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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 27, 2015 | 讟状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Gittin 14

If someone tells someone who owes him money to repay it to someone else, if he said it in the presence of the other person (receiver) also, it is considered as if the receiver already acquired it. If someone sends a messenger to repay a loan or return an item, who is responsible if something happens to the money/item before the messenger delivers it? 聽Can the sender change his mind after he sends the messenger?

Study Guide Gittin 14


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪砖转谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诪诇讜讛 讬砖谞讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讞讚砖讛 讙诪专 讜诪砖注讘讬讚 谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讙讜谉 讛谞讬 讚讘讬 讘专 讗诇讬砖讬讘 讚讻驻转讬 讜砖拽诇讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜

Huna Mar, son of Rav Ne岣mya, 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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞转转 讚讘专讬讱 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛诇讻转讗 讘诇讗 讟注诪讗 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬讟专讜驻讬讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讛诪砖讬讗 讗砖讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讘讘讬转 拽谞讗讜

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 岣nanya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讚诇讗 拽讘讗 讚诪讜专讬拽讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讱 讬讛讘讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗驻讬讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬

With regard to acquisition in the presence of all three parties, the Gemara relates: Rav said to Rav A岣 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讞讝专讛

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.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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

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.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪转谞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讘驻谞讬讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛谞讛讜 讙讬谞讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 驻砖 讞诪砖 讗讬住转专讬 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇诪专讬 讗专注讗 讘讗驻讬 诪专讬 讗专注讗 讜拽谞讛 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

诇住讜祝 讗讝诇 注讘讚 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗 驻砖 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讱 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讱

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 Na岣an to ask what to do. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讟讜 讛讗讬 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙讘讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 拽谞讬谉 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 拽谞讬谉 讘讟注讜转 讞讜讝专

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an said to him: If so, it is an acquisition performed in error, and any acquisition performed in error reverts back to the previous owner.

讗讬转诪专 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讜讱 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讞讜讝专

It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讬 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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.

驻拽讚讜谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉

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.

专讘 砖砖转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗砖专转讗 讚住专讘诇讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讝诇 讬讛讘讬谞讛讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞讬拽谞讬 诪讬谞讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet had a credit [asharta] of cloaks [sarbelei] in the city of Me岣za, i.e., he had a set agreement with merchants that he would give them cloaks to sell in the city of Me岣za and they would later reimburse him. Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: When you come here from Me岣za, 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.

诇住讜祝 讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 讚诇讗 砖讜讬转 谞驻砖讱 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

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: 鈥淭he borrower is a slave to the lender鈥 (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: 鈥淭he borrower is a slave to the lender,鈥 i.e., the merchants who borrowed from me must bear responsibility to ensure that the money will reach me.

专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬住驻拽讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, had a silver vessel [ispeka] in the city of Neharde鈥檃.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讻讬驻专 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转讜 讗转讬讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讝讜诇 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讗讛讚专讬讛 谞讬讛诇谉

Rabbi A岣i said to Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai and to Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar: When you come from Neharde鈥檃 bring the vessel to me. They went to Neharde鈥檃 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 A岣i. 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.

专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讻讬驻专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪爪注专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讬讻讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟讘 专诪讜 诇讬讛

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.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讛 讚诇讗 住讬讬注谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讟讘 专诪讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 转讬注讘讚 讛讻讬

When these two agents came before Rabbi A岣i, 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 A岣i said to Rabbi Dostai: Why did you do this?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜转谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛谉 讗诪讛 讜讻讜讘注谉 讗诪讛 讜诪讚讘专讬谉 诪讞爪讬讬讛谉 讜砖诪讜转讬讛谉 诪讘讜讛诇讬谉 讗专讚讗 讜讗专讟讗 讜驻讬诇讬 讘专讬砖 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻驻讜转讜 讻讜驻转讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讛专讜讙讜 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讬诇讜 讛专讙讜 讗转 讚讜住转讗讬 诪讬 谞转谉 诇讬谞讗讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻诪讜转讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛诇诇讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 住讜住讬诐 讜驻专讚讬诐 砖专爪讬诐 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转

Rabbi A岣i said to him: Are these people close to the government? Rabbi Dostai said to him: Yes. Rabbi A岣i 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 A岣i said to him: If so, you acted well, as the situation was entirely out of your control.

讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讱 讜讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪砖诇讞 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪讬 砖谞砖转诇讞讜 诇讜

搂 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.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注

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.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬转 诪拽讘诇 讘讞讬讬 谞讜转谉 讛讗 讚诪讬转 谞讜转谉 讘讞讬讬 诪拽讘诇

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.

诇讬诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讱 讜讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪砖诇讞 诪转 诪砖诇讞 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪砖诇讞 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪讬 砖谞砖转诇讞讜 诇讜

The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that the issue of whether saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? 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鈥檃kov 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 砖诇讬讞 讬注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞砖讬讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪砖诇讞

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 谞诪讬 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬

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鈥檃kov 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 诪讬讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 砖讜讚讗 注讚讬祝 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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.

诇讗 讘讘专讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇拽 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 驻讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讘专讬讗 讜讗讞讚 诪住讜讻谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讗诪讬专讛

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘讗诪谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 专讜讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 讞讜诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 转讬谞转谉

They said to Rabbi Elazar: Didn鈥檛 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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 14

讘讛讛讬讗 讛谞讗讛 讚拽讗 诪砖转谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诪诇讜讛 讬砖谞讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讞讚砖讛 讙诪专 讜诪砖注讘讬讚 谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻讙讜谉 讛谞讬 讚讘讬 讘专 讗诇讬砖讬讘 讚讻驻转讬 讜砖拽诇讬 诇讗诇转专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜

Huna Mar, son of Rav Ne岣mya, 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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讻谉 谞转转 讚讘专讬讱 诇砖讬注讜专讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛诇讻转讗 讘诇讗 讟注诪讗 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬讟专讜驻讬讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讛诪砖讬讗 讗砖讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讘讘讬转 拽谞讗讜

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 岣nanya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讚诇讗 拽讘讗 讚诪讜专讬拽讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讙讘讱 讬讛讘讬讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗驻讬讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬

With regard to acquisition in the presence of all three parties, the Gemara relates: Rav said to Rav A岣 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.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪爪讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诇讞讝专讛

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.

讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 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

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.

讗讬 诪讛讛讬讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪转谞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讗讘诇 诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讘驻谞讬讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讛谞讛讜 讙讬谞讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 驻砖 讞诪砖 讗讬住转专讬 讝讜讝讬 讙讘讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讬讛讘讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇诪专讬 讗专注讗 讘讗驻讬 诪专讬 讗专注讗 讜拽谞讛 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

诇住讜祝 讗讝诇 注讘讚 讞讜砖讘谞讗 讘讬谉 讚讬诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诇讗 驻砖 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬注讘讬讚 诇讱 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜注讜讚 讛讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讱

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 Na岣an to ask what to do. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讟讜 讛讗讬 诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讙讘讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 拽谞讬谉 讘讟注讜转 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 拽谞讬谉 讘讟注讜转 讞讜讝专

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an said to him: If so, it is an acquisition performed in error, and any acquisition performed in error reverts back to the previous owner.

讗讬转诪专 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讜讱 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讞讜讝专

It was stated that amora鈥檌m 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.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讬 转谉 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 驻拽讚讜谉 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专

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.

驻拽讚讜谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 专爪讜谞讜 砖讬讛讗 驻拽讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻驻专谉

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.

