עדים החתומים על הגט ושמותיהן כולי —Witnesses, who are signed on a גט, and their names, etc.

OVERVIEW ריש לקיש posed a query to ר' יוחנן; what is the rule by a גט whose עדים have names which sound like שמות עכו"ם (but not שמות מובהקים), is it כשר or not. תוספות explains the query as well as the subsequent discussion in the גמרא.

פירוש¹ מי אמרינן דישראל נינהו וכשר לרבי מאיר או בעדי מסירה לרבי אלעזר² – The explanation of the query (regarding עדים החתומים על הגט ושמותיהן וכו') is whether we assume that the signers are Jewish and the גט is כשר according to ר"מ (who maintains ע"ח כרתי)³ or according to ר"א it is כשר with עדי מסירה. The reason it is כשר is – דלא תלינן להו בעובדי כוכבים אלא אם כן ידוע בודאי שהן עובדי כוכבים – Because we do not assume that the signers are עכו"ם unless it is known with certainty that they are עכו"ם – דלא שכיחי מלתא שיחתמו עובדי כוכבים בגיטין⁴ – For it is unusual that עכו"ם should sign on a גט, this is one side of the query – או דלמא כיון דשמותיהן כשמות עובדי כוכבים חיישינן שמא עובדי כוכבים נינהו – Or perhaps, since their names are like the names of עכו"ם we are concerned that perhaps the signers are עכו"ם – ולא מתכשרי אפילו בעדי מסירה לרבי אלעזר⁵ ואפילו לרבי שמעון⁶ – And the גט will not be כשר even with ע"מ according to ר"א, and even according to ר"ש it will not be כשר for we are concerned that perhaps we will use these עדים for עדי מסירה – דהא לא מכשיר אלא בשמות מובהקין⁷ והכא הם שמות שאין מובהקין – For ר"ש is not מכשיר by גיטי נשים only by שמות מובהקין (names which are surely עכו"ם), however here the names of the signers are שמות שאין מובהקין- תוספות explains why we assume that the query is by שמות שאין מובהקין: דהא מספקינן אי עובדי כוכבים הם אי לאו – For we are doubtful whether the signers are עכו"ם or not, therefore it must be שמות שאין מובהקין – ובשמות מובהקין ליכא לספוקי דפשיטא דעובדי כוכבים הן – For by שמות מובהקין there is no doubt, for we are certain that they are עכו"ם – דהא בכל דוכתי לא חיישינן דלמא אתו למיסמך עלייהו – since in all cases of שמות מובהקין we are not concerned that perhaps we will depend on them (for ע"מ), for there is no doubt that they are עכו"ם**.** Therefore, since here there is a doubt (for that is the thrust of the query), we must be discussing שמות שאין מובהקין.**** This concludes the explanation of the query. תוספות continues with the explanation of the answer of ר' יוחנן: וקאמר לא בא לידינו אלא לוקוס ולוס והכשרנו משום דהוו שמות מובהקין – And ר' יוחנן replied that only the names of לוקוס and לוס came before us and we ruled the גט to be כשר (with ע"מ), since these are שמות מובהקין – ולא אתו למיסמך עלייהו כרבי שמעון – And no one will depend on using them as עדי מסירה as ר"ש rules – אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין דלאו ודאי עובדי כוכבים נינהו חיישינן – However, שמות that are אין מובהקין, where we are not certain whether they are עכו"ם, we are concerned that we may use them for ע"מ and they are פסול. תוספות continues with the explanation of the גמרא: וקא פריך מגיטין הבאין ממדינת הים כולי – And the גמרא challenges this ruling of ר' יוחנן from the following ברייתא which states, ‘גיטין that come from overseas, etc.’ The ברייתא concludes that even though the names of the עדים are כשמות עכו"ם, nevertheless it is כשר – וקא סלקא דעתין⁸ דהא דקתני– And the גמרא assumed that this which the ברייתא taught – שרוב ישראל שבחוץ לארץ שמותיהן כשמות עובדי כוכבים – that the majority of Jews in חו"ל have names like the names of עכו"ם – לא להכשיר דוקא במדינת הים קאתי – It did not intend to be מכשיר only the גיטין from overseas (חו"ל) – אלא נותן טעם לדבר דרגילות הוא דמסקי ישראל בשמות עובדי כוכבים – But rather he is giving a reason for a general ruling (that גיטין which have signers whose names are like עכו"ם, are כשר), because it is common that the Jews use עכו"ם names – שהרי בחוץ לארץ רובן כשמות עובדי כוכבים – For we see that in חו"ל the majority of Jews have names like the עכו"ם – הילכך בארץ ישראל נמי אין לחוש שמא עובדי כוכבים הן – Therefore also in א"י we should not be concerned that perhaps the**** signers are עכו"ם (even though the majority of Jews in א"י are not called with שמות עכו"ם, nevertheless we should not be concerned) – דאין רגילות לחתום עובדי כוכבים בגיטין – since it is not usual to sign עכו"ם on a גט. Therefore most likely the signers are Jewish (but they merely have שמות עכו"ם [just as a majority of Jews in חו"ל have שמות עכו"ם]).⁹**** The ברייתא therefore contradicts ר"י. ומשני דוקא בבאין מחוץ לארץ קמכשרי¹⁰ – And the גמרא answered that the ברייתא is specifically מכשיר only when the גיטין come from חו"ל (because of the רוב וכו'), however in א"י (unless it is שמות מובהקין), names which are similar to שמות עכו"ם render the גט to be פסול.¹¹

This is the view of the ר"י.

