This chapter explains how a can be received or delivered through an agent. The first half distinguishes among an agent who receives the for the woman, an agent who delivers it for the husband, and an agent who brings it for the woman. The second half discusses how an agency or may be nullified, followed by cases in which the husband’s continued life is uncertain. Because these laws are highly technical, an actual must be handled by a qualified .
פרק ו30 halachosSunday, September 27, 2026ט״ז בתשרי תשפ״ז◷ Estimated study time: 115–150 min
אTap any Hebrew word to see its meaning and how it works in the phrase.
Chapter progress 0 of 30 completed🔎 0 learned in depth
An agent whom a woman appoints to receive her from her husband
״״;
is called a , an agent appointed to receive the for her;
A does not merely transport the . He receives it as the woman’s legal representative, so his receipt itself can complete the divorce.
,
and once the reaches his hand,
she is divorced,
.
as though it had reached her own hand.
From that moment, the divorce has taken effect, and the husband can no longer retract the .
.
She must appoint him in the presence of .
Because this appointment itself enables the divorce to take effect, it must be established in the presence of .
She also requires two
.
who can testify that the reached the hand of her agent.
If the will no longer be available afterward, are needed to establish that it actually reached the and that the divorce took effect.
,
The may even be the same who observed the appointment,
-
or one may be from the original pair together with another witness—
.
this is fully valid testimony.
There is no requirement that the to his appointment and the who establish his receipt of the be two entirely separate pairs.
Synopsis
A receives the in place of the woman herself, so the divorce takes effect as soon as it reaches his hand. His appointment must be witnessed, and when the is no longer available, its receipt must also be established by .
This qualification concerns proof that the reached the . His original appointment still had to be made before .
,
But if the is still in the possession of the ,
.
he does not require to establish that he received it.
Once his status as her has been established, the fact that the is presently in his possession is sufficient evidence that he received it in that capacity.
,
Whether it was delivered to him in the presence of ,
-
or the husband gave it to him privately—
,
the fact that the is in his possession
.
has the same legal effect as if it were in the woman’s possession.
Because a receives the as her legal representative, his established possession of the document is treated like her own possession of it.
Nevertheless,
from the outset, the husband should not give the to him
,
except in the presence of to the delivery,
.
just as when the is given to the woman herself.
Thus, the can be recognized as valid after the fact from the agent’s possession even if the transfer itself was private. The proper procedure, however, is still for the delivery to take place before .
Synopsis
If the still possesses the , his possession can establish that he received it. This does not remove the requirement that his appointment be witnessed, and ideally the husband should also deliver the to him before .
A husband cannot appoint an agent to receive a on behalf of his wife,
A represents the woman and receives the as her legal hand. Since divorce is treated as a liability to her, the husband cannot appoint someone to accept that liability for her without her consent.
but he may give the to an agent
,
to carry the to his wife,
״״.
and this is called a , an agent for delivery.
A represents the husband. The ’s receipt of the from the husband does not itself divorce the woman; he carries it on the husband’s behalf so that it can later be delivered to her.
Synopsis
The husband cannot appoint someone to receive the on his wife’s behalf, because a receiving agent must represent her. He may appoint a to carry and deliver the for him.
and this is called a , an agent appointed to bring the to her.
A is appointed by the woman, but unlike a , his receipt of the does not itself complete the divorce. He accepts the responsibility of bringing the document to her.
.
Neither a nor a requires for his appointment.
According to the , these agents differ from a because their agency includes transporting the , which is still a preparatory step toward the divorce. The divorce itself does not take place merely when they receive the document.
Synopsis
A woman may appoint a to bring her from her husband. According to the , neither this agent nor the husband’s requires for the appointment, because receiving the themselves does not yet complete the divorce.
🔎Dig DeeperAn Agent Who Brings the for the Woman
An Agent Who Brings the for the Woman
The gives a more practical explanation for the distinction. A or carries the with him, so possession of the document itself supports his claim that he was appointed to transport it. A , by contrast, does not have possession of the before the divorce takes effect, so his appointment must first be established before .
In later practice, the appointment of a came to be formally documented, and some authorities require for that appointment as well.
Neither a nor a completes the divorce merely by receiving the . Their agency concerns bringing the to the woman; receiving it themselves is not yet the act that completes her divorce.
This is the central difference between these agents and a . A receives the as the woman’s legal hand, while a or must still bring the to her.
,
Whenever the term “agent” is used without further qualification in the laws of ,
it refers to a
.
or a .
This terminology is important for the that follow: an unspecified “agent” in these laws refers to one of these agents who transports the , not to a .
Synopsis
A or carries the toward the woman, but the divorce takes effect only when the reaches her. An unspecified “agent” in these laws refers to one of these transporting agents.
These five are not legally qualified to carry out this form of agency.
,
If one of them received or brought a ,
.
it is not a valid .
The agency itself is invalid, so the is not considered to have been properly received or delivered through that person.
Synopsis
Almost anyone may serve as an agent for a , but a non-Jew, Canaanite slave, deaf-mute, person lacking legal competence, or minor cannot serve in these roles.
