Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Rif Bava Kamma 37a {104a - b}


{Bava Kamma 104a}
ואם תאמר משנתינו דקתני לא יתן לא לבנו ולא לשלוחו התם בממציא לו שליח דאמר ליה הכי אית לי זוזא גבי פלניא ולא קא משדר להו ניהלי איתחזי ליה דלמא איניש הוא דלא משכח לשדורי לי

והלכתא כרב חסדא דקיימי רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר כוותיה והוה ליה רבה יחיד אצל רבים ולית הלכתא כוותיה
אלא מיהו הנ"מ היכא דבעי מאן דאיתיה לממונא בידיה למיתביה ניהליה
דכיון דשליח הנעשה בעדים הוי שליח אי יהבינהו ניהליה ונאנסו לא מחייב באחריותייהו
אבל אי לא בעי ההוא דאיתיה לממונא בידיה למיתבינהו ניהליה אהאי שליחות לא כייפינן ליה בדינא למיתבינהו ניהליה
דהא אמרי נהרדעי כל אורכתא דלא כתיב בה זיל דון וזכי ואפיק לנפשך לאו אורכתא היא דא"ל לאו בעל דברים דידי את:
And if you bring up our Mishna which taught "HE MAY GIVE IT NEITHER TO HIS SON NOR TO HIS AGENT," there was where the agent was placed before him {rather than appointed}, that he said to him, "I have zuzim by Ploni {the robber}, who is not sending them to me. Appear before him, for perhaps he has found no one with whom to forward it."

And the halacha is like Rav Chisda, for Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Eleazar establish like him, and so Rabbi is an individual against the many, and the halacha is not like him.

However, these words are where the one who has the money in his hands wishes to give it over via him, for since an agent made before witnesses is an agent, if he gives it via him and a mishap occurs, he is not liable in their responsibility. But if that person who has the money in his hands does not wish to give it over via him, upon such agency we do not compel him with judgment to return it to him, for behold, they {=the scholars} in Nehardea say: An assignment which does not contain the words, 'Go forth and take legal action so that you may acquire title to it and secure the claim for yourself' is of no validity, the reason being that the defendant might say to him: 'You have no claim against me'.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין משלחין מעות בדיוקני ואפילו עדים חתומין עליה
ורבי יוחנן אמר עדים חתומין עליה משלחין
והלכתא כשמואל.
וליתא לדר' יוחנן בהא
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: {Bava Kamma 104b}
it is not right to forward {trust} money through a person whose power of attorney is authenticated by a mere figure, even if witnesses are signed on it.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: If witnesses are signed on it {to identify the authentication} it may be forwarded.
And the halacha is like Shmuel. And it is not like Rabbi Yochanan in this.

ולשמואל מאי תקנתיה
כי הא דרבי אבא הוה מסיק ביה זוזי ברב יוסף בר חמא
א"ל לרב ספרא בהדי דאתית אייתינהו ניהלי
אמר ליה ר' אמי כתב לך התקבלתי
א"ל לא
אמר ליה זיל ברישא ויכתוב לך התקבלתי
לסוף אמר ליה אי כתב לך נמי התקבלתי ולא כלום הוא דלמא אדאתית שכיב ר' אבא ונפלי זוזי קמי יתמי והתקבלתי דרבי אבא ולא כלום הוא
א"ל ואלא מאי תקנתא
And according to Shmuel, what is its fix?
Like this of Rabbi Abba, who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar Chama. He said to Rav Safra: When you go there, bring it to me.
Rabbi Ammi {our gemara: Rava, who was Rav Yosef bar Chama's son} said to him: Did he give you a written statement "accept for me"? {such that by your accepting the money he will be deemed to have received it?}
He {=Rav Safra} said to him: No.
He said to him {=Rav Safra} : Go back to the start, and he should write for you "I have received" {by your accepting}.
In the end, he said to him: If he wrote for you as well, "I have received," it would be nothing, for perhaps before you come back, Rabbi Abba would have died, and the money would have fallen before the heirs, and the "accept for me" of Rabbi Abba would be deemed nothing.
He {=Rav Safra} said to him: Then what is its fix?


Eli Gurevich said...

I just started a new blog on the Tosefta. I would appreciate if you can add a link to it on your web site.



Unknown said...