SUMMARY גיטין which come from חו"ל with עכו"ם sounding names are כשר; however not from א"י.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Regarding the query of ר"ל of עדים החתומים וכו' which תוספות discusses; is this regarding a גט which was already given to the woman and we are verifying its validity, or are we discussing a גט which came before us in order to give it to the woman, and the query is whether we can give it to her?¹²
2. תוספות states that it is unusual to have עכו"ם sign a גט.¹³ Does תוספות mean specifically a גט (however it is not unusual for them to sign other (money) שטרות, or does תוספות mean that it is generally unusual for עכו"ם to sign on Jewish שטרות; he mention גט, because in this instance we are discussing גט?¹⁴
3. תוספות mentions that the query of ר"ל is (also) according to ר"א where there are ע"מ ישראל.¹⁵ Seemingly if we assume that the עדים are עכו"ם, then the ע"מ will not help (since it is not שמות מובהקין), and if we assume that the עדים are ישראל, then there is no need for ע"מ, for presumably it was given in the presence of ע"מ ישראל?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ תוספות may be negating פירש"י בד"ה מהו, that the question is whether we can be מכשיר this גט with ע"מ; however תוספות maintains that according to this side of the query it would be כשר even with ע"ח (alone according to ר"מ). See following footnote # 3. See בל"י אות רנא. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # (1 &) 3. ³ We can depend on the עדים which signed the גט even though they have names which are similar to שמות עכו"ם, since (as תוספות states shortly) it is unusual that they would allow עכו"ם to sign on a גט. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ It will certainly be פסול according to ר"מ who maintains ע"ח כרתי since the signers are עכו"ם. ⁶ ר"ש maintains (see previous משנה and ברייתא on the עמוד א') that all agree by גיטי נשים that it is always כשר (even by הדיוטות) if there are ע"מ. ⁷ By שמות מובהקין, there is no concern that they will be used for ע"מ (for we know that they are עכו"ם). ⁸ Seemingly there is no contradiction from the ברייתא (which is מכשיר בחו"ל) to ר"י (who is פוסל in א"י) as the גמרא subsequently answers. תוספות explains why the מקשן thought there is a contradiction ⁹ If we would not be aware that Jews use שמות עכו"ם, then even though it is unusual to have עכו"ם sign a גט, nevertheless since the signers have שמות עכו"ם we must assume that they are עכו"ם. However, now that we see that it is common for Jews to have שמות עכו"ם (to the extent that בחו"ל even a majority of Jews have שמות עכו"ם); therefore we can rely on the fact that it is unusual for עכו"ם to sign on a גט to render these גיטין כשרים even though the names are שמות עכו"ם. ¹⁰ Regarding חו"ל, where there is a רוב ישראל who are called with שמות עכו"ם, we can assume that these witnesses are ישראל since it is unusual that עכו"ם sign on a גט. The fact that they are שמות עכו"ם is of no concern, for רוב ישראל have שמות עכו"ם. However in א"י even though it is unusual to sign עכו"ם on a גט, nevertheless since the names of the signers are שמות עכו"ם this indicates that it is possible that they are indeed עכו"ם, for in א"י most Jews do not have שמות עכו"ם. ¹¹ It is not שמות מובהקין, therefore it may be an עכו"ם and we may mistakenly use them for ע"מ. ¹² See מהרש"א [הארוך אות ק (בקובץ על י"ד)] and נח"מ. ¹³ See footnote # 4. ¹⁴ See נח"מ. ¹⁵ See footnote # 2. ¹⁶ See אמ"ה # 19.

בגיטי נשים אבל לא בשחרורי עבדים—By writs of divorce but not by the emancipation of slaves

OVERVIEW The חכמים rule that if one gives a גט אשה to a third party and tells him to give it to his wife; the husband may retract the גט before the woman receives it. However if he gave a גט שחרור to a third party to deliver it to his עבד כנעני, then the master cannot retract. The חכמים explain this rule saying because one may benefit another not in his presence (therefore the עבד is freed immediately upon the third party’s receipt of the שטר שחרור, since it is beneficial for the עבד to be freed),¹ however one may not harm someone not in his presence (therefore the woman is not divorced [before she actually receives the גט], since it is to her detriment to be divorced).² תוספות discusses why being freed is beneficial and being divorced is detrimental.

בירושלמי³ בעי הגע עצמך היה עבדו של קצין הרי חובה הוא לעבד⁴ – In תלמוד ירושלמי they ask (rhetorically); ‘think honestly; if he were the slave of a nobleman it is indeed detrimental for the slave to be freed; on the other hand – הרי שהיתה אשתו של מוכה שחין הרי זכות הוא לה⁵ – If she were the wife if a leper it is indeed beneficial to her’ to be divorced. Why do we assume that universally it is a זכות for the עבד and a חוב for the אשה?⁶ The ירושלמי offers a different perspective to the law of our משנה: לית לך אלא כהדא אילו המוכר עבדו שלא מדעתו שמא אינו מכור – You have no other choice (how to explain the difference between an עבד and an אשה) except as follows (the ירושלמי now presents two rhetorical questions); if one were to sell his slave without his consent is he perhaps not sold?! However – אילו המגרש אשה שלא מדעתה שמא מגורשת היא – If one were to divorce a woman without her consent, is she perhaps divorced?! This concludes the citation from the ירושלמי. תוספות explains the ירושלמי: פירוש על ידי אחר העבד נמכר על כרחו⁷ – The explanation of this distinction is in a case where the transaction (the sale or the divorce) is done through an outsider; whereby the slave is sold against his will – ואין האשה מתגרשת על ידי אחר⁸ בעל כרחה:⁹ However, the woman cannot be divorced by an outsider against her will.

SUMMARY A master can always sell his slave without his consent. A man cannot appoint an outsider to receive the גט on behalf of his wife.

THINKING IT OVER It appears that (according to some¹⁰) the ירושלמי gives a different explanation than our משנה. How is this that the אמוראים in the ירושלמי do not follow the משנה?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ This would seem to be obvious. ² It is detrimental for a woman to be divorced because as long as she is married her husband is obligated to sustain and support her. ³ פ"א ה"ה. (In our ירושלמי it is on דף ז,ב.) ⁴ The honor and comforts he has in the house of the קצין should outweigh any advantage he may receive if he is freed. ⁵ The relief she has by not having to live with a מוכה שחין should outweigh the benefit of the material support he provides her ⁶ In both cases there is a זכות and a חוב (see footnotes # 4 & 5). Why by an עבד do we consider it a זכות and by אשה a חוב (see נח"מ). ⁷ The קצין can always sell the עבד (even without his consent) to an outsider, therefore (now that we see that the קצין wants to free the עבד) it is a זכות for the עבד to be freed rather than be sold to an unsatisfactory master (תוה"ר). Therefore, even if he is an עבד of the קצין, it is still a זכות for him to be freed, for it is possible for him to sold to an undesirable master which would be even worse. [Alternately (see מהרש"א) the ירושלמי is not discussing whether it is a זכות or a חוב, but rather since there is no way how the עבד can remain by his master (against his master’s will), since his master can always sell him, therefore as soon as the שליח receives the גט שחרור, the עבד is free, since he does not have the capability of remaining by the master (see תוספות י,א ד"ה בשליחות). See ‘Thinking it over’.] ⁸ This (seemingly) means that if the woman (or her designated שליח) does not receive the גט (and she conceals herself), the husband cannot appoint anyone to receive the גט on her behalf (against her will). Therefore we cannot say that she can be taken away from her husband regardless of her consent. However, by an עבד even if he runs away and (conceals himself and) does not receive the שטר שחרור, his master can always sell him to someone else and he will be separated from his master. ⁹ Therefore it is considered a חוב (even though she leaves the מוכה שחין), since she loses the monetary support from her husband. However by an עבד it is only a זכות, since the master can always sell him. [In addition, it is considered a חוב for the woman based on the dictum (see קידושין ז,א) that for a woman it is טב למיבת תן דו מלמיתב ארמלו (it is better to live with company than to live alone). See תוה"ר.] ¹⁰ See footnote # 7 (in the brackets). ¹¹ See מהרש"א הארוך and רש"ש.

