הא בשכיב מרע—This is by a שכיב מרע

OVERVIEW One ברייתא states that if someone stated הולך מנה לפלוני and that פלוני passed on, the rule is that it should be given to the heirs (of this פלוני).¹ רב אבא בר ממל explained that (even) this ברייתא can maintain הולך לאו כזכי and nevertheless it is given ליורשיו, because the grantor was a שכיב מרע,² and דברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורים דמי (as long as he does not retract), therefore it is like the שכ"מ said זכי and the פלוני was זוכה, so his יורשין inherit it.³ It would seem that this is true if the שכ"מ died before the intended recipient died (since the recipient acquired it at the death of the שכ"מ), but not if the מקבל predeceased the שכ"מ, for then he never acquired it that it should be transferred to his heirs. תוספות maintains that this is not so.

אומר רבינו יצחק אף על גב דמת מקבל בחיי נותן⁴ ולא קני אלא אחר מיתת נותן – The ר"י stated that this ruling of יתנו ליורשיו applies even though the recipient (פלוני) died during the lifetime of the grantor (the שכ"מ), and the rule is that one does not acquire a מתנת שכ"מ, only after the death of the grantor, so seemingly if the מקבל died בחיי נותן, there is no one to receive these monies and it should be returned to the שכ"מ – אפילו הכי קנו יורשין דדעת נותן הוא – Nevertheless the יורשין acquire it (after the death of the נותן) for it is presumed that the intent of the grantor is – דכיון שישנו למקבל בשעת מתן מעות שיזכה המקבל אחר מיתתו או הוא או יורשיו⁵ – That since the recipient existed when the money was given to the שליח, the grantor intends that the recipient or his heirs should acquire these monies after his (the grantor’s) death. תוספות adds an additional חידוש: ואפילו לא נולדו יורשי מקבל עד אחר מיתת נותן קנו – And even if the heirs of the recipient were not born until after the death of the grantor, ⁶ nevertheless they are still קונה. This is valid – אפילו למאן דאמר המזכה לעובר לא קנה⁷ – Even according to the one who maintains that one who is מזכה for a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it, nevertheless here the יורשין are קונה – דדברי שכיב מרע כשמת כמסורים למקבל⁸ משעת נתינת שכיב מרע או אמירתו:⁹ Because the words of a שכ"מ once he dies are considered as if they were already delivered to the recipient from the time the שכ"מ either gave the item or he said¹⁰ to give the item.

SUMMARY The מתנת שכ"מ is given to the heirs of the מקבל even if at the time the שכ"מ died the מקבל was already dead and the יורשין were not born, because it is the intent of the שכ"מ to give it to the heirs, and the מתנת שכ"מ becomes effective retroactively from the time the gift was given or ordered.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות anticipated how can יורשין who were not yet born acquire the gift.¹¹ It would seem that if they were already born there would be no difficulty as to how they are קונה. However at this point (before תוספות explained that it belonged to the מקבל retroactively), how can the יורשין who are alive בשעת מיתת שכ"מ acquire the gift, since they were not alive at the time it was given?¹²

footnotes: ¹ The other ברייתא ruled that it should be returned to the sender (because it is discussing a מתנת בריא). ² A שכ"מ is a person who is deathly ill; the חכמים instituted that all his instructions are to be adhered to as if they were written and delivered to the intended party (even though nothing was written and no קנין was made). The wishes of the שכ"מ are to be fulfilled after the שכ"מ dies. However if the שכ"מ recovers then all that he said is void. ³ See רש"י ד"ה בשכיב. ⁴ תוספות may derive this from the fact that one ברייתא states ולא מצאו (meaning that the מקבל died) we give it ליורשי מי שנשתלחו לו and the other ברייתא (seemingly in the same case) states יחזרו למשלח indicating that the שכ"מ is still alive while the מקבל already passed away. ⁵ See footnote # 9. ⁶ The מקבל died childless בחיי נותן and after the נותן died, [closer] יורשין [to the deceased מקבל] were born. ⁷ The difficulty is; granted that the שכ"מ intends to give it to the יורשין, but how is that קנין effective since the יורשין were not in existence until after מיתת שכ"מ (when the קנין takes effect). See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ After the שכ"מ passes on we consider as if the gift belonged to the מקבל (retroactively) from the moment the שכ"מ gave or said to give this gift. Therefore since it belonged to the מקבל (retroactively) therefore his heirs may inherit it. ⁹ It is still necessary to assume what תוספות previously said (see footnote # 5) that דעת נותן הוא שיזכה המקבל אחר מיתתו או הוא או יורשיו; for otherwise (even if we assume that the מקבל owns it retroactively, nevertheless) we can say that if the שכ"מ would know that the מקבל is not living he would retract the gift (for a שכ"מ may retract as long as he is alive), therefore we must say that the דעת נותן includes the יורשין as well. [We may then interpret the phrase דעת נותן הוא שיזכה המקבל אחר מיתתו או הוא או יורשיו to mean that the דעת נותן is that the מקבל (after מיתת שכ"מ) should be זוכה retroactively, and then it should revert either to the מקבל (if he is alive) or to his יורשין (whenever they are born).] ¹⁰ See אמ"ה # 152 onwards (and נח"מ) for a more detailed discussion of this issue. ¹¹ See footnote # 7. ¹² See בל"י אות שלט.

