Gittin 63A

בשלמא אי איתמר איפכא: ״התקבל לי גיטי״, ו״אשתך אמרה הבא לי גיטי״, והוא אמר: ״הילך כמה שאמרה״; ואמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב: כיון שהגיע גט לידו מגורשת ⁠– אלמא אדיבורא דידה הוא דקא סמיך;

Granted, if the opposite was stated, i.e., 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: Once 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, and he intended to give the agent the status the wife assigned, not the one the agent says she assigned.

אי נמי ״לידה״⁠ – אדיבורא דידיה קא סמיך. אלא הכא ⁠– משום דעקריה שליח לשליחותיה לגמרי הוא; דאמר: שליח לקבלה הוינא, להולכה לא הוינא.

Alternatively, if Rav Naḥman ruled: Once the bill of divorce reaches her possession, she is divorced, one could conclude that the husband relies on the agent’s statement, and based on that statement, the agent is designated as an agent for delivery. However, here, 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: 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.