יתיב רב הונא ורב יצחק קמיה דרבי ירמיה—רב הונא and רב יצחק were sitting before ר' ירמיה

OVERVIEW Our גמרא relates an incident where רב הונא and רב יצחק were students by ר' ירמיה. In this episode ר' ירמיה called them דרדקי (children); indicating that they were younger than ר' ירמיה. Our תוספות resolves a discrepancy in this matter

אומר רבינו תם דאין זה רב הונא שמזכיר סתם בכל הש"ס – The ר"ת says that this רב הונא mentioned here is not the רב הונא who is mentioned generally in the entire ש"ס – דאותו היה גדול הרבה מרבי ירמיה ולא הוה יתיב קמיה – For that רב הונא (סתם) was much older than ר' ירמיה and רב הונא would not have been sitting before ר' ירמיה (as a student before a teacher) – ועוד דקרי להו דרדקי ורבי ירמיה חבירו של רבי זירא וקטן ממנו – And in addition (we know that this is not רב הונא סתם) because ר' ירמיה called רב הונא and רב יצחק ‘children’ (דרדקי), but this cannot be for ר' ירמיה was a younger colleague of ר' זירא – כדאמר בנדה (דף כג,א) בעי מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא כולי¹ – As the גמרא states in מסכת נדה; ‘ר' ירמיה inquired from ר' זירא, etc. The גמרא relates there, that it was – עד כאן² הביאו רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא לידי גיחוך ולא גחך³ – To such an extent that ר' ירמיה tried to make ר' זירא laugh, but ר' זירא did not laugh. תוספות continues with his proof – ורבי זירא תלמידו של רב יהודה – And ר' זירא was the student of רב יהודה – כדאמרינן⁴ דהוה מישתמיט מרב יהודה משום דבעי למיסק לארץ ישראל – As the גמרא states that ר' זירא avoided רב יהודה because ר' זירא wanted to go up to א"י⁵ – ושמואל שהיה רבו של רב יהודה⁶ היה צריך לו לרב הונא – And שמואל who was the רבי of רב יהודה depended on רב הונא – כדאמר בריש פירקין (דף ה,א) בעא מיניה שמואל מרב הונא ב' שהביאו גט כולי⁷ – As the גמרא states in the beginning of this פרק, that שמאול asked רב הונא regarding two people who brought a גט, etc. – ובחולין פרק קמא (דף יג,א) בעא מיניה שמואל מרב הונא מניין למתעסק בקדשים כולי: And also in the first פרק of חולין the גמרא related that שמואל inquired from רב הונא, from where do we derive if one is מתעסק בקדשים, etc.⁸ It is therefore obvious that רב הונא was much older than ר' ירמיה. It will be therefore necessary to say that here we are discussing a different רב הונא than the usual סתם רב הונא.

SUMMARY רב הונא [סתם] (1) taught שמואל (2), who taught רב יהודה (3), who taught ר' זירא (4), who taught ר' ירמיה (5) (who taught this רב הונא [6]).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות resolves the inconsistency by alleging that there were two רב הונא. Why could not תוספות answer that there were two רב ירמיה⁹ (one who was younger than רב הונא and another who was older than רב הונא)?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ The query was, what is the ruling in a case where a woman is pregnant with a fetus which is a cow, and the father of the fetus accepted קידושין from a person on behalf of his daughter (the cow fetus). The issue is whether the מקדש can marry the sister of this fetus, since אחות אשתו is forbidden. ² ר' ירמיה asked such an unusual question that would normally arouse mirth; however ר' זירא did not respond in kind. ³ The fact that ר' ירמיה attempted to make ר' זירא laugh indicates that they were colleagues (for a student would never attempt to do this to his רבי); however since he posed a query by ר' זירא, this indicates that ר' ירמיה was junior to ר' זירא. ⁴ שבת מא,א. The גמרא there relates that רב יהודה (who lived in בבל) taught that whoever leaves בבל transgresses an עשה (for there is a פסוק [in ירמיה כו,כב] which states בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו). ⁵ The fact that ר' זירא felt uncomfortable in the presence of רב יהודה indicates that ר' זירא was his student, and felt uncomfortable that he is disobeying his רבי ⁶ We find numerous statement of רב יהודה אמר שמואל in ש"ס. ⁷ The question was if there were two שלוחים from מדינת הים are they required to say בפני נכתב ובפ"נ. ⁸ מתעסק בקדשים means he slaughtered a קרבן (in the עזרה) but he had no intent of doing so. The question was from where do we derive that such a שחיטה is פסולה. ⁹ See תוספות קידושין מא,א ד"ה נראין. ¹⁰ See מהר"ם שי"ף.

שמע מינה התופס לבעל חוב קנה—We derive from this; one who seizes on behalf of a creditor, acquires it for him