ורבי יהודה הנשיא בשם רבי יעקב אומר הולך לאו כזכי—And ר"י הנשיא in the name of ר"י says, הולך is not like זכי

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a ברייתא in which ר"י הנשיא states (in the name of ר"י) that הולך is not כזכי (and the sender may retract). תוספות will reconcile this with another ברייתא where it is evident that רבי maintains הולך כזכי.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דרבי¹ אית ליה בפרק התקבל (לקמן סג,א)² הולך ותן לה זכה לה התקבל לה – And even though רבי maintains in פרק התקבל that if the husband said to the שליח (לקבלה of the woman) ‘הולך and give it to her, acquire it for her, or accept it for her’, in all these cases the rule is if the husband –** רצה לחזור לא יחזור דהולך ותן כזכי³ –** Wishes to retract (and have the גט returned to him), he may not retract, for הולך and תן are like זכי;⁴ this seems to contradict what ר"י הנשיא rules here (in the name of ר' יעקב שאמר משום ר"מ)⁵ that הולך is לאו כזכי! תוספות responds: התם משום שאמר השליח אשתך אמרה התקבל לי גטי – There by a גט, **since the שליח said, ‘your wife said (**to me) ‘accept the גט on my behalf”, therefore he cannot retract – דמסתמא על דעת כן נותן לו⁶ כל זמן שאינו אומר בהדיא אי אפשי שתקבל לה: For presumably the husband is giving the גט to the שליח with this intent (that the שליח should accept it as a שליח לקבלה) as long as the husband does not explicitly state, ‘I do not want that you should accept the גט on her behalf’.

SUMMARY רבי generally maintains הולך לאו כזכי except in a case where it is evident that the שליח is acting on behalf of the מקבל, then הולך is כזכי unless the grantor explicitly excludes the שליח from being זוכה for the מקבל.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות explains that even though רבי maintains הולך לאו כזכי, nevertheless by a גט where the שליח states אשתך אמרה התקבל לי גיטי, we assume that when the husband said הולך he meant זכי.⁷ In our ברייתא here ר' נתן (also) maintains הולך לאו כזכי (like רבי), however in the ברייתא later (of ואשתך אמרה התקבל וכו'), he maintains that הולך לאו כזכי, not like תוספות assumes. Why is it so that ר' נתן does not follow the logic of תוספות?⁸
2. תוספות contradicts ר"י הנשיא here with רבי later. However why cannot we simply answer that רבי maintains הולך כזכי; however here ר"י הנשיא was stating the view of ר' יעקב in the name of ר"מ⁹ (but it is not the view of רבי)!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ רבי is רבי יהודה הנשיא. ² The case there is where the woman appointed a שליח and told him התקבל לי גיטי (she made him for a שליח לקבלה; which means that as soon as the שליח receives the גט, the woman is מגורשת). The שליח told the husband your wife told me, התקבל לי גיטי. The husband responded by saying either הולך ותן לה, זכה לה or התקבל לה. ³ The words דהולך ותן כזכי, do not appear in the ברייתא; it is תוספות explanation of the ruling. ⁴ If הולך ותן were not כזכי, then the husband would be able to retract, for even though the woman appointed him for a שליח לקבלה (which would make her מגורשת as soon as the שליח receives the גט), nevertheless the husband has the option of refusing to give the גט to this שליח לקבלה that he should accept it as a שליח לקבלה, rather the husband can insist that he receive the גט as a שליח להולכה, in which case the woman is not מגורשת until she receives the גט. This would enable the husband to retract. The fact that he cannot retract (seemingly) proves that when the husband said הולך, he did not mean just be a שליח להולכה, but rather he meant זכה לה and be a שליח לקבלה. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ The שליח stated clearly that he was appointed a שליח לקבלה, therefore unless the husband clearly states, ‘I do not want you to be a שליח לקבלה’, the assumption is that no matter what the husband said (whether הולך or זכי), he means that the שליח should accept the גט as a שליח לקבלה (just as the שליח informed the husband). [See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.] However in a case where there is no indication that this שליח is acting on behalf of the recipient we do not say הולך כזכי. ⁷ See footnote # 6. ⁸ See אמרי בינה לר"ש גארמיזאן. ⁹ See footnote # 5. ¹⁰ See נח"מ.

