תלמוד על תרומות 3:4

HALAKHAH: “In earlier times, he could go to court,” etc. Does this¹⁵This question is based on the interpretation of the term “court” in the Mishnah as an ad hoc court, that the husband was able ad hoc to assemble three people as a court, and declare before them that he was revoking the agency given to the agent. This is the explanation accepted in the Babli in the name of Rav Naḥman, 32b. not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said that nobody can annul an agency by speech^2,If a person can declare the agency void by a declaration at his place without informing the agent, why does the Mishnah accept voiding the agency only if either the agent for delivery or the recipient of the bill is informed of the annulment? R. Joḥanan’s statement is also in Qiddušin 4:9; in the parallel in the Babli, Qiddušin 59a, his reason is that words can be invalidated by words; he is opposed by R. Simeon ben Laqish. As an Amora, R. Joḥanan should not have the authority to contradict a Mishnah.¹⁶For money transactions, this is credited to R. Johanan in the Babli, 32b.. Explain it in a fully constituted court¹⁷He will hold that even in earlier times the agency could be revoked only by a public act of the local court who was presumed to transmit a copy of the document to the court at the wife’s place of residence..