Gittin, Daf Yod Daled, Part 1

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss transfers of money performed in front of three parties the creditor, the debtor and the person to whom he wants to transfer the debt.

 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב אַחָא בַּרְדְּלָא קַבָּא דְּמוֹרִיקָא אִית לִי גַּבָּךְ יַהֲבֵיהּ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּאַפֵּיהּ קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ דְּלָא הָדַרְנָא בִּי

ומִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ הָכִי קָאָמַר דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ לֹא נִיתְּנוּ לַחֲזָרָה

 

Rav said to Rav Aha Bardla: I have a kav of saffron with you, give it to So-and-so. I say this in front of you so that I cannot change my mind.

By deduction, if he wanted to he can change his mind!

This is what he said: These things cannot be retracted.

 

Rav Aha Bardla owes Rav a kav of saffron. Rav orders it to be give to someone else. The assumption is that the other person is there as well. This is a transaction done in front of all three parties and cannot be retracted.

 

הָא אָמַר רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קָנָה

אִי מֵהַהִיא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה אֲבָל מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת לָא לִיבְעֵי בְּפָנָיו קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

 

Behold Rav said this already, for Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: [One who says]: You have a maneh of mine. Give it to So-and-so. If he does so in the presence of all three, the recipient has acquired.

If we only had that [statement], I would have said that this is so with regard to a large gift, but with regard to a small gift, it need not be done in his presence, therefore he teaches that it must.

 

The Talmud points out that we already know that a transfer of a debt performed in the presence of all three parties is valid. So what more does this statement add?

The answer is that it teaches us that the presence of the third party is necessary not only for a large gift, but also for a small gift.

 

הָנְהוּ גִּינָּאֵי דַּעֲבֻיד חוּשְׁבָּנָא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי פָּשׁ חֲמֵשׁ אִיסְתְּרֵי זוּזֵי גַּבֵּי חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ אָמְרִי לֵיהּ יַהֲבִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְמָרֵי אַרְעָא בְּאַפֵּי מָרֵי אַרְעָא וּקְנֹה מִינֵּיהּ

לְסוֹף אֲזַל עֲבַד חוּשְׁבָּנָא בֵּין דִּילֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ לָא פָּשׁ גַּבֵּיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ חֲדָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב וְעוֹד הָא קְנוֹ מִינָּךְ

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא אַטּוּ הַאי מִי קָאָמַר לָא יָהֲבִינָא דְּלֵיכָּא גַּבַּאי קָאָמַר

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִם כֵּן קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת הוּא וְכׇל קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת חוֹזֵר

 

There were some gardeners who made a calculation of how much each owed the other. And one of them was left with five more zuzim than he should have had. They said to him: Give it to the owner of the land, and he gave it to the owner in the owner s presence and he acquired it from him.

In the end, he made a calculation on his own and he was not left with anything extra.

He came in front of Rav Nachman: He said to him: What can I do for you? First of all, we have that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav. And moreover, he acquired the money.

Rava said to him: Did this one say I won t give it to him ? He said: It is not with me.

He said back: If so, this is a mistaken acquisition and any acquisition made in error must be returned.

 

The gardeners thought there was extra money so they wanted it to go to the owner of the field (assumedly they owe him money). And so he acquired this extra five issars (the transaction was verbal, but done in such a way that confers validity called kinyan). Then the gardener did his own calculation and it turned out that there was no extra money. Rav Nahman at first rules that its too late. The owner s acquisition was valid. But Rava points out that the gardener does not want money back. He s not asking to undo a valid transfer. He s claiming that he never had any money to begin with. In such a scenario the acquisition was made mistakenly and therefore it can be annulled.