Study Bava Metzia folio 76B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הכי השתא?! בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא, ״התקבל לי גיטי״ ואשתך אמרה, ״הבא לי גיטי״, והוא אומר: ״הילך כמו שאמרה״. ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב: משיגיע גט לידו – מגורשת, אלמא דאדיבורא דידה קא סמיך.
How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the opposite was stated, i.e., in a case where the woman said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent said to the husband: Your wife said: Bring me my bill of divorce, and the husband said: Here you are, as she said; and Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: From when the bill of divorce reaches the agent’s possession, she is divorced, it would be understandable. Apparently, the husband relies upon her statement that the agent is an agent of receipt.
אי נמי: משהגיע גט לידה מגורשת – אלמא דאדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך. אלא התם – משום דעקר שליח לשליחותיה לגמרי, דאמר ליה: ״שליח לקבלה הוינא, להולכה לא הוינא״.
Alternatively, had Rav Naḥman ruled: From when the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that evidently, the husband relies on the agent’s statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. But there, in the case cited, where Rav Naḥman rules that she is not divorced, it is not because the husband relies on one statement or the other. Rather, it is due to the fact that by means of his statement the agent negates his agency entirely, as he said to the husband: I am an agent for receipt, meaning: I am not to be an agent for delivery. He is essentially saying that he is not prepared to go to the trouble of delivering the bill of divorce to her. Therefore, even if he does ultimately deliver the bill of divorce to her, he is an agent neither for the woman nor for her husband. No conclusion can be drawn with regard to the question of which statement the husband relies upon.