Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

May 29, 2023 | 讟壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 13

A braita brings a more expanded version of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding whether it is only a benefit for a slave to be freed or is it also to his detriment. If one said to give a get to his wife or an emancipation document to his slave and he then died, they would not give the document as one cannot give a document once the person is no longer alive. However, regarding one who said to give money to another, they would give the money even if the owner died. It was passed down in the name of Rav that the money is given only if it was in a pile in a corner. They suggest two different explanations for Rav’s limitation. Rav Zevid says it is referring to a healthy person and it is effective as it was done in the presence of all three relevant people, as Rav said elsewhere that if one says to another to give the money he owes him to a third person, the third person acquires it if the statement was made in front of all three of them. Rav Papa says it is referring to one on his deathbed and if the money was not in a pile, there would be a concern that he was referring to money that was hidden somewhere. Why didn’t each hold by the other’s explanation? There is a debate regarding Rav’s statement about one who says to give the money another owes to a third person and if it was said in the presence of all three of them, the money is acquired by the third party. Is this only in a deposit case or also regarding a loan? It seems that Rav held it applies in a loan as well. How does that work? Ameimar suggests an explanation, but Rav Ashi rejects it.

讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖讘专讞 讜讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖诪专讚讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇


And Rabbi Meir further said to the Rabbis: And what would be if there was the slave of a priest, who fled from his master, or the wife of a priest who rebelled against her husband, are they not permitted to partake of teruma, although not the teruma belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of teruma. But this slave who was emancipated may not partake of teruma at all, even teruma that belongs to other priests. Evidently, emancipation is to his detriment.


砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讬谞讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖拽讬诇 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛


The Gemara asks: If so, then Rabbi Meir is saying and responding well to the Rabbis. How do the Rabbis counter his claim? Rava said: This is what they answered and said to him in the mishna: The master can disqualify his slave from partaking of teruma in any event, because he is his master鈥檚 acquisition. The implication of this statement is the following: As, if the master desires to disqualify his slave from partaking of teruma after he has fled, he can take four dinars from any Israelite in exchange for the slave, and he thereby disqualifies him from partaking of teruma anywhere that he is located.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讬谞讞 注讘讚 讻讛谉 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, his explanation works out well with regard to the slave of a priest whose emancipation causes him to be disqualified from partaking of teruma, and therefore it is possible to argue that his emancipation is to his detriment. However with regard to the slave of an Israelite, what can be said? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: Emancipation is even to the detriment of a slave of an Israelite, because by freeing him his master causes him to lose the option of engaging in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant. Until this point it was permitted for him to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, but once he is emancipated these women are forbidden to him.


讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪转讬专讜 讘讘转 讞讜专讬谉 注讘讚讗 讘讛驻拽讬专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇讗 诇讬讛 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬爪讛 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, by emancipating him the master renders it permitted for him to engage in sexual intercourse with a free woman. The Gemara answers: In the case of a slave, a life of licentiousness is preferable for him. Therefore, he would rather have the right to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, as she is lowly to him, she is available for him, she is unrestricted for him. None of these descriptions apply to a Jewish woman, and therefore he loses out on the benefit he could have received from being permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant. Consequently, Rabbi Meir maintains that his emancipation is to his detriment.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


MISHNA: In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one does not give it after his death. The reason for this is that bills of divorce and manumission must be transferred by the husband or the master. Once he has died the document can no longer be given, and the agency he appointed for this purpose is likewise canceled. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转


GEMARA: Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this ruling, that one gives the one hundred dinars after the death of the owner, is the halakha only when those dinars are piled up and placed in a corner at the time of the command.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘专讬讗 讻讬 爪讘讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讜讗诇讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 爪讘讜专讬谉 讻讬 讗讬谉 爪讘讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬诐 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜


The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a healthy person who instructs others to give one hundred dinars, then when they are piled, what of it? After all, the recipient did not pull the money, and one must perform an act of acquisition to take possession of movable property. Rather, say that we are dealing with a person on his deathbed, in which case verbal instructions suffice. However, if that is so, why does this halakha apply specifically when the money is piled? The same should be the case when the coins are not piled as well, as we maintain that the statement of a person on his deathbed who distributes his property is considered as though it were written and delivered. If so, no other act of acquisition should be necessary.


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘专讬讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛


Rav Zevid says: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a healthy person, and this ruling is in accordance with that which Rav Huna says that Rav says. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person has acquired it. This type of acquisition applies only to money that is similar to a deposit, e.g., piled money.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讻讗讬讚讱 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪谞讻住讬 诪谞讛 讝讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪谞讛 住转诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉


Rav Pappa said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a person on his deathbed, and it is in accordance with another ruling of Rav, as Rav says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so from my property, the halakha depends on his precise wording. If he said: Give him this one hundred dinars, where the money is in a particular place, one gives the money to him. However, if he merely said: One hundred dinars, without specification, one does not give it to him.


讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诪谞讛 拽讘讜专 拽讗诪专


Why does one not give the one hundred dinars if he did not add further specification? We are concerned that perhaps he spoke about a buried one hundred dinars. In other words, he might have been referring to a specific one hundred dinars whose location is unknown, and he did not intend to give him any other money. For this reason, Rav explains that the mishna is referring to money piled up in a designated place, which the one who gives the instruction is referring to explicitly.


讜讛诇讻转讗 诇拽讘讜专讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讝讘讬讚


The Gemara comments: And the halakha is that we are not concerned about a buried sum of one hundred dinars, i.e., the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav Pappa did not say an explanation that is in accordance with that of Rav Zevid with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement?


拽住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘驻拽讚讜谉


The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa holds that when Rav said that a transfer in the presence of all three parties is effective, it is no different if this is referring to a loan from the first party to the second party, where it is an abstract monetary obligation that is transferred, and it is no different if it is referring to a deposit, where specific money is transferred. Just as the transfer is effective in the case of a loan, in which there is an abstract monetary obligation, it would be effective even if the money were not piled. For this reason, Rav Pappa explained that the mishna is referring to piled money due to the concern about a collection of a buried one hundred dinars.


专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪讬转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


The Gemara asks the reverse question: What is the reason that Rav Zevid did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: He holds that it is not possible to establish the mishna as referring to a person on his deathbed. From where does he learn this? It is from the fact that it teaches: In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one should not give it after his death.


讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讛讗 诪讞讬讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 转谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉


The Gemara infers: The reason for this ruling is that the man died. However, if it was while he was still alive then one gives the document. The Gemara continues: Even during his lifetime the reason for the ruling is specifically that he said: Give, but if he did not say: Give, and merely commanded: Write a bill of divorce, then one does not give it. But this is not the case with regard to a person on his deathbed, as, although he did not say: Give, but simply commanded: Write, nevertheless, one gives the document. Evidently, this halakha cannot be referring to a person on his deathbed.


讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗


As we learned in a mishna (65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who is taken out in a neck chain to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say: Give, this is understood to have been his intention. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a far-off place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said just: Write.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉


Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife. This shows that a dying person need not say: Give. Rather, it is sufficient for him to say: Write. By contrast, the mishna indicates that it is referring to one who says: Give, and therefore it is certainly not speaking about a dying person.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗


Rav Ashi objects to this claim: And who says to us that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who did not include a dangerously ill person in their list of those who are not required to say: Give. If so, it is possible that the mishna is referring to a person on his deathbed after all.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讘诇 讘诪诇讜讛 诇讗


The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person has acquired it. Rava said: It stands to reason that Rav鈥檚 statement is with regard to a deposit, when the owner of the deposit instructs its guardian to transfer specific money under his authority to someone else who is also present. However, in the case of a loan, no, one cannot dispense with an act of acquisition, as repayment of a loan does not involve specific money.


讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪诇讜讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛


Rava himself adds, in the form of an oath: But by God, in truth, Rav said this halakha even with regard to a loan. The Gemara adds: It was also stated that Shmuel said in the name of Levi that if someone says to another: I have a loan in your possession, i.e., you owe me payment for a loan, give it to so-and-so, and this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that named person has acquired it.


讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 砖注讘讚谞讗 诇讱 诇讚讬讚讱 讜诇讻诇 讚讗转讜 诪讞诪转讱


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason for this? In what manner does he acquire it? Ameimar said: The case becomes like that of a borrower who says to a lender at the time of the giving of the money, when he receives a loan: I am beholden to you and to anyone who comes based on your authorization. In this case, the recipient is authorized by the lender to take the loan in the presence of all three parties.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛拽谞讛 诇谞讜诇讚讬诐 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜


Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: If that is so, that the borrower鈥檚 obligation to the third party went into effect at the time of the loan, then if he transferred it in the presence of the three parties to those who will be born, i.e., people who were not yet born when the money was initially given, the halakha should also be that the recipients do not acquire it. The reason is that at the time the lender gave the money to the borrower, the person to whom it would eventually be transferred did not yet exist, and therefore the borrower could not have become obligated to him at that point in time.


讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讗


Rav Ashi elaborates: As, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, this statement applies only when he transfers it to an entity, i.e., a person, that has come into the world. However, even Rabbi Meir agrees with regard to the transfer of ownership of an article to an entity that has not yet come into the world, that this is not possible. Since Rav issued his statement in a general manner without any limitations, evidently the method of a transfer in the presence of all three parties applies in all cases, regardless of whether the third party was born at the time when the loan was given.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬


Rather, Rav Ashi says that this is the reason for the matter:


  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 8-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if the agent bringing the Get didn鈥檛 see the document written and signed, the...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 13: From Divorces to Debts

A man appoints another man to be his shaliach to deliver either a divorce or a document that frees a...