OVERVIEW רב הונא explained that we can derive from the ruling of the חכמים in our משנה (that once the אדון transferred the שטר שחרור to a third party to give it to the עבד, he can lo longer retract and take back the שטר), that if an outside party seizes the assets of a debtor on behalf of a creditor, the creditor acquires these assets, and the debtor has no recourse. It is apparent that the manner in which רב הונא derived this ruling, is because he viewed the master as the debtor, the third person as the seizer, and the עבד as the creditor. Just as here by the עבד, when the third party receives the שטר from the master (the debtor) for the benefit of the slave (the creditor), the rule is that the master (the debtor) has no recourse, similarly when one is תופס לבע"ח, the מלוה acquires the assets and the לוה has no recourse. תוספות argues that the analogy is far from perfect, and subsequently resolves the difficulties.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק אפילו אי תופס לבעל חוב קנה – The ר"י finds this comparison astounding! Even if we were to assume that a תופס לבע"ח is קונה – היינו משום שהוא שליח וקונה אפילו בעל כרחו – That is because the תופס is considered an agent on behalf of the מלוה and therefore the תופס is קונה even against the will of the לוה – לפי שהוא חייב כאילו תפס הוא עצמו – Since the לוה owes the מלוה, and the תופס is considered to be a שליח of the מלוה therefore it is considered as if the מלוה himself seized the assets of the לוה – אבל כאן אפילו העבד עצמו אינו יכול לעכב את האדון מלחזור בו – However here even the עבד himself (whom we are comparing to the מלוה¹) cannot prevent the master (whom we are comparing to the לוה) from retracting, for instance – אם היה נותן גט שחרור לדעת כן שלא ישתחרר בקבלה זו² – If the master would give the עבד a גט שחרור with the understanding that he should not be freed with the acceptance of this שטר שחרור, then the master would be able to retract this שטר שחרור, the reason is – כי אינו חייב לשחררו – Because the master is not obligated to free the עבד, as opposed to a לוה who is obligated to repay the מלוה – אם כן למה יעכב המקבל את האדון מלחזור – If this is indeed so, why should the receiver of the שטר שחרור prevent the master from retracting – כיון דהשתא סלקא דעתין דהאומר תנו לאו כזכי דמי³ – Since as of now we are assuming that one who says ‘give’ is not as if he**** said 'זכי'. תוספות question is that our case is not comparable to a תופס לבע"ח. By a תופס לבע"ח, the מלוה can certainly seize the assets of the לוה, and therefore the תופס who is considered to be the שליח of the מלוה (if we assume that התופס לבע"ח קנה), can also seize. However, here the עבד (who is compared to the מלוה) cannot seize the שטר from the master (even if the master gave it to him), so how can the receiver seize it on behalf of the עבד. תוספות has an additional question: ועוד מה חייב האדון לעבד דחשיב ליה תופס לבעל חוב⁴ – And furthermore, what does the master owe the עבד that we refer to the receiver that he is seizing for a creditor; what debt does the master owe the slave- תוספות anticipates a possible solution: ואי חשיב משום דעבד ליה נייח נפשיה – And if you will say that the master is considered in debt to the עבד because the עבד pleased the master (since the master is now freeing him) – כמו שפירש רבינו תם לקמן⁵ על מילתא אחריתא – As the ר"ת explains later regarding a different matter – תוספות rejects this solution: אם כן היכי חשיב ליה חב לאחרים⁶ – If this is indeed so (that the master received a benefit from the slave and in turn he is freeing him), then how is this case considered ‘damaging others’; who is being damaged here?! תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דחשיב קצת חוב משום דעבד ליה נייח נפשיה – And it is the view of the ר"י that it is considered that there is somewhat of a debt from the master to the עבד, since the עבד pleased the master (to the extent that he is willing to free him) – ומכל מקום חשיב ליה חב לאחרים שהרי אינו חייב לו האדון כלום – But nonetheless it is also considered חב לאחרים (meaning the master), since the master does not really owe the עבד anything. This resolves the second question of תוספות. והכי פירושו בשלמא אי תופס לבעל חוב קנה – And this is the explanation; the משנה will be properly understood if we maintain that a תופס לבע"ח is קונה, for then – אין תימה אם גם כאן קנה בקבלה זו לענין שלא יוכל לחזור⁷ – It will not be surprising if here (by the עבד) as well, the עבד will acquire the שטר שחרור through this reception, at least to the extent that the master cannot retract – דמשום דעבד ליה נייח נפשיה – Because since the עבד pleased him, the master – רוצה הוא שיהיה בעל חוב בכך שיוכל לעכבו מלחזור – Is willing that the עבד should be a creditor to the extent that the receiver (as a תופס) can prevent him for retracting the גט שחרור – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ואף על פי שלא נתכוון לכך המקבל דעתו הוא לקבל כמו שרוצה האדון – And even though the receiver had no such intentions, ⁸nevertheless we assume that the intention of the receiver is to accept the שטר שחרור as the master wishes.⁹ Therefore the משנה is understood if we maintain התופס לבע"ח קנה – אבל אם התופס לבעל חוב לא קנה – However, if התופס לבע"ח is not קנה, then – כל שכן זה שאינו בעל חוב אלא דעבד ליה נייח נפשיה שיוכל האדון לחזור בו:¹⁰ here where the עבד is not the creditor of the master, it is only that he pleased the master, then certainly the master can retract the שטר שחרור.

SUMMARY The אדון, in return for the נייח נפשיה grants the עבד the status of a בע"ח.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות in his question argues that there is more reason for a תופס לבע"ח to be קונה, than for the אדון not to be able to retract. תופסות question is well understood if we were attempting to derive the דין of our משנה from the דין of תופס לבע"ח, for then we can argue that we cannot derive עבד from תופס לבע"ח. However רב הונא said the reverse; since we know from our משנה that even by עבד he cannot retract, then certainly התופס לבע"ח is קונה, for as תוספות points out that by תופס there is more reason to be קונה than by עבד! What is תוספות question?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’. ² The אדון gave the גט to the עבד and stipulated that it should not effective for another thirty days (for instance). The אדון may retract the שחרור any time before the thirty days. ³ The אדון merely told the receiver to deliver the שטר שחרור to the עבד; indicating that the שחרור take place when the עבד receives it, therefore if the עבד cannot prevent the master from retracting (if the שטר is not yet effective [see previous footnote # 2]), then certainly the receiver cannot prevent the אדון from retracting. ⁴ The first question of תוספות is how can we compare the תפיסא for a בע"ח to the תפיסא for an עבד, since the עבד cannot even by תופס for himself. This question merely asks how we can refer to the עבד as a בע"ח since the master owes him nothing (see נח"מ). ⁵ See following תוס' ד"ה כל (on the top of יב,א [footnote # 21]) . ⁶ ר' יצחק בר יוסף responded to רב הונא that if our משנה teaches that התופס לבע"ח קנה, then it would seemingly also teach that התופס לבע"ח is קנה even in a case where it is חב לאחרים; if there are other creditors and by seizing it for one creditor, the others will lose out on it, for here too the תופס for the עבד is חב the אדון for he is losing an עבד. However since תוספות said (according to the פירש ר"ת) that the אדון owes the עבד since he pleased him and therefore he is freeing him, so the אדון is not really losing anything; he is merely freeing the עבד in exchange for the favor he received from him. Why is this referred to as חב לאחרים?! ⁷ There is no thought (at this point) that the עבד should become freed when the third party receives the שטר שחרור (for now we maintain that תן is not like זכי), however the commitment of the master to free the עבד in exchange for the עביד ליה נייח נפשיה, should have the effect that the receiving of the שטר שחרור by the third party should prevent the master from retracting (for this is the master’s will). ⁸ The receiver is not aware that the אדון is granting the עבד the rights of a בע"ח. He is not aware that he can be in a position to be תופס on behalf of the עבד. Seemingly the אדון should be permitted to retract. ⁹ The אדון is משחרר the עבד because of the נייח נפשיה which the עבד caused the אדון. The אדון in his gratitude to the עבד is not only prepared to be משחרר the עבד, but also to grant the עבד the rights of a בע"ח in relation to the אדון. If we maintain that a תופס לבע"ח is קונה, therefore here too the third party receiver is קונה the שחרור for the עבד to the extent that the אדון cannot retract. This case is not comparable to the case תוספות cited in his question, that if the אדון gave a שטר שחרור to the עבד and stipulated that it is not effective yet, then the אדון can retract; for there the אדון clearly stipulated that the שחרור should not be effective currently. However, here where no stipulation was made, it is assumed that the אדון is implicitly granting the עבד the rights of a בע"ח. On the other hand, however, the אדון (despite the עביד ליה נייח נפשיה) is not obligated to free the עבד; he still retains full right over the עבד, therefore if the master cannot retract, it is considered a חב לאחרים, (meaning the master), proving that a תופס לבע"ח is קנה even if it is חב לאחרים. [It is almost as if we divide the אדון into two people; the part of the אדון which received the נייח נפשיה is like the לוה and he implicitly grants the עבד the rights of a בע"ח; however the part of the אדון which owns the עבד is like another מלוה who is losing out to the תופס who is seizing the assets for another מלוה (in this case the עבד).] ¹⁰ Granting the עבד the status of a בע"ח, cannot make the עבד ‘stronger’ than a regular בע"ח, for whom תפיסא will not help by a third party, and the תופס will be required to return the assets to the לוה. Similarly here the third party receiver will be required to return the שטר שחרור to the אדון, should the אדון so desire. ¹¹ See אמ"ה # 145-46.

התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה—One who seizes for a creditor, where others are harmed, he does not acquire it

OVERVIEW ר' יוחנן ruled that התופס לבע"ח במקום שחב לאחרים is not קונה. Our תוספות explains the parameters of this ruling and its limitations.

תוספות begins by saying that התופס לבע"ח לא קנה is applicable – אפילו עשאו שליח¹ כדמוכח בפרק הכותב (כתובות דף פד,ב) – Even if the מלוה made the תופס for his שליח to be תופס from the לוה; as is evident in פרק הכותב – גבי יימר בר חשו דאמר ליה לשלוחיה כולי² – Regarding the episode with יימר בן חשו who told his שליח, etc. ודלא כפירוש רש"י דפירש בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא³ (דף י,א) – And this does not follow פירוש רש"י who explained in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ – דבעשאו שליח לכולי עלמא קנה – That if the מלוה made the תופס for a שליח, then all agree that the תופס is קונה for the מלוה; this, maintains תוספות, is incorrect – דאין חילוק דאפילו לא עשאו שליח שלוחו הוא דזכייה⁴ מטעם שליחות⁵ – For there is no difference whether or not the מלוה made the תופס a שליח; for even if the מלוה did not make the תופס a שליח, he is nevertheless a שליח, for זכייה is on account of שליחות⁶ – כדמוכח בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא⁷ (דף י,ב) ובפרק אין בין המודר (נדרים דף לו,ב) – As is evident in the first פרק of ב"מ and in פרק אין בין המודד. ⁸ תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דהכא קאמר רבי יוחנן התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה – And if you will say; that here ר"י rules that התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה – ובפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף י,א) קסבר המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו – And in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ, the same ר"י maintains that if one picks up a מציאה for his friend, the friend acquires the מציאה – והא בהא תליא כדאמר התם רב נחמן ורב חסדא דאמרי תרוייהו לא קנה – And these two rulings (of התופס לב"ח and המגביה מציאה וכו') are dependent on each other, as the גמרא states there, ‘ר"נ and ר"ח both agree that המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה, and the גמרא continues – מאי טעמא הוי תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים⁹ – What is the reason that המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו; because it is considered as a תופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים.’ This concludes the citation from the גמרא in ב"מ. Since ר"י maintains התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה he should also maintain המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו like ר"נ ור"ח!¹⁰ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרבי יוחנן מחלק בין מציאה לבעל חוב – And one can say that ר"י differentiates between מציאה (where ר"י maintains קנה חבירו; not like ר"נ ור"ח) and a ב"ח (where ר"י agrees that לא קנה) – דשאני מציאה דמגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה:¹¹ Because מציאה is different from a חוב, because since the מגביה has the right to acquire the מציאה for himself, he can also acquire it for his friend. However, by a ב"ח, the תופס cannot seize the assets of the לוה for himself (since the לוה owes him no money), therefore he cannot be תופס for the ב"ח either.

