Commentary for Bava Metzia 37:19

אמר רבי אבא בר ממל לא קשיא

and the master may have gone and sold it, and [the slave] may then produce the [deed of] liberation which was written in Nisan, and take away [the property] from the buyers unlawfully? This would be right according to him who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 12b. ');">¹⁸</span> that it is an advantage to a slave to be liberated from his master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he becomes a member of the community of Israel. Anything that confers a benefit upon a person may be done for him in his absence, or without his knowledge, and for this reason a deed liberating a slave would take effect as soon as it is signed by the witnesses, even before it is handed to the slave. ');">¹⁹</span> regard being had to Abaye who says, 'the witnesses acquire it for him by affixing their signatures';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 13a; infra 35b. ');">²⁰</span> [and] it would be in order [for him to buy property as soon as the deed of liberation is signed]; but according to him who says that it is a disadvantage to a slave to be liberated from his master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it deprives him of certain privileges which a slave enjoys, and puts upon him new obligations. ');">²¹</span> — how is it to be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the liberation, according to this view, is a disadvantage to the slave, and as nothing disadvantageous may be done to anyone in his absence, or without his knowledge, the deed of liberation cannot become effective until it is handed to the slave, and the signature of the witnesses cannot be said to acquire it for him before the date on which the document is received by him. ');">²²</span> — When [the slave] comes to take away [the property sold by the master] we say to him: 'Bring proof when the [deed of] liberation came to your hand.' WILLS, DEEDS OF GIFT, etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by WILLS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] = last will and testament (cf. [G]). ');">²³</span> — [Documents which contain the words:] 'This shall be established and executed,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] This is no etymological derivation but a mere play on words. ');">²⁴</span> so that when [the author of the document] dies, his property becomes the possession of the person named [in the document].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any further formality, as the words of a dying person have the legal validity of a document written and delivered. ');">²⁵</span> [What are] DEEDS OF GIFT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a healthy person. ');">²⁶</span> — All [documents conferring a gift] which contain [the words]: 'From to-day — but after my death.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that the gift is to become from that date the property of the person named in the document but cannot be used by him until the death of the donor. ');">²⁷</span> But does this mean that only if it is written [in the document] 'From to-day — but after my death,' the person acquires [the gift], but if not, he does not acquire it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is: Why should it be necessary for the donor to write in the deed of gift the words 'But after my death' in order to enable the person named in the deed to acquire the gift? In the case of a dying person it is natural that the gift should not become valid till after the donor's death, as this was obviously the donor's intention. But in the case of a healthy person there is no reason why such a condition should be included in the document. The donor ought to be able to make the gift absolute at once. ');">²⁸</span> — Abaye answered: The meaning is this: 'Which gift of a healthy person is like the gift of a dying person in that [the person named] does not acquire it until after the death [of the donor]'? Every [gift regarding which] it is written [in the document conferring it]: 'From to-day — but after my death.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in ordinary cases the gift of a healthy person does become absolute at once. But in the case quoted, the Rabbis wished to indicate that the gift of a healthy person may be conferred on the same condition as that of a dying person — by including in the deed the words, 'But after my death.' ');">²⁹</span> The reason why [the documents named in the Mishnah are not returned] is that [ — as indicated in the Mishnah — the persons who lost them] did not say, 'Give them [to the persons named in the documents],' but if they said, 'Give them,' they would have to be given. Does not this contradict [the following Baraitha]: 'If one finds wills, mortgage deeds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to a second mortgage taken out on the same property. ');">³⁰</span> and deeds of gift, even if both [parties concerned] admit [their validity], one shall not return [the documents] to either of them'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason given below. ');">³¹</span> — R. Abba b. Memel answered: It is no contradiction:

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 37:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.