🔎Dig DeeperWho May Serve as an Agent for a
Who May Serve as an Agent for a
The includes an among those who cannot serve in any of these roles. This rejects the position of , who maintains that an may serve as a .
The , 141:31, records both positions but appears to give greater weight to the Rambam’s ruling.
The qualifications for agency are not identical to the qualifications for testimony. A person may therefore be valid as an agent even if that person could not serve as a witness in the same matter.
,
Even those disqualified from serving as because of a transgression under Rabbinic law
.
are qualified to serve as agents.
,
But those disqualified from serving as because of a -level transgression
;
are disqualified from bringing a ;
,
and if they did bring it,
.
the is disqualified.
Here the is not being declared absolutely void. The uses the status , indicating that it may not be relied upon in the ordinary way.
?
When does this apply?
;
When the has been authenticated through its signatures;
In that case, the document’s authenticity has already been established independently, so the problem lies in the disqualified person serving as the agent who brought it.
,
But if the cannot be accepted
-
except on the statement of a person who is disqualified by law because of a transgression—
.
it is not a valid .
Here the ’s acceptance depends entirely on the statement of this agent, yet he is disqualified by law from being relied upon for that statement. Without independent authentication of the signatures, the cannot presently be accepted.
The stronger wording eino describes its current status. As discussed below, if the signatures are later independently authenticated, later authorities qualify how absolute that result is.
Synopsis
Women, relatives, and those disqualified from testimony only by Rabbinic law may serve as agents. A person disqualified by law may not bring the , and when the ’s validity depends entirely on that person’s statement, it cannot presently be accepted.
🔎Dig DeeperWomen, Relatives, and Disqualified as Agents
Women, Relatives, and Disqualified as Agents
The , responding to the objections of the , explains that the ’s final phrase need not mean that the is permanently void. may later come and authenticate its signatures; if that happens, the divorce can take effect retroactively.
According to this reading, while the depends only on the statement of a person disqualified by law, the woman cannot rely on it to remarry. similarly explains that the itself can remain viable, but should be delivered through another valid agent.
If the agent was a minor when the was given to him
,
but had reached adulthood by the time he brought it,
,
or he was a deaf-mute and later became able to hear and speak,
,
or he lacked legal mental competence and later recovered,
,
or he was a non-Jew and later converted,
-
or he was an and was later freed—
.
the is void.
The crucial point in these cases is that the person was not legally capable of receiving the agency when the was originally entrusted to him. Becoming qualified later cannot retroactively create an agency that never validly began.
But if the was given to him while he was legally competent
and he later became a deaf-mute
,
and then regained his ability to hear and speak,
or he was mentally competent when the was given to him
and later lost that competence
-
and then recovered by the time he brought it to the woman—
,
the is valid,
.
because both the beginning and the end occurred while he possessed legal understanding.
A temporary period of incapacity in the middle does not invalidate the agency. What matters here is that it began validly and that the agent was again legally competent when he completed the mission.
Synopsis
An agent must be qualified when the agency begins and when it is completed. Later qualification cannot repair an agency that never began validly, while a temporary period of incapacity in the middle does not necessarily invalidate it.
🔎Dig DeeperAn Agent Who Became Qualified Only Later
An Agent Who Became Qualified Only Later
The uses this ruling to raise a related question. If an agency began validly and was then explicitly revoked, can the later restore that same agency, or must the agent be appointed anew?
The does not resolve that separate question here. It arises from the contrast between a temporary loss of the agent’s personal capacity and an agency that has itself been formally ended.
and says to him, “Take my for me and keep it for me in your possession,”
,
he is a ,
״״.
just as though she had said to him, “Receive my for me.”
The legal effect depends on what her words authorize him to do. By telling him to take the and hold it for her, she appoints him to receive it on her behalf, not merely to transport it.
A woman may also appoint a
to receive her for her
.
from the hand of her husband’s agent.
The therefore does not need to pass directly from the husband to her receiving agent. The husband may act through his own agent while she acts through hers.
,
A minor girl, however, may not appoint a ,
-
even though her courtyard can acquire her for her just as an adult woman’s courtyard can—
Her courtyard can acquire the for her automatically when the conditions for acquisition are present. That does not require her to create a separate agency.
,
because the appointment of a requires ,
,
and testimony is not given regarding a minor
.
because a minor does not possess complete legal understanding.
According to the ’s explanation here, a requires a witnessed appointment, and that appointment cannot be established for a minor who does not yet possess complete legal understanding. This is different from her courtyard acquiring the for her automatically, which does not depend on her creating an agency.
Synopsis
A woman can appoint a with wording that authorizes him to take and hold the for her, and he may receive it from the husband’s agent. A minor girl cannot create this receiving agency.
🔎Dig DeeperWhat Counts as Appointing a Receiving Agent
What Counts as Appointing a Receiving Agent
The disagrees with the ’s explanation and understands the rule more broadly: a minor simply does not have the legal power to appoint an agent at all. According to that approach, the limitation applies not only to a but also to a .
The and discuss how the Rambam’s wording here fits with his general rule elsewhere that a minor cannot appoint an agent. They emphasize the special status of a , who functions as an extension of the woman’s own hand.
