משנה: הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי אִם רָצָא לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן יַחֲזוֹר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁיחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְפָנָיו שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ רַשַּׁאי וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתִּוּ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶן וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְייָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי וָמֵת לֹא יִינָֽתְנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מְנָה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וָמֵת יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract140Before the delivery of the bill or the document. The husband can appoint an agent for delivery of the document; he cannot appoint the agent as receiver of the document on behalf of wife or slave, as explained in the Mishnah., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce141It is held that any divorce other than one which the wife can enforce in court is to the wife’s detriment. but not for slaves’ documents of manumission142The Sages hold that for a slave the benefits of freedom (and with it the status of a full Jew) always outweigh any possible material detriment attached to manumission. because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he143If the husband or owner is a Cohen, all members of his household share in his sanctified food; unless the household members are born of priestly status they lose the access to sanctified food the moment they leave his household. In contrast to Roman law, a freedman is not part of his patron’s familia. disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property144The slave’s ability to eat heave is not intrinsic; it is derivative from his servile status. The slave can eat heave even if his master, the Cohen, refuses to support him.. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death145The Sages who do not permit retraction of a document of manumission agree that both divorce and manumission become effective only at the moment of delivery of the document into the hands of the recipient by the agent representing his employer. But a dead person can neither divorce nor manumit. In Chapter 7 it is explained how a terminally ill childless person can divorce his wife to spare her (or prevent her from entering) a levirate marriage to his brother without divorcing her in case he recovers from his sickness.; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death146If the gift was given when the giver was aware of his impending death, the heirs are bound to respect the wishes of the deceased..
הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר תֶּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי כול׳. כָּל־אָתָר אַתְּ אָמַר. תֵּן כְּהוֹלִךְ. וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. תֵּן כִּזְכֵה. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. זְכֵה גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי. זְכֵה שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי. לְשָׁם מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לְאָדָם אֶלָּא בְפָנָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. חוֹבָה הוּא בֵין לַזֶּה בֵּין לַזֶּה. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. זְכוּת הוּא לָעֶבֶד וְחוֹבָה הִיא לָאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁלְּקָצִין. הֲרֵי חוֹבָה הוּא לָעֶבֶד. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָֽיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלְּמוּכֵּי שְׁחִין. הֲרֵי זְכוּת הוּא לְאִשָּׁה. לֵית לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדָא. אִילּוּ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ שֶלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מָכוּר. וְהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּהּ שֶׁמָּא מְגוּרֶשֶׁת הִיא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא קִנְייָנוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. קִנְייָנוֹ הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא פוֹסְלוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. HALAKHAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife,” etc. Elsewhere you say that “give” means “bring”, but here you say that “give” means “acquire”147If the messenger was appointed only as an agent for delivery, there would be no question that the sender has the right to retract his instructions. It does not seem reasonable to assume that a charge to deliver something lets the addressee acquire an interest in the document to be delivered at the moment it is given to the agent since “a person’s agent represents him in every respect” [Qiddušin 2:1 (62a 1.41), Babli 43a]. Since a person can do what he wishes with a document still in his possession, why can he not do the same with the document in his agent’s hand?! So is148It is not so, but must be interpreted in this way. In the Babli, 11b, R. Jeremiah is reported to hold that “give to” really means “accept for”. the Mishnah: “Acquire this bill of divorce for my wife; acquire this document of manumission for my slave.” The formulation149לשם is dialectal version of לשן, Aramaic equivalent of Hebrew לשון, cf. S. Lieberman, לשם לשן Tarbiz 6 (1935), p. 235; J. N. Epstein, מבוא לנסח המשנה2, Jerusalem-Tel Aviv 1964, p. 475. of the Mishnah says so: “Because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence150This argument would be futile if the owner had not bestowed freedom on his slave by handing the document to the messenger. Therefore, the rule of the Mishnah applies only if the owner had given some indication that the messenger also acted as the slave’s agent. but put a detriment on a person only in his presence.” Rebbi Meïr says, it is a detriment for either of them, but the Sages say it is a benefit for the slave but a detriment for the wife. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if he was the slave of a rich person, would it not be a detriment for the slave151Who as a free man probably never would eat as well as he did as a slave.? The colleagues said, Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Think of it, if she was the wife of a man suffering from boils152In which case the wife can force a divorce, Mishnah Ketubot 7:10., would it not be a benefit for the woman? You have only the following: If one sells his slave without the latter’s knowledge, is the sale of the slave not valid153Therefore, the slave can be manumitted without his consent and the owner can appoint the messenger as the slave’s agent without that latter’s knowledge.? If one divorces his wife without her knowledge, is the divorce valid154Nobody can represent the wife without her consent; even if the husband would appoint a person to be his wife’s agent, the appointment would be invalid and the delivery of the bill of divorce by the agent to the wife would be illegal. because she155That is the ms. version, copied in editio princeps. But it seems preferable to follow the commentators and read this clause as a quote from the Mishnah מִפּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְייָנוֹ “because he (the slave) is his property”, asking what is the relevance of this fact to the problem in hand, i. e., whether manumission is a benefit or a detriment to the slave. was acquired by him? Rebbi Abin said, he is his property but he disqualifies him for heave156Since the Cohen owner can sell his slave to an Israel any time he wishes, the slave has no intrinsic right to heave that would be eliminated by the document of manumission. This explanation is given in the Babli, 13a, in the name of Rava (Rav Abba bar Rav Josef bar Ḥama)..
הָאוֹמֵר. טַבִּי עַבְדִּי עָשִׂיתִי בֶּן חוֹרִין. עוֹשֶׂה אֲנִי אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה בֶן חוֹרִין. זָכָה. רִבִּי אִינַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִלְבַד בִּשְׁטָר. יֵעָשֶׂה בֶן חוֹרִין. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים. לֹא זָכָה. תְּנוּ שְׁטָר שִׁיחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי. וָמֵת. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. לֹא זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. זָכָה. כּוֹפִין אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לְקַייֵם דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. שִׁחְרְרוּ. אַף רִבִּי מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּאוֹמֵר. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ. אַף רַבָּנִין מוֹדוּ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין. בְּאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. הָאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. כְּאוֹמֵר. כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר. תְּנוּ. כְּאוֹמֵר. שִׁחְרְרוּ. 157This baraita also appears in Baba Batra 8:9, 16c.“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi158For Ṭabi (m.), Ṭabitha (f.) as names of slaves cf. Niddah 1:5, Note 103., I shall free him, he is free, he acquired159The slave acquired the right to be freed..” Rebbi Inaia160In Baba Batra: R. Ḥiyya. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document161The slave cannot acquire freedom by the simple declaration of his owner; he only can acquire the right to a document of manumission.. “He should be freed162The owner said that the slave should be freed, but did not say it in the context of a last will and testament. The Sages hold that this is a not binding promise; Rebbi holds that this kind of promise is binding., Rebbi says, he acquired, but for the Sages he did not acquire. Give this document of manumission, and he died, Rebbi says, he did not acquire but the Sages say, he did acquire; one forces the heirs to fulfill the instructions of the deceased.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree163In the case of the owner who gave instructions to write a document for his slave. if he did not specify. How do we hold? If he said, “free him”, Rebbi will agree164Since the heirs are required to follow the wishes of the testator, they have to free the slave.. If he said, “write and deliver,” the Sages will agree165This is the case of the Mishnah; if the owner instructed to write the document and deliver it in his name, the instruction becomes void at his death.. But we deal with the case that he said “give”. Rebbi says, one who says “give” is like one who said “write and deliver,” but the Sages say, one who says “give” is like one who said “free him”.
