Gittin 14
בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא מִשְׁתַּנְּיָא לֵיהּ בֵּין מִלְוָה יְשָׁנָה לְמִלְוָה חֲדָשָׁה, גָּמַר וּמְשַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
With that benefit that the borrower receives when his debt changes from an old debt to a new debt, he fully pledges himself to the new lender. The borrower prefers to have a new lender from whom he can ask for an extension of the deadline for the repayment of his debt.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כְּגוֹן הָנֵי דְּבֵי בַּר אֶלְיָשִׁיב, דְּכָפְתִי וְשָׁקְלִי לְאַלְתַּר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא קָנוּ?!
Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, what about a case where the debt is transferred to these members of the house of bar Elyashiv? As, those implacable people bind debtors with handcuffs and take their money immediately when the time for repayment arrives. They certainly would not add to the time that the borrower has to repay the first loan, and he would not willingly pledge himself to them. So too, will you say that they do not acquire the money in the presence of all three parties, as the borrower would not agree to this arrangement?
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!
And if you would say that indeed this method is not effective in a case of this kind, if so you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances. In other words, the application of the acquisition in the presence of all three parties is not absolute, and instead depends on whether in this particular case the borrower agrees to transfer his debt from one person to another.
אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּהִלְכְתָא בְּלָא טַעְמָא: חֲדָא – הָא; וְאִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא אַפִּיטְרוֹפְּיָא; וְאִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְיָא: הַמַּשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לִבְנוֹ גָּדוֹל בַּבַּיִת – קְנָאוֹ.
Rather, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of that which Mar Zutra said: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a halakha without a reason, i.e., they instituted these ordinances despite the fact that the logical mechanism by which they function is unclear: One is this case of an acquisition in the presence of all three parties. And another is that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes over all of his property to his wife as a gift has rendered her only a steward [eppitrofeya], but she does not become the owner. And another is that which Rav Ḥananya says: With regard to one who marries a woman to his eldest son, and the wedding takes place in his house, the son has acquired that house.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב אַחָא בַּרְדְּלָא: קַבָּא דְּמוֹרִיקָא אִית לִי גַּבָּךְ; יַהֲבֵיהּ לִפְלוֹנִי. בְּאַפֵּיהּ קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ דְּלָא הָדַרְנָא בִּי.
With regard to acquisition in the presence of all three parties, the Gemara relates: Rav said to Rav Aḥa Bardela: I have a kav of saffron [morika] with you that you owe me; give it to so-and-so. Rav added: I say this to you in his presence so that I will not retract from this statement.
מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ לֹא נִיתְּנוּ לַחֲזָרָה.
The Gemara asks: Can one learn by inference that if he had not stipulated in this manner and wished to retract his statement he could in fact retract it? This would mean that a standard acquisition in the presence of all three parties is not fully effective. The Gemara answers that this is what Rav said: I am saying this to you in his presence because these types of statements issued in the presence of all three parties cannot be retracted, i.e., Rav was not adding a condition but explaining the halakha.
הָא אָמַר רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא; דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי״, בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה!
The Gemara asks: But why is this statement of Rav recorded at all? Rav already said this halakha once. 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.
אִי מֵהַהִיא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה, אֲבָל מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת לָא לִיבְעֵי בְּפָנָיו, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara explains: If the method of acquisition in the presence of all three parties was derived from that halakha alone, I would say that this matter, i.e., the need for the presence of the third party, applies only for the transfer of a large gift. However, in the case of a small gift one does not need to do this in the presence of the recipient. Instead, the giver can simply provide instructions and thereby transfer the gift to the other person, as there is no reason to think that he would retract. Therefore, Rav teaches us that this is not the case, as in all cases the transfer takes effect only in the presence of all three parties.
הָנְהוּ גִּינָּאֵי דַּעֲבֻיד חוּשְׁבָּנָא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. פָּשׁ חֲמֵשׁ אִיסְתְּרֵי זוּזֵי גַּבֵּי חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״יַהֲבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְמָרֵי אַרְעָא״ – בְּאַפֵּי מָרֵי אַרְעָא, וּקְנֹה מִינֵּיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There were certain gardeners who made a calculation of money owed to each other, and there remained with one of them five isterei zuzei more than he should have received. The others said to him: Give the money to the owner of the land, and they said this in the presence of the owner of the land, and the owner of the land acquired the money from him. In other words, the owner of the land performed a proper act of acquisition obligating the gardener to pay that amount.
לְסוֹף אֲזַל עֲבַד חוּשְׁבָּנָא בֵּין דִּילֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, לָא פָּשׁ גַּבֵּיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ? חֲדָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. וְעוֹד, הָא קְנוֹ מִינָּךְ.
