Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

4) THE ACQUISITION IN THE PRESENCE OF 3 (cont.)

(a) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, through the benefit of converting an old loan into a new loan, Yehudah is able to obligate himself to David.
(b) Question (Huna, son of Rav Nechemyah): If so - people such as those of bar Elyashiv's house, that force a person to pay immediately (there is no benefit if the loan is transferred to them) - Rav's law would not apply!

1. If you will say, that is indeed true - then the law varies according to the recipient!

(c) Answer #3 (Mar Zutra): Rather, Rav's law is 1 of 3 enactments without reason (how they work). The others are:

1. (Rav Yehudah): A man wrote a document giving all his property to his wife - he only made her an overseer on the property.
2. (Rav Chinena): A man that marries off his oldest son in a house - the son acquires the house.

(d) Rav (to Rav Acha Bardela): I deposited saffron by you - give it to Peloni. I am telling you in front of him, I will not retract.
(e) Question: This implies, he could retract if he wanted!
(f) Answer: No; rather, he said, I cannot retract.

1. Question: Why did Rav need to say this - he already taught the law of acquisition in the presence of all 3!
2. Answer: One might have thought, only a large gift requires that all 3 be present, but a small gift is acquired even if the recipient is not there - we hear, this is not so.

(g) Some gardeners (that worked together) calculated among themselves that one of them (Reuven) had 5 half-Zuz too much; they told him to give it to the owner of the land, in front of the owner; they made an acquisition.

1. Reuven later calculated by himself, and saw that he did not have too much.
2. Rav Nachman: You are nevertheless obligated! By Rav's law, you owe the money; also, they made an acquisition!
3. Rava: He is not simply refusing to pay - he says that he erred!
4. Rav Nachman: I did not realize that this was the case - any mistaken acquisition is invalid.

(a) (Rav): Reuven said 'Holech (take) 100 Zuz to Peloni, that I owe him' - if the money never reaches Peloni, Reuven still owes him; he cannot retract and tell the messenger 'Give me back the money';
(b) (Shmuel): Because Reuven must pay if the money never reaches Peloni, he can tell the messenger 'Give me back the money'.
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer #1: Whether saying 'Take' is as saying 'Zechi (acquire for)'. (Because Rav says that it is, Reuven cannot retract.)
(e) Answer #2: No - all agree, it is as saying 'Acquire for'; they argue whether we apply the principle 'amidst' (amidst that if the money never reaches Peloni, Reuven must pay, he can tell the messenger 'Give me back the money'). (Only Shmuel holds of this.)
(f) Support (for Rav - Beraisa): Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to Peloni, that I owe him', or "Give 100 Zuz...'; or, the same languages, when the money was a deposit - if the money never reaches Peloni, Reuven still owes him; he cannot tell the messenger 'Give me back the money'.

1. Question: When the money was a deposit, a person does not want his money to be in the hands of someone he did not entrust with it (and therefore, the messenger does not acquire the money for Peloni - Reuven should be able to retract)!
2. Answer (R. Zeira): The case is, the watchman has denied the deposit (surely, Peloni wants that the deposit pass to someone else's hands)!

(g) Some people in Mechuza owed Rav Sheshes for coats he had given them. He asked Rav Yosef bar Chama to bring the money when he came from there.

1. The people gave the money to Rav Yosef; they asked him to make an acquisition to accept responsibility (in case the money will not reach Rav Sheshes, they should be exempt); he agreed, but evaded them and never made the acquisition.
2. Version #1 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly, not to fulfill on yourself "The borrower is a slave to the lender".
3. Version #2 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly - "The borrower is a slave to the lender" (and the responsibility is theirs).

(h) Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiyah had a silver flask in Nehardai; he asked R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai and R. Yosi bar Kipar to bring it when they came.

1. The ones watching the flask gave it to them; they asked them to make an acquisition to accept responsibility; they refused. The watchers asked them to return the flask. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai agreed; R. Yosi bar Kipar refused.
2. They afflicted R. Yosi bar Kipar. They said to R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai, 'See how stubborn he is!" He replied, 'It is good that you hit him'.
3. When they returned, R. Yosi bar Kipar complained - not only he didn't help me, he said 'It is good that you hit him'!
4. Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiya: Why did you act thusly?
5. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai: Those people are dangerous! If they say 'tie him up' - they tie the person up! If they say 'kill' - they 'kill'!
6. Rav Acha: Are they close to the king? Do they have horses and mules running after them?
7. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai: Yes!
8. Rav Acha: You acted properly.

(i) Beraisa #1: Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to Peloni'; Peloni died before the messenger arrived - the money reverts to Reuven;
(j) Beraisa #2: The money goes to Peloni's heirs.
(k) Suggestion: The Beraisas argue whether saying 'Take' is as saying 'Acquire for'.
(l) Rejection #1 (R. Aba bar Mamal): No -all agree that saying 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for'.

1. The first Beraisa is when Reuven was healthy; the second, when he was dying (and his words are as if they were written and handed over, so Peloni acquired the money immediately).

(m) Rejection #2 (Rav Zevid): In both Beraisas, Reuven was dying; Beraisa #1 is when Peloni died before the money was handed over; Beraisa #2 is when he was alive at that time.
(n) Rejection #3 (Rav Papa): In Both Beraisas, Reuven was healthy; Beraisa #1 is when Peloni died before Reuven died; Beraisa #2 is when Reuven died before Peloni.
(o) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether saying 'Take' is as saying 'Acquire for'.

1. (Beraisa) Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to Peloni'; Peloni died before the messenger arrived - the money reverts to Reuven;
2. If Reuven died - R. Noson and R. Yakov say, the money goes to Reuven's heirs;
3. Some say, it goes to Peloni's heirs;
4. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased (that is why it goes to Peloni's heirs);
5. Chachamim say, the heirs of Reuven and Peloni share the money;
6. Chachamim of Bavel say, the messenger decides who he wants to give it to.
7. R. Shimon ha'Nasi: I was party to such a case - the ruling was, it returns to Reuven's heirs.

(p) Suggestion: They argue as follows: The first Tana says that 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for'; R. Noson and R. Yakov agree with this, and also say that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;

1. 'Some say' hold that saying 'Take' is as saying 'Acquire for';
2. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says that 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for', but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
3. Chachamim say to split the money - they are unsure (whether 'Take' is as saying 'Acquire for', and whether there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased);
4. Chachamim of Bavel say, the best solution is to leave it to the whim of the messenger.
5. R. Shimon ha'Nasi comes to teach how they ruled in an actual case.