הָאוֹמֵר. יִנָּֽתְנוּ כָל־נְכָסָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. וְהוּא כֹהֶן. וְהָיוּ שָׁם עֲבָדִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אוֹכְלִין בַּתְּרוּמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי בָהֶן. זָכוּ בָהֶן הַיּוֹרְשִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. בִּסְתָם חֲלוּקִין. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם מִשֶּׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אַף רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מוֹדֶה. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אַף רַבָּנִן מוֹדוּ. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַייָמִין בִּסְתָם. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. לֵית בַּר נַשׁ אֲמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר. אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר. הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִילָּתוֹ. 166Tosephta Baba Batra 8:1; Yerushalmi Baba Batra 8:8 16b; Babli Baba Batra 138a, Ḥulin 39b, Keritut 24b.“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave167Since the transfer of possession is automatic, the slaves belong to the Cohen until he disposes of them.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs168The legal heirs who would have inherited in the absence of a will. acquired them.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they disagree if he169The recipient. did not specify. How do we hold? If he accepted at the first moment, Rabban Gamliel will agree170If the Cohen was owner of the slaves for one moment, he cannot dispose of them except by sale or manumission.. If he did refuse at the first moment, the rabbis will agree171Nobody is forced to accept a bequest against his will.. But we deal with the case that he did not specify. Rebbi says, nobody says ‘it is impossible’ unless he had accepted172And had time to inspect what he received.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible’, the end is proof for the start173Since he was noncommittal at the start, his later rejection has retroactive power. The same explanation is given in the Babli in the name of R. Joḥanan..
הָאוֹמֵר. תֶּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַייָב לוֹ. הוֹלִךְ מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְּפִקָּדוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְיָדִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְחַייָב הָאִישׁ בַּאֲחֵרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. הַמַּתָּנָה כְחוֹב. תֶּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. הוֹלִךְ מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. תֶּן זֶה שְׁטָר מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. הוֹלִךְ שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר (לֹא) יַחֲזִיר. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת יַחֲזִיר לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. וְאִם מֵת יִתֵּן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. זְכֵה מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. קַבֵּל מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. זְכֵה שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. קַבֵּל שְׁטָר זֶה מַתָּנָה לִפְלוֹנִי. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁמֵּת יִתֵּן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וְאִם לְאַחַר מִיתָה זָכָה יַחֲזִיר לַמְשַׁלֵּחַ. שֵׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכֶה בִכְתָב לְאַחַר מִיתָה. מִי שֶׁאָמַר. מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. טוֹל מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. יְהֵא מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי בְיָדָךְ. אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲזִיר לֹא יַחֲזִיר. וְהָדֵין זָכָה לְחַבְרֵיהּ לָא יְכִיל חֲזוֹר בֵּיהּ. “If somebody says, give this mina to X because I owe it to him, bring this mina to X for the pledge which he has from me, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so but he himself is responsible until X receives his due174While the agent can accept the payment for the creditor (which is to the creditor’s benefit), the debt is not paid until the creditor receives it; without the creditor’s instructions the responsibility for the money cannot be transferred to the creditor since that would be a detriment; Tosephta 1:6. In the Babli 14a, Samuel disputes the ruling and holds that there is no acquisition without consent; the possibility of a detriment invalidates the benefit..” Rebbi Ila said, a gift is like a debt. 175Tosephta 1:7.“Give this mina to X, bring this mina to X, give this gift document to X, if he wants to change his mind he can(not)176“Not” is in the ms. but not in the Tosephta. All Medieval authors who quote this Yerushalmi mention it in the version of the Tosephta: Sefer Miṣwot Gadol 2, 161d, #82; Rashba ad 14a, Tosaphot haRosh ad 13a, s.v. והוא (col. 99 in the edition of H. B. Ravitz, Jerusalem 2004). Aviezri (Eliezer ben Joel, Ravia) is quoted in Mordechai Giṭṭin 532 as having seen in one Tosephta ms. the reading “cannot”; he rejects that since then the Tosephta could have been formulated together with the following one. This argument is accepted by S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutah Giṭṭin p. 793, but it does not seem conclusive since the treatment of the case that the recipient died is different in the two cases. Therefore, the reading לא should be provided with a question mark but cannot be rejected out of hand. do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should return it to the sender177Not deliver to the recipient’s heirs since it was not intended for them., and if that one had died he should give it to the latter’s heirs.” 178Tosephta 1:8.“Acquire this mina for X, accept this mina for X, acquire this gift document for X, accept this gift document for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so. If he went and found that X had died, he should deliver it to his heirs. But if he acquired after [X’s] death179If it turned out that the recipient was already dead at the time the messenger was intended to become an agent for him, there was no transaction since nobody can become an agent for a dead person. The messenger was not appointed as agent for the deceased’s estate. he should return it to the sender since nobody can acquire documents after his death.” 179If it turned out that the recipient was already dead at the time the messenger was intended to become an agent for him, there was no transaction since nobody can become an agent for a dead person. The messenger was not appointed as agent for the deceased’s estate.“If somebody says, this mina is for X, take this mina for X, this mina shall be in your hand for X, if he wants to change his mind he cannot do so” because if somebody acquires for another person it cannot be changed.