The woman appointed him to receive the for her, but the husband does not hand it to him in that capacity. By instructing him instead to bring the to her, the husband gives him a new role as his own delivery agent. The divorce therefore does not take effect when the agent receives the ; it will take effect only when the reaches the woman.
״״,
But if the husband says to him, “Receive it for her,”
״״,
or, “Acquire it for her,”
״״-
or, “Here, take it”—
.
he has not displaced the agent’s role as a .
These expressions are consistent with the husband giving the to him in the receiving capacity in which the woman appointed him.
״״-
But if he says to him, “Bring it to her,”
,
he has displaced the role,
.
and the person becomes the husband’s agent.
The husband is not simply cancelling the woman’s appointment. Rather, he refuses to give the to this person as her receiving agent and instead entrusts it to him as his own delivery agent.
״״-
Similarly, if he says to him, “Bring it and give it to her,”
.
he has displaced the role.
Although the expression “give it to her” can in other settings indicate acquisition on another person’s behalf, here the command to bring the to her shows that the husband intends this person to serve as a delivery agent.
Synopsis
The husband is not required to hand the to the woman’s in that receiving capacity. If he instead gives the agent the role of bringing the to her, the treats him as the husband’s delivery agent, and the divorce does not take effect until the reaches the woman.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A woman appoints as her , meaning that the divorce would normally take effect as soon as receives the . When arrives, however, the husband says, “I do not want you receiving it for her. Take it and bring it to her.” is now acting as the husband’s delivery agent. The divorce does not take effect when receives the ; it takes effect only when he later hands it to the woman.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Gives the Agent a Different Role
When the Husband Gives the Agent a Different Role
The and disagree with the ’s definite ruling when the husband tells the agent, “Bring it to her.” In their view, the status of the divorce is doubtful rather than certainly governed by a newly created .
The , 140:6, records the Rambam’s position, while the cites the opposing views.
If the woman’s agent comes to take a from the husband,
״״,
and tells him, “I am a ,”
״״,
and the husband tells him, “Here is this , according to what she told you,”
:,
meaning: “I am not changing the agency she gave you;”
rather, whether she appointed you as a
,
or as an agent appointed to bring the to her,
,
you remain whatever type of agent she appointed you to be.”
The husband is deliberately leaving the agent’s authority exactly as the woman created it. Here the uses the language of holachah in the broader sense of transporting the ; when the woman appoints that transporting agent, his specific title is . The husband is not appointing a new role of his own.
,
The agent then brings the ,
״
and the woman tells him, “I did not appoint you as a ,
״-
but rather as a ”—
,
even if the ultimately reaches her hand,
;
she is not divorced;
By identifying himself to the husband as a , he expressly denied that he had been appointed in the role the woman later says she actually gave him. Since the husband made his delivery conditional on the woman’s original appointment, the agent cannot rely on a different agency afterward.
,
because the agent displaced the agency that she had actually given him,
:
by effectively telling the husband,
.
“I was never appointed as her .”
Since the husband did not independently appoint him as a delivery agent, there is no valid agency remaining through which this delivery can operate.
Synopsis
If the husband leaves the agent’s authority exactly as the woman originally appointed it, but the agent has denied the role she actually gave him, the agency is lost and even later physical delivery to the woman does not complete the divorce.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
tells , “Bring me my from my husband,” making him her . When reaches the husband, however, he says, “I am her .” The husband replies, “Here is the according to whatever she told you.” Later, says, “I never made you a —I told you to bring it to me.” Even if now hands her the , the divorce does not take effect, because he had denied the very agency actually gave him.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Agent Misstates the Role He Was Given
When the Agent Misstates the Role He Was Given
The , 140:8, emphasizes the importance of the husband’s phrase “according to what she told you.” If the husband instead simply tells the agent, “Bring the to her,” without tying his instructions to the woman’s original appointment, the husband himself appoints him as a .
In that different case, the agent’s mistaken description of his earlier role does not prevent the husband’s new appointment from taking effect, and delivery of the to the woman can complete the divorce.
and the husband tells him, “Bring it according to what she told you,”
,
and the agent brings the ,
״״-
and the woman tells him, “I appointed you as a ”—
,
once the reaches her hand,
;
she is divorced;
Here the agent did not reject the task the woman gave him. He undertook a more demanding task than the one she assigned him.
,
because he did not displace the agency she had given him,
,
but only reduced its effect,
,
for she had authorized him to receive the for her,
.
while he told the husband that he would only bring it to her.
Had he acted as a , his receipt of the would have completed the divorce immediately. By undertaking the more demanding task of bringing it to her, he must continue until the actually reaches her hand. Once that happens, the divorce takes effect.
Synopsis
If a woman appoints a but the agent presents himself as a , he has not uprooted her instruction; he has undertaken a more demanding task. The divorce therefore takes effect when he actually delivers the to her.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
appoints as her , so his receipt of the could have completed the divorce immediately. Instead, tells the husband, “I am only her ,” meaning he will bring the all the way to her. He has taken on more work than required, not rejected her instruction. When he finally hands the , the divorce takes effect.