Ultimately, that gardener went and performed a calculation on his own and concluded that nothing extra had been left over with him. He came before Rav Naḥman to ask what to do. Rav Naḥman said to him: What can I do for you? The first issue is that Rav Huna said that Rav said that an acquisition in the presence of all three parties takes effect immediately, and therefore the owner of the land has already acquired the money. And additionally, he performed an actual act of acquisition and thereby acquired the money from you.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַטּוּ הַאי, מִי קָאָמַר ״לָא יָהֲבִינָא״?! ״דְּלֵיכָּא גַּבַּאי״ קָאָמַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת הוּא, וְכׇל קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת חוֹזֵר.
Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is that to say that the gardener said: I will not give? In other words, he did not refuse to give a sum in which he was obligated. He actually said: Which is not in my possession, as his colleagues told him to give five isterei zuzei that remained in his possession, and he now claims that this money actually belongs to him. Rav Naḥman said to him: If so, it is an acquisition performed in error, and any acquisition performed in error reverts back to the previous owner.
אִיתְּמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, אָמַר רַב: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ; וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – חוֹזֵר.
§ It was stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to the following dilemma: If someone instructs an agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, Rav says: The person who sends him the money bears financial responsibility for their loss. If the one hundred dinars are lost by the agent, the sender must give another one hundred dinars to repay his debt. But if the sender seeks to retract this repayment after he has given it to the agent, he cannot retract it. And Shmuel says: Since the sender bears financial responsibility for their loss, this indicates that the one hundred dinars are considered to be in his domain, which means that if he seeks to retract he can retract it.
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this issue, as one Sage, Rav, holds that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, and therefore the agent immediately acquires the money on behalf of the recipient. For this reason the sender cannot retract. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and as the recipient has not yet acquired the money the sender can retract.
לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ. וּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ.
The Gemara rejects this: No; everyone agrees that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, and here, in this case, they disagree about this: One Sage, Rav, holds that we do not say that since the sender bears financial responsibility for the loss of the money he can retract. Therefore, he cannot retract. And one Sage, Shmuel, holds that we do say that since the sender bears financial responsibility for the loss of the money he can retract.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״; ״תֵּן מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״; ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי – פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּיָדִי״; ״תֵּן מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי – פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּיָדִי״ – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.
The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav (Tosefta 1:6): If one said to another: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, or if he said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him that sum, or if he said: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as they are a deposit he has in my possession, or: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as they are a deposit he has in my possession, in all these cases the sender bears financial responsibility for their loss, but if he seeks to retract he cannot retract.
פִּקָּדוֹן, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּשֶׁהוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן.
The Gemara asks with regard to this baraita: In a case where the agent accepts upon himself to bring a deposit to its owners, let the sender, who is the bailee of the deposit, say to the agent: It is not the will of the owner of the deposit that his deposit will be in the possession of another. Since this transfer is not in the interests of the owner of the deposit, the money should remain fully in the possession of the sender, and therefore he should be able to retract. Rabbi Zeira says: This is referring to a case where the sender, the bailee of the deposit, is established as a denier of financial obligations. For this reason, the owner of the deposit prefers the money to be transferred to someone else, and the sender cannot claim that it is not the will of the owner of the deposit that his deposit will be in the possession of another.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת הֲוָה לֵיהּ אֲשַׁרְתָּא דְּסַרְבָּלֵי בְּמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא: בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָתֵית, אַיְיתִינְהוּ נִיהֲלִי. אֲזַל, יַהֲבִינְהוּ לֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: נִיקְנֵי מִינָּךְ; אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין.
The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet had a credit [asharta] of cloaks [sarbelei] in the city of Meḥoza, i.e., he had a set agreement with merchants that he would give them cloaks to sell in the city of Meḥoza and they would later reimburse him. Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: When you come here from Meḥoza, bring me the money. Rav Yosef went and brought the money to him. Those who gave him the money said to him: Let us make an acquisition for what you have received, so that if something happens to the money, you will be responsible. He said to them: Yes.
לְסוֹף אִישְׁתְּמִיט לְהוּ. כִּי אֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַדְתְּ, דְּלָא שַׁוִּית נַפְשָׁךְ ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַדְתְּ; ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״.
Ultimately, he escaped them and did not perform the act of acquisition. When Rav Yosef came before Rav Sheshet and told him what had occurred, Rav Sheshet said to him: You did well, as you did not render yourself the subject of the verse: “The borrower is a slave to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7), by obligating yourself for no reason. In another version of this incident Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yosef: You did well, as the verse states: “The borrower is a slave to the lender,” i.e., the merchants who borrowed from me must bear responsibility to ensure that the money will reach me.
רַבִּי אַחַי בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִיסְפְּקָא דְכַסְפָּא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא,
The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, had a silver vessel [ispeka] in the city of Neharde’a.
