QUESTION: The Gemara compares a Get which a man gives to his wife when he is deathly ill to a gift which a man gives under the same circumstances. Rebbi Aba asks that if the laws of a gift are compared to the laws of a Get, then just as his gift takes effect after his death his Get also should take effect after his death. The Gemara answers that it is impossible to compare the two with regard to taking effect after death since a gift can take effect after one's death, while a Get cannot. With regard to other matters, however, the two may be compared to each other.

What does the Gemara mean when it says that a gift can take effect after the benefactor's death? Once the benefactor is dead he cannot give a gift, just as he cannot give his wife a divorce after his death.

(a) REBBI AKIVA EIGER explains that although a gift cannot take effect after one's death, in this case the Rabanan enacted that it take effect after his death. The Rabanan have the power to do so because of the rule, "Hefker Beis Din Hefker." In contrast, with regard to a Get given after death, the Rabanan do not have the power to change a status of Isur (the woman's status of Eshes Ish, of being a married woman), and therefore they cannot create a Get that will take effect after the husband's death. However, Rebbi Akiva Eiger remains with the question that although this is a clear distinction between a gift and a Get, the simple reading of the Gemara does not imply that it is making such a distinction.

(b) RASHI stresses that a Get cannot take effect after death since, when the husband dies, the wife is required to do Yibum (if they have no children). Once she becomes obligated to do Yibum at the time of his death, it is too late to become divorced. The MAHARSHA explains that immediately at the time of the husband's death the Yibum relationship (Zikah) takes place and there is no opportunity for the Get to take effect. In contrast, the acquisition of a gift can take effect immediately after the benefactor's death. According to this approach, there is a clear distinction between the ability of a gift to take effect after the giver's death and the ability of a Get to take effect after the man's death.

The Acharonim ask, however, that once a person dies his heirs automatically inherit his possessions, immediately. Accordingly, why does his gift take effect after his death? As soon as the person dies, the item of the gift belongs to his heirs!

Perhaps the answer is that there is a basic difference between the Zikah of Yibum, which takes effect immediately at the time of the man's death, and the transfer of ownership of the man's inheritance to its heirs. When one dies his possessions undergo a change of ownership. Under normal circumstances, his possessions are automatically transferred to his offspring. The enactment of the gift of a Shechiv Mera treats this gift like an inheritance for the recipient (see Bava Basra 149b, where the Gemara says that the Rabanan treat this gift like a Yerushah, and thus it does not work for a Ger who has no Halachah of Yerushah). The Rabanan enacted that when one gives a Matnas Shechiv Mera, the recipient of the gift is treated like an heir, and thus the Yerushah process transfers the item to the recipient of the gift instead of to the other heirs.

With regard to Yibum, the law is that if one dies without children his marriage has never fully been terminated and the woman remains partly married to the brother of her deceased husband (see Rashi to Kidushin 4b, DH she'Chen). In such a case there is no opportunity for a Get to take effect after the husband's death (even if the Rabanan did have the power to change the status of an Isur) since the marriage automatically continues with the Yavam at the time of the husband's death, before the Get can take effect and create a divorce.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that if a man sends a Shali'ach to sign a Get, the Shali'ach may not appoint someone else to sign it for him because "words" ("Mili") cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach. RASHI and the RAN explain that this means that the Shali'ach cannot appoint another Shali'ach to sign the Get. In such a case, the Shali'ach transfers the command which he received, which is no more than a transfer of words.

This implies that the first Shali'ach may be appointed as a Shali'ach for "words" as long as he does not transfer the task to another Shali'ach. This, however, seems to contradict the comments of RASHI later (71b, DH d'Omar) who writes that the question of making a Shali'ach for "Mili," words, is whether a Shali'ach may be appointed to perform a mission which involves only words or speaking. Rashi implies that the question of making a Shali'ach for "Mili" applies even to the first Shali'ach! How does Rashi there understand the Gemara here?

ANSWER: The CHESHEK SHLOMO answers that the discussion of the Gemara here involves two issues. The first issue is whether "Mili" may be transferred to a Shali'ach, such as in a case in which one Shali'ach is appointed to sign a Get and afterwards he seeks to transfer the directive he received to a second Shali'ach.

The second issue is that of "Omer Imru," where the sender appoints a Shali'ach to appoint witnesses who will sign the Get. In such a case the Shali'ach does not transfer his mission to a second party, but rather he carries out his mission exactly as he was instructed. In this case, there is still a question whether such a Shelichus can take effect, since the entire mission of the Shelichus is nothing more than "Mili," words (to tell others to sign the Get). In other words, the issue of "Mili" involves whether or not words can be transferred from one Shali'ach to another, while the issue of "Omer Imru" involves whether a person can be appointed as a Shali'ach to carry out a mission which involves only words.

Based on this distinction, the Cheshek Shlomo answers that Rashi later is explaining the Gemara according to the opinion that "Omer Imru" is not an acceptable way of appointing a Shali'ach, and therefore the issue is whether one can become a Shali'ach at all for "Mili." In contrast, Rashi here explains the discussion of "Mili" which is an issue of a Shali'ach transferring his Shelichus to a second party.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that a Shali'ach who was sent to write and sign a Get may not appoint someone else in his place to carry out his mission, because he is a Shali'ach for a mission of "Mili," words, and "Mili" cannot be transferred to another Shali'ach. The Gemara in Kidushin (41a) derives from verses that a person who was appointed as a Shali'ach to bring or receive a Get may appoint another Shali'ach in his place. Why is the case of the Gemara here considered "Mili" but not the case of delivering a Get?

(a) RASHI here explains that appointing a Shali'ach to deliver a Get is not considered "Mili" because the Shali'ach physically receives the Get from the husband and therefore he may transfer the Get to a second Shali'ach. In contrast, a Shali'ach appointed to write or sign a Get has nothing tangible in his hands to transfer to the second Shali'ach.

(b) The TOSFOS RID in Kidushin explains that a Shali'ach appointed to deliver a Get is not a Shali'ach for "Mili" because he is holding the actual document of the husband that must be delivered directly to the wife. According to the Tosfos Rid's logic, it is not enough for the Shali'ach to hold the object that was given to him by the sender. Rather, he must be holding the object which will be used to create the transaction for the sender. (According to Rashi, appointing a Shali'ach to deliver money for Kidushin is not considered "Mili," while according to the Tosfos Rid, it is considered "Mili" since the Shali'ach does not have to give to the bride the actual money that he received from the man, for he can give other coins (of the same value) and the Kidushin will still take effect.)

(c) The KADOSH M'RADUSH (quoted by the MORDECHAI in Kidushin) explains that as long as the Shali'ach does not have the power to complete the transaction, his appointment is considered "Mili." According to this logic, only a Shali'ach to deliver a Get is not "Mili" since the Shali'ach can deliver the Get even without the wife's consent. A Shali'ach for Kidushin, who needs the bride's consent in order to give her the money, and a Shali'ach to write a Get, who does not have the power to create the divorce but merely to write the document of divorce, are considered appointments of "Mili."

(d) The RASHBA in Kidushin writes that the Gemara there refers to a case in which the wife told the Shali'ach to appoint another Shali'ach for her. Such a case is not "Mili" but rather a case of "Omer Imru" (see previous Insight), and therefore the Shelichus is valid. (According to Rashi and the Tosfos Rid, the Gemara in Kidushin which says that a Shali'ach may appoint another Shali'ach must be referring only to a Shali'ach appointed to deliver a Get. A Shali'ach appointed to receive a Get may not appoint another Shali'ach, since receiving the Get is considered "Mili.") (See also MORDECHAI here.)