When the Woman Tries to Make the Husband’s Agent Her Own
,
If a husband sends a to his wife through an agent,
,
and the agent comes to give it to her,
but she does not take it,
and instead says to him in the presence of ,
״״,
“Let this remain with you for me as an entrusted item,”
״״-
or she tells him, “You are hereby my agent to receive it for me”—
Her words are understood as an attempt to make him begin holding the on her behalf, rather than merely safeguarding the husband’s document.
her divorce is of doubtful validity
,
until the actually reaches her hand,
The doubt is whether the same person can begin acting as the woman’s receiving agent before he has finished the mission for which the husband appointed him. It is therefore uncertain whether her attempted appointment has already made the hers.
but once the reaches her hand,
.
she is certainly divorced.
At that point, the husband’s original delivery mission has unquestionably been completed, so there is no longer any uncertainty about the divorce.
Synopsis
When the woman attempts to turn the husband’s delivery agent into her receiving agent before he finishes his original mission, the divorce is doubtful. Once the actually reaches her hand, the divorce is certain.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband sends a to his wife through an agent. When the agent arrives, she does not take the . Instead, in front of she says, “Keep this for me,” intending that he should now hold it as her own receiving agent. The question is whether he can become her agent before he has finished serving as her husband’s agent. Until he actually hands her the , the divorce therefore remains doubtful.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Woman Tries to Make the Husband’s Agent Her Own
When the Woman Tries to Make the Husband’s Agent Her Own
explains that when the woman says, “Let this remain with you for me as an entrusted item,” she is not merely asking the agent to store the document. She is attempting to have him begin holding it on her behalf.
That creates the same underlying uncertainty as expressly appointing him as her : can he begin acting for her before he has completed the agency that the husband originally gave him?
and only afterward should it be given to her in their presence.
The must know that the document being handed to her is the they examined.
because the law governing the agent’s delivery to the woman
,
is the same as the law governing the husband’s delivery to her,
.
because the agent stands in the husband’s place.
The agent is carrying out the husband’s act of delivery, so the same delivery requirements apply.
,
Therefore, if the agent gives the to her
,
but the to the delivery did not read it,
-
and she then takes it and throws it into the sea—
.
her divorce is of doubtful validity.
Because the delivery never read the document before it was given and it is now gone, they cannot establish with certainty that the document delivered to her was the . The divorce is therefore doubtful.
Synopsis
An agent must deliver the before two who first read the document. If they did not read it and the document is then destroyed, the divorce is doubtful because its identity can no longer be established with certainty.
Although a delivered privately may have validity after the fact, when an agent performs the delivery improperly, the proper course is to repeat the transfer before .
,
But if the agent dies,
since the is in the woman’s possession
-
and its signatures have been authenticated—
.
the is valid.
Since the agent has died and the delivery therefore cannot be repeated, the relies after the fact on the remaining in her possession together with authenticated signatures.
Synopsis
If an agent improperly gives the to the woman in private, he should take it back and repeat the delivery before two . If he dies before that can be done, an authenticated already in her possession remains valid.
🔎Dig DeeperA Delivered Privately by the Agent
A Delivered Privately by the Agent
The explains why the requires the agent to repeat the delivery even though a given privately can be valid after the fact. An agent’s position is weaker than that of the husband himself, so when the agent fails to follow the proper delivery procedure, the should initially be taken back and given again before .
If that is no longer possible because the agent has died, the Rambam relies after the fact on the authenticated document already in the woman’s possession.
When the Husband Nullifies the Delivery Before It Reaches Her
,
If an agent has taken the ,
,
and before it reaches the woman’s hand,
״״,
the husband changes his mind and tells the agent, “The that I sent with you is nullified,”
״״,
or he reaches the woman first and tells her, “The that I sent you is nullified,”
,
or he sends another agent to nullify it,
״״-
or he tells other people, “The that I sent to my wife is nullified”—
,
the is nullified,
.
even if it later reaches her hand.
The decisive point is timing. As long as the has not yet reached the woman or her , the husband can still stop this agency from completing the divorce. If he validly nullifies the agency first, later delivery by that agent does not effect the divorce.
,
Whenever he nullifies it in the presence of other people,
.
he must nullify it before two people.
This refers to nullifying it before people other than the agent himself. If he addresses the agent directly, separate are not required for the nullification itself.
But once the has reached her hand
-
or the hand of her —
.
he can no longer nullify it.
At that point, the divorce itself has already taken effect, so a later nullification cannot undo it.
,
Even if he retracts within and attempts to nullify it,
since he nullified it only after it had reached her hand,
or the hand of her
-
or her courtyard—
,
it is not nullified,
.
and the remains valid.
is the brief interval in which a person can sometimes retract a statement. Here, however, the divorce is treated as a deliberate completed act. The husband’s immediate change of mind is therefore a new decision, not a clarification of the original act, and it cannot undo the divorce.
Synopsis
Before the reaches the woman or her , the husband can still stop the agency from completing the divorce. Once the reaches her, her receiving agent, or her courtyard, the divorce has taken effect and cannot be undone—even within .
