Zachin for a Get Shichrur

Gittin (1:6) | Yisrael Bankier | 5 months ago

For a get to be effective, the husband must hand it to his wife. We learn however that the get can be handed over by way of a shaliach, an agent of the husband -- a shaliach holacaha. Similarly, the get can be handed to a shaliach of the wife -- a shaliach kabbalah. The same law applies to a get shichrur -- a document used to free an eved (servant). The Mishnah teaches that if the husband appoints a shalaich and gives the shaliach the get to give to his wife, then he can retract and cancel the get, provided that the shaliach has not already delivered the get. Whether the same is true for a get shichrur is the subject of debate. R' Meir maintains that the adon (master) could retract, whereas the Chachamim maintain that it is too late.

The Mishnah explains that for the eved to be freed, it is an objective zechut -- it is to his benefit. The Mishnah explains that the ruling is therefore based on "zachin le'adam sh'lo befanav". In other words, one can acquire something for another without their knowledge, when it is to their benefit. The get shichrur is therefore immediately the eved's. When it come to the case of a shaliach to send a get, it is not necessarily a zechut, so it is not too late for the husband to stop the shelichut.

The Melechet Shlomo notes that according to the Rif, once the shaliach receives the get shichrur, it is true that the master can no longer retract. Nevertheless, the eved is not freed until the get reaches his hand. His proof is from the end of the Mishnah that teaches, that if the husband or master dies before the shaliach reaches the eved or wife, the get can not be handed over, since a get cannot be given after their death. The Mishnah implies that it would be necessary for the get to reach the eved in the case of the get shichrur.

The Rif brings a further proof, from the case where Reuven hands over money to Shimon that he owes Levi, to acquire it for Levi. In that case, which operates through zachin, he cannot take the money back, yet he is responsible to replace the money if it is lost or stolen before it reaches Levi's hands.

The Ran however disagrees. Regarding the second proof, the Ran explains that it is different to ours. In the case of a loan, the lender is clearly not absolved of his obligation until the money reaches the hand of the creditor. In this case however, since it is a zechut, once hits the hands of this shaliach, it should be considered as if it has already reached the eved's hand and he would be freed immediately.

The Rosh similarly argues with the Rif. He explains that the ability for the owner to retract is dependant on whether the eved has been freed; they go hand in hand. Furthermore, the way zachin works is because it is equivalent to shelichut. In other words, it is as if this person is acting as the shaliach of the eved, even though he did not expressly appoint him as one. Consequently, once this shaliach accepts the get it is equivalent to the eved receiving the get and he should be freed.

Regarding the Rif's proof from the end of the Mishnah he prefers Rashi's version where the term tnu rather than ten is used. In other words, the case is not where the master or husband instructed the shaliach to take the get, for which zachin would work, but rather to write the get and then deliver it.

How do we understand the position of the Rif?

The Ktav Sofer explains that the Rif understands that there are two components to freeing an eved. The first is that the eved is considered the property of the master. This is a monetary issue and can be adequately satisfied by way of zachin. There is a however, another component connected to his status as an eved, or more accurately the prohibitions that related to an eved. For example, he is not able to marry a bat yisrael. It is not an absolute zechut to relieve him of that status, considering that he will no longer be able to marry a shifcha. Consequently, for the issurim component, zachin would not work and the get would need to reach the hand of the eved for him to be completely free. The novelty of the position of the Rif is that these two components can be split. There are grounds for such a position considering that there is already a concept of a half eved, in a case where an eved has two owners and only one sets the eved free.

Download