וחכמים אומרים יחלוקו—And the חכמים say, they should divide it

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ברייתא concerning where monies were sent to a recipient and he died before he received the monies. There are differing opinions as to where the monies should go. The חכמים rule that the monies be divided between the (heirs of) the grantor and the heirs of the recipient; seemingly because we are unsure what should be done with the monies. תוספות will discuss whether this is a universal ruling (that when in doubt divide) or not.

כל תיקו שבש"ס מפרש בשערים דרבינו האי דחולקים¹ – In the ספר שערים of רבינו האי גאון it is explained that every time the גמרא concludes with תיקו (meaning the issue is unresolved) the ruling is that we divide the monies in dispute among the litigants. תוספות disagrees: ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק אלא היכא דאשכחן בהדיא יחלוקו – And the ר"י disagrees for generally when in doubt we do not rule יחלוקו, unless where we find that the גמרא states explicitly יחלוקו, for otherwise –

On the contrary we rule that the money should remain in the possession of the (original²) owner.

SUMMARY Regarding the ruling of תיקו it is the view of רב האי that we say יחלוקו, while the ר"י maintains that we say אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה.

THINKING IT OVER According to the ר"י that generally we rule אוקי ממנוא בחזקת מריה, why indeed do the חכמים rule here יחלוקו and not אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה (קמא)?³

footnotes: ¹ רבינו האי may derive this from our גמרא where there is a dispute as to whom the monies belong (whether to the משלח or the מקבל) and since the חכמים could not resolve the issue they ruled יחלוקו; the same should apply everywhere else. See מהר"ם. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See אמ"ה # 169-170.

וכאן¹ אמרו שודא עדיף—And here they said שודא is preferable

OVERVIEW The ברייתא, regarding the case where a gift was sent and the intended receiver passed on, states that וכאן אמרו the שליח may do as he pleases. Later the גמרא explained this ruling, that the וכאן אמרו כל מה שירצה שליח וכו' maintains שודא. It is not clear what שודא means. תוספות will offer two interpretations.

מכאן מדקדק רבינו תם דאין לפרש שודא כמו שפירש בקונטרס בפרק הכותב (כתובות פה,ב) – The ר"ת infers from the גמרא here, that we do not interpret שודא as רש"י interpreted it in פרק הכותב – גבי² שניהם קרובים שניהם שכנים שניהם תלמידי חכמים שודא דדייני – Regarding the case where both of them were relatives, both of them were neighbors, or both of them were ת"ח in which case the rule is שודא דדינא, and רש"י explained there³ – דהיינו שידקדק הדיין את מי היה אוהב יותר ולמי היה בדעתו ליתן – That שודא דדייני means that the judge should scrutinize and find out whom did the grantor love more and to whom was the grantor’s intent to give it (and the דיין should award it to that party) – וכאן נמי פירש בקונטרס⁴ כמו התם – And רש"י here too explained שודא as he did there in כתובות. The ר"ת however infers from this גמרא, not like רש"י –

