One may ask: what is the difference between these two cases?
We reply: in the case of the donor, there is a contract that is destined to become binding, so it is not annulled by death. But if the recipient dies without having taken possession of anything, there is nothing here that can pass to his heirs. For this reason, the scholars distinguished between the donor’s death—saying that it does not invalidate the gift and that his heir takes his place—and the recipient’s death—saying that the gift is invalidated, since possession can no longer be taken.
His statement, “Whoever releases his debtor from his debt”: “whoever” is a general conditional expression, including the wealthy and the poor, one under legal restriction and one unrestricted, male and female, young and old. However, this is not intended in its full generality. What the author means is: whoever releases his debtor, provided that he is someone whose voluntary disposal of property is legally valid. Thus, this is a general expression intended in a restricted sense. Accordingly, if one under legal restriction releases his debtor from his debt, the debtor is not discharged, because one under legal restriction cannot validly dispose of his property.
Likewise, if the guardian of an orphan releases the orphan’s debtor from his debt, the debtor is not discharged, because the orphan’s guardian may not grant such a release.
And if an agent releases his principal’s debtor from his debt, the debtor is not discharged, because an agent acts on another’s behalf and has no right to make a voluntary gift—and so on. Everyone who manages another person’s property is unable to give any of it away voluntarily.
His statement, “his debtor,” means the one from whom he claims payment. Thus, there is a claimant and one against whom the claim is made; the debtor is called a debtor.
His statement, “from his debt,” apparently indicates that there is no difference whether the debt is large or small.
The wording “his debt” also indicates that the debt must be specified. Thus, if