SUMMARY התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה even when עשאו שליח; however ר"י maintains that if it is a case of מגו דזכי לנפשיה (such as a מציאה) then he is זכי לחבריה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. In the entire תורה we have the rule that שלוחו של אדם כמותו. Why is it here that the מלוה himself can be תופס the assets of the לוה [even if he is חב לאחרים]; but he cannot appoint someone¹² as his שליח to be תופס on his behalf?!¹³
2. ראובן owes one hundred dollars each to שמעון, לוי and יהודה; now ראובן has assets worth two hundred dollars, and שמעון seized all of the assets intending to keep a hundred dollars for himself and a hundred dollars for לוי. Is שמעון considered a תופס לב"ח (לוי) במקום שחב לאחרים (יהודה), since he is harming יהודה, or is this a case of מגו דזכי לנפשיה, since ראובן owes שמעון money as well so just as he can be זוכה for himself he can be זוכה for לוי also?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² A person who owed יימר בר חשו money died and left over a ship. יימר בר חשו told his שליח to seize the ship for יימר בר חשו as payment for the debt. The deceased also owed money to רב פפא and רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע. They told the שליח of יימר בר חשו that his תפיסא is ineffective since he is a תופס לבע"ח במקום שחב לאחרים (namely these very two ר"פ and ר"ה בריה דר"י, who [later] seized the ship for themselves). ³ See רש"י there (ד"ה תופס and) ד"ה לא. ⁴ זכייה (here) means acquiring something (from someone) for the benefit of a third party. In this case the תופס is זוכה the assets of the לוה for the מלוה. ⁵ The reason one can be זוכה on behalf of a third party is because we consider the זוכה (or תופס) to be a שליח of the intended recipient. We assume that the recipient is implicitly appointing the זוכה to act on behalf of the recipient since it is for his benefit. Therefore since every זוכה is a שליח, there is no difference whether the recipient actually appointed him a שליח or if he is a virtual שליח. Once we know that התופס לב"ח לא קנה it applies in both situations. ⁶ Whenever זכייה is effective (if for instance it is not חב לאחרים) it is because we consider the זוכה to be a שליח of the ultimate recipient. ⁷ See הגהות מר' שמחה מדעסויא who suggests to amend this (from פ"ק) to פ"ה on דף עב,א. The גמרא there states that since a נכרי has no שליחות therefore he has no זכיה either; proving that זכייה is מטעם שליחות. ⁸ The גמרא there discusses that one can be מפריש תרומה from his own grain for someone else without (receiving) his consent, even though by תרומה one cannot be מפריש for someone else unless he is his שליח. This proves that since it is a זכות, he is considered his שליח. ⁹ Everyone has an equal claim to the מציאה (the lost (and found) object). If one picks up a מציאה for a specific individual, he is denying all the other people their right to the מציאה. He is a תופס לב"ח for this individual (who is a ב"ח since he too has a right in this מציאה), however he is חב לאחרים (to all the other people who also had a right in this מציאה and now have this right taken away from them by this תופס). ¹⁰ תוספות asks this contradiction in the rulings of ר"י after תוספות previously established that the rule of התופס לב"ח לא קנה is even if עשאו שליח. Otherwise we could have reconciled the contradiction in ר"י, saying that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו is in a case where עשאו שליח (as the case is there in the משנה of הי' רוכב וכו'). ¹¹ One explanation may be that in this case he is not really a חב לאחרים, for he could have acquired it for himself (and the אחרים would not receive anything), therefore the אחרים are not losing by the fact that he is תופס לב"ח. ¹² See footnote # 1. ¹³ See אמ"ה # 167-9. ¹⁴ See אמ"ה # 197.

כל האומר תנו כאומר זכו דמי—Whoever says, ‘give’; it is as if he said ‘acquire it’

