Source: http://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Talmud/gittin/gittin_62.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:32:31+00:00

Document:
R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam testified3 in the name of R. Johanan his brother who had it from R. Eleazar b. Hisma, that a hallah4 is not to be set aside [by a baker haber] for an 'am ha-arez in ritual purity,5 but [the baker] can make his ordinary dough6 in ritual purity and take from it enough for a hallah and put it in a double basket7 or on a tray,8 and when the am ha-arez comes he can take both and [the baker] need not be afraid [that any harm will ensue].9 Again, [olive pressers who are kaberim] should not set aside terumah from his olives in ritual purity,10 but they can prepare his olives in ritual purity11 and take from them sufficient for terumah, and put it in the vessels of a haber, and when the am ha-arez comes he can take both of them, and the others need not fear [lest harm should ensue]. Now what is the reason [for these concessions]? — R. Johanan said; To enable the baker and the olive presser to earn a livelihood. And both statements were necessary. For if I had been given only the one about the baker, I might have said that the reason [why the concession was made in his case] is because he does not earn much, and that this does not apply to an olive presser who gets a good wage. And again, if I had been given only the statement about the olive presser. I might have said that the reason is because he has not constant employment, and that this does not apply to a baker who has constant employment. Hence both were necessary.
The Master said above: 'He takes from it enough for a hallah and puts it in an inverted basket or on a tray. and when the 'am ha-arez comes he can take both and the other need not be afraid.' But he surely ought to be afraid that he has touched it? — We suppose that we say to him, Mind you don't touch it or it will become tebel12 again. But he must be afraid that he will not listen to him? — Seeing that his whole object is to keep it right,13 will he not then listen to him?
By giving her something without her husband's permission.
V. supra p. 117, n. 6.
Since the priest relying on the haber may think that it is clean, whereas the whole of the dough has already become unclean in the hands of the 'am ha-arez.
Which does not become capable of ritual uncleanness till water has been poured on it, v. Lev. XI, 38.
I.e., a basket with a horizontal partition in the middle and open at both ends.
But not in the kind of receptacle ordinarily used for this purpose. V. infra.
I.e., it will be quite safe for the priest to eat it.
Lest the priest relying on them should think that they are clean, whereas they may have already become unclean through the touch of the 'am ha-arez.
Before they were passed through the vat and so were not yet capable of becoming unclean.
Produce from which the dues have not yet been separated. V. Glos.
To have the hallah separated in such a way that it will be fit for the priest.
Being put in an exceptional kind of vessel, so that he is likely to remember our warning.
I.e., vessels which are not capable of receiving uncleanness.
Lit., 'be strong.' or 'be assisted' — a gesture of encouragement.
Lest he might take it a; a compliment to his god.
V. supra. p. 7, where it is stated that Geniba used always to annoy Mar 'Ukba.
Lit., 'son of the law'.
I Chron. XII, 19. The verse continues, Peace, peace be upon thee.
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAYS [TO ANOTHER], RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE, OR, CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT [BEFORE THE WIFE RECEIVES IT] HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS [TO A MAN], RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, [AND HE DOES SO]. IF [THE HUSBAND] DESIRES TO RETRACT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO SO.1 CONSEQUENTLY [WHAT IS THE HUSBAND TO DO?]2 IF THE HUSBAND SAID TO HIM, I AM NOT AGREEABLE THAT YOU SHOULD RECEIVE IT ON HER BEHALF, BUT CONVEY IT AND GIVE IT TO HER, THEN IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO.3 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: EVEN IF THE WIFE SAYS [MERELY]. TAKE FOR ME,4 [AND HE DOES SO]. HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO RETRACT.
GEMARA. R. Aha the son of R. 'Awia said to R. Ashi: The reason why [in the first case the husband may retract] is because she [the wife] did not make [the man] her agent for receiving [the Get], from which we infer that if she had made him the agent for receiving [the Get], the husband would not be at liberty to retract. This would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of' [would it not]?5 — No; I may still maintain that 'convey' is not equivalent to 'take possession',6 and nevertheless it was necessary to specify the case where the husband said, Receive this Get on behalf of my wife.7 For I might have argued that since the husband is not competent to make him an agent for receiving the Get,8 therefore even if the Get reached her hand it would not be valid, and we are therefore told that in saying 'receive' he also implied 'and convey'.
It goes without saying that a man may be an agent for conveying the Get, seeing that a husband may himself convey a Get to his wife.12 A woman may [similarly] be an agent for receiving, seeing that a woman receives a Get from the hand of her husband. What of a man becoming agent for receiving and a woman agent for conveying? — Come and hear: IF A MAN SAYS, RECEIVE THIS GET ON BEHALF OF MY WIFE OR CONVEY THIS GET TO MY WIFE, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY DO SO. IF A WOMAN SAYS, RECEIVE MY GET ON MY BEHALF, IF HE DESIRES TO RETRACT HE MAY NOT DO SO. Does not this mean, where there is the same agent for both, which would show that the one who is qualified for conveying is also qualified for receiving? — No; we speak of two agents.
It has been stated: '[If a woman says to her agent]. Bring me my Get, and [he says to the husband]. Your wife said to me, Receive my Get on my behalf, and the husband said, Here you are as she said,' in such a case R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu, who had it from Rab, that even when the Get reached her hand it would not be valid.16 From this we should conclude that the husband was relying on his [the agent's] word,17 since if he was relying on the wife's word,18 she would at any rate be divorced when the Get reached her hand. Said R. Ashi: Is that so?
The woman becomes divorced as soon as the Get came into the hands of her agent.
In the latter case if he wants to retain the possibility of retracting.
Because now he is no longer the wife's agent but his agent.
Instead of 'receive for me'.
For otherwise, the Get would still belong to the husband and he could withdraw it so long as it had not reached the wife's hand, v. supra 14a.
And therefore the bearer is the husband's agent and not the wife's, and the husband may retract in any case.
From which we should naturally infer that the case dealt with is one where the wife did not make him her agent.
On the principle that a disadvantage cannot be imposed on a man without his consent.
And if he used the latter, this would show that 'convey' is equivalent to 'take possession of'.
In which case the bearer still remains the agent of the wife.
[H], instead of [H] 'take'. By saying 'here you are', he accepts the man as the agent of the wife.
And whatever a man may do his agent may do for him.
Because the wife had not made him an agent for receiving the Get and the husband had not made him an agent for taking the Get.
I.e., he really supposed the wife to have told the agent to receive the Get.
That is to say, if he had allowed for the possibility of his wife having told the agent to bring the Get, and had accordingly made him his agent for conveying it.

References: V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 

V. 
 v.