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband gives a to an agent to deliver to his wife. Before the agent reaches her, the husband calls him and clearly says, “The I sent with you is nullified.” The agent delivers it anyway. The delivery does not divorce her, because the husband cancelled the agency before the reached her. If the had reached her first, however, a later change of mind would have been too late.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen the Husband Nullifies the Delivery Before It Reaches Her
When the Husband Nullifies the Delivery Before It Reaches Her
The , 141:59, rules that initially a husband should not nullify a away from both the agent and the woman. Otherwise, she could receive the and remarry before learning that it had already been nullified.
The cites an opinion that even when the husband nullifies before two other people, he may speak to them separately rather than in one another’s presence.
Once the reaches the woman, her , or her courtyard, the divorce has already taken effect. Even an immediate change of mind cannot undo the completed act.
Sometimes we make a thoughtful decision and then immediately start second-guessing it—not because new information appeared, but because the decision suddenly feels real. Careful decisions deserve careful thought beforehand. Afterward, constantly reopening them can drain energy and make it hard to move forward. Not every uncomfortable feeling after a decision means the decision itself needs to be reconsidered.
Try today
Notice whether you are reopening one settled decision without any genuinely new information.
If the husband was searching for the agent in order to nullify the ,
,
or he was looking for two people before whom he could nullify it,
and while he was still searching and pursuing them,
,
the reached the woman’s hand,
-
and only afterward he nullified it—
,
the is not nullified,
even though he had been actively trying to nullify it
.
before it reached her hand.
effect depends on what the husband actually accomplished through a legally effective statement or act, not merely on what he intended to do. Although he was clearly trying to stop the divorce, he had not yet completed a valid nullification when the reached her.
Synopsis
An intention to nullify the —even one demonstrated by actively searching for the agent or —has no legal effect by itself. If the reaches the woman before the husband actually nullifies it, the divorce takes effect.
✦Live ItIntention still needs action
Intention still needs action
The husband may be actively searching for the agent or for so that he can nullify the . But until he actually completes a legally effective act of nullification, his intention alone changes nothing.
We often mean to do something important—make the call, apologize, start learning consistently, fix a problem at home—and because the intention feels serious, it almost feels as though we have already begun. But wanting, planning, and even preparing are not the same as acting. A good intention becomes meaningful when it crosses over into something real.
Try today
Choose one good intention you have been carrying and take one concrete step on it.
If a husband tells ten men, “Write a and give it to my wife,”
,
he may nullify the in the presence of one of them without the others being present,
.
and he may even nullify it before two other people.
The nullification does not have to take place before the entire group that received the original instruction.
,
If he sent the through two agents,
.
he may nullify the agency in the presence of one without the other being present.
,
Even if there were ten agents,
,
once he nullifies the agency in the presence of one of them,
.
the is nullified.
According to the , when several agents were appointed together, a nullification made before even one of them terminates the agency for the entire group. The remaining agents may no longer complete the divorce through that appointment.
Synopsis
According to the , when several agents were appointed together, nullifying the agency in the presence of even one of them can terminate the appointment for the entire group.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband appoints several men together to handle the same . Later, he tells one of them that the agency is cancelled, while the others are not present. According to the , that nullification ends the appointment for the entire group. The other agents cannot later rely on the original appointment to deliver the .
🔎Dig DeeperNullifying an Appointment Made to Several People
Nullifying an Appointment Made to Several People
The disagrees with the . In his view, nullifying the agency of one member of a group does not automatically cancel the authority of the others. If another agent later delivers the , the divorce can still take effect.
The , 141:61, gives greater weight to the Raavad’s view, although it also records the Rambam’s position.
“The that I am going to write for my wife is nullified,”
and afterward he has a written
-
and gives it to her in the presence of two other —
.
the is void.
The earlier declaration prevents the later from taking effect, even though the document is subsequently written and delivered in an otherwise proper manner.
.
This is what is called issuing a regarding a .
A is an advance declaration intended to prevent a later legal act from taking effect. Here, the husband declares in advance that a future is to be ineffective.
Similarly, if he tells them,
״״,
“Any that so-and-so writes for me is nullified,”
״״,
or, “Any that I have written in so-and-so’s court is nullified,”
״״-
or, “Any that I write from today until twenty years from now is nullified”—
.
the is nullified.
The declaration can be broad enough to cover a particular writer, a particular court, or all written during a specified period.
Similarly, if he tells two people,
״,
“Any that I write for so-and-so, my wife, is nullified,
״,
and any statement I later make to nullify this is itself nullified,”
-
and afterward he writes a and gives it to her—
even though he later nullified the
,
before the was written and given to her,
.
the is void.
Because his original also preemptively nullified any later attempt to cancel that , a simple subsequent cancellation is not enough.
◇Background and compulsion
In the laws of sales, the discusses in connection with a person acting under compulsion. Other authorities also discuss coercion in relation to a . Here, however, the does not make compulsion part of the stated rule; he simply describes the husband’s advance declaration.
Synopsis
A husband can issue a before a is written, declaring that a future is to be ineffective. He can even formulate it broadly enough to cover future attempts to cancel that .
🔎Dig DeeperDeclaring a Future Nullified in Advance
Declaring a Future Nullified in Advance
Other authorities discuss in connection with coercion and frame its operation more explicitly around whether the later act was forced. The and , 134 discuss that dimension more directly, while the does not mention it here.
