Talmud su Levitico 19:36

Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is it the same for a gift? Can a person appoint an agent for anything that is not his? He said to him, there the Torah gave her the right to a bill of divorce and she appoints an agent to receive what is rightfully hers. Can you say in regard to a gift that a person can appoint an agent for anything that is not his? In addition, from what Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody said to give a gift to another and he wants to retract, he may retract. Rebbi Yose stood near Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi and said to him, is that a just “yes”³⁹Lev. 19:36: “Your hîn shall be just”. The הִין is a liquid measure (half a se’ah). But since biblical כֵּן “yes” became rabbinic הֵן, the verse is interpreted to mean that in money matters any “yes” has to be honest. The formal argument is that the verse already mentioned the ephah as correct measure; therefore the smaller hîn requires symbolic interpretation. [This learned pun is in the name of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah in the Babli, Baba meṣiʻa 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7)].? He said to him, at the moment he said it, it was a just “yes”.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A ring does not have the status of a pledge⁴⁴Since it has to be returned as is, it is only a reminder without legal consequences. Cf. Ševi‘t 10:9, Note 131; Babli 48b.. Nobody dealing in words onlymay one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁴⁵Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one promised a gift to another and wanted to renege on it, he may renege.⁴⁶Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 133–142; Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:7 Note 129 Babli 49a. [Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Is that “true no, true yes⁴⁷Lev. 19:36.”?]⁴⁸Text added from E. Since the answer is given in L, the question must have been in the original text. For the duty to be honest in monetary matters as a biblical command, cf. Ševi‘it 10:9, Note 134; Giṭṭin 6:1, Note 39. He said, at the moment when he said it, he had to speak with full deliberation⁴⁹The obligation to be honest does not imply a prohibition to change one’s mind. In the Giṭṭin text, it is R. Jacob bar Zavdi who gives the answer to R. Yose [Babli 49a, Bekhorot 13b; Sifra Bekhorot Pereq 8(7)].. After that, if he changes his mind, he cannot change it, that is, if [the recipient] is poor⁵⁰Giving alms is not a gift to the poor but a gift to God and as such is final upon being promised (Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6.
Kaftor waPeraḥ Chapter 44 reads: “If somebody promised to give a gift and wants to change his mind, he may change his mind. But if he said, I am speaking with full deliberation, he cannot change his mind. That is, for a rich recipient. But for a poor recipient it becomes a vow.” This seems to be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote.. But for a rich person, is that a vow? Rav commanded his servant: If I tell you to give a gift to a person, if he is poor, give it to him immediately. But if he is rich, take counsel with me a second time⁵¹This contradicts the statement in Ševi‘t 10:9 that Rav never changed his mind once he had promised a gift..

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody wanted to change his mind after he had promised a gift to another person, he may change his mind¹³³Also in Ma‘ser Šeni 4:7 (fol. 55b), Baba Meẓi‘a 4:2 (fol. 9c-d), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a. In the Babli, the statement is restricted to large gifts.. Rebbi Yose was with Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi; he said to him: Is that just no (Lev. 19:36) “and just yes?¹³⁴This cryptic statement is explained in Sifra Qedošim Pereq 8(7), Babli Baba Meẓi‘a 49a: “Why does the verse mention ‘a just epha and a just hin’? Is not a hin a part of an epha, how can one have correct measures for one and not the other? One takes biblical hîn as rabbinic hēn ‘yes’. That your yes should be a yes and your no a no, the same in your mind and your mouth.”” He said, when he said it, it was a just yes. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind¹³⁵This is taken as a legal statement; at the end it will be accepted as a moral precept only.. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “¹³⁶Tosephta Qiddušin 1:8, Baba Batra 5:2; Yerushalmi Qiddušin 1:4 (fol. 60b), Giṭṭin 8:1 (fol. 49b); Babli Baba Batra 85a. Where did they say that movables are acquired by being drawn close? In the public domain or in a courtyard which is not their joint property. In the domain of the buyer, when the deal was accepted¹³⁷Things deposited on a persons’s real estate are his property as soon as he has the right to them.; in the domain of the seller one never acquires until either he lift it up or he draw and remove everything from the prior owner’s property. In the domain of a depositary he cannot acquire unless he gave permission or rented their place out to him.” What does Rav do with this¹³⁸Why should he not change his mind since there was no acquisition and no money given?? One is if he was standing with him¹³⁹In this provisional answer, it is only asserted that the promise of a gift to another person is binding. But the question remains, why should it be binding if there was no acquisition, which could only be effected by removing the gift from the donor’s property?, the other if he was not standing with him. Rav disagrees since Rav said, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind. You should know because somebody had given surety on salt¹⁴⁰In the Babli, Baba Meẓi‘a 48b, the story is told of R. Ḥiyya bar Josef, who appeared before R. Joḥanan.; it rose in price. He came before Rav who said, either he should give corresponding to the surety¹⁴¹In the Babli, loc.cit., Rav holds that a surety gives a claim for the value of the surety while R. Joḥanan holds that a surety establishes a claim for the entire lot in question. The version of the story here implies that Rav was the judge. or he should be given up to “Him who made pay”. The arguments of Rav are contradictory. There he says, when I tell my family to give a gift to somebody, I never change my mind and here he says so¹⁴²For his own gifts he establishes the rule that a gift is unchangeable, for commercial transactions he says that they are reversible, even if that would be morally wrong.? There it is for a legal rule; what Rav did himself was a measure of piety.