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נֶהֱרַג״ – אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.
But if he heard from the military records of non-Jews, "Man so-and-so died," or "Man so-and-so was killed," they may not marry off his wife.
מַאי ״מֵת״ וּמַאי ״נֶהֱרַג״? אִילֵימָא ״מֵת״ – מַמָּשׁ, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם, אַמַּאי אַל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ? הָא קַיְימָא לַן, כֹּל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara analyzes this: What is the meaning of "died" and what is the meaning of "was killed"? If we say "died" means literally dead, and "was killed" means literally killed, then correspondingly by the non-Jews it means they recorded that he actually died or was killed. If so, why may they not marry off his wife? Surely we establish that any non-Jew who speaks offhandedly, we believe him!
אֶלָּא לָאו ״מֵת״ – יוֹצֵא לָמוּת, וְ״נֶהֱרַג״ – יוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג? וְקָתָנֵי: בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יַשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ!
Rather, is it not that "died" means he was going out to die by court execution, and "was killed" means he was going out to be killed? And it teaches: In a court of Israel, they may marry off his wife based on this, because we assume he was indeed executed and do not worry that they found a merit for him afterward! This supports Rav Yosef.
לְעוֹלָם מֵת מַמָּשׁ וְנֶהֱרַג מַמָּשׁ; דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי גּוֹיִם אַמַּאי לָא, וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּכֹל מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ הֵימוֹנֵי מְהֵימְנִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא שָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, אֲבָל בְּמִילְּתָא דְּשָׁיְיכִי בַּהּ, עָבְדִי לְאַחְזוֹקֵי שִׁקְרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it means literally died and literally killed; and as for that which you asked, correspondingly by non-Jews why not, since we establish that any non-Jew who speaks offhandedly we believe him? That applies only to a matter in which they are not involved, but in a matter in which they are involved—such as carrying out their own executions—they act to maintain their lie and make it look like they successfully carried out their decree.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
MISHNAH: One who brings a get in Eretz Yisrael, and he became sick, behold, this agent may send it in the hand of another agent to deliver it to the wife.
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״ – לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
But if the husband said to him, "Take for me from her such-and-such an object," he may not send it in the hand of another agent, for it is not his desire that his deposit should be in the hand of another person whom he did not personally trust.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״חָלָה״ תְּנַן.
GEMARA: Rav Kahana said: We learned in the Mishnah, specifically if he "became sick" may he appoint a sub-agent.
פְּשִׁיטָא, ״חָלָה״ קָתָנֵי!
The Gemara asks: This is obvious, for it teaches "became sick"!
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״חָלָה״ אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say the same law applies even though he did not become sick, and this that it teaches "became sick" is only because it teaches the common way of the matter—that an agent does not give up his job unless he falls ill—therefore it comes to teach us that only if he fell ill may he do so.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״הוֹלֵךְ״ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חָלָה נָמֵי!
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he said to him, "Bring this get," then even though he did not become sick, he should also be able to appoint a sub-agent, as the husband did not insist on him personally!
וְאִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵך״ – אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא!
And if he said to him, "You bring it," then even if he became sick, he should also not be able to appoint another, as the husband specified him!
וְאִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי לָא!
And if the Mishnah is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, then even if he became sick, he should also not be able to appoint another!
דְּתַנְיָא: ״הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר. ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
As it is taught in a Braisa: If the husband said, "Bring this get to my wife," behold, this agent may send it in the hand of another. But if he said, "You bring this get to my wife," behold, this agent may not send it in the hand of another.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – אֵין הַשָּׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שָׁלִיח.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whether this way or that way, an agent cannot make another agent. Thus, Rav Kahana's statement is difficult under any scenario!
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״, וְהוּא דְּחָלָה;
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say the Mishnah is a case where the husband said "Bring," and yet it is only when he became sick that he may appoint another, as Rav Kahana explained the Tanna of the Braisa.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא ״אַתְּ הוֹלֵךְ״, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי;
And if you wish, say the Mishnah is a case where he said "You bring," but falling sick is different, for we assume the husband would agree to a sub-agent in a case of constraint.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְחָלָה שָׁאנֵי.
And if you wish, say the Mishnah is indeed according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but falling sick is different, and even he agrees that an unavoidable accident permits appointing a sub-agent.
תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְחָלָה – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר.
The Gemara objects: We learned in our Mishnah: One who brings a get in Eretz Yisrael, and he became sick, behold, this agent may send it in the hand of another.
וּרְמִינְהוּ, אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם: ״תְּנוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״; אוֹ לִשְׁלֹשָׁה: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט וּתְנוּ לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. אִינְהוּ אִין, אֲבָל שָׁלִיחַ לָא!
