POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 14
GITIN 14 & 15 - have been anonymously dedicated by a very special Marbitz
Torah and student of the Daf from Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
4) THE ACQUISITION IN THE PRESENCE OF 3 (cont.)
(a) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, through the benefit of
converting an old loan into a new loan, Yehudah is able
to obligate himself to David.
5) DOES A MESSENGER ACQUIRE ON BEHALF OF THE RECIPIENT?
(b) Question (Huna, son of Rav Nechemyah): If so - people
such as those of bar Elyashiv's house, that force a
person to pay immediately (there is no benefit if the
loan is transferred to them) - Rav's law would not apply!
1. If you will say, that is indeed true - then the law
varies according to the recipient!
(c) Answer #3 (Mar Zutra): Rather, Rav's law is 1 of 3
enactments without reason (how they work). The others
1. (Rav Yehudah): A man wrote a document giving all his
property to his wife - he only made her an overseer
on the property.
(d) Rav (to Rav Acha Bardela): I deposited saffron by you -
give it to Peloni. I am telling you in front of him, I
will not retract.
2. (Rav Chinena): A man that marries off his oldest son
in a house - the son acquires the house.
(e) Question: This implies, he could retract if he wanted!
(f) Answer: No; rather, he said, I cannot retract.
1. Question: Why did Rav need to say this - he already
taught the law of acquisition in the presence of all
(g) Some gardeners (that worked together) calculated among
themselves that one of them (Reuven) had 5 half-Zuz too
much; they told him to give it to the owner of the land,
in front of the owner; they made an acquisition.
2. Answer: One might have thought, only a large gift
requires that all 3 be present, but a small gift is
acquired even if the recipient is not there - we
hear, this is not so.
1. Reuven later calculated by himself, and saw that he
did not have too much.
2. Rav Nachman: You are nevertheless obligated! By
Rav's law, you owe the money; also, they made an
3. Rava: He is not simply refusing to pay - he says
that he erred!
4. Rav Nachman: I did not realize that this was the
case - any mistaken acquisition is invalid.
(a) (Rav): Reuven said 'Holech (take) 100 Zuz to Peloni, that
I owe him' - if the money never reaches Peloni, Reuven
still owes him; he cannot retract and tell the messenger
'Give me back the money';
(b) (Shmuel): Because Reuven must pay if the money never
reaches Peloni, he can tell the messenger 'Give me back
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answer #1: Whether saying 'Take' is as saying 'Zechi
(acquire for)'. (Because Rav says that it is, Reuven
(e) Answer #2: No - all agree, it is as saying 'Acquire for';
they argue whether we apply the principle 'amidst'
(amidst that if the money never reaches Peloni, Reuven
must pay, he can tell the messenger 'Give me back the
money'). (Only Shmuel holds of this.)
(f) Support (for Rav - Beraisa): Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to
Peloni, that I owe him', or "Give 100 Zuz...'; or, the
same languages, when the money was a deposit - if the
money never reaches Peloni, Reuven still owes him; he
cannot tell the messenger 'Give me back the money'.
1. Question: When the money was a deposit, a person
does not want his money to be in the hands of
someone he did not entrust with it (and therefore,
the messenger does not acquire the money for Peloni
- Reuven should be able to retract)!
(g) Some people in Mechuza owed Rav Sheshes for coats he had
given them. He asked Rav Yosef bar Chama to bring the
money when he came from there.
2. Answer (R. Zeira): The case is, the watchman has
denied the deposit (surely, Peloni wants that the
deposit pass to someone else's hands)!
1. The people gave the money to Rav Yosef; they asked
him to make an acquisition to accept responsibility
(in case the money will not reach Rav Sheshes, they
should be exempt); he agreed, but evaded them and
never made the acquisition.
(h) Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiyah had a silver flask in Nehardai;
he asked R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai and R. Yosi bar Kipar to
bring it when they came.
2. Version #1 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly, not to
fulfill on yourself "The borrower is a slave to the
3. Version #2 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly - "The
borrower is a slave to the lender" (and the
responsibility is theirs).
1. The ones watching the flask gave it to them; they
asked them to make an acquisition to accept
responsibility; they refused. The watchers asked
them to return the flask. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai
agreed; R. Yosi bar Kipar refused.
(i) Beraisa #1: Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to Peloni'; Peloni
died before the messenger arrived - the money reverts to
2. They afflicted R. Yosi bar Kipar. They said to R.
Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai, 'See how stubborn he is!" He
replied, 'It is good that you hit him'.
3. When they returned, R. Yosi bar Kipar complained -
not only he didn't help me, he said 'It is good that
you hit him'!
4. Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiya: Why did you act thusly?
5. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai: Those people are dangerous!
If they say 'tie him up' - they tie the person up!
If they say 'kill' - they 'kill'!
6. Rav Acha: Are they close to the king? Do they have
horses and mules running after them?
7. R. Dustai b'Rebbi Yanai: Yes!
8. Rav Acha: You acted properly.
(j) Beraisa #2: The money goes to Peloni's heirs.
(k) Suggestion: The Beraisas argue whether saying 'Take' is
as saying 'Acquire for'.
(l) Rejection #1 (R. Aba bar Mamal): No -all agree that
saying 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for'.
1. The first Beraisa is when Reuven was healthy; the
second, when he was dying (and his words are as if
they were written and handed over, so Peloni
acquired the money immediately).
(m) Rejection #2 (Rav Zevid): In both Beraisas, Reuven was
dying; Beraisa #1 is when Peloni died before the money
was handed over; Beraisa #2 is when he was alive at that
(n) Rejection #3 (Rav Papa): In Both Beraisas, Reuven was
healthy; Beraisa #1 is when Peloni died before Reuven
died; Beraisa #2 is when Reuven died before Peloni.
(o) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether saying 'Take' is as
saying 'Acquire for'.
1. (Beraisa) Reuven said 'Take 100 Zuz to Peloni';
Peloni died before the messenger arrived - the money
reverts to Reuven;
(p) Suggestion: They argue as follows: The first Tana says
that 'Take' is not as saying 'Acquire for'; R. Noson and
R. Yakov agree with this, and also say that there is no
Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;
2. If Reuven died - R. Noson and R. Yakov say, the
money goes to Reuven's heirs;
3. Some say, it goes to Peloni's heirs;
4. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, it is a Mitzvah to fulfill
the words of the deceased (that is why it goes to
5. Chachamim say, the heirs of Reuven and Peloni share
6. Chachamim of Bavel say, the messenger decides who he
wants to give it to.
7. R. Shimon ha'Nasi: I was party to such a case - the
ruling was, it returns to Reuven's heirs.
1. 'Some say' hold that saying 'Take' is as saying
2. R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says that 'Take' is not as saying
'Acquire for', but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the
words of the deceased;
3. Chachamim say to split the money - they are unsure
(whether 'Take' is as saying 'Acquire for', and
whether there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of
4. Chachamim of Bavel say, the best solution is to
leave it to the whim of the messenger.
5. R. Shimon ha'Nasi comes to teach how they ruled in
an actual case.