1,754. Confusion as to an Agent's Role

Hilchos Geirushin 6:11

Let’s say that an agent was appointed by a woman to accept the get from her husband. The agent told the husband that he’s a receiving agent and the husband replied that the agent should deliver the get in accordance with his original assignment, meaning that he didn’t revoke the agent’s assignment. It’s as if the husband told the agent that whether the woman appointed him a receiving agent or a retrieval agent, he retains that appointment. The agent then brings the woman the get, only to be told that she didn’t appoint him a receiving agent, she appointed him a retrieval agent. In such a case, divorce is not effected even if he hands her the get because, when speaking with the husband, the agent revoked his original assignment. It’s like the agent told the husband that he was never appointed a retrieval agent for the woman.

Hilchos Geirushin 6:12

Let’s say that the agent told the husband that he’s a retrieval agent and the husband told him to deliver the get according to his original assignment. The agent then brought the woman her get, only to be told that she had appointed him a receiving agent. In this case, divorce is effected when he delivers the get to her because the agent didn’t revoke his original assignment. Rather, he just reduced it because she appointed him to accept the get and he said that he was just meant to deliver it.