Gittin 14b — the Talmud in English

And an additional incident:

Rabbi Aḥai bar Rabbi Yoshiya had a silver flask—

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

in Nehardea. ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

He said to Rabbi Dostai bar Rabbi Yannai and to Rabbi Yosei bar Kippur: 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]—

he gave it to them—

he gave it to them.

They said to them—

they said to them:

Acquire [it] from us—

make a formal acquisition, 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 not prepared to make a formal acquisition,

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 Kippur said to them: No.

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

They were distressing him—

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

They said to him—

they said to Rabbi Dostai: His companion—

Your honor, see—

may your honor see—

how he is acting—

how his companion is acting, in that he is not returning the deposit to us.

He said to them

Rabbi Dostai: “Strike him well”—hit him a great deal [until he returns it].

When they came to him—

when they came to him [to Rabbi Aḥai],

he said to him

Rabbi Yosei bar Kippur said to Rabbi Aḥai:

Your honor, see—

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 in this manner—

why did you agree to return it immediately?

He said to him

Rabbi Dostai said to him:

Those men are a cubit—

men of great stature—

and their hats are a cubit—

even their clothing is more imposing than that of other people—

and they speak from their middles—

when they speak, their voices are heard from the middle of their bodies [from the place of the navel], because it is very deep—

and their names are terrifying—

even their names are frightening:

Arda and Arta and Pili bar-Reish.

If

they say

they:

“Bind him,”—

immediately

they bind

that person.

They say: “Kill him,”—

immediately

they kill. If they had killed Dostai [

he spoke about himself in the third person],

who would have given Yannai bar—

the son—

one like me?

That is to say, I would have been placed in mortal danger—had I not returned it.

He said to him

Rabbi Aḥai:

Are these men close to the government?

He said to him

Rabbi Dostai:

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:

If so—

if that is so—

you acted well—

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, which I am giving him as a gift,” and the agent went

the agent

and sought him but did not find him

since he had died.

One [teacher] taught—

one tanna holds:

They shall return

the money

to the sender. And another [teacher] taught—

another tanna holds: They shall return it

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

Let us say that they disagree about this—

let us say that this is the matter about which they disagree:

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

And since that so-and-so acquired the money while he was still alive, it should therefore be given to his heirs.

And one master holds: “Take” is not like “acquire.”

And therefore the money should be returned to the sender.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: Everyone—

in everyone’s view—in the case of a healthy person who sent it—

agrees that “take” is not like “acquire.” And it is not difficult—

and there is no contradiction between the two beraitot: This one—the beraita that says that it should be returned to the sender—speaks

of a healthy person

who sent it. And since “take” is not like “acquire,” and he sent it only to so-and-so and not to his heirs, it should be returned to the sender.

This one speaks of a dangerously ill person—

the other beraita speaks of a dying person, for as long as he does not retract, his words are considered as though written and delivered. Therefore, when he says, “Take it to so-and-so,” his intent is, “Acquire it for him.” Since so-and-so acquires the money, when he dies it should be given to his heirs.

Rav Zevid settles it in another manner:

Rav Zevid said: Both this and that—

both beraitot speak

of a dangerously ill person. [

of a dying person], concerning whom the law is that “take” is like “acquire.” Nevertheless, there is a difference between them.

This one—

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

in which he is present—

in which there is—

the recipient

of the money in the world

at the time the money is given [

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

This one—

the other one speaks of a case

in which he is absent—

in which he is not—

the recipient at the time the money is given.

For he had already died, and the sender did not know of this. It turns out that the agent’s acquisition was an acquisition in error. The heirs did not acquire it. Rav Pappa settles it in another manner: Rav Pappa said: Both this and that concern a healthy person—

both beraitot speak of a healthy person, concerning whom “take” is not like “acquire.”

This is where the recipient died—

one speaks of a case in which the recipient died [

so-and-so]

during the giver’s lifetime.

Since this is so, the recipient did not acquire it, and it should be returned to the sender. Even if afterward the giver dies, at the time the agent returns the money, there is no mitzva to fulfill the words of the dead, since his words had already been nullified before his death, from the time the recipient died.

And this—

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

in which the giver died—

the giver died after handing it to the agent,

during the recipient’s lifetime

while the recipient was still alive. Therefore, from the moment the giver died, the recipient acquired it, because there is a mitzva to fulfill the words of the dead , even if he was healthy at the time he spoke.

The Gemara says:

Let us say —

let us state:

“Take” is like “acquire” —

it is a dispute between tannaim —

this law is subject to a dispute between tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita:

One who says to an agent:

“Take a maneh to so-and-so,” and he went and sought him but did not find him —

the money should return

to the sender.

The sender died —

R. Natan and R. Yaakov said: the money should return

to the sender’s heirs.

And some say:

the money should return

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

R. Judah the Nasi [

It will be explained later in what he disputes with the “some say” ]

said in the name of R. Yaakov,

who said

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

And the Sages say: they should divide.

Between the heirs of the sender and the heirs of the one to whom the money was sent.

And here,

in Babylonia,

they said: the agent should do whatever he wishes,

according to what he judged to be the intention of the sender: how generous he was with this gift, and likewise how much he loved the recipient and his sons.

R. Shimon the Nasi said: Such an incident occurred through me

of this kind,

and they said,

the Sages:

the money should return

to

the sender’s heirs. [

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

And the Gemara attempts to clarify in what they dispute:

What? Is it not with regard to this that they dispute —

is it not in this matter that they dispute:

For the first tanna holds: “Take” is not like “acquire.”

And therefore the money should return to the sender. But if the sender died, the view of the first tanna is unknown.

And R. Natan and R. Yaakov also —

also [hold —

“Take” 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”

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

“Take” is like “acquire.”

R. Judah the Nasi said in the name of R. Yaakov, who said in the name of R. Meir: “Take” is not like “acquire,”

and the agent does not acquire 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.

And therefore, the money should be given to the heirs of the one to whom it was sent.

And the Sages say: they should divide,

that is because

it is uncertain to them —

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. And for this reason they ruled: they should divide. [

But ]:

And here they said: that shuda is certainly preferable.

That is: when there is uncertainty, it is preferable that the division be carried out according to the agent’s judgment rather than that they divide the money.

The Gemara asks:

And R. Shimon the Nasi, [

who said at the conclusion 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?]

He answers:

No! With regard to a healthy person

who sent,

everyone agrees —

they do not dispute. And according to everyone, “give” is not like “acquire.”

Here, with what are we dealing —

and here, what is the case:

with a dangerously ill person

who sent.

And it is in the dispute —

and in their dispute —

of R. Elazar and the Rabbis: they dispute —

they dispute. And as we learned in the Mishna, R. Elazar considers the dangerously ill person, for this matter, like a healthy person.

As we learned: One who distributes his property

to his sons

according to his word —

according to his testament [giving much to one and little to another, and not like other inheritors, whose heirs divide what they inherit from them equally]:

R. Elazar says:

This does not depend on the condition of the bequeather, but

both a healthy person and a dangerously ill person [

one ill with mortal danger ] have equal law. If he wishes to transfer

property that carries responsibility [

land ], then it is

acquired

here

with money, with a document, and with possession,

by the heirs, just as it is acquired from an ordinary healthy person. And R. Elazar holds that even a dangerously ill person, if he does not acquire it through these modes of acquisition, the heirs do not acquire it.

And

property

that does not carry 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.