Gittin

— R. Papa was of opinion that Rab's dictum was meant to apply equally whether [the sum in question was] a loan  or a deposit. Why did not R. Zebid adopt the view of R. Papa? — Because [the language of] the Mishnah is not consistent with [the theory that it speaks of a man on his death bed]. How do we make this out? — Because it says: IF A MAN SAYS, GIVE THIS GET TO MY WIFE AND THIS DEED OF EMANCIPATION TO MY SLAVE, AND DIES BEFORE THEY WERE GIVEN, THEY ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN AFTER HIS DEATH. The reason is that he died; had he continued alive, they would have been given. And the reason why we say this  is that he said 'Give' [and not merely 'write']; had he not said 'give', they would not have to be given,  whereas in the case of a man on his death bed, although he did not use the word 'give', [the Get] is still to be given, as we learn [from the following Mishnah]: 'At first it was laid down that if a man was being led out in fetters [to execution] and said, "Write a Get for my wife", [the Get] was to be written and delivered. Later they laid down that the same rule applied to one who was leaving for a sea journey or joining a caravan [across the desert]. R. Simeon Shezuri said: It also applies to a man lying dangerously ill.'  To this R. Ashi demurred: How do we know, he said, that our Mishnah adopts the View of R. Simeon Shezuri? Perhaps it adopts the view of the Rabbis. The text above stated: 'R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If a man says, You owe me a maneh, give it to So-and-so, [if he said this] in the presence of the third party, [the last-named] becomes legally entitled to it.' [Commenting on this,] Raba said, This dictum of Rab appears to be sound where [the money in question] is a deposit but not where it is a loan.  But, by God! Rab said that it applies even where it is a loan. It has also been stated that Samuel said in the name of Levi: If a man says. You owe me some money, give it to So-and-so, [if he said so] in the presence of the third party. [the last-named] becomes the legal owner. What is the reason? — Amemar said: [The borrower in such case] is regarded as having pledged himself at the time of borrowing the money to repay it either to the lender or to anyone coming on his behalf. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But on your showing, if the lender transferred the debt to children who had not yet been born when the loan was made, they would not acquire possession?  For even according to R. Meir, who said that it is possible to transfer possession of things that do not yet exist,  [the transference must be] to something that is existing, not to something that does not yet exist: The truth is, said R. Ashi,