And I point out a contradiction from a Mishnah later: If the husband said to two people, "Give a get to my wife," or to three, "Write a get and give it to my wife," behold, these men shall write and give it. This implies that they, yes, may do so, but they cannot make a messenger to do it! Why then can our agent appoint a sub-agent?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן דְּבַעַל, הָכָא בַּעַל לָא קָפֵיד.
Abaye said: There, what is the reason they cannot appoint an agent? Because of the embarrassment of the husband, who does not want his personal matters exposed to more people; but here, where he already appointed a single agent to travel, the husband does not mind if another agent takes over.
רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּמִילֵּי נִינְהוּ, וּמִילֵּי לָא מִימַּסְרָן לְשָׁלִיחַ.
Rava said: The reason there is because they are merely words—the instruction to write and give—and words cannot be handed over to an agent to delegate. But here, the agent was handed a physical get.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁלִיחַ מַתָּנָה;
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? There is a difference between them in the case of an agent of a gift who was handed a physical deed of gift to deliver, and fell sick.
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל – רַב אָמַר: מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּגֵט. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּגֵט.
And this depends on the dispute of Rav and Shmuel: For Rav said: A gift is not like a get regarding the husband's sensitivity to embarrassment; and Shmuel said: A gift, behold, it is like a get.
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״טוֹל לִי הֵימֶנָּה חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי״.
We learned in the Mishnah: But if he said to him, "Take for me from her such-and-such an object."
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: אֵין הַשּׁוֹאֵל רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׁאִיל, וְאֵין הַשּׂוֹכֵר רַשַּׁאי לְהַשְׂכִּיר.
Resh Lakish said: Here Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi taught a general principle: A borrower is not permitted to lend the object to another, and a renter is not permitted to rent it to another, because one does not want his deposit in the hands of a stranger.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן יוֹדְעִים אוֹתָהּ!
Rabbi Yochanan said to him: This principle, even school children know it! Why would the Mishnah need to teach only that?
אֶלָּא זִימְנִין דְּגִיטָּא נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי – דְּנַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בַּבַּיִת״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בָּעֲלִיָּיה; ״אַל תְּגָרְשָׁהּ אֶלָּא בְּיָמִין״, וְגֵירְשָׁהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל.
Rather, the novelty here is that sometimes the get is also not a get if he transgressed this, for it becomes like one who said to him, "Do not divorce her except in the house," and he divorced her in the attic; or "Do not divorce her except with the right hand," and he divorced her with the left—where the divorce is invalid because he violated a specific condition.
דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, הֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָה לְאַפֵּיהּ וְיָהֲבָה לֵיהּ חֵפֶץ, וַהֲדַר שָׁקְלָה מִינֵּיהּ גִּיטָּא; כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּגִיטָּא – גִּיטָּא מְעַלְּיָא הָוֵי.
The Gemara clarifies: For everyone agrees, where she went out to meet him and gave him the object, and then she took the get from him, everyone does not dispute that the get is a superb get, as the condition was fully met.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ:
When they dispute, it is where he said to him:
The Gemara first resolves the discussion on whether a finalized death sentence from a Jewish court is sufficient proof of death to allow a wife to remarry, distinguishing between Jewish courts and non-Jewish registrars who might lie to make themselves look efficient. We then learn the Mishnah regarding a sick messenger, and Rav Kahana clarifies that a shliach may only appoint a sub-messenger if he actually becomes ill. The Gemara analyzes this ruling against a Tosefta, questioning how the husband's original instructions were phrased and whether the ruling follows the Sages or Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
In our Gemara, we learn a profound rule about human trust and responsibility. The Mishnah teaches that if a husband appoints a messenger to deliver a get, and also asks him to retrieve a personal deposit from his wife, the messenger cannot pass this task to someone else if he falls ill. Why? Because, as the Mishnah states, 'it is not a person's desire that his deposit be in the hands of another.' A person chooses a specific messenger because he trusts *him* with his precious belongings, not a stranger.
Think about the unique qualities, talents, and opportunities the Aibershter has deposited into your hands. Your specific neshama was chosen for your life's mission. Hashem did not want this 'deposit' in the hands of anyone else; He entrusted it specifically to you because only you can carry it out in the way He desires.
When we feel overwhelmed or tempted to let others do the spiritual heavy lifting, we must remember this deep trust. Your family, your learning, your daily mitzvos, and your personal struggles are a custom-made deposit. Nobody else can stand in your place.
Today, identify one personal responsibility or mitzvah that you have been putting off or trying to delegate, and take full, personal ownership of it, recognizing that Hashem uniquely trusted *you* to fulfill it.