OVERVIEW ר' ירמיה explained the reason the master cannot retract the שטר שחרור is (not because התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים קנה, since ר' יוחנן ruled that it is לא קנה, but rather the reason he cannot retract is) because when one says to a שליח, ‘give this to him’, it is as if he said acquire it for him; so at the moment the receiver takes the item in his possession he acquires it for the intended recipient (if it is for his benefit), and the grantor can no longer retract. תוספות discusses when we do and do not rule that sayingתן is like saying זכי.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא רבי יוחנן לית ליה תן כזכי – And if you will say; but ר' יוחנן does not agree that תן is like זכי – דקאמר בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף י,א) המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו¹ – For ר' יוחנן ruled in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו and ר"י continues there – ואם תאמר משנתינו² דקאמר תנה לי ולא אמר זכה לי³ – ‘and if you will ask from our משנה; the case of the משנה is different because he said ‘give the מציאה to me’, but he did not say ‘acquire it for me’. This indicates clearly that תן is not כזכי,⁴ which contradicts what ר' ירמיה states here (in explaining ר"י) that תן כזכי. תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו תם דדוקא היכא דדעת אחרת מקנה אותו אמרינן תן כזכי ולא במציאה – And the ר"ת answered that we say תן כזכי only when there is a דעת אחרת מקנה אותו, ⁵ (as in our משנה regarding עבד), but not by a מציאה where there is no דעת אחרת מקנה אותו. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למאן דאמר (לקמן דף יג,ב) דלא תקון מעמד שלשתן⁶ אלא בפקדון⁷ – And if you will say; according to the מ"ד that מעמד שלשתן was only instituted by a deposit (but not by a loan) – מה הוצרכו לתקן מעמד שלשתן דאמר בפירקין⁸ דהוי הלכתא בלא טעמא⁹ – Why was it necessary to institute מעמד שלשתן which the גמרא refers to it later in our פרק as a ‘rule without reason’ – תיפוק ליה משום דתן כזכי¹⁰ – Let the transfer be accomplished through תן כזכי?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהוצרכו לתקן במעמד שלשתן דקני אפילו אין הפקדון ביד הנפקד – And one can say that it was necessary to institute מעמד שלשתן in order that the recipient be קונה even if the deposit is not in the possession of the watchman, if for instance the watchman – שהניח הפקדון ביד אחרים – Placed the deposit by others – או שיקנה אפילו בעל כרחו של נפקד – Or מעמד שלשתן was instituted in order that the recipient should acquire the item even against the will of the נפקד – כמו שאפרש לקמן בעזרת השם (שם דיבור המתחיל גופא) דקנה נמי בעל כרחו – As I will explain later בע"ה that by מעמד שלשתן the recipient is קונה even against the will of the נפקד. However תן כזכי (or even זכי) would not be effective in these situations.¹¹ תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומתניתין דלקמן (שם,א) תנו מנה לפלוני ומת יתנו לאחר מיתה – And if you will say; and regarding the משנה later where it states; ‘if a person says ‘give him a מנה’ and the grantor died; it should be given to the intended recipient after the death of the grantor.’ This concludes the משנה – ומוקי לה רב זביד¹² במעמד ג'¹³ ואמאי לא מפרש טעמא דמתניתין משום דתן כזכי – And רב זביד established that the granting was done במעמד ג'; but why did not רב זביד explain the reason of the משנה is because תן כזכי?!¹⁴ תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דתן לא הוי כזכי אלא כשמוסר לו הדבר מיד ליד – And the ר"ת answered that תן is not כזכי unless the grantor transfers the item directly to the זוכה for the recipient – ומתניתין לא משמע דמיירי בהכי¹⁵ – However it does not seem that in our משנה this was the case; rather it seems the money was already by the זוכה, and the grantor directed him to give it to the recipient, in such a case there is מעמד שלשתן, but no תן כזכי. וניחא השתא ההוא דבבא מציעא גבי מציאה¹⁶ – And now the גמרא in ב"מ regarding מציאה will also be understood. This provides an additional explanation regarding the necessity for מעמד שלשתן: והוצרכו נמי לתקן מעמד שלשתן¹⁷ דקנה אף על פי שמופקד בידו מקודם לכן – And it was also necessary for the חכמים to institute מעמד שלשתן in order that it is קונה even though the item was deposited by the נפקד earlier – אף על גב דהתם לא הוי תן כזכי¹⁸ – Even though that it that case תן would not be כזכי, since nothing is being transferred when תן was said, nevertheless מעמד שלשתן will be קונה. In summation: תן כזכי is effective only when there is a דעת אחרת and only when the item is transferred at the time תן is said. מעמד שלשתן is effective even if the item is (currently) not in the possession of the נפקד and even if the נפקד is unwilling to be זוכה. תוספות addresses the initial question¹⁹ and gives an alternate answer: ועוד פירש רבינו תם דשיחרור עבד הוי כעין מלוה – And, in addition, the ר"ת explained that freeing a slave is like paying a debt – דאמרינן בה תן והולך כזכי אף על גב דבמתנה לא הוי כזכי²⁰ – Where regarding the payment of a debt we rule that תן and הולך is כזכי, even though that by granting a gift, הולך ותן are not כזכי – תוספות explains why שחרור עבד is like a מלוה – דשחרור אי לאו דעבד ליה נייח נפשיה לא הוה משחרר ליה²¹ – For regarding שחרור of an עבד we assume that if the עבד did not do an act pleasing the master, he would not have freed him – משום הכי חשיב כחוב דאמרינן ביה תן כזכי – Therefore freeing the עבד is considered as paying a debt, where we do rule תן כזכי, but there is no תן כזכי by a gift. תוספות cites the sources that there is no תן כזכי by מתנה; only by מלוה: ומדקדק רבינו תם דיש חילוק בין מתנה למלוה – And the ר"ת inferred that there is a difference between מתנה (where תן לאו כזכי) and מלוה (where תן כזכי) – דתנינן לקמן (דף יד,א) הולך מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו תן מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו – For we learnt in a ברייתא later, ‘bring a מנה to him, whom I owe money to, or give a מנה to him, whom I owe money to – וכן בפקדון חייב באחריותו²² ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר²³ – And the same applies to a deposit, the rule is that the sender is liable for its loss, however even if he wishes to retract he cannot retract’. This concludes the ברייתא – אלמא בחוב הוי הולך כזכי – It is evident from this ברייתא, which states that he cannot retract, that by a debt (תן and) הולך is כזכי – וגבי מתנה פסקינן בהדיא בסוף פירקין כרבי שמעון הנשיא²⁴ דהולך לאו כזכי – However, regarding a מתנה it is clearly ruled on in the end of this פרק in accordance with ר"ש הנשיא that הולך is not כזכי – תוספות brings an additional proof that by מתנה we say הולך לאו כזכי: וכן בריש השולח (לקמן לב,ב) אמר שליח מתנה כשליח הגט והולך לאו כזכי – And similarly in the beginning of פרק השולח, there אביי rules that a שליח מתנה is like a שליח הגט regarding that in both cases הולך is לאו כזכי – וכיון דהולך לאו כזכי תן נמי לאו כזכי – And since we know that הולך לאו כזכי by מתנה, then תן is also לאו כזכי by מתנה – דאי הוי כזכי במתנה כמו גבי מלוה ופקדון אמאי תנן²⁵ תן – For if תן is כזכי by מתנה just like by a מלוה ופקדון, then why does the ברייתא (also) teach that by תן the rule is that אינו חוזר by מלוה ופקדון;**** it is superfluous- דכיון דכבר אשמועינן דאפילו הולך כזכי כל שכן תן כזכי דאפילו במתנה הוי כזכי – For since the ברייתא informed us that even הולך כזכי then certainly תן כזכי, for תן is כזכי even by מתנה (where הולך is not כזכי [according to this assumption]). This proves that by מתנה both תן and הולך are not כזכי. Therefore the ברייתא teaches us that by מלוה ופקדון both תן והולך are כזכי. תוספות offers an additional proof that we do not say תן כזכי by מתנה: ורבינו יצחק הביא ראיה מתוספתא²⁶ דקתני בהדיא – And the ר"י brought proof (that תן לאו כזכי by מתנה) from a תוספותא where it states explicitly – תן מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו או פקדון שיש לו בידי וכן הולך כולי – Give a מנה to him, whom I owe it to, or give back the deposit which he has by me, and similarly if he said הולך, etc., in all these cases – אינו חוזר וחייב באחריותן – The giver cannot retract, but is responsible for their loss.**** However, if he said – תן מנה זה לפלוני תן שטר מתנה זו לפלוני או הולך כולי רצה לחזור יחזור – Give this מנה to him, or give this gift deed to him, or he said הולך, etc., in all these case by a מתנה he can retract if he so desires. If he said – זכה מנה זו לפלוני התקבל מנה זו לפלוני רצה לחזור לא יחזור²⁷ – Acquire this מנה on behalf of him, or receive this מנה on behalf of him, in these cases if he desires to retract he cannot retract’. This concludes the תוספתא.

It is clearly evident that the ברייתא teaches that regarding מתנה we rule that תן is not כזכי.

SUMMARY תן כזכי is effective only when there is a דעת אחרת and only when the item is transferred at the time תן is said. מעמד שלשתן is effective even if the item is not in the possession of the נפקד and even if the נפקד is unwilling to be זוכה. [Alternately], (in addition)²⁸ תן (והולך) כזכי applies only to a מלוה (or שחרור עבד which is similar to a מלוה), but not by מתנה

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks if תן כזכי then why is מעמד שלשתן necessary; he could say תן.²⁹ Seemingly the same question applies even if we do not say תן כזכי, that the מפקיד could say זכי!³⁰
2. תוספות differentiates between מלוה (where we say תן כזכי) and מתנה (where תן לאו כזכי), and that שחרור is like a מלוה because he would not be משחרר the עבד unless עביד ליה נייח נפשיה.³¹ However, we find the same by מתנה as the גמרא writes later³², 'אי לאו דאית ליה הנאה מיניה לא יהיב ליה מתנה'. Why is there a difference between שחרור עבד and מתנה regarding תן כזכי?!³³
3. תוספות rules that by מתנה we do not say תן כזכי (only by מלוה ופקדון).³⁴ Our משנה states that if he said תנו גט לאשתי he can be חוזר since it is a חוב for her. However, according to תוספות that we only say תן כזכי by מלוה ופקדון, then even if it would be a זכות for her he can still retract, since we only say תן כזכי by מלוה ופקדון but not by מתנה (and similarly not by גט which is not a מלוה)!³⁵
4. תוספות initially explained that תן כזכי is only where דעת אחרת מקנה אותו, but not by מציאה.³⁶ Why then does the גמרא answer that by מציאה he did not say זכה לי (but rather תנה לי), when the גמרא could have answered that in the משנה there is a דעת אחרת מקנה אותו (and therefore he cannot be חוזר), however by מציאה there is no דעת אחרת מקנה אותו and therefore he is not קונה?!¹

