GITTIN 63B
אתמר התקבל לי גיטי ואשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי והוא אומר הולך ותן לה אמר ר' אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב נעשה שלוחו ושלוחה וחולצת
It was stated with regard to a woman who says to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the agent says to her husband: Your wife said: Receive my bill of divorce for me, and the husband says to the agent: Deliver and give it to her, that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The agent becomes both the husband’s agent for delivery of the bill of divorce and the wife’s agent for receipt. Therefore, if the husband dies childless after handing the bill of divorce to the agent but before it reaches his wife’s possession, she performs ḥalitza with the husband’s brother due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of delivery and she was therefore not yet divorced. However, her husband’s brother may not enter into levirate marriage with her, due to the possibility that the agent was an agent of receipt, in which case she was divorced and is forbidden to the brother.
למימרא דמספקא ליה לרב אי הולך כזכי דמי אי לאו כזכי דמי והא אתמר הולך מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו אמר רב חייב באחריותו ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר
The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav was uncertain whether a case where the husband said: Deliver, is comparable to a case where the husband said: Acquire, or whether it is not comparable to a case where he said: Acquire? But wasn’t it stated that in a case where one said to his agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, Rav says: The person who designated the agent bears financial responsibility for this money, and if it is lost he is required to pay the debt to his creditor. Nevertheless, if the person who designated the agent seeks to retract his designation and take the money back from the agent, then he cannot retract it, because the creditor acquires the money from the moment that the debtor handed it to his agent of delivery. Apparently, according to Rav, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire.
התם ספק ממונא לקולא הכא ספק איסורא לחומרא
The Gemara rejects this proof. There is a distinction between the agent for delivery of a bill of divorce and the agent for delivery of the repayment of a loan. There, in the case of repayment of a loan, because there is uncertainty with regard to monetary law, the ruling is lenient, as one does not extract money from another in cases of uncertainty with regard to monetary law. However, here, in the case of divorce there is uncertainty with regard to ritual law and the ruling is stringent.
This Gemara is "סתרי תורה"!!! Why does "ספק ממונא לקולא" dictate that the money should go to the מלוה and we assume הולך כזכי??! FARKERT! It should go back to the לוה b/c he is the מרא קמא and say הולך לאו כזכי!!!
Listen here and here. BIIIIIIG YESOOOODDD!!!
---------------------------