אֲמַר לְהוּ לְרַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר רַבִּי יַנַּאי וּלְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר כֵּיפַר: בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָתֵיתוּ, אַתְיוּהּ נִיהֲלִי. אֲזוּל, יַהֲבֵיהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לְהוּ: נִקְנֵי מִינַּיְיכוּ; אָמְרִי לְהוּ: לָא. אָמְרִי לְהוּ: אַהְדְּרֵיהּ נִיהֲלַן.
Rabbi Aḥai said to Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai and to Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar: When you come from Neharde’a bring the vessel to me. They went to Neharde’a and the people who were in possession of the vessel gave it to them. After handing over the vessel, those people said to them: Let us perform an act of acquisition with you, so that you will be responsible for the vessel until you reach Rabbi Aḥai. The agents said to them: No; we do not want to do this. They said to them: If so, return the vessel to us, as we do not wish to transfer it in such a manner that we retain responsibility.
רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר כֵּיפַר אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. הֲווֹ קָא מְצַעֲרוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מָר הֵיכִי קָא עָבֵיד! אֲמַר לְהוּ: טָב רְמוֹ לֵיהּ.
Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, said to them: Yes, I am willing to return it. However, Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar said to them: No, as you do not have the right to retract in this situation. They tormented Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar to force him to agree to return the vessel. Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar said to Rabbi Dostai: See, my Master, what they are doing to me. Rabbi Dostai said to them: You are acting well; hit him.
כִּי אֲתוֹ לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מָר, לָא מִיסָּתְיֵיהּ דְּלָא סַיְּיעַן, אֶלָּא אֲמַר לְהוּ נָמֵי ״טָב רְמוֹ לֵיהּ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תֶּיעְבֵּד הָכִי?
When these two agents came before Rabbi Aḥai, Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar said to him: See, my Master, not only did Rabbi Dostai not support me; rather, he even said to them: You are acting well; hit him. Rabbi Aḥai said to Rabbi Dostai: Why did you do this?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹתָן בְּנֵי אָדָם – הֵן אַמָּה, וְכוֹבָעָן אַמָּהּ, וּמְדַבְּרִין מֵחֶצְיֵיהֶן, וּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן מְבוֹהָלִין: ׳אַרְדָּא׳ וְ׳אַרְטָא׳ וּ׳פִילֵי בְּרֵישׁ׳; אוֹמְרִין ״כְּפוֹתוּ״ – כּוֹפְתִין; אוֹמְרִין ״הֲרוֹגוּ״ – הוֹרְגִין; אִילּוּ הָרְגוּ אֶת דּוֹסְתַּאי, מִי נָתַן לְיַנַּאי אַבָּא בַּר כְּמוֹתִי.
Rabbi Dostai said to him: Those people who were in possession of the vessel, they are the size of a cubit, and their hats were a cubit, and they spoke from their midpoints, and their names were frightening: Arda and Arta and Pili Bereish. If one were to say to them: Restrain this person, they would restrain him. If one were to say to them: Kill him, they would kill. Had they killed Dostai, i.e., me, who would give Yannai, my father, another son like me?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנֵי אָדָם הַלָּלוּ קְרוֹבִים לַמַּלְכוּת הֵן? אָמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. יֵשׁ לָהֶן סוּסִים וּפְרָדִים שֶׁרָצִים אַחֲרֵיהֶן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, שַׁפִּיר עֲבַדְתְּ.
Rabbi Aḥai said to him: Are these people close to the government? Rabbi Dostai said to him: Yes. Rabbi Aḥai asked him: Do they have horses and mules that run after them, i.e., do they have servants to perform their bidding? Rabbi Dostai said to them: Yes. Rabbi Aḥai said to him: If so, you acted well, as the situation was entirely out of your control.
״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וְהָלַךְ וּבִקְּשׁוֹ וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ – תָּנֵי חֲדָא: יַחְזְרוּ לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ; וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְחוּ לוֹ.
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of the expression: Deliver, in relation to a gift. With regard to one who said to his agent: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and the agent went and searched for that person but did not find him, as he had died, it is taught in one baraita: The money should be returned to the sender. And it is taught in another baraita: The money should be given to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent.
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״, וּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, as one Sage, in the second baraita, holds that in the case of a gift, saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, and consequently the agent took possession of the money on behalf of the one to whom it was sent. Therefore, the heirs inherit this item. And one Sage, in the first baraita, holds that in the case of a gift, saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and therefore the agent must return the money to the sender.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא בְּבָרִיא, הָא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע.
Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: No; everyone agrees that in the case of a gift, saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult: This baraita, which says that the agent must return the money to the sender, is dealing with a case where the giver was a healthy person when he issued the instructions. Such a gift is acquired by the recipient only once it reaches his possession, and this recipient died before the gift reached him. Conversely, that baraita, which says that he should give it to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent, deals with the instructions of a person on his deathbed. Since the gift of a dying person is immediately acquired by the recipient, this recipient acquired it straightaway, and therefore it must be given to his heirs.
רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: הָא וְהָא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע; הָא – דְּאִיתֵיהּ לִמְקַבֵּל בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת, הָא – דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לִמְקַבֵּל בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת.
Rav Zevid said: It is possible to say that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and that both this baraita and that baraita are dealing with a case where the giver was a person on his deathbed. Instead, the difference between the two sources is that this baraita, which states that he should give it to the recipient’s heirs, is referring to a case where the recipient was alive at the time of the giving of the money. Consequently, when the sender gives the money to the agent the recipient immediately acquires it, and his heirs claim it in his stead. That baraita, which says that the agent must return the money to the sender, is referring to a case where the recipient was not alive at the time of the giving of the money, and consequently the agent could not acquire the money on his behalf.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא בְּבָרִיא; הָא – דְּמִית מְקַבֵּל בְּחַיֵּי נוֹתֵן, הָא – דְּמִית נוֹתֵן בְּחַיֵּי מְקַבֵּל.
Rav Pappa said yet another explanation of the baraita: This baraita and that baraita are both dealing with a healthy person who subsequently died. The difference is that this baraita, which said that the agent must return the money to the sender, is dealing with a case where the recipient died in the lifetime of the giver, and as he did not acquire the money himself his heirs do not take possession of it either. By contrast, that baraita, which states that the money should be given to the heirs of the recipient, is dealing with a case where the giver died in the lifetime of the recipient. Once he dies it is a mitzva to fulfill his wishes, and therefore the recipient, and his heirs after him, are entitled to the money.
לֵימָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וְהָלַךְ וּבִקְּשׁוֹ וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ, יַחְזְרוּ לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. מֵת מְשַׁלֵּחַ – רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמְרוּ: יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְחוּ לוֹ.
The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that the issue of whether saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, is a dispute between tanna’im? This is as it is taught in a baraita, that if one person said to another: Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he went and searched for him but did not find him, as he had died, the money should be returned to the sender. If the sender died, Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ya’akov said: The money should be returned to the heirs of the sender. And some say: It should be given to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ. וְכָאן אָמְרוּ: כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שָׁלִיחַ – יַעֲשֶׂה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא: עַל יָדִי הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said this in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. Therefore the money should be given to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent. And the Rabbis say: Due to the uncertainty, they should divide it. And here, in Babylonia, they said: Whatever the agent wishes to do he may do. Rabbi Shimon HaNasi said: When an incident of this kind occurred under my jurisdiction I inquired into how to proceed, and the Sages said to me: The money should be returned to the heirs of the sender.
מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״; וְרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב נָמֵי – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִית, לָא אָמְרִינַן ״מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת״; וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״;
The Gemara suggests: What, is it not correct to say that they disagree about this issue, that the first tanna holds that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and therefore the money should be returned to the sender? And Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Ya’akov also hold that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, but they add that even though the sender died, one does not say: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. Consequently, the money is returned to the sender’s heirs. And the Sages in the clause beginning: Some say, claim that saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire. Therefore the recipient takes possession of the money immediately, and it is given to his heirs.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר – ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״, מִיהוּ, הֵיכָא דְּמִית, אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת;
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said this in the name of Rabbi Meir, also holds that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire. However, in a case where the sender died we say that it is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead. Therefore, the one hundred dinars should be given to the recipient or his heirs.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַחְלוֹקוּ – מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ; וְכָאן אָמְרוּ – שׁוּדָא עָדִיף; וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא – מַעֲשֶׂה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן.
And the Rabbis say: They should divide it, because they are uncertain about the halakha in this situation. And the Sages in the clause beginning: Here they said, maintain that in this case the discretion [shuda] of the agent is preferable to an even division between the parties. And Rabbi Shimon HaNasi does not offer an opinion of his own; rather, he came to teach us an incident in which this case was decided in practice.
לָא, בְּבָרִיא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; it is possible that in a case where the giver was a healthy person when he appointed the agent everyone agrees that saying: Deliver, is not like saying: Acquire, and with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a person on his deathbed who sent these one hundred dinars, and they disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis.
דִּתְנַן: הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד בָּרִיא וְאֶחָד מְסוּכָּן; נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת – נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת – אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִּמְשִׁיכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ נִקְנִין בַּאֲמִירָה.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 156a): With regard to one who divides his property orally, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of a healthy person and that of a dangerously ill person, property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, through a document, or by taking possession. And property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only through pulling. And the Rabbis say: If the giver is on his deathbed, then both this property and that property can be acquired through speech, and there is no need for an additional act of acquisition.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִמָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה, וְאָמְרָה: ״תִּינָּתֵן
They said to Rabbi Elazar: Didn’t an incident of this kind occur with regard to the mother of the family of the sons of Rokhel, who was ill, and she said: Give
