Gittin 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

And another incident:

Rabbi Aḥai bar Rabbi Yoshiya had a silver flask—

he had a silver vessel [a small flask] that he had deposited

in Nehardea.

He said to Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yosei bar Kifar: When you come—

when you come from there—

bring it to me—

bring it to me.

They went—

they went to the bailee [with whom the deposit was held]—

and he gave it to them—

he gave it to them.

They said to them—

they said to them:

Let us acquire it from you—

make a kinyan, so that if the deposit is forcibly taken, we will be exempt.

They said to them—

Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yosei said to them:

No!

They said to them:

If so, since you are unwilling to make a kinyan,

return it to us—

return the deposit to us.

Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai said to them: Yes—

yes [we will return it to you]. But

Rabbi Yosei bar Kifar said to them: No.

And as we said above: “If he comes to retract, he may not retract.”

They began troubling him—

they were troubling Rabbi Yosei bar Kifar so that he would return it, but he did not agree.

They said to him—

they said to Rabbi Dostai: “His fellow—

see, Master—

may Your Honor see—

what he is doing—

how his fellow is acting, not returning the deposit to us.”

He said to them

Rabbi Dostai said to them: “Strike him well”—hit him repeatedly [until he returns it].

When they came before him—

when they came to him [to Rabbi Aḥai]—

he said to him

Rabbi Yosei bar Kifar said to Rabbi Aḥai:

see, Master—

may Your Honor see—

it is not enough that he did not assist me—

it is not enough that he did not assist me [so that they would not strike me]—

but he also said to them—

he further added and said to them—

“Strike him well.”

He said to him

Rabbi Aḥai said to Rabbi Dostai:

Why did you act this way—

why did you agree to return it immediately?

He said to him

Rabbi Dostai said:

Those men are each a cubit—

they are men of exceptionally tall stature—

and their hats are a cubit—

even their garments were more intimidating than those of other people—

and they speak from their midsections—

when they speak, their voices seem to be heard from the middle of their bodies [from the navel], because their voices are exceedingly deep—

and their names are frightening—

even their names are terrifying:

Arda, Arta, and Pili bar Rashi. If

they

say

to someone:

“Bind him,”

immediately they

bind

that person.

They say: “Kill him,”—

immediately they

kill. Had they killed Dostai [

he spoke of himself in the third person],

who would have given Yannai a son—

a son—

like me?

That is, I would have been in mortal danger had I not returned it.

He said to him

Rabbi Aḥai said:

Are these men close to the government?

He said to him

Rabbi Dostai said:

Yes!

Rabbi Aḥai continued and asked:

Do they have horses and mules that run after them?

He said to him: Yes!

He said to him

Rabbi Aḥai said:

If so—

if that is the case—

you acted properly—

you did well by returning it to them and not endangering yourself:

The Gemara continues with the law of “Take”:

He said to the agent:

“Take a maneh to so-and-so, whom I am giving it as a gift,” and the agent went

the agent

and sought him but did not find him

because he had died.

One [tanna] taught—

one tanna holds:

the money should return

the money

to the sender. And another [tanna] taught—

another tanna holds: the money should return

to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent.

Shall we say that they disagree about this—

let us say that this is the basis of their dispute:

One Master holds: “Take” is like “acquire.”

Since that individual acquired the money while he was alive, it should therefore be given to his heirs.

And the other Master holds: “Take” is not like “acquire.”

Therefore, the money should return to the sender.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Everyone agrees—

in everyone’s view, when a healthy person sends it,

“Take” is not like “acquire.” And it is not difficult—

there is no contradiction between the two baraitot: this one—the beraita that says the money should return to the sender—speaks

of a healthy person

who sent it. Since “Take” is not like “Acquire,” and he sent it only to that individual and not to his heirs, it should return to the sender.

The other speaks of one who is on his deathbed

and is in his final illness, inclined toward death, for as long as he does not retract, his words are considered as though they were written and delivered. Therefore, when he says, “Take it to so-and-so,” his intent is: “Acquire it on his behalf.” Since that individual acquires the money, when he dies it should be given to his heirs.

Rav Zevid explains it differently:

Rav Zevid said: Both this and that—

both baraitot speak

of one on his deathbed.

[He is in his final illness, inclined toward death,] regarding whom the law is that “Take” is like “Acquire.” Nevertheless, there is a difference between them.

This one—

the one that says the money should be given to the heirs—speaks of a case

where he is present—

where there is

a recipient

of the money in the world

at the time the money is given [

for he had not yet died at that time]. Therefore, the agent acquired it on his behalf immediately, and when he died, his heirs acquired it through him.

The other—

the other beraita speaks of a case

where he is not present—

where he is not

a recipient at the time the money is given.