The adds that a can be effective even if the husband makes the declaration separately to each of the two rather than addressing them together.
The previous described a that even attempted to invalidate any future cancellation of itself. The now explains how that earlier declaration can be neutralized.
The should tell the husband before the is written,
״
“Declare in our presence
that all statements you previously made
,
which, if upheld, would cause this to be nullified,
״,
are themselves nullified.”
The wording is deliberately broad. He is not merely saying, “I cancel the ,” which the original already declared ineffective. Instead, he nullifies every earlier declaration whose enforcement could prevent this particular from taking effect.
״״.
And he says, “Yes.”
.
Afterward, he instructs them to write, sign, and give the to her.
The earlier declarations are neutralized first; only afterward does the process of writing and delivering this begin.
They should not allow him to leave
,
until the reaches her hand,
.
so that he does not go out and nullify it.
Cancelling the earlier does not prevent the husband from making a new, valid nullification afterward. For that reason, the process continues through delivery without giving him an opportunity to leave and nullify the anew.
Neither one who issues a
nor one who nullifies a
.
requires a .
The declaration itself is legally effective; no additional symbolic act of acquisition is required.
Synopsis
An earlier can be neutralized through a broad declaration that cancels all prior statements capable of undermining the . The process then continues through delivery so that no new valid nullification intervenes.
🔎Dig DeeperHow to Neutralize an Earlier
How to Neutralize an Earlier
The is stricter than the . He maintains that a husband may be able to formulate his broadly enough to undermine even the cancellation described here. According to that approach, additional safeguards are needed, including disqualifying the testimony of anyone who heard the earlier .
, by contrast, is more lenient and maintains that a general declaration nullifying all earlier objections is sufficient.
The , 134:3, follows the Rashba’s stricter procedure, while the notes that Rabbenu Asher’s approach is legally defensible but recommends following the stricter procedure to remove doubt.
The adds an important limitation: even after the earlier has been successfully cancelled, a new valid nullification of the itself before delivery would still be effective.
he may later use that same to divorce her whenever he wishes,
because he did not nullify it as a ,
.
but only as part of that agency.
When the is already in the agent’s possession, an ordinary statement of nullification is understood as cancelling the agency through which this was being sent, not as destroying the document’s status as a .
Therefore, if the was still in the husband’s own hand
,
and he nullified it,
״״-
for example, by saying, “This is nullified”—
,
he may never again use it to divorce her,
.
and it is like a broken shard.
According to the , that declaration nullifies the document itself from serving as a , so it can no longer be used for divorce.
,
If he nevertheless attempts to divorce her with it,
.
she is not divorced.
,
Similarly, if the is in the agent’s hand but the husband states explicitly when nullifying it
while it is with the agent,
״
and says, “The that I sent
״-
is hereby nullified from being a ”—
.
he may never again use it to divorce her.
Here the husband has made clear that he is not merely cancelling the agent’s mission. He is expressly nullifying the document itself from functioning as a .
Synopsis
Nullifying a already sent through an agent ordinarily cancels the agency, not the document itself. But if the husband expressly nullifies the as a , the rules that the document can never again be used for divorce.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband gives a to an agent and later says, “Cancel the .” Ordinarily, this is understood as cancelling the agent’s mission, so the husband could still use the same document for a new divorce later. But if he explicitly says, “This document is nullified from being a ,” the treats the itself as permanently unusable.
🔎Dig DeeperNullifying the Agency or Nullifying the Itself
Nullifying the Agency or Nullifying the Itself
Other authorities disagree with the and maintain that once a was validly written, the husband cannot permanently destroy its status as a merely by declaring it nullified. According to that view, the document may still be usable for a later divorce.
Because of this dispute, the , 141:66, treats a later divorce performed with such a as doubtful rather than certainly ineffective.
With what expressions can the husband nullify the ?
״״,
If he says, “It is nullified,”
״״,
“I do not wish to use it,”
״״,
“This shall not be effective,”
״״,
“It shall not release her,”
״״,
“It shall not send her away,”
״״,
“It shall not divorce her,”
״״,
“Let it be like a shard,”
״״,
“Let it be a shard,”
״״-
or, “It is hereby like a shard”—
,
if he uses any one of these expressions,
-
or another expression with the same meaning—
.
he has nullified it.
The common feature of these expressions is that they communicate a present act of rejection: the husband is declaring that this is not to function for the divorce.
Synopsis
Expressions that communicate the husband’s present decision that the should no longer function for divorce are valid expressions of nullification.
These expressions sound similar to those in the previous , but their grammatical form is different. Here he is describing what he claims the already is, rather than declaring what he now wants it to become.
,
because this is not language of nullification,
,
but language that purports to describe the existing reality,
-
and he has merely told us something that is not true—
,
like someone who says that something forbidden is permitted,
.
or that something impure is pure.
A false statement about an object’s present status does not change that status. In the same way, merely declaring that a valid “is not a ” does not itself nullify it.