Gittin 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 13

讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖讘专讞 讜讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖诪专讚讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇


And Rabbi Meir further said to the Rabbis: And what would be if there was the slave of a priest, who fled from his master, or the wife of a priest who rebelled against her husband, are they not permitted to partake of teruma, although not the teruma belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of teruma. But this slave who was emancipated may not partake of teruma at all, even teruma that belongs to other priests. Evidently, emancipation is to his detriment.


砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽谞讬谞讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖拽讬诇 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛


The Gemara asks: If so, then Rabbi Meir is saying and responding well to the Rabbis. How do the Rabbis counter his claim? Rava said: This is what they answered and said to him in the mishna: The master can disqualify his slave from partaking of teruma in any event, because he is his master鈥檚 acquisition. The implication of this statement is the following: As, if the master desires to disqualify his slave from partaking of teruma after he has fled, he can take four dinars from any Israelite in exchange for the slave, and he thereby disqualifies him from partaking of teruma anywhere that he is located.


讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讬谞讞 注讘讚 讻讛谉 注讘讚 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讜 诪砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, his explanation works out well with regard to the slave of a priest whose emancipation causes him to be disqualified from partaking of teruma, and therefore it is possible to argue that his emancipation is to his detriment. However with regard to the slave of an Israelite, what can be said? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: Emancipation is even to the detriment of a slave of an Israelite, because by freeing him his master causes him to lose the option of engaging in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant. Until this point it was permitted for him to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, but once he is emancipated these women are forbidden to him.


讗讚专讘讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 诪转讬专讜 讘讘转 讞讜专讬谉 注讘讚讗 讘讛驻拽讬专讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇讗 诇讬讛 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讬讛 驻专讬爪讛 诇讬讛


The Gemara raises a difficulty: On the contrary, by emancipating him the master renders it permitted for him to engage in sexual intercourse with a free woman. The Gemara answers: In the case of a slave, a life of licentiousness is preferable for him. Therefore, he would rather have the right to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, as she is lowly to him, she is available for him, she is unrestricted for him. None of these descriptions apply to a Jewish woman, and therefore he loses out on the benefit he could have received from being permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant. Consequently, Rabbi Meir maintains that his emancipation is to his detriment.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


MISHNA: In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one does not give it after his death. The reason for this is that bills of divorce and manumission must be transferred by the husband or the master. Once he has died the document can no longer be given, and the agency he appointed for this purpose is likewise canceled. However, if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖爪讘讜专讬谉 讜诪讜谞讞讬谉 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转


GEMARA: Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this ruling, that one gives the one hundred dinars after the death of the owner, is the halakha only when those dinars are piled up and placed in a corner at the time of the command.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘专讬讗 讻讬 爪讘讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讜讗诇讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 爪讘讜专讬谉 讻讬 讗讬谉 爪讘讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬诐 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜


The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If we say that we are dealing with a healthy person who instructs others to give one hundred dinars, then when they are piled, what of it? After all, the recipient did not pull the money, and one must perform an act of acquisition to take possession of movable property. Rather, say that we are dealing with a person on his deathbed, in which case verbal instructions suffice. However, if that is so, why does this halakha apply specifically when the money is piled? The same should be the case when the coins are not piled as well, as we maintain that the statement of a person on his deathbed who distributes his property is considered as though it were written and delivered. If so, no other act of acquisition should be necessary.


讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘专讬讗 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛


Rav Zevid says: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a healthy person, and this ruling is in accordance with that which Rav Huna says that Rav says. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person has acquired it. This type of acquisition applies only to money that is similar to a deposit, e.g., piled money.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讻讗讬讚讱 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪谞讻住讬 诪谞讛 讝讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪谞讛 住转诐 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉


Rav Pappa said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a person on his deathbed, and it is in accordance with another ruling of Rav, as Rav says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so from my property, the halakha depends on his precise wording. If he said: Give him this one hundred dinars, where the money is in a particular place, one gives the money to him. However, if he merely said: One hundred dinars, without specification, one does not give it to him.


讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 诪谞讛 拽讘讜专 拽讗诪专


Why does one not give the one hundred dinars if he did not add further specification? We are concerned that perhaps he spoke about a buried one hundred dinars. In other words, he might have been referring to a specific one hundred dinars whose location is unknown, and he did not intend to give him any other money. For this reason, Rav explains that the mishna is referring to money piled up in a designated place, which the one who gives the instruction is referring to explicitly.


