Gittin 28
אמר להו לר' דוסתאי ב"ר ינאי ולר' יוסי בר כיפר בהדי דאתיתו אתיוה ניהלי אזול יהביה ניהליה אמרי להו נקני מינייכו אמרי להו לא אמרי להו אהדריה ניהלן
He said to R. Dosethai the son of R. Jannai and to R. Jose b. Kifar [who were going there]: When you come back from there, bring it with you. They went and got it [from the people who had it]. They said to them: 'Give us a quittance'. They said, 'No'. 'Then give it back', they said. R. Dosethai the son of R. Jannai was willing, but R. Jose b. Kifar refused. They gave him a thrashing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they vexed him'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ר' דוסתאי ברבי ינאי אמר להו אין ר' יוסי בר כיפר אמר להו לא הוו קא מצערו ליה א"ל חזי מר היכי קא עביד אמר להו טב רמו ליה
and said to R. Dosethai: 'See what your friend<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the master'. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
א"ל אותן בני אדם הן אמה וכובען אמה ומדברין מחצייהן ושמותיהן מבוהלין ארדא וארטא ופילי בריש אומרין כפותו כופתין אומרין הרוגו הורגין אילו הרגו את דוסתאי מי נתן לינאי אבא בר כמותי
When they returned to R. Ahi, R. Jose said: 'Look, sir, not only did he not assist me, but he said to them, "Thrash him well". 'He said to R. Dosethai: 'Why did you do so?' He replied: 'Those people are like posts, and their hats as long as themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are a cubit and their hats are a cubit'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
הולך מנה לפלוני והלך ובקשו ולא מצאו תני חדא יחזרו למשלח ותניא אידך ליורשי מי שנשתלחו לו
and their names are outlandish — Arda and Arta and Pili Baris.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [On this passage. and for an attempt to explain the names mentioned, v. Rappaport, Kerem Chemed VII p. 199.] ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר הולך כזכי ומ"ס הולך לאו כזכי
If they give the order to arrest, you are arrested; to kill, you are killed. If they had killed [poor] Dosethai, who would have given Jannai my father a son like me?' 'Have these men', he asked, 'influence with the Government?' 'Yes', he replied. 'Have they a retinue [mounted on] horses and mules?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'have they horses and mules running before them'. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
רב זביד אמר הא והא בשכיב מרע הא דאיתיה למקבל בשעת מתן מעות הא דליתיה למקבל בשעת מתן מעות
If a man said to another, Take a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and he went and looked for him, but did not find him [alive], one [Baraitha] teaches he must return the money to the sender, and another [Baraitha] teaches he must give it to the heirs of the man to whom it was sent. Shall we say that the point at issue [between the two authorities] is that one is of opinion that 'take' is equivalent to accept on behalf of', and the other that it is not? — Said R. Abba b. Memel: No. Both are agreed that 'take' is not equivalent to accept on behalf of', and there is no difference of opinion between them, as the one speaks of a sender who is in health and the other of one who is on a death bed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose verbal instructions have the character of a written deposition. v. supra 15a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
רב פפא אמר הא והא בברי' הא דמית מקבל בחיי נותן הא דמית נותן בחיי מקבל
R. Zebid said: Both speak of a sender who is on a death bed, but the one [has in mind the case] where the recipient is alive at the time when the money was given [to the bearer], and the other [the case] where he was not alive at the time. R. Papa says: Both speak of a case where the sender was in health,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his verbal instructions have not the force of a written deposition. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
לימא הולך כזכי תנאי היא דתניא הולך מנה לפלוני והלך ובקשו ולא מצאו יחזרו למשלח מת משלח ר' נתן ור' יעקב אמרו יחזרו ליורשי משלח ויש אומרים ליורשי מי שנשתלחו לו
but the one [had in mind the case] where the recipient died while the sender was still alive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it goes back to the sender. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ר' יהודה הנשיא אמר משום ר' יעקב שאמר משום ר"מ מצוה לקיים דברי המת וחכ"א יחלוקו וכאן אמרו כל מה שירצה שליח יעשה א"ר שמעון הנשיא על ידי היה מעשה ואמרו יחזרו ליורשי משלח
and the other [the case] where the sender died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (At which point the gift takes immediate effect because the carrying out of the wishes of the dead is deemed a religious obligation.] ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דת"ק סבר הולך לאו כזכי ור' נתן ור' יעקב נמי הולך לאו כזכי ואע"ג דמית לא אמרינן מצוה לקיים דברי המת ויש אומרים הולך כזכי
while the recipient was still alive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the money now goes to the heirs of the recipient. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ר' יהודה הנשיא אמר משום ר' יעקב שאמר משום ר' מאיר הולך לאו כזכי מיהו היכא דמית אמרינן מצוה לקיים דברי המת
May we assert that the question whether 'take' is equivalent to accept on behalf of' is one on which there was a difference of opinion among the Tannaim, as it has been taught: [If a man said to another,] Take a <i>maneh</i> to So-and-so, and he went and looked for him and did not find him [alive], he must return the money to the sender. If the sender has also died meanwhile, R. Nathan and R. Jacob say that he should return it to the heirs of the sender; or as some say, to the heirs of the person to whom the money was sent; R. Judah the Prince said in the name of R. Jacob, who said it in the name of R. Meir, that it is a religious duty to carry out the wishes of the deceased: The Sages say that the money should be divided: while here [in Babylon]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is quoted by Chajes in support of Sherira's view in his Epistle that Babylon was a centre of Torah studies from the earliest days, ever since the first deportation of Jews in 596 B.C.E. V. supra p. 17, n. 3 and Halevy, Doroth II, pp. 82ff.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
וחכמים אומרים יחלוקו מספקא להו וכאן אמרו שודא עדיף ורבי שמעון הנשיא מעשה אתא לאשמועי'
they say that the bearer should use his own discretion. R. Simeon the Prince said: I had to deal with a case of this kind, and it was decided that the money should be returned to the heirs of the sender. May we regard the point at issue here as being this, that the first Tanna was of opinion that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of', and that R. Nathan and R. Jacob were of the same opinion and also held that even where the sender has died in the meanwhile we do not in this case say that it is a religious duty to carry out the wishes of the deceased; that the 'some' [authorities] held that 'take' is equivalent to 'accept on behalf of'; that R. Judah the Prince speaking in the name of R. Jacob who again spoke in the name of R. Meir held that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of', only where the sender has died [in the meanwhile] we do say that it is a religious duty to carry out his wishes; that the Sages who say they should divide are in doubt [as to which principle to adopt], while here [in Babylon, other authorities] think that the bearer can best estimate for himself; and as for R. Simeon the Prince, he simply desired to give an illustration? — No. If the sender is in health, all authorities are agreed [that 'take' is not equivalent to 'accept on behalf of']. Here, however, we are dealing [with the case] where [the sender is] on a death bed, and the dispute here is analogous to the dispute between R. Eleazar and the Rabbis. For we learnt: If a man divides his property among his heirs by word of mouth, R. Eleazar says that whether he is in health or dangerously ill, immovable property can be transferred to the new owners only by money payment, by document, or by act of possession, and movable property only by 'pulling', whereas the Sages say that transference of ownership is effected in both cases by his mere word of mouth. Said [the Sages] to him: There is the case of the mother of the sons of Rokel who was ill and said, Let my brooch be given