Synopsis
A statement that merely describes the as already invalid does not nullify it. The husband must use language that performs an act of nullification, not simply make an incorrect claim about the ’s present status.
whose wording can imply an action that already occurred,
״״(,)-
as in the expression, “he turned away and passed on” (Shir HaShirim 5:6)—
.
the matter is doubtful.
The uncertainty is grammatical. The Hebrew form בָּטַל may be understood as language presently making the void, or as a past-tense claim that it was already void. In the second reading, he has merely made an incorrect statement about the ’s existing status, just as in the previous .
,
Therefore, if she was subsequently divorced with this ,
.
her divorce is of doubtful validity.
Because the husband’s wording may or may not have successfully nullified the , a later delivery cannot produce a definite result.
Synopsis
The word batal is ambiguous: it may be an effective act of nullification or merely a statement that the was already invalid. A later divorce with that document is therefore doubtful.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband says only, “This is batal.” That wording is unclear. Did he mean, “I am nullifying it now,” which would be effective, or was he merely saying, “It is already null,” which would be only an incorrect description? Because the same word can be understood both ways, if the is later delivered, the woman’s divorce is doubtful.
and the agent returned and told him, “I could not find her,”
״״,
or, “She did not want to take it,”
״״,
and the husband responded, “Blessed is He Who is good and does good,”
or made another similar statement
,
whose implication is that he no longer intends to divorce her,
-
for he is clearly pleased that the was delayed—
,
the is not nullified,
and the agent may still give it to her,
,
and she will be divorced,
The husband’s reaction may reveal that he no longer wants the divorce, but desire alone does not cancel the .
״״,
unless he explicitly tells the agent, “Do not give it to her,”
.
or explicitly nullifies it.
To stop the divorce, the husband must communicate an actual instruction or use a recognized expression of nullification. An implication, even a very strong one, is not enough.
Synopsis
Even clear evidence that the husband no longer wants the divorce does not cancel the . He must explicitly instruct the agent not to give it or use legally effective language of nullification.
✦Live ItSay what you mean
Say what you mean
The husband may clearly show that he is pleased the was delayed and may even no longer want the divorce. Still, unless he explicitly tells the agent not to give it or uses valid language of nullification, the remains in force.
People around us should not always have to decode our hints. Sometimes we assume our disappointment, appreciation, request, or change of mind is obvious, while the other person is left guessing. Clear words can prevent a great deal of confusion. If something genuinely matters, it is worth saying directly rather than hoping someone will infer it.
Try today
Say one important thing plainly instead of expecting someone to figure it out.
and afterward nullified it before two other people,
-
or if he issued a regarding the —
,
he is given lashes for rebellious conduct,
.
because his conduct can cause to result.
The problem is not merely that he has prevented the divorce. The danger is that the woman may have no knowledge of the earlier nullification or and may therefore remarry on the strength of a that never took effect. If the was void, she remained married to her first husband, and a child conceived in the later union could therefore have the status of a .
For the may reach her hand
,
and she may remarry on its basis,
and only later the may come forward
before whom he nullified the
or before whom he issued the
,
before the was written,
.
and a child from the later marriage will then be found to be a .
Synopsis
A husband who secretly nullifies a or issues a is punished because he may cause the woman to remarry on a that never took effect, creating the possibility of .
we do not say that perhaps the husband had nullified it,
rather, it is given to her
;
on the presumption that it is valid;
.
and she may remarry on its basis.
We do not undermine an apparently valid merely because the husband might have secretly acted to nullify it. The remains under its presumption of validity unless there is evidence to the contrary.
,
But if it is later discovered that he had nullified it,
she must leave the second husband,
.
and the child is a .
If it is later established that the had in fact been nullified before delivery, that earlier nullification governs despite the original presumption of validity.
,
Similarly, if a husband writes a and gives it to his wife,
,
we do not say that perhaps he had previously issued a regarding this ,
,
rather, it is presumed valid,
.
and she may remarry on its basis.
A hypothetical concern that an undisclosed might exist does not prevent reliance on an otherwise valid .
Synopsis
An apparently valid is presumed valid; we do not suspect an undisclosed nullification or . If later evidence proves that the husband had in fact nullified it, that earlier act controls.
on the presumption that the husband is still alive.
The agent does not have to assume that illness or advanced age means the husband died after sending him. The husband remains presumed alive unless the circumstances create a stronger concern.
,
But if the husband was in his death throes when the agent left him,
,
since most people in that condition die,
-
even if the agent gives her the —
,
the divorce is doubtful,
.
because a cannot take effect after the husband’s death.
The doubt is about timing: we do not know whether he was still alive when the reached her. The fact that most people in this condition die is enough to prevent us from relying on the ordinary presumption of continued life, but not enough to establish that he definitely died before delivery. This can matter especially when he is childless: if the took effect before his death, she is divorced and does not require or ; if he died first, those laws may apply.
Similarly, if a city has been surrounded by an army
,
and is under siege,
,
or a ship is being battered at sea,
-
or a person has been taken out to stand trial—
.
all of these are presumed to be alive.
These are dangerous situations, but not enough to remove the existing presumption of life. The describes the ship here as one endangered by violent seas whose crew cannot control its course as they wish, while its oars and other essential equipment are still intact.
