## Gittin Daf 14a

###### Gittin 14a:1
[Gittin 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:1)

בְּהַהִיא הֲנָאָה דְּקָא מִשְׁתַּנְּיָא לֵיהּ בֵּין מִלְוָה יְשָׁנָה לְמִלְוָה חֲדָשָׁה, גָּמַר וּמְשַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With that benefit** that the borrower receives when **his** debt **changes from an old debt to a new debt, he fully pledges himself** to the new lender. The borrower prefers to have a new lender from whom he can ask for an extension of the deadline for the repayment of his debt.


###### Gittin 14a:2
[Gittin 14a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כְּגוֹן הָנֵי דְּבֵי בַּר אֶלְיָשִׁיב, דְּכָפְתִי וְשָׁקְלִי לְאַלְתַּר, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא קָנוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Huna Mar, son of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so,** what about a case **where** the debt is transferred to **these** members **of the house of bar Elyashiv? As,** those implacable people **bind** debtors with handcuffs **and take** their money **immediately** when the time for repayment arrives. They certainly would not add to the time that the borrower has to repay the first loan, and he would not willingly pledge himself to them. **So too,** will you say **that they do not acquire** the money in the presence of all three parties, as the borrower would not agree to this arrangement?


###### Gittin 14a:3
[Gittin 14a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:3)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **indeed** this method is not effective in a case of this kind, **if so you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances.** In other words, the application of the acquisition in the presence of all three parties is not absolute, and instead depends on whether in this particular case the borrower agrees to transfer his debt from one person to another.


###### Gittin 14a:4
[Gittin 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:4)

אֶלָּא אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּהִלְכְתָא בְּלָא טַעְמָא: חֲדָא – הָא; וְאִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – לֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ אֶלָּא אַפִּיטְרוֹפְּיָא; וְאִידַּךְ – דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְיָא: הַמַּשִּׂיא אִשָּׁה לִבְנוֹ גָּדוֹל בַּבַּיִת – קְנָאוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of that which **Mar Zutra said: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a *halakha* without a reason,** i.e., they instituted these ordinances despite the fact that the logical mechanism by which they function is unclear: **One** is **this** case of an acquisition in the presence of all three parties. **And another** is **that** which **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: One who writes** over **all of his property to his wife** as a gift has **rendered her only a steward [*eppitrofeya*],** but she does not become the owner. **And another** is **that** which **Rav Ḥananya says:** With regard to **one who marries a woman to his eldest son,** and the wedding takes place **in** his **house,** the son has **acquired that** house.


###### Gittin 14a:5
[Gittin 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to acquisition in the presence of all three parties, the Gemara relates: **Rav said to Rav Aḥa Bardela: I have a *kav* of saffron [*morika*] with you** that you owe me; **give it to so-and-so.** Rav added: **I say** this **to you in his presence** so **that I will not retract** from this statement.


###### Gittin 14a:6
[Gittin 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:6)

מִכְּלָל דְּאִי בָּעֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ לֹא נִיתְּנוּ לַחֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Can one learn **by inference that if he** had not stipulated in this manner and **wished to retract** his statement **he could** in fact **retract** it? This would mean that a standard acquisition in the presence of all three parties is not fully effective. The Gemara answers that **this is what** Rav **said:** I am saying this to you in his presence because **these** types of **statements** issued in the presence of all three parties **cannot be retracted,** i.e., Rav was not adding a condition but explaining the *halakha*.


###### Gittin 14a:7
[Gittin 14a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:7)

הָא אָמַר רַב חֲדָא זִימְנָא; דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי״, בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why is this statement of Rav recorded at all? **Rav** already **said** this *halakha* **once. As 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.


###### Gittin 14a:8
[Gittin 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** the method of acquisition in the presence of all three parties was derived **from that** *halakha* alone, **I would say** that **this matter,** i.e., the need for the presence of the third party, applies only for the transfer of **a large gift. However,** in the case of **a small gift** one does **not need** to do this **in the presence** of the recipient. Instead, the giver can simply provide instructions and thereby transfer the gift to the other person, as there is no reason to think that he would retract. Therefore, Rav **teaches us** that this is not the case, as in all cases the transfer takes effect only in the presence of all three parties.


###### Gittin 14a:9
[Gittin 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There were **certain gardeners who made a calculation** of money owed **to each other,** and there **remained with one of them five *isterei zuzei*** more than he should have received. The others **said to him: Give** the money **to the owner of the land,** and they said this **in the presence of the owner of the land, and** the owner of the land **acquired** the money **from him.** In other words, the owner of the land performed a proper act of acquisition obligating the gardener to pay that amount.


###### Gittin 14a:10
[Gittin 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ultimately,** that gardener **went and performed a calculation on his own** and concluded that **nothing** extra **had been left** over **with him. He came before Rav Naḥman** to ask what to do. Rav Naḥman **said to him: What can I do for you?** The **first** issue is **that Rav Huna said** that **Rav said** that an acquisition in the presence of all three parties takes effect immediately, and therefore the owner of the land has already acquired the money. **And additionally, he** performed an actual act of acquisition and thereby **acquired** the money **from you.**


###### Gittin 14a:11
[Gittin 14a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַטּוּ הַאי, מִי קָאָמַר ״לָא יָהֲבִינָא״?! ״דְּלֵיכָּא גַּבַּאי״ קָאָמַר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת הוּא, וְכׇל קִנְיָן בְּטָעוּת חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Naḥman: **Is that to say** that the gardener **said: I will not give?** In other words, he did not refuse to give a sum in which he was obligated. **He** actually **said: Which is not in my possession,** as his colleagues told him to give five *isterei zuzei* that remained in his possession, and he now claims that this money actually belongs to him. Rav Naḥman **said to him: If so, it is an acquisition** performed **in error, and any acquisition** performed **in error reverts** back to the previous owner.


