Siman 244

We hold that words cannot be handed over to a messenger, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 141. The explanation of the matter is that one who says to three people, "Write a get, sign it, and give it to my wife," they do not have the power to hand the matter over to others. Even though a messenger may appoint a messenger, this is only when he appoints a messenger for an action, such as when he hands a get to a messenger, he may appoint a messenger in his place. However, when he appoints a messenger for words, where he tells them to write and sign, there is no power in words for the first messenger to hand over to the second. Such is the law regarding a gift: when one says to two or three people, "Write and sign a deed of gift for my field and give it to so-and-so," they cannot tell others to write, sign, and give; rather, they themselves must do it, for words cannot be handed over to a messenger. See what I wrote in Even HaEzer siman 141, section 117.

But when he said to two or to three, "Say to so-and-so and so-and-so that they should write, sign, and give a get to my wife," there are some of our teachers who hold that this is not mili de-mili. It is only called mili de-mili when he handed over the words to them themselves and they hand them over to others; but in a case of "say to them," he has made the others agents not in their presence [the Ramban, the Ran, and the Ra'ah at the end of the sixth chapter of Gittin]. According to this, in a gift in such a case, when he said to two, "Say to so-and-so and so-and-so that they should write and sign a deed of gift for so-and-so and give it to him," it is a valid gift. This is the opinion of the Tur in this siman, who validates a gift in a case of "say to them." And even though regarding a get, even in a case of "say to them" it is invalid, this is by rabbinic decree because the witnesses must hear from the husband himself, or because of the mishap, as is found in the Gemara there; but regarding a gift, this does not apply. This is the "there are those who validate" that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought in the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Rambam, of blessed memory, does not hold so, for he wrote in the fourth chapter of Zechiyah: A gift is like a get, in that a person cannot hand over words to an agent. How so? If he said to three, "Say to so-and-so and so-and-so that they should write and sign a deed of gift and give it to so-and-so," this is nothing. And if they said to those witnesses and they wrote and gave to the recipient, he has not acquired it. Similarly, if he said to two, "Write and sign a deed of gift and give it to so-and-so," they cannot tell a scribe to write, but they themselves must write. Thus far his words. For he holds that even "say to them" is mili, as there is no power in words for the owners to make an agent of words to command him to hand over the words to others. And one may explain the reason that we learn agency from terumah, and there it is an action. And even though regarding a get in the second chapter of Gerushin this law was not clear to him, as he wrote that in a case of "say to them" it is an invalid get and one deliberates on the matter as it is close to being a void get—thus far his words—it is not because he is in doubt, but because of the severity of a married woman he was concerned for the sugya at the end of the sixth chapter of Gittin, where it is explained there that this is only by rabbinic decree because of the mishap, even though as a matter of law it is settled for him that we do not rule like that sugya. Rather, the sugya in the seventh chapter [71a] implies explicitly that even in a case of "say to them" it is mili [since Rav Ashi said, "and it is not necessary etc. but even in a case of say to them etc." and in the Mishnah we learned "behold this is a void get," and in the general rule of the Rambam, "void" means from the Torah; and we have elaborated on this in the book Or Layesharim, siman 82, and all that they questioned him on is well-settled; and examine this].

Regarding one who says "tell [others to write]," according to the opinion of the Rambam it is invalid in a gift if the others acted, and all the more so if the first agents signed themselves, for it is invalid even according to the opinion of the Tur, as he did not command them at all and they are not his agents to act. And in all that has been explained, there is no difference between whether he spoke to two or spoke to three. However, when he handed the gift to an agent, he certainly can appoint a second agent, not like the one who is uncertain about this [and so wrote the Netivot HaMishpat].