Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Rather, through the benefit of converting an old loan into a new loan, Yehudah is willing to obligate himself to David.

Question (Huna, son of Rav Nechemyah): If so, Rav's law would not apply if David were like people of Bar Elyashiv's house, who force one to pay immediately! (Transferring a loan to such people is not beneficial.)

Suggestion: Perhaps indeed, that is true!

Rejection: If so, the law would vary according to the recipient (and this is unreasonable)!

Answer #3 (Mar Zutra): Rather, Rav's law is one of three enactments without reason (how they work). The others are:

(Rav Yehudah): If a man wrote a document giving all his property to his wife, he made her only an overseer on the property.

(Rav Chinena): If a man marries off his oldest son in a house, the son acquires the house.

Rav (to Rav Acha Bardela): I deposited saffron by you. Give it to Ploni. I am telling you in front of him; I will not retract.

Question: This implies that he could retract if he wanted!

Answer: No. Rather, he said 'I cannot retract.'

Question: Why did Rav need to say this? He already taught the law of Ma'amad Sheloshtam!

Answer: One might have thought that only a large gift requires that all three are present, but one can transfer a small gift even if the recipient is not there. Rav teaches that this is not so.

Some gardeners (who worked together) calculated among themselves that one of them (Reuven) had five half-Zuz too much. They told him, in front of the owner of the land, to give it to the owner of the land. They made an acquisition.

Reuven later calculated by himself, and saw that he did not have too much.

Rav Nachman: You cannot retract! Rav's law obligates you. Also, they made an acquisition!

Rava: He is not simply refusing to pay. He says that he erred!

Rav Nachman: I did not realize that this was the case. Any mistaken acquisition is invalid.

(Rav): If Reuven said 'Holech (take) 100 Zuz to Ploni, that I owe him', and the money never reached Ploni, Reuven still owes him. He cannot retract and tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the money';

(Shmuel): Since Reuven must pay if the money never reaches Ploni, he can tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the money.'

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1: They argue about whether or not saying 'take' is like saying 'Zechi (acquire for).' (Rav holds that it is, therefore Reuven cannot retract.)

Answer #2: No, all agree that it is like saying 'Zechi'. They argue about whether or not we apply the principal 'Migo' (since if the money never reaches Ploni, Reuven must pay, he can tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the money'. Only Shmuel applies Migo.)

Support (for Rav - Beraisa): If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz to Ploni, that I owe him' or 'that he deposited with me', or 'give (the loan or deposit of) 100 Zuz...', and the money never reached Ploni, Reuven still owes him. He cannot tell the Shali'ach 'give me back the money.'

Question: In the case of a deposit, one does not want his money to be in the hands of someone he did not entrust with it. (Therefore, the Shali'ach does not acquire the money for Ploni. Reuven should be able to retract!)

Answer (R. Zeira): The case is, Reuven has a history of denying deposits. (Surely, Ploni wants the deposit to pass to someone else's hands!)

Some people in Mechuza owed Rav Sheshes for coats he had given them. He asked Rav Yosef bar Chama to bring the money when he came from there.

The people gave the money to Rav Yosef. They asked him to make an acquisition to accept Acharayus (to bear the loss if the money will not reach Rav Sheshes, and they will be exempt). He agreed, but evaded them and never made the acquisition.

Version #1 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly, not to fulfill upon yourself "the borrower is a slave to the lender."

Version #2 - Rav Sheshes: You acted properly. "The borrower is a slave to the lender" (so they have Acharayus).

Rav Acha b'Rebbi Yoshiyah had a silver flask in Neharde'a. He asked R. Dostai b'Rebbi Yanai and R. Yosi bar Kipar to bring it when they came.

The one's watching the flask gave it to them, and asked them to make an acquisition to accept Acharayus. They refused. The watchers asked them to return the flask. R. Dostai agreed, but R. Yosi refused.

They afflicted R. Yosi. They said to R. Dostai 'see how stubborn he is!" He replied 'it is good that you hit him.'

When they returned, R. Yosi complained: not only he didn't help me, but he even said 'it is good that you hit him'!

Rav Acha: Why did you act this way?

R. Dostai: Those people are dangerous! If they say 'tie him up', they (others) tie the person up! If they say 'kill', they 'kill'!

Rav Acha: Are they close to the king? Do they have horses and mules running after them?

R. Dostai: Yes!

Rav Acha: You acted properly.

Beraisa #1: If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz to Ploni', and Ploni died before the Shali'ach arrived, the money reverts to Reuven.

Beraisa #2: The money goes to Ploni's heirs.

Suggestion: The Beraisos argue about whether or not saying 'take' is like saying 'Zechi'.

Rejection #1 (R. Aba bar Mamal): No, all agree that saying 'take' is not as saying 'Zechi';

Beraisa #1, Reuven was healthy. In Beraisa #2, he was a Shechiv Mera. (It is as if his words were written and handed over, so Ploni acquired the money immediately.)

Rejection #2 (Rav Zevid): In both Beraisos, Reuven was a Shechiv Mera. In Beraisa #1 Ploni died before the money was handed over to the Shali'ach. In Beraisa #2, he was alive at that time.

Rejection #3 (Rav Papa): In both Beraisos, Reuven was healthy. In Beraisa #1, Ploni died before Reuven died. In Beraisa #2, Reuven died before Ploni.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not saying 'take' is like saying 'Zechi':

(Beraisa): If Reuven said 'take 100 Zuz to Ploni', and Ploni died before the Shali'ach arrived, the money reverts to Reuven;

R. Nasan and R. Yakov say, if Reuven died, the money goes to Reuven's heirs;

Some say, it goes to Ploni's heirs;

R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says, it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased. (This is why it goes to Ploni's heirs);

Chachamim say, the heirs of Reuven and Ploni share the money;

Chachamim of Bavel say, the Shali'ach decides to whom he wants to give it.

R. Shimon ha'Nasi: I was party to such a case. The ruling was, it returns to Reuven's heirs.

Suggestion: They argue as follows. The first Tana says that 'take' is not like saying 'Zechi'. R. Nasan and R. Yakov agree. They also say that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;

'Some say' hold that saying 'take' is like saying 'Zechi';

R. Yehudah ha'Nasi says that 'take' is not like saying 'Zechi', but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;

Chachamim say to split the money. They are unsure (whether or not 'take' is like saying 'Zechi', and whether or not there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased);

Chachamim of Bavel say, the best solution is to leave it to the best judgement of the Shali'ach.

R. Shimon ha'Nasi teaches how they ruled in an actual case.

Rejection: No. If Reuven was healthy, all agree that 'take' is not as saying 'Zechi';

They argue in a case when Reuven was a Shechiv Mera, like R. Elazar and Chachamim argue in the following Mishnah: