Gittin - Daf 14
- If payment sent to a lender can be retrieved by the borrower
The Gemara brings a statement: If one says: הולך מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו – “Bring this maneh to Ploni that I owe him,” Rav says: חייב באחריותו – the sender is still responsible for the maneh (if lost) until the creditor receives it, which completes the payment. ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר – Even so, if [the debtor] wishes to retract his payment from the shaliach, he cannot retract. But Shmuel says: מתוך שחייב באחריותו – Since [the debtor] is responsible for it, אם בא לחזור חוזר –if he wishes to retract the payment, he can. The Gemara first suggests they argue about הולך כזכי – if the term "הולך" is the equivalent of saying “Acquire for Ploni.” Rav holds he cannot retract, because it already belongs to the creditor (but remains responsible for it since he was not instructed to send it). The Gemara concludes that all agree that saying הולך is ordinarily like זכי. Shmuel argues that here, since he remains responsible for the maneh, he does not intend for the creditor to acquire it yet. Rav does not accept this reasoning.
- Incident in which Amoraim were intimidated to give back a vessel sent with them
The Gemara relates an incident. Rebbe Dustai bar Rebbe Yannai and Rebbe Yose bar Kippeir were traveling to Nehardea and were asked to retrieve a silver vessel deposited there by Rebbe Achi bar Rebbe Yoshiyah. When the custodians asked the Amoraim to accept liability for the return trip, they declined. The custodians demanded the vessel back, to which Rebbe Dustai agreed, but Rebbe Yose refused. They began to hurt Rebbe Yose, and sought Rebbe Dustai’s approval, who said, "טב רמו ליה" – Beat him well! When they returned, and Rebbe Yose protested his mistreatment to Rebbe Achi, Rebbe Dustai described the fearsome appearance and names of the custodians and added: אומרין כפותו כופתין – If they say, “Tie up this man,” they tie him up. אומרין הרוגו הורגין – If they say, “Kill this man,” they kill him. אילו הרגו את דוסתאי– If they would have killed me, Dustai, מי נתן לינאי אבא בר כמותי – who would have given Yannai my father a son like me? After Rebbe Dustai also confirmed the custodians were close to the government and had horses and mules that run after them, Rebbe Achi told him he acted properly.
- Five-way machlokes if the sender or recipient dies while the money is in transit
A Baraisa states: הולך מנה לפלוני והלך ובקשו ולא מצאו – If one said, “Bring this maneh to Ploni,” and he went and did not find [the recipient] because he had died, יחזרו למשלח – [the money] should be returned to the sender. מת המשלח – If the sender dies before the delivery, (1) Rebbe Nassan and Rebbe Yaakov say it is returned to the sender’s heirs. (2) Some say it is given to the recipient’s heirs even if the sender is alive. (3) Rebbe Meir was quoted as saying: מצוה לקיים דברי המת – It is a mitzvah to fulfill the instructions of the deceased. (4) The Chachomim say the money is divided between the two parties, and (5) in Bavel, they said it is given to whichever party the shaliach sees fit. The Gemara suggests the machlokes revolves around whether saying, "הולך"is like saying זכי – “Acquire.” The opinion that “Some say” holds it is כזכי, so the money is given to the recipient’s heirs even if the sender is alive. Others hold הולך is not כזכי. Therefore, the Tanna Kamma said the money is returned if the recipient dies. If the sender dies, Rebbe Nassan and Rebbe Yaakov disagree with Rebbe Meir because they hold that there is no mitzvah to fulfill his instructions and give the money to the recipient’s heirs, while Rebbe Meir holds there is a mitzvah. The final two opinions are unsure if הולך כזכי, and if there is a mitzvah to keep his instructions and dispute the best resolution in a case of doubt. The Gemara will give a different explanation of the machlokes.