-
If the of one of these men is in the agent’s hand,
,
the agent may give it to his wife,
.
and she is presumed divorced.
Synopsis
A husband who was ill or elderly, or who was in one of the particular dangerous situations listed here, is ordinarily presumed alive, so the agent may deliver his . If he was already a , the divorce is doubtful because he may have died before the reached his wife.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A husband who is elderly sends a through an agent. The trip takes several days, and the agent has no new information about the husband. He may still deliver the because the husband is presumed alive. If the husband had been a when the agent left, however, the result would be doubtful, because the husband may have died before the was delivered.
🔎Dig DeeperPresuming the Husband Is Still Alive
Presuming the Husband Is Still Alive
The , 141:69, limits the case of a besieged city. It applies when the city is surrounded by the army of the ruling authority. If an invading foreign army surrounds it, the danger is greater and the same presumption of continued life does not necessarily apply.
The case of a person taken out to stand trial applies whether the court is Jewish or non-Jewish.
But if a city was conquered by an attacking army and breached,
,
or a ship was left helpless at sea,
Here the ship has lost its means of control and navigation and is completely at the mercy of the water. This is a more severe danger than the storm-tossed but still equipped ship of the previous .
,
or a person was taken out to be executed by a non-Jewish court,
Even here, there remains some possibility that the execution will not ultimately occur—for example, the sentence might historically have been avoided through bribery. The discussion contrasts this with a person sentenced to death by a Jewish court, where the sentence is presumed to have been carried out.
,
or someone was dragged away by a wild animal,
,
or swept away by a river,
-
or buried beneath a collapse—
.
we apply to them the stringencies of both the living and the dead.
These circumstances create such a serious possibility of death that the person cannot simply be treated as definitely alive, yet death has not been established with certainty either.
,
If the of one of these men is in the agent’s hand,
;
the agent should not give it to the man’s wife;
,
but if he did give it to her,
.
her divorce is doubtful.
The uncertainty is whether the husband was still alive when the reached her. If he was alive, the divorce may have taken effect; if he had already died, the could accomplish nothing.
If it becomes known that the husband died
,
before the reached her hand,
.
it is not a .
Once the sequence is known, there is no remaining doubt: a cannot take effect after the husband’s death.
Synopsis
When the husband is in circumstances creating a severe possibility of death, his status is treated doubtfully. The agent should not deliver the , and if he does, the divorce is doubtful unless the timing of the husband’s death becomes known.
Picture the CaseA concrete example
A ship is caught in a severe storm. If its crew still has working oars and steering equipment, the people aboard remain presumed alive and an agent may deliver a sent by one of them. If the ship loses its steering and essential equipment and is completely helpless at sea, the danger is much greater. An agent should then not deliver the ; if he does, the divorce is doubtful.
The Husband’s Obligations Continue Until the Divorce Takes Effect
,
If a husband sends a to his wife,
he remains obligated to provide her support
and remains obligated in all the other obligations established by the
until the reaches her hand
.
or the hand of her .
Sending the does not itself end the marriage. Until the reaches the woman or someone authorized to receive it as her legal hand, she remains his wife and the obligations created by the marriage continue.
Synopsis
The husband’s marital obligations continue while the is still in transit. They end only when the divorce actually takes effect by the reaching the woman or her .
✦Live ItResponsibilities end when the transition is real
Responsibilities end when the transition is real
A husband may have already sent the and fully intend for the marriage to end. Yet until the actually reaches the woman or her , she remains his wife and his marital obligations continue.
Transitions often begin before they are complete. You may be leaving a job, handing off a responsibility, finishing a project, or changing a routine—but until the handoff is actually finished, the old responsibility may still belong to you. Moving mentally to the next stage too early can leave important things unattended.
Try today
Ask whether there is one responsibility you have mentally left before the handoff is actually complete.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 6 at a glance
Chapter review
Review the chapter’s central rulings through these synopses.
A receives the in place of the woman herself, so the divorce takes effect as soon as it reaches his hand. His appointment must be witnessed, and when the is no longer available, its receipt must also be established by .
A woman may appoint a to bring her from her husband. According to the , neither this agent nor the husband’s requires for the appointment, because receiving the themselves does not yet complete the divorce.
The husband is not required to hand the to the woman’s in that receiving capacity. If he instead gives the agent the role of bringing the to her, the treats him as the husband’s delivery agent, and the divorce does not take effect until the reaches the woman.
Before the reaches the woman or her , the husband can still stop the agency from completing the divorce. Once the reaches her, her receiving agent, or her courtyard, the divorce has taken effect and cannot be undone—even within .
A husband can issue a before a is written, declaring that a future is to be ineffective. He can even formulate it broadly enough to cover future attempts to cancel that .
A husband who secretly nullifies a or issues a is punished because he may cause the woman to remarry on a that never took effect, creating the possibility of .
A husband who was ill or elderly, or who was in one of the particular dangerous situations listed here, is ordinarily presumed alive, so the agent may deliver his . If he was already a , the divorce is doubtful because he may have died before the reached his wife.
The husband’s marital obligations continue while the is still in transit. They end only when the divorce actually takes effect by the reaching the woman or her .