For he had already died, and the sender did not know this. The agent’s acquisition was therefore an erroneous acquisition, and the heirs did not acquire it. Rav Pappa offers another explanation:

Rav Pappa said: Both this and that concern a healthy person—

both baraitot speak of a healthy person, regarding whom “Take” is not like “Acquire.”

This one, where the recipient died—

one beraita speaks of a case in which the recipient [that individual] died

during the donor’s lifetime.

Since this is so, the recipient did not acquire the money, and it should return to the sender. Even if the donor subsequently died, at the time when the agent returned the money, there is no mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased, because his words had already been nullified before his death, from the time the recipient died.

And the other—

the beraita that says the money should be given to the heirs speaks of a case

where the donor died—

the donor died after handing the money to the agent,

during the recipient’s lifetime

while the recipient was still alive. Therefore, from the moment the donor died, the recipient acquired it, because it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased , even if he had been healthy when he made the statement.

The Gemara says:

Let us say:

let us state:

“Go” is like “acquire”—

this is subject to a dispute between tannaim—

that this law is disputed by tannaim.

As it was taught:

With regard to one who says to an agent:

“Go, deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so,” and the agent went and sought him but did not find him—

he should return

the money

to the sender. If the sender died—

Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov said: He should return

the money

to the heirs of the sender. And some say:

He should return the money

to the heirs of the intended recipient.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi [

it will be explained below in what respect he disagrees with the “some say”]

said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov,

who said

in the name of Rabbi Meir: It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.

And the Sages say: They should divide.

The heirs of the sender and the heirs of the person to whom the money was sent should divide it between them.

But here,

in Babylonia,

they said: The agent should do whatever he wishes,

according to what he inferred from the sender’s intent, namely, how generous he had intended to be with this gift, and likewise, how much he loved the recipient and his children.

Rabbi Shimon HaNasi said: Such an incident occurred through me

as well,

and

the Sages

said: He should return

the money

to the heirs of the sender. [

In accordance with the view of Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov.]

The Gemara attempts to clarify the basis of their dispute:

Is it not with regard to this that they disagree—

is this not the point of their dispute:

The first tanna holds: “Go” is not like “acquire.”

Therefore, the money should be returned to the sender. But if the sender died, the view of the first tanna is unknown.

And Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov as well—

also [hold]—

“Go” is not like “acquire.”

And they came to add to the words of the first tanna and say [that]

even though he died—

that [the sender] died—

we do not say—

we do not say with regard to a healthy person who died—

“It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.”

And the “some say”

disagree with the first tanna and hold that even if the sender did not die [there is no mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased], the money should be given to the heirs of the person to whom it was sent, since in their view

“Go” is like “acquire.”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov, who said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “Go” is not like “acquire,”

and the agent does not acquire the item on behalf of the recipient.

However—

but—

where he died—

where the sender died—

we say—

we say:

It is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased.

Therefore, the money should be given to the heirs of the person to whom it was sent.

And the Sages say: They should divide,

that is, because

they were uncertain—

they were uncertain—whether “give” is like “acquire” or not, and likewise, whether it is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased or not. For this reason, they ruled that they should divide it.

But:

And here they said: shuda is certainly preferable.

That is, when there is uncertainty, it is preferable for the division to be carried out according to the agent’s assessment rather than for the money to be divided.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Shimon HaNasi, [

who said at the end of the beraita, “Such an incident occurred through me,” etc.,]

did he come to teach us an incident—

did he come to teach us an incident? [That is, what halakha did he come to teach us?]

And it answers:

No! It concerned a healthy person

who sent [the money],

with regard to which everyone agrees—

there is no dispute. And according to everyone, “give” is not like “acquire.”

And here, what are we dealing with—

what is the case here:

a person dangerously ill

who sent [the money].

And it is subject to the dispute—

and to the dispute—

of Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, who disagree—

they disagree. As we learned in the Mishna, Rabbi Elazar considers a dangerously ill person, for this purpose, to be like a healthy person.

As we learned: One who distributes his property

among his sons

according to his word—

according to his instructions [giving much to one and little to another, and not as with other heirs, where the heirs divide equally what they inherit from them]:

Rabbi Elazar says:

This does not depend on the condition of the bequeather; rather,

whether healthy or dangerously ill [

ill and in mortal danger], their law is the same. If he wishes to transfer

property with guaranteed responsibility [

land], it

is acquired

here

through money, a document, or possession

by the heirs, just as it is acquired from an ordinary healthy person. Rabbi Elazar holds that even a dangerously ill person, if he does not transfer ownership through these modes of acquisition, does not enable the heirs to acquire the property.

And

property

without guaranteed responsibility [

movable property]

is not acquired

by them

except through

the acquisition of

pulling.

And the Sages say: Both this and that are acquired through a statement,

because the words of a dangerously ill person are considered as though written and delivered.