But rather that שודא means that the דיין should give it to whomever he wants, just like here where the ברייתא states, ‘the שליח should do whatever he wants’, and the גמרא refers to this option as שודא, indicating that שודא means that the דיין (or in this case the שליח), may disburse the funds as they see fit.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains that שודא requires a judgment call by the דיין as to who was the intended receiver, while the ר"ת maintains that the דיין has free rein by שודא.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות proves from our גמרא that since we refer to the sשליח' doing what he wishes, as שודא, this indicates that שודא has no connection to evaluating the intent of the giver.⁶ However רש"י interprets the phrase מה שירצה שליח יעשה to mean how the שליח assesses the intent of the giver. How can תוספות disprove this interpretation (besides [merely] stating that the obvious explanation of מה שירצה שליח does not lend itself to sרש"י' explanation)?⁷

footnotes: ¹ In בבל, see רש"י ד"ה וכאן. ² The case there is where someone granted his estate to a person with a specific name, and there were two people with the same name. We assume that he meant to give it to his relative, or his neighbor, or to a scholar (as opposed to anyone else with the same name).The question arises where both people were equal (they were either the same relative, neighbor or scholar). The גמרא rules there, שודא דדייני. ³ בד"ה שודא. ⁴ See רש"י ד"ה מה and ד"ה שודא. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ See footnote # 5. ⁷ See תפא"י.

רבי אליעזר¹ אומר אחד בריא ואחד כולי—רבי אליעזר states; whether he is a בריא or whether he is, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה² wherein there is a מחלוקת whether a שכ"מ can divide his estate through saying alone (the view of the חכמים), or does it require a קנין (the view of ר"א). In the סיפא of this משנה³ there is a מחלוקת whether the rule of דברי שכ"מ ככתובין וכמסורין דמי applies only on שבת (the view of ר"א),⁴ or on the weekdays as well (the view of ר' יהושע). Our תוספות discusses the גירסא whether it is ר' אלעזר or ר' אליעזר in the רישא of the משנה (which is cited here).

אומר רבינו תם דרבי אלעזר גרס דבסיפא פליגי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע – The ר"ת says that the גירסא is ר' אלעזר (and not ר' אליעזר), for in the סיפא of this משנה there is a dispute between ר' אליעזר and ר"י, where – רבי אליעזר אומר בשבת דבריו קיימין אבל לא בחול ורבי יהושע כולי – ר' אליעזר maintains that on שבת the words of the שכ"מ are substantiated (and no קנין is required) however not in the weekdays (where a קנין is required); but ר"י, etc. maintains that we always say דבריו קיימין.This is the מחלוקת in the סיפא – אבל ברישא פליגי בין בחול בין בשבת מדלא ערבינהו⁵ – However in the רישא, the חכמים and ר"א argue both in the weekdays and on שבת. We know this is true since the משנה did not mix together these two מחלוקת. תוספות brings an additional proof that the מחלוקת in the רישא is even on שבת: ועוד מדפרכי רבנן לרבי אלעזר מאימן של בני רוכל דלמא בשבת היה דמודה בה רבי אלעזר – And in addition since the רבנן challenged ר"א with the story of the mother of בני רוכל (this proves that ר"א דרישא is discussing שבת as well), for otherwise what refutation is there from that story; perhaps the mother said תינתן כבינתי לבתי on שבת where ר"א agrees that אמירת שכ"מ is effective.⁶ תוספות offers an additional proof that ר' אלעזר of the רישא is referring to שבת also: ועוד דקאמר התם⁷ קונים משכיב מרע ואפילו בשבת ולא לחוש לדברי רבי אלעזר⁸ – And furthermore, ר' לוי ruled there that one is קונה from a שכ"מ (for his transfers) and even if it is שבת, but not because we are concerned for the view of ר' אלעזר, but rather שלא תטרף דעתו of the שכ"מ.⁹ This concludes the גמרא – ואי אדרבי אליעזר קאי הא מודה הוא בשבת דדבריו קיימים¹⁰ – And if ר' לוי was referring to ר' אליעזר (when he said, ולא לחוש לדברי ר"א), how can that be, for ר' אליעזר admits that on שבת the אמירת שכ"מ is effective so why would we need to make a קנין! Obviously, ר' לוי was referring to ר' אלעזר (who maintains that even on שבת the אמירת שכ"מ is ineffective), but not to ר' אליעזר. תוספות anticipates a difficulty (with the proof from ר' לוי): ואף על גב דרבי מאיר קאמר התם¹¹ דלרבי אליעזר בחול דבריו קיימים ולא בשבת – And even though ר"מ stated there (the reverse of the משנה) that according to ר"א on the weekdays his words are effective, but not on שבת (this would seemingly invalidate the previously mentioned proof)¹² – תוספות rejects this refutation:** התם לא קאי ארבי מאיר אלא אמתניתין –** There ר' לוי was not referencing ר"מ (who maintains according to ר"א that בשבת the אמירה is ineffective), but rather ר' לוי was referencing our משנה (which states that according to ר"א the אמירת שכ"מ is effective on שבת, therefore ר' לוי could not be discussing ר' אליעזר of the סיפא, but rather ר' אלעזר of the רישא. תוספות proves that [even] according to ר"מ we need to distinguish between ר"א of the רישא and ר"א of the סיפא:** ועוד דאמר הכא¹³ דרבי מאיר כרבי אלעזר והולך מנה משמע דבחול מיירי –** And furthermore the גמרא concludes here, that ר"מ is according to ר"א, and the phrase 'הולך מנה' (which is being discussed here) indicates that we are discuss a weekday – ורבי מאיר אית ליה התם דלרבי אליעזר בחול דבריו קיימים – However ר"מ maintains there in ב"ב that according to ר' אליעזר the words of a שכ"מ are effective in the weekdays (without depending on the ruling of מצוה לקיים דברי המת), why do we say here that ר"מ follows ר"א and we give it ליורשי מי שנתלחו לו because of מצוה לקיים דברי המת – אלא ודאי ג' מחלוקת בדבר:¹⁴ But rather we are compelled to assume that there are three differing opinions in this matter.