דֵּלֹמָא. רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֵּירִבִּי יַנַּאי וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֶּר נַחְתּוֹן מִיגְבֵּי לְחַבְרֵיהּ תַּמָּן וְאִיתְאֲמָרַת עֲלֵיהוֹן לִשָׁן בִּישׁ. אֲתוֹן בָּעֵיי מִיפְקָא מִינֵּיהּ. אָֽמְרִין לוֹן. כְּבָר זָכִינָן. אָֽמְרִין לוֹן. אֲנָן בְּעֵי תְקִימִינוֹן טָבָאת. אָֽמְרִין. שׁוֹמֵר חִינָּם אֲנַחְנוּ. אֲתוֹן לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֵּירִבִּי יַנַּאי. אֲמַר לוֹן. הֲהֵנוֹ כוּלָּהּ. נַסְבּוֹן לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן כִּיפֶּר וּפַטְרוֹי וְאַפְקוֹן מִינֵּיהּ. כַּד סַלִקוֹן לְהָכָא אֲתַא לְגַבֵּי אֲבוֹי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לֵית אַתְּ חֲמִי מָה עֲבַד לִי בְּרָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה עֲבַד לָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִילּוּ אַשְׁװֵיי עִימִּי לָא הֲווֹן מַפְקִין מִינָן כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה עַבְדָּת כֵּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. רָאִיתִי אוֹתָן בֵּית דִּין שָׁוֶה וְכוֹבָעֵיהֶן אַמָּה וּמַדְבְּרִין מַחַצִיִים. וְיוֹסֵה אָחִי כָּפוֹת וּרְצוּעָה עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת. וְאָֽמְרִית. שֶׁמָּא דוֹסִתַּאי אַחֵר יֵשׁ לְאַבָּא. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. הָדָא דְתֵימַר בְּהוּא דְלָא יְכִיל מִיקְמָה טַבָּאוּת. בְּרַם הַהוּא דִּיכִיל מִיקְמָה טַבָּאוּת מֵיפַק לוֹן מִן הָדָא וְיִטְלוֹן לְדֵין. 181A parallel, in somewhat better shape, is in Qiddušin 3:3, 64b 1. 37. The readings of the Leiden ms. are given by ק, those of one half line in a Geniza fragment (Qiddušin) by ג, Explanation: Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Yose ben Kipper descended182“To descend” everywhere means: To travel from Galilee to Babylonia. to collect there for a colleague183In the parallel story in the Babli, 14a/b, R. Aḥai ben R. Joshia asked them to bring him a silver vessel which was owed to him in Nahardea. According to the story in Qiddušin, they went to collect money for the Galilean Academy. when they were slandered184After they had collected the debt, a rumor was spread that they were dishonest.. They185The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. came and wanted to take it back from them. They answered, we already acquired it186Since we are empowered by the creditor, the money became the creditor’s the moment it was given to us.. They185The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. said, we wish for you to accept it in good faith187They wanted a declaration by the rabbis that they would be responsible for any loss in transit.; they answered, we are unpaid trustees188An unpaid trustee is only responsible for losses incurred because of his negligence but not for losses through robbery or other events beyond his control (Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 7:8).. They185The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. approached Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai who told them, there it is, all of it189He returned the money, against the rules.. They185The debtors, afraid of losing their money, being responsible if it was stolen by the messengers. took Rebbi Yose ben Kipper, whipped him with ropes, and took it190The part of the money which he had. from him. When they returned here, he191R. Yose ben Kipper went to complain to R. Yannai. went to his father and told him, look what your son did to me! He asked him, what did he do to you? He answered, if he had taken my position, they could not have taken anything from us. He asked him192R. Yannai interrogated his son Dositheos., why did you act in such a way? He said, I saw that they were a unanimous court,193They had made up their minds; it was impossible to argue with them. their hats were a cubit wide194Perhaps wide-rimmed hats were the uniform of violent people., they were directing blows, my brother Yose was bound195Following the text in Qiddušin. It seems that the word פטרוי, which in other contexts means “they freed him”, is a scribal corruption and should be removed from the dictionaries. Before correction, the scribe wrote ופרכוי “and they forced him”, which may be correct. and the whip ascended and descended. I said, does my father have another Dositheos196He was afraid for his life; this justifies his breaking the rules.? