If one says: Give this get to my wife, or this writ of manumission to my bondsman, if he wishes to retract with both, [before they reach the hand of the woman or of the bondsman], he may do so [and the messenger may not acquire the writ on their behalf; for it is a liability to them in that it deprives them of their sustenance.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: [He may retract] with the gittin of women, but not with the manumissions of bondsmen. [And the halachah is in accordance with the sages.] For a man is accorded benefit even not in his presence, but liability is imposed upon him only in his presence. For if he wished not to feed his bondsman, he could do so, [so that when he frees him he does not cause him to lose his sustenance]; but he is not permitted not to feed his wife, [so that when he divorces her, he causes her to lose her sustenance.] He (R. Meir) said to them: But he disqualifies his bondsman from terumah, just as he disqualifies his wife! They answered: That is because he is his acquisition. [That is, the reason the bondsman of a Cohein eats terumah is that he is his acquisition — just as the beast of a Cohein eats terumah vetch, and there is no ascendancy in this. Therefore, if he frees him, even though he disqualifies him from eating terumah, this is no liability to the bondsman.] If one says: Give this get to my wife, or (give) this writ of manumission to my bondsman, and he died, they are not to be given after his death. [For it is not a get until it reaches her hand, and when it reaches her hand, he is dead; and there is no get after death. And with the writ of manumission, too, when it reaches his (the bondsman's) hand, he (the owner) is dead and has no authority over him.] (If one says:) Give a manah to this and this man, and he dies, it is to be given after his death [even if he did not say: "this manah," for the words of a shechiv mera (one at the point of death) are as "written and given"].
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
רצה לחזור בשניהן – before it [the Jewish bill of divorce or the bill of manumission] reaches the hand of the woman and/or the slave.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
Introduction
The topic of this mishnah is a man who instructs a messenger to give a get to his wife, or a writ of emancipation to his slave, and then changes his mind or dies before the document is delivered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
יחזור – But the agent cannot provide their needs for their benefit since it [the document] is something to their detriment and they lose their food/support.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. According to Rabbi Meir, the husband may change his mind after instructing an agent to give a get to his wife or a writ of emancipation to his slave. The Sages disagree and say that he may change his mind only with regard to the get. He may not change his mind with regard to the freeing of the slave. The reason is that there is a principle that one may confer benefit on another person not in that person’s presence, but one may not confer a disability on a person not in that person’s presence. In our situation, the woman/slave is not in the husband/master’s presence at the moment and that is why the husband is instructing a messenger. For the woman, divorce is a considerable disability for she loses her guaranteed source of income. Should the husband not want to provide maintenance for his wife (food, clothing etc.) he does not have the right to do so. He may not say to her, take whatever income you make and use it for your own maintenance. In contrast, the slave has no such guarantee. A master may say to his slave that he must provide his own maintenance. Note that a master may not tell his slave to work for the master and the master will not provide maintenance. The master may only stop providing maintenance, if he allows the slave to work for his own maintenance. Nevertheless, the slave’s income is not guaranteed as is that of the wife, therefore it is a total disability for him not to be freed. Since this is so, the master may not retract freeing his slave once he has told a messenger to do so. Rabbi Meir responds that in some ways freeing a slave is a disability and therefore, just as he can retract in giving the slave his manumission, so too he can retract from divorcing his wife. The disability for the slave is that if he was owned by a priest, he could eat terumah. Upon emancipation, he loses such a right. The sages respond that the slave’s eating terumah is not a “benefit”; rather it is something he is allowed to do because the master owns him. Indeed, the priest could sell his slave to an Israelite and thereby disqualify him from eating terumah without freeing him. Therefore, loss of terumah is not truly a disability to the slave.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
וחכמים אומרים: בגיטי נשים – He (i.e., the husband) can retract (his Jewish bill of divorce),
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death. In this case, the husband/master dies before the document is given. The mishnah teaches that in cases of divorce and emancipation, the messenger should not give the document after the husband/master’s death. A get and a writ of manumission do not go into effect until they are given. Since a dead man cannot divorce his wife or free his slave, the documents cannot be given after his death. In contrast, when a dying person gives a present, his mere statement transfers ownership. Therefore, the present should be given even after the giver’s death.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים – but he cannot retract in his bill of manumission of slaves. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
שאם ירצה שלא לזון את עבדו רשאי – Therefore, when he (i.e., the owner) frees him (i.e., his slave), he does not cause him to lose his support/food, but he is not permitted to feed his wife; therefore, if he divorces her, she causes her to lose her support/food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
מפני שהוא קנינו – That is to say, since he {i.e., the slave] eats the heave-offering/Terumah when the slave is the servant of a Kohen/Priest, it is only because he is the purchase-property of the Kohen/Priest, since regarding the cattle of Kohen/Priest which can eat the veches of Terumah/heave-offering, but it is not a a perfect comparison. Therefore, when he frees him (i.e. the slave), even though he causes him to lose the ability to eat Terumah/heave-offering, it is not an obligation for the slave [to do so].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
לא יתנו לאחר מיתה – The Get/Jewish bill of divorce does not take effect until it reaches her hand, and if it reaches her hand, he has died, and there is no Jewish bill of divorce after death. And similarly, the document of manumission, when it reaches his (i.e. the slave’s) hand if he died, his ownership over him is broken.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
יתנו לאחר מיתה – even though he (i.e., the now deceased owner) did not say, “this Maneh”/weight equivalent to fifty silver shekels, since the words of someone who is on his death bed are regarded as if they are written and transmitted.
