Gittin 25
ומה אילו עבד כהן שברח ואשת כהן שמרדה על בעלה הלא אוכלים בתרומה וזה אינו אוכל
Seeing then that a priest's slave who runs away and a priest's wife who flouts her husband can still eat of the <i>terumah</i> while this one [who is emancipated] cannot, [is it not a disadvantage to him to be emancipated]?' This was a good rejoinder, [was it not]? — Said Raba: That is the point of the answer of the Rabbis [recorded] in the Mishnah, 'BECAUSE HE IS HIS PROPERTY,' [by which they meant to say] that if the master wants he can take four <i>zuz</i> from a non-priestly Israelite [as the price of the slave], and so disqualify him wherever he is. Let us grant that R. Meir has made out his case with regard to the slave of a priest; how does he make it out with regard to the slave of an ordinary Israelite? — Said R. Samuel son of R. Isaac: [Emancipation is a disadvantage to the slave] because it disqualifies him from marrying a Gentile bondwoman. [On the contrary it is a benefit] because it qualifies him to marry a free woman? — A slave prefers a common woman; she allows him to take liberties, she is at his beck and call, she is not coy with him.
שפיר קאמר להו אמר רבא היינו דקא מהדרי ליה במתני' מפני שהוא קנינו דאי בעי שקיל ארבעה זוזי מישראל ופסיל ליה כל היכא דאיתיה
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SAYS, GIVE THIS GET TO MY WIFE, THIS DEED OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, AND DIES [BEFORE THEY ARE GIVEN], THEY ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. [IF HE SAID], GIVE A <i>MANEH</i> TO SO-AND-SO AND DIED, THE MONEY SHOULD BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH.
ולרבי מאיר תינח עבד כהן עבד ישראל מאי איכא למימר אמר רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק מפני שמפסידו משפחה כנענית
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: [This money is] only [to be given] if it has actually been put aside in a special place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'heaped up in a corner'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אדרבה הרי הוא מתירו בבת חורין עבדא בהפקירא ניחא ליה זילא ליה שכיחא ליה פריצה ליה:
With what case are we dealing here? Shall I say the man was in health [when he gave the instruction]? What difference does it make that the money is available, seeing that the recipient has not yet performed the act of 'pulling'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Meshikah, v. Glos. Until this has been performed, the donor can retract, as also his heir. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר תנו גט זה לאשתי שטר שחרור זה לעבדי ומת לא יתנו לאחר מיתה תנו מנה לאיש פלוני ומת יתנו לאחר מיתה:
And if he was on his death bed, why must the money have been put on one side? Even if it has not been put on one side, it is to be given, because the instruction of a man on his death bed has the same force as a written document formally handed over!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 151a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב והוא שצבורין ומונחין בקרן זוית
R. Zebid said: We are in fact [dealing here] with the case of a man in health, and [our Mishnah is] in agreement with [the following dictum enunciated by] R. Huna in the name of Rab: [If a man says], You owe me a <i>maneh</i>, give it to So-and-so, [if he said this] in the presence of the third party,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the presence of these three'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
במאי עסקינן אילימא בבריא כי צבורין מאי הוי הא לא משך ואלא בשכיב מרע מאי איריא צבורין כי אין צבורין נמי דהא קיי"ל דדברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורין דמו
[the last named] becomes legally entitled to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [V. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 616, nn. 15-16. This principle known as Ma'amad shlashtan which provides for the transfer of claims to a third party is assumed by R. Zebid to apply only to deposits because they are considered to be in the legal possession of the owner wherever they may be at the time. Similarly in the Mishnah it is necessary for the money to be specially set aside.] ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
א"ר זביד לעולם בבריא וכדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מנה לי בידך תנהו לו לפלוני במעמד שלשתן קנה
R. Papa said that we are indeed dealing here with the case of a man on his death bed, and [the Mishnah is] in agreement with another dictum of Rab, Viz.: 'If a man on his death bed says, Give a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so out of my belongings, if he said, give this <i>maneh</i>, it is to be given, but if he said simply a <i>maneh</i> it is not to be given, because perhaps he was thinking of a buried <i>maneh</i>. The law is, however, that we do not suspect that anything is buried. Why did not R. Papa take the same view as R. Zebid?