讜讛诇讻转讗 诇拽讘讜专讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讝讘讬讚


The Gemara comments: And the halakha is that we are not concerned about a buried sum of one hundred dinars, i.e., the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav Pappa did not say an explanation that is in accordance with that of Rav Zevid with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement?


拽住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪诇讜讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘驻拽讚讜谉


The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa holds that when Rav said that a transfer in the presence of all three parties is effective, it is no different if this is referring to a loan from the first party to the second party, where it is an abstract monetary obligation that is transferred, and it is no different if it is referring to a deposit, where specific money is transferred. Just as the transfer is effective in the case of a loan, in which there is an abstract monetary obligation, it would be effective even if the money were not piled. For this reason, Rav Pappa explained that the mishna is referring to piled money due to the concern about a collection of a buried one hundred dinars.


专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诪讬转讜拽诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


The Gemara asks the reverse question: What is the reason that Rav Zevid did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rav Pappa? The Gemara answers: He holds that it is not possible to establish the mishna as referring to a person on his deathbed. From where does he learn this? It is from the fact that it teaches: In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one should not give it after his death.


讟注诪讗 讚诪转 讛讗 诪讞讬讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 转谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉


The Gemara infers: The reason for this ruling is that the man died. However, if it was while he was still alive then one gives the document. The Gemara continues: Even during his lifetime the reason for the ruling is specifically that he said: Give, but if he did not say: Give, and merely commanded: Write a bill of divorce, then one does not give it. But this is not the case with regard to a person on his deathbed, as, although he did not say: Give, but simply commanded: Write, nevertheless, one gives the document. Evidently, this halakha cannot be referring to a person on his deathbed.


讚转谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘拽讜诇专 讜讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讙讟 诇讗砖转讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讬讻转讘讜 讜讬转谞讜 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪驻专砖 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖讬讬专讗


As we learned in a mishna (65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who is taken out in a neck chain to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say: Give, this is understood to have been his intention. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan to a far-off place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said just: Write.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪住讜讻谉


Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife. This shows that a dying person need not say: Give. Rather, it is sufficient for him to say: Write. By contrast, the mishna indicates that it is referring to one who says: Give, and therefore it is certainly not speaking about a dying person.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗谉 谞讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讝讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗


Rav Ashi objects to this claim: And who says to us that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who did not include a dangerously ill person in their list of those who are not required to say: Give. If so, it is possible that the mishna is referring to a person on his deathbed after all.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 讗讘诇 讘诪诇讜讛 诇讗


The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person has acquired it. Rava said: It stands to reason that Rav鈥檚 statement is with regard to a deposit, when the owner of the deposit instructs its guardian to transfer specific money under his authority to someone else who is also present. However, in the case of a loan, no, one cannot dispense with an act of acquisition, as repayment of a loan does not involve specific money.


讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪诇讜讛 讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪诇讜讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛


Rava himself adds, in the form of an oath: But by God, in truth, Rav said this halakha even with regard to a loan. The Gemara adds: It was also stated that Shmuel said in the name of Levi that if someone says to another: I have a loan in your possession, i.e., you owe me payment for a loan, give it to so-and-so, and this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that named person has acquired it.


讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 诇讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 砖注讘讚谞讗 诇讱 诇讚讬讚讱 讜诇讻诇 讚讗转讜 诪讞诪转讱


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason for this? In what manner does he acquire it? Ameimar said: The case becomes like that of a borrower who says to a lender at the time of the giving of the money, when he receives a loan: I am beholden to you and to anyone who comes based on your authorization. In this case, the recipient is authorized by the lender to take the loan in the presence of all three parties.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛拽谞讛 诇谞讜诇讚讬诐 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜


Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: If that is so, that the borrower鈥檚 obligation to the third party went into effect at the time of the loan, then if he transferred it in the presence of the three parties to those who will be born, i.e., people who were not yet born when the money was initially given, the halakha should also be that the recipients do not acquire it. The reason is that at the time the lender gave the money to the borrower, the person to whom it would eventually be transferred did not yet exist, and therefore the borrower could not have become obligated to him at that point in time.


讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讚讘专 砖讬砖谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘注讜诇诐 诇讗


Rav Ashi elaborates: As, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world, this statement applies only when he transfers it to an entity, i.e., a person, that has come into the world. However, even Rabbi Meir agrees with regard to the transfer of ownership of an article to an entity that has not yet come into the world, that this is not possible. Since Rav issued his statement in a general manner without any limitations, evidently the method of a transfer in the presence of all three parties applies in all cases, regardless of whether the third party was born at the time when the loan was given.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬


Rather, Rav Ashi says that this is the reason for the matter:


Scroll To Top