SUMMARY The חכמים (and ר"י) maintain we always say דברי שכ"מ כככתובים וכמסורים דמי; however ר' אליעזר of the סיפא maintains that אמירת שכ"מ is effective only on שבת (and according to ר"מ the reverse is true); the opinion of ר' אלעזר of the רישא is that אמירת שכ"מ is never effective.

THINKING IT OVER

1. One of תוספות proofs was from אמן של בני רוכל, that if we assume that ר"א agrees that בשבת דבריו קיימין, then perhaps the story אמן של בני רוכל took place on שבת.¹⁵ However this proof can be refuted for perhaps the חכמים ‘knew’ that the story happened בחול!¹⁶
2. תוספות assumes that the רישא is ר' אלעזר and the סיפא is ר' אליעזר. Perhaps it is the opposite?!¹⁷

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרא text it reads אלעזר. [ר' אלעזר is usually ascribed to ר"א בן שמוע a student of ר"ע, while רבי אליעזר (who is ר"א בן הורקנוס) was the רבי of ר"ע (and a בר פלוגתא of רבי יהושע (בן חנניה). (See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2.)] ² The משנה is from ב"ב קנו,א. ³ On קנו,ב. ⁴ One is not permitted to make a קנין on שבת, therefore the חכמים instituted that on שבת we assume that דברי שכ"מ ככתובים וכמסורים דמי in order שלא תטרף דעתו; however on the weekdays we insist that the שכ"מ make a קנין. ⁵ ר"א of the סיפא maintains that the אמירת שכ"מ is effective on שבת. If we are to assume that ר"א of the רישא is the same as the ר"א of the סיפא (and therefore the רישא is only discussing חול, but not שבת (since ר"א [of the סיפא] agrees that בשבת the אמירת שכ"מ is effective), why then is there two מחלוקת (one between ר"א וחכמים [in the רישא], and another between ר"א ור"י [in the סיפא]), when there is only one מחלוקת. However if we assume that ר"א דרישא maintains that אמירת שכ"מ is never effective even on שבת, then we understand that there are two מחלוקת and that ר' אלעזר of the רישא is different from ר' אליעזר of the סיפא. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ קנו,ב. ⁸ One may think the reason ר' לוי requires a קנין from a שכ"מ (even on שבת) because he follows the view of ר"א that אמירת שכ"מ is not effective, therefore ר' לוי clarifies that the reason for the קנין is שלא תטרף דעתו. ⁹ When the שכ"מ sees that a קנין was made, he is assured that his wishes will be carried out. ¹⁰ All this proves that in the רישא it is ר' אלעזר (who maintains אמירת שכ"מ is never effective) and the סיפא it is ר' אליעזר (who maintains that אמירת שכ"מ is effective only on שבת). ¹¹ קנו,ב. ¹² We can assume that ר"א of the רישא and the סיפא are the same and maintain (according to ר"מ) that אמירת שכ"מ is not effective on שבת, therefore ר' לוי needed to say that קונין אפילו בשבת is not because we are concerned for the ruling of ר"א (that אמירת שכ"מ is ineffective on שבת), but rather because שמא תטרף דעתו. ¹³ טו,א. ¹⁴ See ‘Summary’. ¹⁵ See footnote # 6. ¹⁶ See (נח"מ and) אמ"ה # 175. ¹⁷ See footnote # 1.