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, you say that for somebody who cannot give a warranty in good faith. But if somebody gives a warranty in good faith, one takes from this one and gives to the other197If the messenger is empowered to sign a receipt for the money which shields the debtor from any claim of the creditor’s under any circumstances, he cannot ask the money back..
דֵּין דְּמָחַל שְׁטָר לְחַבְרִיהּ. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא. חַד אָמַר. מָחַל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. לֹא מָחַל עַד דְּמָסַר לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא. If somebody forgave a bond to another person. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mamal: one said it is forgiven198An oral declaration by which the creditor engages himself not to claim a debt is valid without any act of acquisition by the debtor. This is the decision of Šulḥan ‘Arukh Ḥošen Mišpaṭ Chapter 12 §8, based on inferences from the Babli.; the other said it is not forgiven unless he handed over the bond199The debtor has to take possession of the bond directly or by an indirect act of acquisition..
תֵּן מְנָה זֶה לִפְלוֹנִי. וָמֵת. אִם רָצוּ הַיּוֹרְשִׁין לְעַכֵּב אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין. אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּאוֹמֵר. זְכֵה לוֹ. כָּאוֹמֵר. הִתְקַבֵּל לִי. הֵן. אָמַר רַבָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אִם בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּהָדָא אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר. זְכֵה לוֹ. הִתְקַבֵּל לוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. קִייַמְתִּיהָ מִדְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר רַב הוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב. עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כְּבָרִיא שֶׁכָּתַב וְנָתַן. וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת מֵאוֹתוֹ חוֹלִי. הָא אִם הִבְרִיא לֹא. אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בָּאוֹמֵר. זְכֵה לוֹ. הִתְקַבֵּל לוֹ. “ ‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to hinder [the delivery] they are powerless. It is unnecessary to say that it is so if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.200In a slightly different wording, this is Tosephta 1:9.” Rebbi Abba barMamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rebbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered201In the Babli (13a, 15a, Baba Batra 121a, 175a) this is a statement of Rav Naḥman, universally accepted. Cf. Ketubot 11:1, Note 22.. But only if he died from that sickness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.
תְּנוּ מְנָה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי. וָמֵת. יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. רִבִּי אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. “ ‘Give this mina to Mr. X’ and he dies, they shall deliver it after his death”146If the gift was given when the giver was aware of his impending death, the heirs are bound to respect the wishes of the deceased.202The last clause of the Mishnah is essentially identical with the Tosephta discussed in the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: The Mishnah refers to a sick person.