Study Gittin folio 32B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שתי לשונות משמע – משמע דבטל, ומשמע דליבטיל. גבי גט לישנא דמהני ביה קאמר, גבי מתנה לישנא דמהני בה קאמר.
has two potential meanings, depending on the context. It means that it was void already, and it also means that it will become void in the future. With regard to a bill of divorce, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since his statement can be understood to mean that the bill of divorce should be void from that point onward, it is interpreted as such. With regard to a gift, he stated the formulation that is effective with regard to it, and since one cannot nullify the acquisition of a gift after taking possession of it, his intention was that the gift was void from the outset, and his statement is interpreted as such.
אמר אביי, נקיטינן: שליח מתנה הרי הוא כשליח הגט; נפקא מינה ל״הולך״ לאו כ״זכי״ דמי.
Additionally Abaye said with regard to the relationship between a bill of divorce and a gift that we have a tradition: An agent sent to deliver a gift is considered like an agent sent to deliver a bill of divorce. The Talmud explains: The practical difference that is learned from this is that if one says to his agent: Take this gift to so-and-so, it is not considered as if he said to him: Acquire the gift on his behalf. Therefore, as long as the gift has not yet reached the intended recipient, the one who sent the gift can retract it, and it is not as if the intended recipient had taken possession of the gift from the moment that it was given to the agent.
רבינא אשכחיה לרב נחמן בר יצחק דתלי וקאי בעיברא דדשא, וקא מיבעיא ליה: ״בטל״ מהו? תיקו.
The Talmud relates: Ravina found Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as he was leaning on the bar of a door deep in thought, and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was considering the following dilemma: What is the halakha if a husband said only: This bill of divorce is void, but did not say: This bill of divorce, it is void? Does he mean to render the bill of divorce void from that point onward, which he has the ability to do, or is he merely noting the fact that this bill of divorce is void, in which case his statement does not affect the validity of the document? No answer is given to this question and therefore the dilemma should stand unresolved.