## Gittin Daf 13b

###### Gittin 13b:1
[Gittin 13b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:1)

קָסָבַר רַב פָּפָּא, כִּי אָמַר רַב – לָא שְׁנָא בְּמִלְוֶה, וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּפִקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Pappa holds** that **when Rav said** that a transfer in the presence of all three parties is effective, it **is no different** if this is referring **to a loan** from the first party to the second party, where it is an abstract monetary obligation that is transferred, **and** it **is no different** if it is referring **to a deposit,** where specific money is transferred. Just as the transfer is effective in the case of a loan, in which there is an abstract monetary obligation, it would be effective even if the money were not piled. For this reason, Rav Pappa explained that the mishna is referring to piled money due to the concern about a collection of a buried one hundred dinars.


###### Gittin 13b:2
[Gittin 13b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:2)

רַב זְבִיד מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב פָּפָּא? לָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: ״הָאוֹמֵר תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, וּמֵת – לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the reverse question: **What is the reason** that **Rav Zevid did not say in accordance with** the explanation of **Rav Pappa?** The Gemara answers: He holds that it is **not** possible to **establish the mishna** as referring **to** a person **on his deathbed. From where** does he learn this? It is **from** the fact **that it teaches:** In the case of **one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or:** Give **this bill of manumission to my slave, and** then he **dies, one should not give it after** his **death.**


###### Gittin 13b:3
[Gittin 13b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:3)

טַעְמָא דְּמֵת, הָא מֵחַיִּים – נוֹתְנִין; טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, הָא לֹא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, אֵין נוֹתְנִין; וּשְׁכִיב מְרַע – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״, נוֹתְנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** for this ruling is **that** the man **died.** However, if it was **while** he was still **alive** then **one gives** the document. The Gemara continues: Even during his lifetime **the reason** for the ruling is specifically that **he said: Give, but** if **he did not say: Give,** and merely commanded: Write a bill of divorce, then **one does not give** it. **But** this is not the case with regard to a person **on his deathbed,** as, **although he did not say: Give,** but simply commanded: Write, nevertheless, **one gives** the document. Evidently, this *halakha* cannot be referring to a person on his deathbed.


###### Gittin 13b:4
[Gittin 13b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:4)

דִּתְנַן, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר, וְאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר, אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (65b): **Initially** the Sages **would say:** With regard to **one who is taken out in a neck chain** to be executed **and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these** people **should write and give** her the document. Although he did not explicitly say: Give, this is understood to have been his intention. **They then said** that this *halakha* applies **even to one who sets sail and one who departs in a caravan** to a far-off place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said just: Write.


###### Gittin 13b:5
[Gittin 13b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even** in the case of **one who is dangerously ill** who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife. This shows that a dying person need not say: Give. Rather, it is sufficient for him to say: Write. By contrast, the mishna indicates that it is referring to one who says: Give, and therefore it is certainly not speaking about a dying person.


###### Gittin 13b:6
[Gittin 13b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וּמַאן נֵימָא לַן דְּמַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי הִיא? דִּלְמָא רַבָּנַן הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to this** claim: **And who says to us that the mishna is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? Perhaps it is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who did not include a dangerously ill person in their list of those who are not required to say: Give. If so, it is possible that the mishna is referring to a person on his deathbed after all.


###### Gittin 13b:7
[Gittin 13b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:7)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי״, בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה. אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּפִקָּדוֹן, אֲבָל בְּמִלְוָה – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself. Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** With regard to one who says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so,** if this occurred **in the presence of** all **three** parties, that third person has **acquired** it. **Rava said: It stands to reason** that **Rav’s statement** is **with regard to a deposit,** when the owner of the deposit instructs its guardian to transfer specific money under his authority to someone else who is also present. **However,** in the case **of a loan, no,** one cannot dispense with an act of acquisition, as repayment of a loan does not involve specific money.


###### Gittin 13b:8
[Gittin 13b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:8)

וְהָאֱלֹהִים! אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִלְוָה. אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: ״מִלְוָה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי״, בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava himself adds, in the form of an oath: **But by God,** in truth, **Rav said** this *halakha* **even with regard to a loan.** The Gemara adds: **It was also stated** that **Shmuel said in the name of Levi** that if someone says to another: **I have a loan in your possession,** i.e., you owe me payment for a loan, **give it to so-and-so,** and this occurred **in the presence of** all **three** parties, that named person has **acquired** it.


###### Gittin 13b:9
[Gittin 13b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:9)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת: שַׁעְבַּדְנָא לָךְ לְדִידָךְ וּלְכֹל דְּאָתוּ מֵחֲמָתָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** for this? In what manner does he acquire it? **Ameimar said:** The case **becomes like** that of a borrower **who says to** a lender **at the time of the giving of the money,** when he receives a loan: **I am beholden to you and to anyone** who **comes** based **on your** authorization. In this case, the recipient is authorized by the lender to take the loan in the presence of all three parties.


###### Gittin 13b:10
[Gittin 13b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הִקְנָה לַנּוֹלָדִים – דְּלָא הֲווֹ בִּשְׁעַת מַתַּן מָעוֹת, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא קָנוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: If that is so,** that the borrower’s obligation to the third party went into effect at the time of the loan, then if **he transferred** it in the presence of the three parties **to those who will be born,** i.e., people who **were not** yet born **when the money was** initially **given,** the *halakha* should **also** be **that** the recipients **do not acquire** it. The reason is that at the time the lender gave the money to the borrower, the person to whom it would eventually be transferred did not yet exist, and therefore the borrower could not have become obligated to him at that point in time.


###### Gittin 13b:11
[Gittin 13b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:11)

דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּעוֹלָם, אֲבָל לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּעוֹלָם – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi elaborates: **As, even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can transfer** ownership of **an entity that has not** yet **come into the world, this statement** applies only when he transfers it **to an entity,** i.e., a person, **that has come into the world. However,** even Rabbi Meir agrees with regard to the transfer of ownership of an article **to an entity that has not** yet **come into the world,** that this is **not** possible. Since Rav issued his statement in a general manner without any limitations, evidently the method of a transfer in the presence of all three parties applies in all cases, regardless of whether the third party was born at the time when the loan was given.


###### Gittin 13b:12
[Gittin 13b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13b:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says** that this is the reason for the matter: