Gittin, Daf Yod Daled, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to deal with the issue of whether when a sender says bring he also means acquire such that the object being sent belongs to the recipient from the moment the agent receives it.

 

לֵימָא הוֹלֵךְ כִּזְכִי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא דְּתַנְיָא הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי וְהָלַךְ וּבִקְּשׁוֹ וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ יַחְזְרוּ לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ

מֵת מְשַׁלֵּחַ רַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמְרוּ יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּלְחוּ לוֹ

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַחְלוֹקוּ

וְכָאן אָמְרוּ כֹּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה שָׁלִיחַ יַעֲשֶׂה

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא עַל יָדִי הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ יַחְזְרוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מְשַׁלֵּחַ

 

Shall we say that whether bring is like acquire is a dispute among tannaim, as it was taught: [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.

 

The dispute in this baraita is what to do with an object sent to someone and then that someone is not found for he had died and then when the agent brings the object back, the sender has also died.

R. Natan and R. Ya akov say it must be given to the inheritors of the sender. This is also R. Shimon Hanasi s opinion.

Others say to the inheritors of the intended recipient. This is also R. Meir s opinion.

Finally, there are two other opinions. First the people here (Babylonia?) say that the agent can do what he wants. Second, the sages who say that the two sets of inheritors should split the object.

 

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר הוֹלֵךְ לָאו כִּזְכִי

וְרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב נָמֵי הוֹלֵךְ לָאו כִּזְכִי וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִית לָא אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים הוֹלֵךְ כִּזְכִי

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוֹלֵךְ לָאו כִּזְכִי מִיהוּ הֵיכָא דְּמִית אָמְרִינַן מִצְוָה לְקַיֵּים דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים יַחְלוֹקוּ מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ

וְכָאן אָמְרוּ שׁוּדָא עָדִיף

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַנָּשִׂיא מַעֲשֶׂה אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן

 

Is it not that they dispute the following: The first opinion holds that bring is not like acquire.

And R. Natan and R. Yaakov also hold that bring is not like acquire 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 that bring is like acquire.

R. Yehudah Hanasi in the name of R. Yaakov in the name of R. Meir holds that bring is not like acquire 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 tries to posit that all of the disputes in the baraita hinge on whether we hold that bring is like acquire.

The first opinion, which held that as long as the sender was alive the agent must bring the object back, holds that bring is not like acquire.

R. Natan and R. Yaakov go a step further. Even if the sender died, the recipient still does not have a right to the object.

R. Meir in general would hold that bring is not like acquire and thus the inheritors of the sender should get the object back. But overriding this is another principle it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

The sages who say that they should divide it are doubtful as to what the halakhah is.

The opinion that says that the agent can do what he wants advocates for the agent s discretion. And finally, R. Shimon Hanasi merely adds that this was an actual case that came before him. The case agrees with R. Natan and R. Yaakov.

 

לָא בְּבָרִיא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי

 

No, if the case was the gift of a healthy person no one disagrees. What are we dealing with here? With the gift of a dying person, and it is the dispute between R. Elazar and the rabbis.

 

The Talmud shifts the understanding of the dispute in the baraita. If the gift was that of a healthy person all agree that bring is not like acquire and the gift must be returned to the sender. The argument is over the gift of a dying person. Next week we will learn this dispute.