###### Gittin 14a:12
[Gittin 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:12)

אִיתְּמַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״, אָמַר רַב: חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ; וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, אִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that *amora’im* disagreed with regard to the following dilemma: If someone instructs an agent: **Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him** that sum, **Rav says:** The person who sends him the money **bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss. If the one hundred dinars are lost by the agent, the sender must give another one hundred dinars to repay his debt. **But if** the sender **seeks to retract** this repayment after he has given it to the agent, **he cannot retract** it. **And Shmuel says: Since** the sender **bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, this indicates that the one hundred dinars are considered to be in his domain, which means that **if he seeks to retract he can retract** it.


###### Gittin 14a:13
[Gittin 14a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:13)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: ״הוֹלֵךְ״ לָאו כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this** issue, **as** one **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that saying: **Deliver, is like** saying: **Acquire,** and therefore the agent immediately acquires the money on behalf of the recipient. For this reason the sender cannot retract. **And** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds** that saying: **Deliver, is not like** saying: **Acquire,** and as the recipient has not yet acquired the money the sender can retract.


###### Gittin 14a:14
[Gittin 14a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:14)

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הוֹלֵךְ״ כִּ״זְכִי״ דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ. וּמָר סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן מִיגּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No; everyone agrees that** saying: **Deliver, is like** saying: **Acquire, and here,** in this case, **they disagree about this:** One **Sage,** Rav, **holds** that **we do not say** that **since** the sender bears financial responsibility for the loss of the money he can retract. Therefore, he cannot retract. **And** one **Sage,** Shmuel, **holds** that **we do say** that **since** the sender bears financial responsibility for the loss of the money he can retract.


###### Gittin 14a:15
[Gittin 14a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:15)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״; ״תֵּן מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּיב לוֹ״; ״הוֹלֵךְ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי – פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּיָדִי״; ״תֵּן מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי – פִּקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּיָדִי״ – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאִם בָּא לַחְזוֹר – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav** (*Tosefta* 1:6): If one said to another: **Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him** that sum, or if he said: **Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe him** that sum, or if he said: **Deliver one hundred dinars to so-and-so,** as they are **a deposit he has in my possession,** or: **Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so,** as they are **a deposit he has in my possession,** in all these cases the sender **bears** financial **responsibility for their** loss, **but if he seeks to retract he cannot retract.**


###### Gittin 14a:16
[Gittin 14a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:16)

פִּקָּדוֹן, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֵין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּקְדוֹנוֹ בְּיַד אַחֵר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּשֶׁהוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to this *baraita*: In a case where the agent accepts upon himself to bring **a deposit** to its owners, **let** the sender, who is the bailee of the deposit, **say to** the agent: **It is not the will** of the owner of the deposit **that his deposit will be in the possession of another.** Since this transfer is not in the interests of the owner of the deposit, the money should remain fully in the possession of the sender, and therefore he should be able to retract. **Rabbi Zeira says:** This is referring to a case **where** the sender, the bailee of the deposit, **is established** as **a denier** of financial obligations. For this reason, the owner of the deposit prefers the money to be transferred to someone else, and the sender cannot claim that it is not the will of the owner of the deposit that his deposit will be in the possession of another.


###### Gittin 14a:17
[Gittin 14a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:17)

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת הֲוָה לֵיהּ אֲשַׁרְתָּא דְּסַרְבָּלֵי בְּמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא: בַּהֲדֵי דְּאָתֵית, אַיְיתִינְהוּ נִיהֲלִי. אֲזַל, יַהֲבִינְהוּ לֵיהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: נִיקְנֵי מִינָּךְ; אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Sheshet had a credit [*asharta*] of cloaks [*sarbelei*] in** the city of **Meḥoza,** i.e., he had a set agreement with merchants that he would give them cloaks to sell in the city of Meḥoza and they would later reimburse him. Rav Sheshet **said to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: When you come** here from Meḥoza, **bring me** the money. Rav Yosef **went** and **brought** the money **to him.** Those who gave him the money **said to him: Let us make an acquisition** for what you have received, so that if something happens to the money, you will be responsible. **He said to them: Yes.**


###### Gittin 14a:18
[Gittin 14a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:18)

לְסוֹף אִישְׁתְּמִיט לְהוּ. כִּי אֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַדְתְּ, דְּלָא שַׁוִּית נַפְשָׁךְ ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַדְתְּ; ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ultimately, he escaped them** and did not perform the act of acquisition. **When** Rav Yosef **came before** Rav Sheshet and told him what had occurred, Rav Sheshet **said to him: You did well, as you did not render yourself** the subject of the verse: **“The borrower is a slave to the lender”** (Proverbs 22:7), by obligating yourself for no reason. In **another version** of this incident Rav Sheshet said to Rav Yosef: **You did well,** as the verse states: **“The borrower is a slave to the lender,”** i.e., the merchants who borrowed from me must bear responsibility to ensure that the money will reach me.


###### Gittin 14a:19
[Gittin 14a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/14a:19)

רַבִּי אַחַי בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִיסְפְּקָא דְכַסְפָּא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates: **Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, had a silver vessel [*ispeka*] in** the city of **Neharde’a.**