Study Gittin folio 63A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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: On
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 Na
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya says: Come and hear an objection to the statement of Rav Naḥman from the Mishnah: With regard to one who says to another: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, or: Deliver this bill of divorce to my wife as my agent, if the husband seeks to retract his designation he may retra
He asks: But why is she divorced when the husband says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife? Isn’t the husband ineligible to designate an agent for receipt? Rather, we say: Once he decided to divorce her, he said to himself: Let her be divorced any way that she is divorced. His statement: Rece
The Talmud rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case where one says: Receive this bill of divorce for my wife, the principle that a person knows that agency for receipt cannot be designated by the husband is in effect, and he decided to give the bill of divorce to the agent