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוס' ד"ה התופס (footnote # 9). ² The משנה there (on ט,ב) is discussing a case where a man (who was riding on an animal) saw a מציאה and told his friend, ‘give it to me’. The משנה rules if the friend (who picked up the מציאה) claims (now, after he picked it up but before giving it to the rider), ‘I am acquiring this for myself’, he owns the מציאה (and is not obligated to give it to the rider). The question is, according to ר"י that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו, then as soon as he picked up the מציאה for the rider, the rider acquired the מציאה, how can he say that he wants to acquire it for himself now, after he already picked it up for the rider. ³ The rider (merely) said, ‘give it to me’, indicating that the rider will acquire ownership only after he receives it, therefore he is not קונה until later; in the meantime the person who picked up the מציאה can change his mind and claim it for himself. ⁴ If תן were כזכי then the rider was telling him to acquire it for him, the person would not be able to claim it for himself after he picked it up for the rider. ⁵ Literally this means that there is another ‘mind’ granting (the item) to him. In the cases of זכייה discussed there are three parties (1) the grantor who is giving the item to (2) the receiver (the זוכה or שליח) that he should pass it on to (3) the recipient. In such a case we say תן כזכי, since the grantor is a דעת אחרת who is מקנה the item to the ultimate recipient through the זוכה. However by מציאה there is no grantor; the זוכה is picking up the item from הפקר to give it to the recipient, but no one is giving it to the זוכה. One explanation for this distinction may be that when there is a דעת אחרת who is granting the item to the ultimate recipient we assume that when he says תן it is the equivalent of זכי, since he has the power to grant the item (and he is transferring the item to the recipient). However by מציאה the one who is saying תן is the recipient who has no power at all over the מציאה; in such a case we do not say תן כזכי. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4. ⁶ מעמד שלשתן means in the presence of all three. In the case of a פקדון, there is (1) the owner (or depositor, the מפקיד), (2) the watchman or נפקד, and (3) the intended receiver. If the מפקיד wants the item which is being watched to be transferred to the receiver, he says to the נפקד in the presence of the receiver that the item should be transferred to the receiver. Doing so במעמד שלשתן transfers ownership to the receiver. ⁷ The גמרא mentions that there is a dispute whether מעמד שלשתן is effective only by פקדון (where the item to be transferred exists) or even by a loan (where the debt does not exist physically; it is merely owed). ⁸ If מעמד שלשתן is effective even by a מלוה it is understood why תן כזכי is not sufficient (in the case of a מלוה), for even if the מלוה tells the לוה to pay a third party, there is no substantive transfer, for the money owed does not exist. Therefore it was necessary to institute מעמד שלשתן that even by a loan, the obligation of the לוה to pay is transferred from the מלוה to the third party. ⁹ There is no conventional way to explain legally how the transfer takes place, since no valid קנין was made to transfer ownership. Nevertheless the חכמים instituted that מעמד שלשתן is קונה. ¹⁰ The מפקיד should say to the נפקד (not [necessarily] in the presence of the recipient), ‘give it to him’; since תן is כזכי, the recipient will acquire it legally and it will not be a הלכתא בלא טעמא. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹¹ It cannot be effective if he is not in possession of the item, for how can he acquire it on behalf of the recipient. The recipient will also not acquire the item if the 'זוכה' refuses to acquire it for him. Therefore מעמד שלשתן is necessary, because it is effective even in these cases as a הלכתא בלא טעמא. ¹² The issue which ר' זביד resolves is why is it required that the money be given to the recipient after the death of the grantor; how did the recipient acquire the money (with merely words) without a קנין? The monies should remain in the estate of the deceased. ¹³ The מנה was in the possession of a third party, and the grantor told him [in the recipient’s presence] to give the money to the recipient. ¹⁴ It is not necessary to say that the recipient was present (for the משנה writes תנו מנה לפלוני, indicating that the recipient is not present); but merely since the grantor told the נפקד to give the money, the recipient acquires the money since תן כזכי. ¹⁵ The משנה states תנו מנה לפלוני; if we were discussing a case where the grantor is passing the money to the זוכה at the time, the משנה would have stated תנו (תן) מנה זו לפלוני. We therefore assume that there was no current transfer. ¹⁶ See footnote # 2. We do not say תן כזכי there by מציאה, because the person who said תן (the rider) did not give anything to the finder. תן כזכי is only when the one saying תן is transferring the item to the זוכה. ¹⁷ See footnotes # 6-10. ¹⁸ See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ¹⁹ ר' יוחנן here (by עבד) maintains תן כזכי, but by מציאה he argues that תן is not כזכי. Alternately the ר"ת may be explaining why in the following משנה of תנו מנה לפלוני we do not say תן כזכי. ²⁰ This explains why by מציאה there is no תן כזכי and why we need מעמד שלשתן by a מתנה where תן לאו כזכי. According to this answer it is possible that by מלוה ופקדון where we say תן כזכי it is not necessary that he has to transfer the item at that time to the זוכה, as תוספות previously required. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ²¹ See previous תוספות (יא,ב) ד"ה ש"מ (footnote # 5). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ²² If the item is lost or stolen before the מלוה receives it, the לוה must reimburse him. ²³ The מלוה acquires the rights to this money to the extent that the לוה cannot retract; however, it is not considered as if the מלוה received the money so that the לוה should not be responsible for it. ²⁴ See יד,ב and טו,א where רב יוסף rules הלכה כר"ש הנשיא. ²⁵ תוספות is (seemingly) referring to the ברייתא on יד,א which תוספות cited previously that הולך מנה לפלוני שאני חייב לו תן מנה וכו' ואם בא לחזור אינו חוזר. ²⁶ פ"א הי"א. ²⁷ תוספות cites this line from the תוספתא to emphasize that (even though) זכה is effective by מתנה, nevertheless תן והולך are not effective (so one should not argue that perhaps this תוספתא maintains that even זכה is not effective). ²⁸ See footnote # 20. ²⁹ See footnote # 10 & 18. ³⁰ See רש"ש and נח"מ. This question applies also to what תוספות states that מעמד שלשתן is necessary if it was deposited previously (see footnote # 18). See סוכ"ד אות עב בד"ה הנה. ³¹ See footnote # 21. ³² נ,ב. ³³ See רא"ש (in our פרק) סי' יט (towards the end), סוכ"ד אות עג בד"ה לכאורה and נח"מ. ³⁴ See footnote # 20. ³⁵ See בל"י אות רסג. ³⁶ See footnote # 5. ¹ See אמ"ה # 212.