Gittin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 2

 

Introduction

The Talmud here analyzes the earlier baraita in light of the dispute between R. Elazar and the sages in the mishnah found in yesterday s section. To facilitate understanding I am copying here the earlier baraita:

[One who says], Bring a maneh to So-and-so and he goes and looks for him and does not find him, he should return the object to the sender. If the sender has died: R. Natan and R. Ya akov say: He should return it to the inheritors of the sender. And there are those who say: To the inheritors of those to whom it was sent.

R. Yehudah Hanasi said in the name of R. Yaakov in the name of R. Meir: It is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

But the sages say: They should divide it.

And here they said: The agent can do what he wants.

R. Shimon Hanasi said: This happened to me and I said, they should return it to the inheritors of the sender.

 

תַּנָּא קַמָּא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִית לָא אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים כְּרַבָּנַן

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִיהוּ הֵיכָא דְּמִית אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַחְלוֹקוּ מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ

וְכָאן אָמְרוּ שׁוּדָא עֲדִיף

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא מַעֲשֶׂה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן

 

The first opinion holds like R. Elazar.

And R. Natan and R. Yaakov also hold like R. Elazar and even though he died, we do not say that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

And those who say hold like the sages.

And R. Yehudah Hanasi in the name of R. Meir holds like R. Elazar however, if he dies it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

And the sages say: They shall divide it they do not know what the rule is.

Those who are here hold that discretion [of the agent] is preferable.

And R. Shimon Hanasi comes to teach us the case that happened.

 

The Talmud now lines up all the opinions in the baraita in line with the debate between R. Elazar and the sages. This section is almost the same as that we saw at the end of Daf Yod Daled so please see there for reference.

 

אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא נָשִׂיא הוּא אוֹ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא קָאָמַר

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא וַעֲדַיִין תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ נָשִׂיא הוּא אוֹ דְּקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנָשִׂיא תֵּיקוּ

 

The question was asked: R. Shimon Hanasi, was he the Patriarch (nasi) or was he speaking in the name of the Patriarch?

Come and learn: Rav Yosef said: The halakhah is an accordance with R. Shimon Hanasi.

But you can still ask, was he the Patriarch (nasi) or was he speaking in the name of the Patriarch?

Let the question stand.

 

R. Shimon Hanasi is a name not found elsewhere in rabbinic literature therefore it is unclear whether he is transmitting the halakhah in the name of someone else or whether this figure was actually the Patriarch. Alas, there is no answer to the question.

 

גּוּפָא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא

וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כִּכְתוּבִין וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ

רַב יוֹסֵף מוֹקֵי לַהּ בְּבָרִיא

 

The matter itself: Rav Yosef said: The halakhah is an accordance with R. Shimon Hanasi.

But we hold that the words of a dying person are as if they are written and given over.

R. Yosef says that the baraita refers to a healthy person.

 

The problem with R. Yosef s statement that the halakhah follows R. Shimon, who said that the gift should be brought back to the inheritors of the sender, is that the accepted halakhah is that the gift of a dying person is treated as if it was written down. Meaning it cannot be retracted. So why should it go back to the inheritors of the sender? The solution is to suggest that R. Yosef interprets the baraita as referring to a healthy person. This would mean that the dispute is about the meaning of bring R. Yosef would hold that it does not mean acquire.

 

וְהָא לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ קָאָמַר וְקַיְימָא לַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

תְּנִי יַחְזְרוּ לִמְשַׁלֵּחַ

 

But he says it must be brought back to the inheritors of the sender and we hold that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

Teach: It should be returned to the sender.

 

There is still a problem. Even if the sender was healthy at the time of the gift, if he died after the sender got the object, it should go to the inheritors of the recipient for we hold that it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of dead.

To fix this problem the Talmud emends the baraita. The gift should be returned to the sender, who is alive. If he has died, the gift should be given to the inheritors of the recipient, for it indeed is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

 

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמֵּבִיא קַמָּא

 

May we return to you Hamevi Kamma

 

Congratulations you ve finished the first chapter of Gittin. Tomorrow we begin chapter two. But don t worry, we ll keep talking about that agent and his declaration!