Meir Eliezer Bergman asked:
The Gemoro says (100a, 3 lines up) that to avoid 3 problems, the case must be that one claimed a large amount of money and the other admitted a smaller amount of money.
Can you just confirm to me why this is not Heilach?
Thank you,
Meir Eliezer Bergman
Manchester UK
The Kollel replies:
It is only Heilach if the person who owes the money has the money available and is ready to pay immediately. Rashi on 4a (DH v'Heilach) seems to learn that the object owed must still be the property of the claimant. Here the Gemara is saying that we are talking in a case where the Shali'ach does not have the money available immediately.
Dov Freedman