Kiddushin, Daf Nun Tet, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s sugya is the exciting conclusion of the speech nullifying speech discussion.

 

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל השולח גט לאשתו והגיע בשליח או ששלח אחריו שליח ואמר לו גט שנתתי לך בטל הוא הרי זה בטל תיובתא דר"ל תיובתא

 

R. Yohanan objected to Resh Lakish: If one sends a divorce to his wife, and then overtakes the messenger or sends a messenger after him and says. The get which I gave you is null, it is null. This is a refutation of Resh Lakish. It is indeed a refutation.

 

A husband sends a get to his wife and then finds him and annuls his agency. This is a case of speech nullifying speech. This refutes Resh Lakish.

 

והילכתא כוותיה דר"י ואפילו בקמייתא ואע"ג דאיכא למימר שאני נתינת מעות ליד אשה דכמעשה דמי אפילו הכי אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור

 

Now, the law is according to R. Yohanan, even in the first [dispute]; for though we might argue [there]. Giving money into a woman s hand is different, for it is like an action, yet even so, speech comes and nullifies speech.

 

The halakhah follows R. Yohanan in all cases. Even though he gave the woman money (and said, Be betrothed to me in 30 days ) and we might have thought that this is like an action, her speech can still annul her acceptance of the kiddushin.

 

קשיא הילכתא אהילכתא אמרת הילכתא כרבי יוחנן וקיימא לן הילכתא כרב נחמן

דאיבעיא להו מהו שיחזור ויגרש בו רב נחמן אמר חוזר ומגרש בו רב ששת אמר אינו חוזר ומגרש בו וקיימא לן הילכתא כותיה דרב נחמן

 

One halakhah contradicts another! For you say; The law follows R. Yohanan, while we hold that the law follows R. Nahman, For the scholars asked: Can he change his mind and divorce with it? R. Nahman said: He can change his mind and divorce with it; R. Sheshet ruled: He cannot change his mind and divorce with it. And we hold that the halakhah follows R. Nahman.

 

R. Nahman holds that even after the husband nullifies the agency, the husband can still use the get. This seems to mean that speech does not nullify speech for the get is still valid. So how can we hold like R. Nahman and like R. Yohanan.

 

נהי דבטליה מתורת שליח מתורת גט לא בטליה

 

Granted that he nullified his agency, he did not nullify it from being considered a get.

 

The resolution is that the husband was nullifying the agency, not nullifying the get. He can still use the get should he later on decide he wants to divorce his wife.