专讘 砖砖转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗砖专转讗 讚住专讘诇讬 讘诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转 讗讬讬转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讝诇 讬讛讘讬谞讛讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 谞讬拽谞讬 诪讬谞讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet had a credit [asharta] of cloaks [sarbelei] in the city of Me岣za, i.e., he had a set agreement with merchants that he would give them cloaks to sell in the city of Me岣za and they would later reimburse him. Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: When you come here from Me岣za, 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.

诇住讜祝 讗讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讛讜 讻讬 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 讚诇讗 砖讜讬转 谞驻砖讱 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

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: 鈥淭he borrower is a slave to the lender鈥 (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: 鈥淭he borrower is a slave to the lender,鈥 i.e., the merchants who borrowed from me must bear responsibility to ensure that the money will reach me.

专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬住驻拽讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, had a silver vessel [ispeka] in the city of Neharde鈥檃.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讻讬驻专 讘讛讚讬 讚讗转讬转讜 讗转讬讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讗讝讜诇 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 谞拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讗讛讚专讬讛 谞讬讛诇谉

Rabbi A岣i said to Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai and to Rabbi Yosei bar Keifar: When you come from Neharde鈥檃 bring the vessel to me. They went to Neharde鈥檃 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 A岣i. 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.

专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讻讬驻专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪爪注专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讬讻讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讟讘 专诪讜 诇讬讛

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.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讛 讚诇讗 住讬讬注谉 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讟讘 专诪讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 转讬注讘讚 讛讻讬

When these two agents came before Rabbi A岣i, 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 A岣i said to Rabbi Dostai: Why did you do this?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜转谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛谉 讗诪讛 讜讻讜讘注谉 讗诪讛 讜诪讚讘专讬谉 诪讞爪讬讬讛谉 讜砖诪讜转讬讛谉 诪讘讜讛诇讬谉 讗专讚讗 讜讗专讟讗 讜驻讬诇讬 讘专讬砖 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻驻讜转讜 讻讜驻转讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讛专讜讙讜 讛讜专讙讬谉 讗讬诇讜 讛专讙讜 讗转 讚讜住转讗讬 诪讬 谞转谉 诇讬谞讗讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讻诪讜转讬

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讛诇诇讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇诪诇讻讜转 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讬砖 诇讛谉 住讜住讬诐 讜驻专讚讬诐 砖专爪讬诐 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖驻讬专 注讘讚转

Rabbi A岣i said to him: Are these people close to the government? Rabbi Dostai said to him: Yes. Rabbi A岣i 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 A岣i said to him: If so, you acted well, as the situation was entirely out of your control.

讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讱 讜讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪砖诇讞 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪讬 砖谞砖转诇讞讜 诇讜

搂 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.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注

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.

专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 讘砖注转 诪转谉 诪注讜转

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鈥檚 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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬转 诪拽讘诇 讘讞讬讬 谞讜转谉 讛讗 讚诪讬转 谞讜转谉 讘讞讬讬 诪拽讘诇

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.

诇讬诪讗 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讜诇讱 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛诇讱 讜讘拽砖讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇诪砖诇讞 诪转 诪砖诇讞 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪砖诇讞 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪讬 砖谞砖转诇讞讜 诇讜

The Gemara further suggests: Shall we say that the issue of whether saying: Deliver, is like saying: Acquire, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? 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鈥檃kov 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 砖诇讬讞 讬注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞砖讬讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讬讞讝专讜 诇讬讜专砖讬 诪砖诇讞

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 讬注拽讘 谞诪讬 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜诇讱 讻讝讻讬

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鈥檃kov 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜诇讱 诇讗讜 讻讝讻讬 诪讬讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讜讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 砖讜讚讗 注讚讬祝 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉

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.

诇讗 讘讘专讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讚转谞谉 讛诪讞诇拽 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 驻讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讘专讬讗 讜讗讞讚 诪住讜讻谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讗诪讬专讛

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪注砖讛 讘讗诪谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 专讜讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 讞讜诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 转讬谞转谉

They said to Rabbi Elazar: Didn鈥檛 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

Scroll To Top